Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Cornelius Hunter Thread started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2007,15:35

Over on the Uncommonly Dense thread, Wesley, earlier, said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 797
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,23:19  
Then there was the ID conference in San Francisco where Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter, the "expert" involved in the antievolution shenanigans in Roseville, CA, presented the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument. His visual aid, handily printed in the proceedings, consisted of two images side-by-side. On one side, you had the usual painting of two thylacines in color. On the other, you had the same painting, mirrored horizontally, and desaturated. Yep, you just could not tell the difference between the wolves on one side and the thylacines on the other. Uncanny, even.

At least, none of the ID attendees cottoned on. It wasn't until I pointed out the problem to Paul Nelson that the ID community had notice of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cornelius Hunter has now shown up and replied:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius Hunter



Posts: 1
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2007,16:11  
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a specific thread for subsequent discussion of the topic.
Posted by: stephenWells on Jan. 26 2007,15:47

For starters, how about some discussion of dentition and skull morphology, with regard to the claim that the thylacine and the wolf have "almost identical" dentition?
We could start here: < Thylacine museum, dentition >
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 26 2007,15:50

Since Mr. Hunter is from the DI and all, maybe he can explain these "goals" from the wedge document:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why would these be goals of a scientific movement?  I mean, ID has nothing to do with religion, right?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2007,15:52

It's strange how failing to note obvious differences in a mammalian dental formula amounts to a "scientific problem"... unless, of course, one is identifying the locus of the problem as the particular ignorance displayed by Hunter in urging the thylacine and wolf as somehow proving "problematic" for scientific explanation. Let's clear that one up first before proceeding to other supposed examples. If Jonathan Wells can get outraged over perfectly reasonable photographs to display the issue of crypsis, how come the ID community has not risen as one in condemnation of the far more flagrant abuse of imagery used by Hunter?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2007,15:55

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 26 2007,16:50)
Why would these be goals of a scientific movement?  I mean, ID has nothing to do with religion, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While many ID supporters take the position that ID is not religion, I don't know that Cornelius Hunter has taken this position, so perhaps he admits that ID is creationism, the bible is scientifically accurate, etc.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 26 2007,16:04

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2007,16:55)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 26 2007,16:50)
Why would these be goals of a scientific movement?  I mean, ID has nothing to do with religion, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While many ID supporters take the position that ID is not religion, I don't know that Cornelius Hunter has taken this position, so perhaps he admits that ID is creationism, the bible is scientifically accurate, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.

Maybe he's a YEC and he thinks ID is religious.  Then, why try to pass it off as science, as the DI does?  Why do many other IDiots protest so much at the labeling of ID as religious instead of science.  He can answer these questions or the ones above, depending on what his position is.
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 26 2007,16:12

PLease gentlemen, form an orderly queue.  One question at a time, or our guest will be overwhelmed.  
Just pretend you are British for a day or two.
We have good beer in compensation.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 26 2007,16:19

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,16:12)
PLease gentlemen, form an orderly queue.  One question at a time, or our guest will be overwhelmed.  
Just pretend you are British for a day or two.
We have good beer in compensation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, Hear!

Wes' question is closest to mine (which I will not ask).
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 26 2007,16:44

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf > [/quote]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
adapted from The Human Evolution Coloring Book, 2d ed., by Adrienne L. Zihlman.
Produced by Coloring Concepts Inc. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr. Hunter is basing his initial argument from a write-up that accompanies a coloring book?

A COLORING BOOK??

A COLORING BOOK?!?!?!
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 26 2007,16:44

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 26 2007,17:19)
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,16:12)
PLease gentlemen, form an orderly queue.  One question at a time, or our guest will be overwhelmed.  
Just pretend you are British for a day or two.
We have good beer in compensation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, Hear!

Wes' question is closest to mine (which I will not ask).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem here.  I wouldn't mind seeing Wes and Hunter go at it.
Posted by: hooligans on Jan. 26 2007,17:06

As a longtime troll here and at the PandasThumb, I simply had to register and share in the communal guffaw of Mr. Hunter's argument. This chap has actually used, as his evidence, a picture from a coloring book designed for adolescents!!!! Holy crap!!! I finally get why the word TARD is used so often here.  :O
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Jan. 26 2007,17:14

==============================
Me: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Stephen: "For starters, how about some discussion of dentition and skull morphology, with regard to the claim that the thylacine and the wolf have "almost identical" dentition?"

Wesley: "It's strange how failing to note obvious differences in a mammalian dental formula amounts to a "scientific problem"... unless, of course, one is identifying the locus of the problem as the particular ignorance displayed by Hunter in urging the thylacine and wolf as somehow proving "problematic" for scientific explanation. Let's clear that one up first before proceeding to other supposed examples. If Jonathan Wells can get outraged over perfectly reasonable photographs to display the issue of crypsis, how come the ID community has not risen as one in condemnation of the far more flagrant abuse of imagery used by Hunter? "
===============================

Stephen and Wesley are not reckoning with the problem. Hence Wesley comes to the erroneous conclusion about "flagrant abuse of imagery." I'll restate the question in more acceptable terms. How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves? Please look at the very bottom here:

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf >

Then look at here:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

And then consider my question, and explain why similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence.

Regarding ID and religion, the question of whether or not proponents of a theory/position can (i) leverage the theory for non scientific purposes and (ii) simultaneously maintain that the theory itself is scientific, seems straightforward enough. Why would people want to do that? Again, this seems pretty obvious. It happens with a wide variety of theories (evolution comes to mind as an example). I'm more interested in the evidences *for* the theory rather than what metaphysics certain people want to conclude *from* the theory.
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 26 2007,17:26

Sorry Tracy, make that Ladies and Gentlemen.  

As for the question- I thought that they were all related in the first place, so the last common ancestor probablty had 5 fingers as well.  Not to mention that they inhabit similar habitats, so that physical laws ensure some convergence upon similar body shapes etc.  
That seems quite straightforwards.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 26 2007,17:33

So Mr Hunter, you think that convergence is somehow problematic for the theory of evolution?
Well it's not, especially when it concerns gross morphology (body shape, etc).
Dolphins are like big fishes, aren't they?
Posted by: dtheobald on Jan. 26 2007,17:44

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,17:14)
==============================
I'll restate the question in more acceptable terms. How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves? Please look at the very bottom here:

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf >

Then look at here:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

And then consider my question, and explain why similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2007,17:55

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,18:14)
Stephen and Wesley are not reckoning with the problem. Hence Wesley comes to the erroneous conclusion about "flagrant abuse of imagery."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes, are you saying that Cornelius was misrepresenting a picture of a thylacine as a picture of a wolf, to assist his conclusions?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2007,18:14

PZ says:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could not believe this thread at the antievolution.org forum.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< They make laughingstocks of themselves, don't they? >
Posted by: brightmoon on Jan. 26 2007,18:41

thoroughly puzzled now .... thylacines dont look like wolves ...like humans they walked on their heels which wolves dont do....in fact canids can't do that

is cornelius trying to say that thylacine anatomy is similar because of separate creation ?

no, the similarities are just there because they have the similiar  bone structure formed from the same genes and these organisms have a similiar omnivore lifestyle ...convergence isnt a problem for evolution ..it just points out a distant relationship rather than a close one
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 26 2007,19:07

I was going to stay out of this and just let it be about biology, but since you answered...

 
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,18:14)
Regarding ID and religion, the question of whether or not proponents of a theory/position can (i) leverage the theory for non scientific purposes and (ii) simultaneously maintain that the theory itself is scientific, seems straightforward enough. Why would people want to do that? Again, this seems pretty obvious. It happens with a wide variety of theories (evolution comes to mind as an example). I'm more interested in the evidences *for* the theory rather than what metaphysics certain people want to conclude *from* the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a question of whether or not one can leverage a theory for non scientific purposes.  Anyone can erroneously say that evolution supports atheism or any notion of theism they care to like.  That's not what is at issue.  What is at issue is a policy paper by the DI that pretty explicitly states their objective of replacing science with god.

From the wedge document as a goal:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr. Hunter, you are a fellow of the DI, surely you know what their position is.  Do you reject that position?  Do you hold that ID is purely scientific?  If so, why does the DI push so hard for theistic understandings?

Edit:  By the way, what are these evidences for the theory that you brought up?
Posted by: RBH on Jan. 26 2007,19:16

Cornelius wrote    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves? Please look at the very bottom here:

< PBS coloring book >

Then look at here:

< Wikipedia figure >

And then consider my question, and explain why similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence.  (RBH: Fixed the raw urls to create links)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That first one is the coloring book again.  The second is an illustration of the fact that many (though not all) tetrapods have five 'fingers'.  Someone upthread was right: Cornelius really doesn't know the difference between homoplasy and homology.

RBH
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 26 2007,19:16

Dr Hunter:

DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.

Thanks in advance for not answering my questions.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 26 2007,19:27

Hey Dr Hunter:

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 26 2007,19:33

Hey Dr Hunter:

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 26 2007,20:17

Hey Dr. Hunter, since you are a DI fellow, maybe you can respond for Casey Luskin, or ask Casey Luskin to explain why he is so upset with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, seeing as how the DI is not about religion, it is all about science?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 26 2007,20:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen and Wesley are not reckoning with the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't lay out any specifics that I can see, Mr. Hunter.

Yes, pentadactyly is observed. But what specific similarities are YOU referring to in regard to Thylacines and Canis lupus? It's not teeth. It's not skull morphology, is it? Other post-cranial features?

What SPECIFICALLY are you referring to, other than :" they look pretty similar in illustrations?"

I can think of other distantly-related organisms that look alike superficially. Here's a little eel that looks remarkably like a snake:
Here's an illustration:
Should I throw up my hands now and shout "We've met our Waterloo, they LOOK alike!?"

Try, just for starters : Vogel, Steven. (2003). Comparative Biomechanics: Life's Physical World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DePinna, M.C.C. 1991. "Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm." Cladistics 7: 367-394. < http://www.ib.usp.br/hennig/depinna1991.pdf >

Some simple examples of convergence (homoplasy) : < http://www.thegreatstory.org/convergence.pdf >

Sorry, but I don't know if you can color in any of these.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 26 2007,20:46

Are we sure this is Dr. Hunter?  Could it really be DaveTard, or the MasterBaiter himself Dembski, pulling a little more "street theater"?  Hard to believe that a PhD would link to a coloring book... even if he is with Biola University.  

He's been awfully quiet... too quiet.  Could it be we chased ou new toy away?  Did he retreat to the DI lair to lick his wounds?  Did he retreat to a UD blog, where the moderators can protect him from the harsh reality of real questions?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 26 2007,20:54

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2007,20:46)
Are we sure this is Dr. Hunter?  Could it really be DaveTard, or the MasterBaiter himself Dembski, pulling a little more "street theater"?  Hard to believe that a PhD would link to a coloring book... even if he is with Biola University.  

He's been awfully quiet... too quiet.  Could it be we chased ou new toy away?  Did he retreat to the DI lair to lick his wounds?  Did he retreat to a UD blog, where the moderators can protect him from the harsh reality of real questions?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, I thought the entire POINT of asking questions to an IDer is just to demonstrate that they run from them every time.

It's not like anyone seriously expects them to ANSWER, or anything.

Look what happened to them the LAST time they answered questions, at Dover.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: N.Wells on Jan. 26 2007,21:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(From Cornelius Hunter) It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let’s unpack the mistakes here.

1) Biologists have spent a lot of time over the last 170 years dealing with issues relating to similarity and convergence and their implications for evolutionary theory.  Do a Pubmed search on homology, homoplasy, or analogy, for example.  The charge that evolutionists “don’t get around to this” is completely false, and can only be indicative of profound ignorance of the field, or mendacity.  

2) Neither Wesley nor any biologist is in the position of denying convergence.  Biologists find it a fascinating subject, and spend a lot of time on it because it can tell a lot about evolutionary processes.

3) Biologists absolutely do have an explanation for convergence.  Organisms that start different may, if they take up similar life styles, become more similar over time if the requirements of their niche cause adaptation toward the same morphological/functional solution.  This is convergent evolution by natural selection.  A shining example is the different lineages of animals that have taken up a mole-like existence.  Burrowing requires specific adaptations: a strong forehead, short & strong arms and legs with spade-like hands, and eyes are useless (and may even be a liability due to the chances of injury and infection).  A giraffe would make a terrible burrower.  This has lead to impressive similarities between marsupial “moles”, golden moles (chrysochlorid insectivores), N. American / Eurasian moles (talpid insectivores), and, to a lesser degree, naked Somali mole rats.  (The marsupial ‘moles’ and the golden moles are especially similar).  


Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?”

First, this question is misphrased.  The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance.  In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance.   Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.

First, some definitions:
Homology: underlying similarity, due to shared inheritance, despite divergence
Analogy: superficial similarity, despite lack of common ancestry, due to convergent evolution.
Homoplasy: similarity for any reason other than common ancestry, including drift.

Evolutionary biology interprets bird wings and bat wings as being analogous with respect to flight, but homologous with respect to being limbs constructed of a scapula, a humerus, a radius, an ulna, and several carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges.  (The limbs are homologous, but their flight is orthologous.)   Dolphins and ichthyosaurs are similarly claimed to be analogous with respect to body form, live birth, and precocious offspring.  Insect wings and vertebrate wings are considered to be analogous, while being only in the remotest sense homologous.

If we see the same embryological tissues contribute to two features, the same genes activated during its construction, utilization of the same developmental pathways, and the same bones ending up in much the same places in the same basic relationships to adjacent bones, nerves, blood vessels, and so forth, then we can make a reasonably secure claim of homology.  If we additionally have a fossil record that shows similar structures or a gradation of change in probable intermediates then the claim is that much stronger. For example, we have many very different vertebrate forelimbs in terms of shape and function, but they are all constructed out of a scapula, a humerus, a radius, an ulna, some carpals, some metacarpals, and a basic pattern of five phalanges (although the carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges can evidently fairly easily experience fusion, reduction, or loss).  

However, proving claims of homology can get complicated, as we have instances of morphologic and functional similarity being retained despite loss and substitution of the underlying genes, and there is no reason why convergence, parallelism, reversal, and stasis can’t all contribute to a single complex evolutionary history. Also, there is a good deal of confusion over the terms, both in the professional literature and elsewhere.

A key point that should not be lost sight of here is that the evolution is considered by biologists to be a vastly superior explanation for apparent homology than intelligent design or special creation.  Notwithstanding claims of an ineffable designer, it is hard to see why a designer would want to construct all vertebrate forelimbs, which fairly efficiently serve such a great variety of functions, from such a limited menu of underlying components, when they could so easily be improved by additional components and modifications.  It is far easier to see them as the result of a highly contingent history constrained by evolutionary processes and  ancestry.


With respect to the supposedly amazing similarity of the thylacine and the wolf, please forgive my repeating myself from the main UD thread: the thylacine and the wolf have got dramatically different reproductive systems and numerous skeletal differences (e.g., epipubic bones and shorter legs not adapted for wolf-like fast running on the thylacine).  The teeth are very different: the wolf has three large upper incisors per maxilla, whereas the thylacine has four tiny ones.  The thylacine has three upper premolars and four upper molars, whereas the wolf has four upper premolars and two molars.  The wolf, like all canids, has an amazing large, bladed, shearing P4, which the thylacine completely lacks.  In the lower jaw we again see 3 premolars and four molars in the thylacine, while the wolf has four premolars and three lower molars, although in this case it is the M1 that is huge and occludes with the upper P4.  (For details, see < http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/skull/dentition_comparison.htm > )   These features that are different in the thylacine are shared with other marsupials, whereas the differences in the wolf are shared with other canids and other placental mammals, including fossils.  They are thus indicative of evolutionary relationships, and a great evolutionary distance between thylacines and wolves.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2007,21:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hence Wesley comes to the erroneous conclusion about "flagrant abuse of imagery."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals? How is that somehow not "flagrant abuse of imagery"? Maybe just because the assembled ID advocates, including many headliners from the DI CRSC, were too... something to notice? It certainly seems far worse to me than setting up moths on different backgrounds to illustrate crypsis.



< More about Hunter, thylacines, wolves, and images >
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Jan. 27 2007,03:29

===============================================
Responding to GCT

Quote  
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


Mr. Hunter, you are a fellow of the DI, surely you know what their position is.  Do you reject that position?  Do you hold that ID is purely scientific?  If so, why does the DI push so hard for theistic understandings?



Of course I wouldn't be a DI fellow if I did not share some fundamenatal views with DI. But I certainly do not agree iwth everything that DI people have written. Regarding the quote above, the problem is this quickly gets fairly complicated, and too lengthy for posting. I'd like to defer to my upcoming book entitled *Science's Blindspot* which should be out in spring, where I go into issues such as this in detail. I hope the book will help build bridges between disparate folks who nonetheless share the goal of pursuing the truth rather than dogma.
===============================================



===============================================
Responding to Flank:
Flank: "Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?"

And what money would that be? Please be specific.
===============================================



================================================
Responding to N. Wells
------------
1) Biologists have spent a lot of time over the last 170 years dealing with issues relating to similarity and convergence and their implications for evolutionary theory.  Do a Pubmed search on homology, homoplasy, or analogy, for example.  The charge that evolutionists “don’t get around to this” is completely false, and can only be indicative of profound ignorance of the field, or mendacity.  

CH responds: Most of the technical literature does not explore why comparative anatomy, for instance, is evidence for (or against) evolution, for the simple reason that it is not written from a theory-neutral perspective, but rather is written from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, the implications for evolutionary theory are explored, but typically only insofar as modifying the question of *how* evolution occurs, not *if* evolution occurs.
------------

------------
3) Biologists absolutely do have an explanation for convergence.  Organisms that start different may, if they take up similar life styles, become more similar over time if the requirements of their niche cause adaptation toward the same morphological/functional solution.  This is convergent evolution by natural selection.  A shining example is the different lineages of animals that have taken up a mole-like existence.  Burrowing requires specific adaptations: a strong forehead, short & strong arms and legs with spade-like hands, and eyes are useless (and may even be a liability due to the chances of injury and infection).  A giraffe would make a terrible burrower.  This has lead to impressive similarities between marsupial “moles”, golden moles (chrysochlorid insectivores), N. American / Eurasian moles (talpid insectivores), and, to a lesser degree, naked Somali mole rats.  (The marsupial ‘moles’ and the golden moles are especially similar).  

CH responds: A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.
------------


------------
Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?” First, this question is misphrased.  The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance.  In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance.   Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.

CH responds: You are making theory-laden observations, and then telling us they are powerful evidence for your theory. Take a look here at the horse and bat limbs which are supposed to be homologous:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

From a theory-neutral perspective, what is it about the bat and horse similarities that are "deeper" and a "result fo common descent" ? Similarly, look here at the the flying squirrel and flying phalanger:

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf >

Why are their similarities "superficial" and "appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance" ?
------------


------------
However, proving claims of homology can get complicated, as we have instances of morphologic and functional similarity being retained despite loss and substitution of the underlying genes, and there is no reason why convergence, parallelism, reversal, and stasis can’t all contribute to a single complex evolutionary history.

CH responds: One might think that different embryological development pathways and different underlying genes, which are quite common, would be problematic. Evolutionists were surprised, but then came up with increasingly complex explanations.
------------



------------
A key point that should not be lost sight of here is that the evolution is considered by biologists to be a vastly superior explanation for apparent homology than intelligent design or special creation.  

CH responds: Agreed, and that is an important point. But we also need to keep in mind that there are potentially many non scientific reasons why one might opt for one paradigm over another. For instance, above you accused me of mendacity, so obviously you are keen to this possibility of non scientific factors influencing one's thinking. I'm not accusing anyone of mendacity. I'm merely pointing out that it is hardly inconceivable that non scientific factors can sometimes have sway. I think we need to stick to the evidence and what it says.
------------
================================================
Posted by: Ichthyic on Jan. 27 2007,03:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding the quote above, the problem is this quickly gets fairly complicated, and too lengthy for posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah... right.

you must be awfully simple minded to think the quoted section is anything other than crystal clear.

You were asked a very simple question, and you punted.

now we know why you work for the DI.

do they teach classes in obfuscation and deflection before you're allowed to claim you're an actual "fellow"?

...and about the rest of your lies:

we also note that we can clearly see the picture Wes kindly reposted right in the thread, you know the one right above your last bullshit session that says tasmanian wolf on one side and wolf on the other, even though they are both the same picture?

holly crap, you people amaze me.  How do you do these things and keep a straight face?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But we also need to keep in mind that there are potentially many non scientific reasons why one might opt for one paradigm over another.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



emphasis mine, and unless you can name ONE good reason why a "paradigm" should be accepted in science for non scientific reasons, your argument is entirely full of holes.

...but you already knew that.

the real question is are you stupid, or are you just trying out some new angles?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we need to stick to the evidence and what it says.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



L-I-A-R

you should have more honestly stated that thusly:

"I think I need to work more on making my manufactured evidence a bit more credible"

face it, your ilk views actual evidence like a vampire views the sun.

Your writings don't even rise to the level of mundane; that person was simply being kind to you to see what funny shit you would say next.
Posted by: Aardvark on Jan. 27 2007,04:09

CH responds:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you trying to say that there is some kind of law preventing evolution from creating superficially similar animals?

If so, then how is that law going to be incorporated into ID?
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 27 2007,05:06

It appears that Dr Hunter is confused in his argumentation. I’ll try to help him with my best English.

He seems to argue that convergence is a problem for the theory of evolution while, actually, he shows us that convergence is merely a problem for the inference of reliable phylogenies, which is a completely different issue.

Dr Hunter, if you want to use convergence as an argument against the ToE, you'll have to prove that convergent evolution is impossible. You haven't done anything of the sort, yet. We await.

Regarding the phylogenetic inference: yes, homoplasy (be it by convergence, reversion or parallelism) can be problematic. In fact, the whole field of cladistics aims at resolving issues due to homoplasy.  If hompoplasy didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be any researcher in phylogenetics, we would just use the good old principle of parsimony to infer phylogenies that would always be 100% accurate.
But how do we solves the problems?
First, we use our own experience and logic. We know, from experience, that some poorly defined traits like gross morphology can be extremely labile and cannot be used to support common ancestry (otherwise, dolphins would belongs to the fishes, wouldn't they?).
However, there are been confusions, especially in taxonomy, for example when defining the superclass of "pisces", separate from tetrapods, while in fact, we are more closely related to the trout than the trout is related to a shark. But the anatomy of the skeleton indicated us the correct topology. Sharks (chondrichthyes) don't have any bones, while humans and trouts (osteichtythes) do. The fish-like shape can be easily explained by the fact that fish have to swim, but why would humans and trouts have bones, if not by common ancestry?
Another way to get around homoplasy is using data from paleontology. We know, by the fossil record, that tetrapods evolved from particular osteichthyes, sometime in the Devonian,  while chondrichthyes (sharks) already existed. It confirms us that tetrapods and other osteichthyes share a more recent ancestor than osteichtyes and chondrichthyes.
Lastly, we now mainly resort to DNA sequences to infer phylogenies. In this case, all characters (nucleotides) are considered equal. Homoplasy is still common, but researchers have defined models of evolution which are used to detect the most probable tree. And those trees, with a very few exceptions, confirm the phylogenetic relationships that were established thanks to anatomy and paleontology (chondrichthyes and osteichthyes for instance).

I hope that helps.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 27 2007,05:11

Cornelius, please learn how to use blockquotes. Thanks.

PS: learn some science too.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 27 2007,05:17

Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 27 2007,04:09)
CH responds:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A niche does not cause an adaptation. <snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you trying to say that there is some kind of law preventing evolution from creating superficially similar animals?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr Hunter's view is not accurate. The environment "causes" the adaptation to a particular niche, by selecting mutations.

Now, as I said, he just has to prove that morphological convergences are impossible, even if they result from different mutations.

I also would like to know his hypothesis. First, do placentals and marsupials share a common ancestor?
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Jan. 27 2007,05:31

Wesley:

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake. I presented over 120 slides that day which I had quickly put together, and yes there were a few mistakes here and there. Your contrived version of events, however, is absurd. There were no "ID headliners" at my talk. I did not present the "the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument." I did not claim that such "instances of convergence ... cannot be explained" by evolution. I did not copy one image, reverse it, and desaturate it (why wouldn't I have done that with the others?).

I normally would not take the time to respond to such a mixture of ad hominems and falsehoods, but you *are* pointing out a mistake in my graphics. Both wolf images were straight off the web, and in my hasty collection of marsupial and placental examples I accidentally got a marsupial wolf graphic confused as a placental. Yes it was a dumb mistake, but it was not at all important to my uncontroversial point, which was that in biology there are many convergences.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 27 2007,05:44

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,05:31)
Wesley:

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake. I presented over 120 slides that day which I had quickly put together, and yes there were a few mistakes here and there. Your contrived version of events, however, is absurd. There were no "ID headliners" at my talk. I did not present the "the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument." I did not claim that such "instances of convergence ... cannot be explained" by evolution. I did not copy one image, reverse it, and desaturate it (why wouldn't I have done that with the others?).

I normally would not take the time to respond to such a mixture of ad hominems and falsehoods, but you *are* pointing out a mistake in my graphics. Both wolf images were straight off the web, and in my hasty collection of marsupial and placental examples I accidentally got a marsupial wolf graphic confused as a placental. Yes it was a dumb mistake, but it was not at all important to my uncontroversial point, which was that in biology there are many convergences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


decent of you to come clean. Now if you do not mind, we'll go on and on about this "error" for over 100 years.
< >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 27 2007,06:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your contrived version of events, however, is absurd. There were no "ID headliners" at my talk. I did not present the "the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument." I did not claim that such "instances of convergence ... cannot be explained" by evolution. I did not copy one image, reverse it, and desaturate it (why wouldn't I have done that with the others?).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, so none of the other speakers on the schedule came to your talk. I stand corrected.

However, the presence of the argument claiming that thylacine/wolf similarities represent a problem for homology, and thus evolutionary explanation, is confirmed both by the documentation of the proceedings and by notes from an attendee that I've now consulted.

As for *who* copied the image, flipped it, and desaturated it, I made no claim that that person was you. What I did say was that the image falsely labeled "Wolf" is the same image as the one correctly labeled "Tasmanian Wolf".

As a "mistake", though, that is a whopper.

Why did we not hear anything from your fellow ID advocates about this, and yet we *still* have all sorts of complaints about perfectly correct illustrations of crypsis in peppered moths?


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 27 2007,06:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

CH responds: A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, the niche is not the *cause* of adaptation. However, nobody in this argument claimed it was. What you've left off, though, is the fact that the physical constraints that *define* the niche also will be perfectly straightforward explanations for why some changes will be favored (they improved differential reproduction) and others will be disfavored (they decreased differential reproduction). The example of burrowers is one illustrating this, and the example I've used, that of fast swimmers in water adopting a fusiform shape, is another. Changes that produce shape closer to fusiform are *preferred* in organisms that have to move through water quickly, and those that chunkify body shape are *disfavored* in organisms that have to move through water quickly. The fact that the organisms live in the water and try to move quickly doesn't *cause* any particular change to happen, but it *does* give us an independent reason for deriving an expectation for the eventual fate of any such change that does happen.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 27 2007,07:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most of the technical literature does not explore why comparative anatomy, for instance, is evidence for (or against) evolution, for the simple reason that it is not written from a theory-neutral perspective, but rather is written from an evolutionary perspective...From a theory-neutral perspective, what is it about the bat and horse similarities that are "deeper" and a "result fo common descent" ? Similarly, look here at the the flying squirrel and flying phalanger...Why are their similarities "superficial" and "appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance" ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I took the liberty of combining two of your "responses" there, CH.

You know, Mr. Hunter, I gave you a perfectly good reference for questions of your sort:
Vogel, Steven. (2003). Comparative Biomechanics: Life's Physical World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. You might also look at Vogel's earlier work "Life's Devices," again, by Princeton U. Press.

Organisms on this planet share common ancestry so far as we can tell, by every means we have available.
I'll assume you would call this view "theory-laden" as if it were a perjorative. Well, great, you're welcome to do that. Since you're a member of the DI, I'd say your views are quite likely to be "theory-laden" as well, as I'm sure you'll eventually demonstrate.

At any rate, Mr. Hunter...on this planet, organisms encounter a non-biological reality in the form of oh, ---- physics, chemistry, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics etc., --- which constrain and at the same time, create "optima" that CAN affect the trajectory of organisms and the shared inherited characteristics of said organisms ( like oh, pentadactyly and the fact that...oh, ...mammals  .have SKIN), that have arisen , sometimes in similar ways .

Look at your instance of phalangers and flying squirrels, for example. Do they have gliding in common? Why, yes. Skin? Yes. Pentadactyly? Yes. Are they tetrapods? Yep. Biomechanically, there's not that many ways for mammals to glide, I'd say. Here's a sugar glider in action  
and a flying squirrel:


(the flying squirrel is headed "west," sugar glider "east")

Other than the fact that they are using loose folds of skin called patagium to "glide" what similarities do you find so significant?

For instance, are the patagium of oh, say sugar gliders  ATTACHED the same as in  flying squirrels?  No..the flying squirrel has little cartilaginous "spurs" that form a frame for the loose skin along the side of the body. This spur can be adjusted in angle which then results in greater or lesser tautness for the skin, aiding in "steering". In sugar gliders, the patagium attach from the "pinky finger" of the  forelimb back to the first toe of the hind foot.

Skin would appear to me to be far more susceptible to evolutionary change than bones and the bones of the two animals in question are distinct in regard to this gliding adaptation, no?  

Optima in relation to physical constraints in light of a common "bauplan" , eh? That common "bauplan" includes pentadactyly that is found throughout mammals and hence would carry a bit more "weight" , dont'cha think?
By the way, if this post seems a bit muddled, it's because I just woke up and it's 5:30 AM
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Jan. 27 2007,08:25

deadman_932,
Lovely!  Thank you, delightful bit of writing there, with some lovely, direct, useful examples of the problem with stopping at the surface details.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2007,09:02

Wouldn't < this paper > indicate that the similarities are indeed skin-deep, at least with respect to thylacines? Why else would the molecules group them with (other) carnivorous marsupials?

I wish these fascinating creatures were still with us.
Posted by: slpage on Jan. 27 2007,09:06

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,17:26)
Sorry Tracy, make that Ladies and Gentlemen.  

As for the question- I thought that they were all related in the first place, so the last common ancestor probablty had 5 fingers as well.  Not to mention that they inhabit similar habitats, so that physical laws ensure some convergence upon similar body shapes etc.  
That seems quite straightforwards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Hunter is questioning the issue of a shared pentadactyly in marsupials and placental mammals is  a clear indication that is really does not understand evolution very well.

I knew this after encountering him at Infidels a few years ago - clueless, but as seems to be a requirement for the IDcreationist crowd, very, very sure of himself and the authenticity of his naive positions. (I know, I know - all those ad hominems - keep in mind, I am not using this to rebut his claims - that is easily and has been done by others - no, I am just pointing out the obvious)

That none of his fellow IDers have taken him aside and explained the basics of the position HE is arguing says as much about them as it does him.  This sort of covered-up incompetence is endemic in IDcreationist circles, from Dr.Cook to Dr.Wells to Dr. Hunter - titles clearly have little value when you pontificate on things you clearly do not get.

The truly sad part is this - the bible -believin' audiences will take what he says at face value because he is, after all, DOCTOR Hunter, pro-IDcreationist.



And yes - the establishment of pentadactyly in extant vertebrates goes back well before the split between marsupials and placentals.
Posted by: slpage on Jan. 27 2007,09:13

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,05:31)
Wesley:

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mistake.

"MISTAKE"????


A mistake is using "their" instead of "there", or writing "ilium" when you meant "ileum".

Using the same picture to represent two different species is not a mistake, especially when the picture was clearly manipulated (mirrored) in order to do so.

I mean, is it really that hard to Google Images for 'wolf'?

I smell purposeful dishonesty, myself.

But then, I have become conditioned to expect dishonesty and incompetence by the many egregious examples of this sort of thing from the DI crowd.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 27 2007,09:34

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,04:29)
CH responds: A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bolded part shows how many IDC arguments that use "information theory" arguments make mistakes with RM+NS+Time (+other factors.  Don't want to go Portuguese on this one).

The first assumption that RM is "random and unguided" does not mean that NS is "random and unguided".  As deadman_932 states...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At any rate, Mr. Hunter...on this planet, organisms encounter a non-biological reality in the form of oh, ---- physics, chemistry, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics etc., --- which constrain and at the same time, create "optima" that CAN affect the trajectory of organisms and the shared inherited characteristics of said organisms ( like oh, pentadactyly and the fact that...oh, ...mammals  .have SKIN), that have arisen , sometimes in similar ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The "design space" may be large BUT the space itself is overlaid with an environment "field" that may influence the "direction" of selected mutations.  Let me rephrase that...
The "design space" is not neutral to the selected mutations.

Mr. Hunter:  Since your argument REQUIRES a neutral "design space", how does your argument hold up if the "design space" is not truly neutral to selection?
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 27 2007,09:53

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,04:29)
===============================================
Responding to GCT

Quote  
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


Mr. Hunter, you are a fellow of the DI, surely you know what their position is.  Do you reject that position?  Do you hold that ID is purely scientific?  If so, why does the DI push so hard for theistic understandings?



Of course I wouldn't be a DI fellow if I did not share some fundamenatal views with DI. But I certainly do not agree iwth everything that DI people have written. Regarding the quote above, the problem is this quickly gets fairly complicated, and too lengthy for posting. I'd like to defer to my upcoming book entitled *Science's Blindspot* which should be out in spring, where I go into issues such as this in detail. I hope the book will help build bridges between disparate folks who nonetheless share the goal of pursuing the truth rather than dogma.
===============================================
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that you don't really wish to answer my question.  I thought it was pretty straight-forward.  If ID is indeed scientific, and the DI is only concerned with pushing a scientific theorem, then there should be no need to sermonize to the crowd and continually speak about religious matters.  That the members of the DI can not help but speak, endlessly, on religious matters speaks volumes.  I have, to date, never heard a scientific argument for ID, yet I've heard many religious/philosophical arguments for ID.  I wonder why this is, but it seems I won't get an answer in this thread.
Posted by: N.Wells on Jan. 27 2007,10:23

I said      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if the requirements of their niche cause adaptation toward the same morphological/functional solution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cornelius Hunter responded      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's unpack the mistakes again.  (Edited to add: I see that Mike addressed some of the same points while I was off-line.   Thanks, Mike.)

A) Adaptations do not solely occur via unguided variations.  They appear to occur mostly through mutations and recombination alternating with selection (among other pathways).  Recombination can be guided, in the sense of sexual selection, and ecological selection can also easily be directional.

B) "Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target."   There is no target per se, but directional change is easily accomplished.  With possible rare exceptions, mutations appear to be unguided, but selection is entirely capable of imposing directionality on the process.  If there is differential reproductive success that is attributable in significant part to inheritable variation, and that preferential success continues over multiple generations, there will be a directional change in the population.  

C)  To the extent that the requirements of the niche are providing the challenge to reproductive success, it is fine to say that the requirements of the niche contributed to causing any resulting adaptations.  Those requirements contributed to the existence of the problem, they helped provide the motivation and the directionality of the change, and thus they helped produced the end result.

D)  "And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat."  The key here is that the design space is indeed large, so exactly identical variations are indeed unlikely to repeat, but there are many broad categories of problems faced by organisms that come up again and again, so the broad categories of responses are again fairly similar.  If you live in the water and need to either get food or avoid becoming food, you may well need to swim fast.  As Wesley said, the laws of hydraulics are quite constraining, so streamlining provides a common solution, thus a lot of fast aquatic creatures end up looking similar.  However, there is an infinity of ways to arrange minor details of form while being streamlined overall.  Thus superficially similar streamlining should not be a surprise, while similar arrangements of minor details would be. Deadman provided an excellent example of this when he talked about overall similarities in skin folds in gliding mammals versus dissimilar details of construction in different groups.  

There's no design reason that both a bat's wing and a bird's wing need to contain one scapula, one humerus, one radius and one ulna.  There's no design reason that all bat wings need to be supported by five fingers, whereas all bird wings need to contain two fused fingers plus one more in the form of the alula.  Why do all the bird versions contain so many similarities to each other that are never seen in bats, and vice versa?   How come all birds have feathers but none have fur, while the reverse is true for bats?   How come all birds share an alula and not a pteroid bone, whereas all pterosaurs share an pteroid but not an alula?  Common ancestry within each of those groups provides an easy explanation.  In a design world, any car can have windshield wipers, radios, and/or air conditioners.  In an evolution world, only Buicks might have air conditioners, only Fords might have windshield wipers, and only Jeeps might have radios.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But mostly we aren't.  We are impressed by them, but our theory requires them.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius Hunter: It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue [of convergence].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me: The charge that evolutionists “don’t get around to this” is completely false, and can only be indicative of profound ignorance of the field, or mendacity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hunter:  Most of the technical literature does not explore why comparative anatomy, for instance, is evidence for (or against) evolution, for the simple reason that it is not written from a theory-neutral perspective, but rather is written from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, the implications for evolutionary theory are explored, but typically only insofar as modifying the question of *how* evolution occurs, not *if* evolution occurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hunter's second response does not save the woeful wrongness of his initial claim that evolutionists don't get around to discussing convergence.  

Furthermore, much of the discussion of convergence involves discussing the legitimacy of phylogenetic inferences ("does this particular similarity reflect a shared evolutionary history or not?", where "not" includes convergence).  However, "not" also includes ID.  If the answer was always that particular similarities could never confidently be attributed to a shared evolutionary history, then that would raise the issue of "if" evolution occurs, contrary to Hunter's claims.  


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Hunter) From a theory-neutral perspective, what is it about the bat and horse similarities that are "deeper" and a "result [of] common descent" ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already answered.  Deadman's answer is excellent, and I already said that if we see the same embryological tissues contribute to two features, the same genes activated during their construction, utilization of the same developmental pathways, and the same bones ending up in much the same places in the same basic relationships to adjacent bones, nerves, blood vessels, and so forth, then we can make a reasonably secure claim of homology.  If we additionally have a fossil record that shows similar structures or a gradation of change in probable intermediates then the claim is that much stronger.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2007,13:43

Real science makes significant findings all the time. H. pylori causes ulcers. Coffee protects against cirrhosis. Dark energy exists. Neutrinos have mass. New tests for cancer, new info about protein dynamics, materials with negative refraction indices, RNAi, WMAP and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. And most findings you won't even hear about. The average postdoc toiling away in obscurity will produce 1-3 papers per year. (Those of you who watch the Discovery Institute may ask, "...and how many press releases?" The answer, strangely enough, is usually 'none'.)

If science had this big blind spot, and the discovery institute people have spent 15 years and millions of dollars looking into it, free of any competition, and not discovered a single significant thing, either the blind spot isn't really there, or the DI researchers are the stupidest collection of scientists ever assembled.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2007,14:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2007,22:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: GCT on Jan. 27 2007,15:29

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2007,15:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow Steve, it's like you two were separated at birth.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2007,16:01

Anyone who would suggest anything other than an honest mistake in the above diagram is really avoiding the real issue about similarities.

It's strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. The fact remains, and I'll rephrase the question Wesley and the rest of you are ignoring, why are some similarities--my brother is about 6'3 and I am 6', and we both have blonde hair--considered evidence for a close evolutionary relationship, whereas equal and greater levels of similarity--brad pitt is about 6' like me, and has blonde hair--are rejected?

Dumb old evolutionists.
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 27 2007,18:06

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 27 2007,15:29)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2007,15:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow Steve, it's like you two were separated at birth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see C.H. needs some assistance....

Typical Darwinist ad homo attack.

When are you going to concentrate on my new book?


I only came here to get some tips on how to handle a skeptical press.

So give me some more questions, I need more practice ignoring them.

Lenny: whilst I didn't deny 'stone the adulterers to death'   Howie Ahmanson   was a major financier behind the DI, notice how I cleverly deflected the focus of the reply to a specific and propably unanswerable question on an actual cash contribution made by the miscreant Machiavelian mangler of the Episcopal Church.

There is no point trying to tie Howie Ahmanson to me and the DI.

If you had any brains, you would notice I can deny mendacity with the best of them.

Just try accusing me of deliberate deception by using the same drawing for a Tasmanian Tiger and a Wolf.

It was a mistake...it rhymes with mendacious....get it.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 27 2007,18:39

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2007,16:01)
Anyone who would suggest anything other than an honest mistake in the above diagram is really avoiding the real issue about similarities.

It's strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. The fact remains, and I'll rephrase the question Wesley and the rest of you are ignoring, why are some similarities--my brother is about 6'3 and I am 6', and we both have blonde hair--considered evidence for a close evolutionary relationship, whereas equal and greater levels of similarity--brad pitt is about 6' like me, and has blonde hair--are rejected?

Dumb old evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Steve,  I see no blond in the picture.  Am I supposed to color it in?  It may take a while - the DI has my crayons.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 27 2007,18:59

Dr Hunter:

Thanks for not answering any of my questions.  Naturally, I didn't expect you to -- creationists do seem to all have lethal allergies to answering direct questions.

But then, my questions make their point to all the lurkers whether you answer them or not (though NOT answering them does seem to emphasize the point a wee bit).

So I don't really need your cooperation anyway.  (shrug)
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 28 2007,01:10

OK lets be fair with Doc.CH

..... he got rolled on a tiny insignificant detail, we're making a moutain lion out of mole.

Here's a bone Doc.CH .....in fact a caveful of 200,000 to around 800,000 years ago of bones.

Your not a YEC are you?


< “To find complete, undamaged skeletons of Australia’s largest predatory marsupial, Thylacoleo, was a dream come true. >


You may have better luck making this marsupial 'liger' into a hat or a rabbit up your sleeve ...I dunno .....see how it plays with the pre-schoolers they love rabbits and they're easier to train.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 28 2007,07:44

Hey Doc, what are some of those things that you disagree with DI about?

Can you list a few, and explain why you disagree with them?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 28 2007,07:52

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 26 2007,19:16)
Dr Hunter:

DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Doc . . . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 28 2007,07:55

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 26 2007,19:27)
Hey Dr Hunter:

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Doc . . . .?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 28 2007,07:58

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 26 2007,19:33)
Hey Dr Hunter:

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Doc . . . .?
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Jan. 28 2007,12:11

Wesley Elsberry writes: "However, the presence of the argument claiming that thylacine/wolf similarities represent a problem for homology, and thus evolutionary explanation, is confirmed both by the documentation of the proceedings and by notes from an attendee that I've now consulted."

Actually, I did not question the evolutionary explanation, but I guess that would spoil your story. Folks, I am really not your enemy here. I have no problem with evolution, in principle. My skepticism is with several of the evidential arguments. I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern. Why are those that can be fitted to the common descent pattern cited as such powerful evidence? Without some justification, this fundamental claim of evolution appears to be selective. Unfortunately, good justification is hard to come by. The vast majority of the responses simply avoided the question and made up their own.

For instance, Stephen Wells responded,  "For starters, how about some discussion of dentition and skull morphology, with regard to the claim that the thylacine and the wolf have 'almost identical' dentition?" Where did that claim come from?

Jeannot responded, "So Mr Hunter, you think that convergence is somehow problematic for the theory of evolution? ... if you want to use convergence as an argument against the ToE, you'll have to prove that convergent evolution is impossible." This is a combination strawman plus shifting the burden of the proof. Deadman responded with another version of this strawman: "Should I throw up my hands now and shout "We've met our Waterloo, they  [similar looking species] LOOK alike!?" He then pointed to some references (good background material but they don't answer the question).

Brightmoon responded: "is cornelius trying to say that thylacine anatomy is similar because of separate creation ?" Huh? Aardvark responded: "Are you trying to say that there is some kind of law preventing evolution from creating superficially similar animals?" No, I'm not saying that. I'm trying to find good justification for one of your claims. Wesley continued to avoid the question with this: "What you've left off, though, is the fact that the physical constraints that *define* the niche also will be perfectly straightforward explanations for why some changes will be favored (they improved differential reproduction) and others will be disfavored (they decreased differential reproduction)." Of course. Now, how about answering my question?

There were, however, a few answers to the question. N. Wells gave this answer:

"The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance.  In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance.   Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution."

Unfortunately the explanation that one type of similarity is "deep" and the other "superficial" isn't going to satisfy very many people. This explanation really just raises more questions. When I asked for details, he deferred to Deadman who did give an answer:

"Skin would appear to me to be far more susceptible to evolutionary change than bones and the bones of the two animals in question are distinct in regard to this gliding adaptation, no?  Optima in relation to physical constraints in light of a common "bauplan" , eh? That common "bauplan" includes pentadactyly that is found throughout mammals and hence would carry a bit more "weight" , dont'cha think? By the way, if this post seems a bit muddled, it's because I just woke up and it's 5:30 AM"

This seems like a perfectly reasonable answer, as far as it goes. The problem is it is farily subjective. Do we really want to make one of the fundamental evidential claims for evolution contingent on an opinion about what might, and might not, be more difficult for evolution to accomplish?

The one other answer was given by Douglas Theobald: "The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology."

Yes, of course, the personal incredulity of evolutionists is well documented. This is the standard response, but appeals to personal incredulity hardly make for strong scientific evidence. Nor does it help when evolutionists mysteriously drop this incredulity when such instances arise in distant species where common descent cannot be summoned as the explanation. In these cases we are told there was a structural convergence where the functions differ.

What we have here are a vast number of similarities across the spectrum in biology, often arising via different genes and development pathways, and often showing up in distant species. Whereever possible, they are ascribed to common descent. Otherwise they are said to have evolved independently. So far so good. But the former do not qualify as particularly powerful, objective, evidence for evolution.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 28 2007,12:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, I did not question the evolutionary explanation, but I guess that would spoil your story. Folks, I am really not your enemy here. I have no problem with evolution, in principle. My skepticism is with several of the evidential arguments. I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern. Why are those that can be fitted to the common descent pattern cited as such powerful evidence? Without some justification, this fundamental claim of evolution appears to be selective. Unfortunately, good justification is hard to come by. The vast majority of the responses simply avoided the question and made up their own.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Hunter is not "anti-evolution", he's just "anti-common-descent". News flash: "common descent" is part of evolutionary science.

Mark Isaak, I think we may have a new item for your index.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 28 2007,12:56

Of course, Douglas Theobald has had a < bit more to say on the topic of homology > than just the little bit stated in this thread.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 28 2007,13:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We answered your question.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 28 2007,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no problem with evolution, in principle. My skepticism is with several of the evidential arguments. I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, then you go on to complain that people here have not pointed to work that sufficiently quantified the relative evolutionary significance of traits...that you leave unstated.

I asked other than skin as patagium, what traits do you find so significant in sugar gliders and flying squirrels...if it's to be about pentadactyly v. patagium, you have to admit that the universality of pentadactyly in mammals seems a tad more ...well, UNIVERSAL ( and hence basic) ... than mammals with patagium. Pentadactyly is part of the mammalian bauplan and patagium webbing is not.  If you want to say " but this is merely subjective"  uh...okay. Gosh, Waterloo!

You claimed that I had "pointed to some references (good background material but they don't answer the question)." well, Mr. Hunter, I did happen to say you could start there ...and not that it was where you'd find Ye Compleat Evolutionary Answere™ , illustrated in easy-to-color form.

Vogel speaks about constraints-- physical constraints that have to be addressed in gliding...lift, drag, gravity, etc., that all fit into a hypothetical "big answer"  The genetic/evo-devo/medical data on various mammalian syndromes that cause webbing of skin would have given you some data, too. There's similar sources for osteal concerns and limbs/digits.

This is a wide-open and burgeoning field, and the fact is that yes, at present we have no algorithm that allows you to plug in weighted values of specific traits/characters and arrive at a quantified instant answer.

At present, however, there are lots of people working on how to determine methods of untangling this Gordian Knot of genetic, developmental, functional, and evolutionary influences that generate integrated morphologies and how to create models allowing for precisely what you apparently want. Is it accomplished? No. Won't you contribute to our cause? A mind is a terrible thing to waste at the DI, where they produce little peer-reviewed work that I have seen.

For the moment, I feel pretty secure in pointing to pentadactyly and saying " this universal mammalian character carries more weight than non-universal patagium" But I see you have problems with that. Tsk. Then do some work.  
********************************************************************************
Oh, on a final note...read the last line of your claim:    

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're saying there that the patagium similarity between sugar gliders and flying squirrels is equal or greater in significance as pentadactyly?

Two questions: (1) are you serious? and (2) However did you determine that the characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 28 2007,13:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, I did not question the evolutionary explanation, but I guess that would spoil your story. Folks, I am really not your enemy here. I have no problem with evolution, in principle. My skepticism is with several of the evidential arguments. I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hunter gave a talk at Cornell. He described it in a blog post.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] I began the discussion with half-a-dozen scientific challenges to evolution. These were not details, but rather concerns regarding the core of evolution. [...]

Of course the answer is obvious. There indeed are serious scientific challenges to evolution that are awkward to face. There have always been such challenges. Evolutionary thinking is, and always has been, motivated by philosophical and theological concerns rather than the empirical evidence.

(< Source >)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



People came to Hunter's talk and took notes. They described it in blog posts.

Let's see, arguments going to the "core of evolution"... So, if Hunter's claim here that he is OK with evolution, in principle, then the argument about homology must have been absent from his Cornell talk, since he describes those as going to the "core of evolution". But then we have the account of an attendee who says Hunter did use the homology argument there:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In his presentation, Hunter presented two slides representing some of his primary evidences of "flaws" in evolutionary theory, including the inadequacy of arguments from homology, specifically descrepancies between pentadactyl limb structure in vertebrates and the dissimilarity of the genes responsible for these morphological changes; and the complexity of transducin signaling in photon receptors of the eye.

(< Source >)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, which is it: is homology something that does not, in principle, make one doubt evolutionary explanation, or is it an argument that goes to the "core of evolution"? There seems to be some confusion on this point.

Why did Dennis Wagner come to the conclusion that Hunter was taking sides?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But having been on both sides, Hunter now realizes the Darwinian Evolution is not a scientific theory, or even a compelling theory. It is a religious philosophy that has found a home in science.

(< Source >)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2007,13:40

The Index of Creationist Crap has a few interesting links on homology:

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB810.html >
< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.html >
< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB821.html >
< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html >

Read them if you're bored. I don't think this thread is going to get interesting until Cornelius starts making some precise claims.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 28 2007,14:04

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 28 2007,12:11)
I have no problem with evolution, in principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, uh, what are you bitching about.

Other than the simple fact that you're too stupid to understand the difference between "homology" and "analogy".
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2007,14:26

I don't know what Hunter's area of expertise is, but he's an Intelligent Design supporter and teaches at a bible college, so I bet it's not biology. If he ever gets around to making precise claims, instead of this vague stuff, he's going to be tsunamied with research.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 28 2007,15:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know what Hunter's area of expertise is, but he's an Intelligent Design supporter and teaches at a bible college
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was curious about that, too, so I was poking around and found :

Hunter, C.G., Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Brazos Press, 2001.

Hunter, C.G., “Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science,” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, (Ed. W. Dembski) Intercollegiate Studies Institute / University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Here's some links to discussions of Hunter's previous claims:
< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/hunters_distort_1.html >
< http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004....ne.html >
< http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004....wo.html >

and responses of Mr. Hunter :
< http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000540 >
< http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/does-this-guy-have-job.html >

I'm fairly certain there's more out there, but I have errands to run. Note Salvador Cordova's sychophantic posturings in the ISID post above, though, it's pretty funny.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 28 2007,15:42

Dr. Hunter:

If the structural convergence between marsupial and placental wolves argues against common descent as you seem to think, then why did the molecular analysis I cited earlier place the thylacines with other marsupials, in < conformance with evolutionary predictions? > Is this not an example of a passed test?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2007,16:28

I love how people on this board track things down.

So Hunter says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I did not question the evolutionary explanation, but I guess that would spoil your story. Folks, I am really not your enemy here. I have no problem with evolution, in principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet he wrote an essay titled



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



by the way, from Jason Rosenhouse's comments, Hunter is a PhD version of AFDave.

EDIT: I retract this complaint. It turns out that Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science accords with his 'in principle' statement. In that essay he claims, as he does here, not that there is some internal flaw in the theory, but that the evidence is too weak.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2007,17:00

I went looking in the usual places to see if Hunter had ever actually published any fraudulent disproofs of evolution uh Intelligent Design Research. I looked for him in every pathetic issue of PCID. Easily distracted, I looked around the ISCID site a bit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Essay Contests

The essay contests have been cancelled until further notice is given.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder if it was cancelled because they didn't get any submissions. That sucks. I would gladly have whipped out, you know, 12 pages of "A duck's foot is irreducibly complex because if you remove it, the duck falls over." for $1,000.

Bring back the essay contest!
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2007,17:15

In one of the essays linked above < http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/08/hunter-part-one.html > we find the absolutely bizarre argument that a problem for evolution is that there are just too many transitional fossils to accurately sort out.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 28 2007,17:52

Mr. Hunter.
To create a quote box around someones quoted phrase type [quote] first.  Insert (or copy/paste) the message  then type [/quote}. (except replace the last } with a ]).  All the words/phrases/references between the typed "quotes" will be contained in a quote box.

***************************
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 28 2007,13:11)
...My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern. Why are those that can be fitted to the common descent pattern cited as such powerful evidence? Without some justification, this fundamental claim of evolution appears to be selective. Unfortunately, good justification is hard to come by. The vast majority of the responses simply avoided the question and made up their own.
...
What we have here are a vast number of similarities across the spectrum in biology, often arising via different genes and development pathways, and often showing up in distant species. Whereever possible, they are ascribed to common descent. Otherwise they are said to have evolved independently. So far so good. But the former do not qualify as particularly powerful, objective, evidence for evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the bolded question is your present claim.  And the following paragraphs focus your question.  I think I can work with this now that a clear and concise question is put forward.

First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.

You can parse and rephrase this objection as you see fit.

I see the "challange" you've made as a conflation of two seperate examples of evolutionary change.  Both changes occur, but you have to make a logical link somewhere between the two for your "challange" to have any meaning.
Posted by: N.Wells on Jan. 28 2007,18:16

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 28 2007,12:11)
I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern.

.........

Unfortunately the explanation that one type of similarity is "deep" and the other "superficial" isn't going to satisfy very many people. This explanation really just raises more questions. When I asked for details, he [Wells, i.e. me] deferred to Deadman who did give an answer:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable answer, as far as it goes. The problem is it is farily subjective. Do we really want to make one of the fundamental evidential claims for evolution contingent on an opinion about what might, and might not, be more difficult for evolution to accomplish?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you are overemphasizing some superficial similarities while disregarding important differences.  If you give a competent scientist either the skeletons or a tissue sample from any of the marsupial & placental analogs, he or she will be able to quickly and easily tell you which of each pair came from Australia & had a pouch.  

I think I answered your question more thoroughly than you acknowledged.  Theory holds (and observations support) that functionally important features are subject to considerable selective pressure, so we should expect many overall similarities.  However, when similarities are arrived at through separate evolutionary histories, then we should also see significant differences within or underlying the grossly similar features, and most of those differences that are not brand new innovations should be consistent with features of the ancestral group rather than with features of the morphologically analogous group.  Differences should be especially obvious in parts of the feature that aren't funtionally important.

The various forms of the vertebrate forelimbs are therefore important evidence for evolution because 1) they share fundamental similarities, 2) at the same time they fall into subsets that are characterized by shared differences (differences between the subgroups but shared within them), and 3) in both cases, the similarities and the differences are better explained by evolutionary history than by design.

I gave you some specific examples: bats, birds, and pterosaurs all fly and all have wings, although many of the details of wing construction are unique to each group (feathers, alulas, & fusion of fingers 2 & 3 to birds, pteroid bones to pterosaurs, highly reduced radii to bats).  Furthermore, many of the differences between the fliers tie each type to their ancestral group rather than to other types of fliers: early birds had reptilian tails and teeth, and even modern birds lay reptilian eggs with chorion, allantois, and amnion membranes.  Bats have fur and give milk.  We see this pattern extending down into genetic and biochemical character traits, and it is also widespread (albeit with some notably complex and confusing exceptions) in the fossil records of the various groups.

I already said that if we see the same embryological tissues contribute to two features, the same genes activated during their construction, utilization of the same developmental pathways, and the same bones ending up in much the same places in the same basic relationships to adjacent bones, nerves, blood vessels, and so forth, then we can make a reasonably secure claim of homology.  If we additionally have a fossil record that shows similar structures or a gradation of change in probable intermediates then the claim is that much stronger.
Posted by: bystander on Jan. 28 2007,18:44

Another classic thread! I wonder how many lurkers will be de-converted based on Mr Hunter's vague hand waving and the factual replies given.

I wonder how long he'll last before he slinks off. For a professional purveyors of anti-science the internet can be a pain as your debates are there forever for all to see.

Michael
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 28 2007,19:36

Quote (bystander @ Jan. 28 2007,18:44)
Another classic thread! I wonder how many lurkers will be de-converted based on Mr Hunter's vague hand waving and the factual replies given.

I wonder how long he'll last before he slinks off. For a professional purveyors of anti-science the internet can be a pain as your debates are there forever for all to see.

Michael
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how long he'll last before he slinks off. For a professional purveyors of anti-science the internet can be a pain as your debates are there forever for all to see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shhh!!

CH is doing nuance and if you state the obvious it doesn't work...willing straw men into existance requires everyone to concentrate on the swinging watch me hypnotize myself into believing that the endless argument IS an argument.

Well CH it's not.... it's a fallacy.

And did anyone tell you, you look geat in that new dress...
Yes, of course, the personal incredulity of evolutionists is well documented. This is the standard response, but appeals to personal incredulity hardly make for strong scientific evidence. Nor does it help when evolutionists mysteriously drop this incredulity when such instances arise in distant species where common descent cannot be summoned as the explanation. In these cases we are told there was a structural convergence where the functions differ.

...erm you have a Ph.D. but if you said that anywhere near where I studied you would have had them rolling in the ailse for displaying a lack of self awareness bordering on___(fill in the blank if you can CH) hint .....its called projection.


Save us the personal incredulity dressed up to look like ....actually scratch that....Lenny's questions ....any reason you are avoiding them?

Be honest now.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Jan. 29 2007,03:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, of course, the personal incredulity of evolutionists is well documented. This is the standard response, but appeals to personal incredulity hardly make for strong scientific evidence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



nice bit of projection there.

based on the language, I don't think in this case it's an unconscious reponse on your part (just a psychological defense mechanism).  I think you, as a common tactic by the religious right, prefer to use the language that best describes YOUR position, and throw it back on to your detractors.

it don't fly here.

where do you see personal incredulity on the part of the posters here?

please detail it before you make yet more projections based on your own level of personal incredulity.

and stop lying.

steve:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that essay he claims, as he does here, not that there is some internal flaw in the theory, but that the evidence is too weak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



of course the evidence seems weak if you refuse to actually read any of it.

I can arbitrarily say that the evidence for the moon landings is weak too.  Unfortunately, just like with ol CH here, that would just make me a moron.
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Jan. 30 2007,10:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley writes: If the structural convergence between marsupial and placental wolves argues against common descent as you seem to think, then why did the molecular analysis I cited earlier place the thylacines with other marsupials, in conformance with evolutionary predictions? Is this not an example of a passed test?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please be careful. First, I did not say convergence argues against common descent. I'm merely using it to raise questions about a claim of powerful evidence. Second, no one is denying that evolution passes tests (a much weaker claim).

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman writes: I asked other than skin as patagium, what traits do you find so significant in sugar gliders and flying squirrels...if it's to be about pentadactyly v. patagium, you have to admit that the universality of pentadactyly in mammals seems a tad more ...well, UNIVERSAL ( and hence basic) ... than mammals with patagium. Pentadactyly is part of the mammalian bauplan and patagium webbing is not.  If you want to say " but this is merely subjective"  uh...okay. Gosh, Waterloo!
[…]
For the moment, I feel pretty secure in pointing to pentadactyly and saying " this universal mammalian character carries more weight than non-universal patagium" But I see you have problems with that. Tsk. Then do some work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All good points, but you are drifting back into a strawman. You and many others have repeatedly argued against falsification. Secondly, universality is not crucial here. It can be forfeited (by evolutionary theory) without sacrificing the claim of homology or this evidential claim.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim. I'm merely asking how those similarities, that happen to fit the evolutionary pattern, are supposed to count as powerful evidence. Of course evolution has an explanation, as you outlined above.

The answer to my question, according to standard evolutionary theory is, as Theobald concisely put it: "In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs)."

In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.

There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.

Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 30 2007,11:16

Uh, if anyone is skilled and  can translate Mr. Hunter's statements from vague jargonese into clear english,  post a version of it, please?   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You and many others have repeatedly argued against falsification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, how? Can you repost where I did this? I merely mentioned that pentadactyly is universal in mammals, reflecting a common bauplan and that patagium for gliding are not. For you, this constitutes "arguing against falsification?"

It seems to me that language in modern humans is useful for clear and effective speech/writing and that obfuscation is detrimental to that. Please try for clarity in saying precisely what you mean and laying out specific examples, would you?

When you gave the patagium example, silly me, I thought you were actually asking why I thought it was less relevant ( to me)  than pentadactyly.

I also notice that you didn't answer my questions.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 30 2007,11:23

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 30 2007,12:16)
Uh, if anyone can translate Mr. Hunter's statements from vague jargonese into clear english, please post a version of it, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I scanned it, and concluded that somebody else can parse that hand-wavy philosophizing.
Posted by: slpage on Jan. 30 2007,11:53

It seems Hunter has been beating the wolf/thylacine skull dead horse for < at least 3+ years... >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 30 2007,12:21

It's sort of interesting: I assume (perhaps mistakenly, given the ambiguity of how Mr. Hunter has been posting) that he's essentially asking HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories. Can we justify our assumptions there?

Keeping in mind that science doesn't deal in absolute,immutable truths and that such designations can be changed at any moment due to new discoveries ( because science is always tentative)...what seems to be the problem?

Well, here's the deal:

I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.

In the past, prior to the genetic revolution and evo-devo studies, yep, there was a lot more seeming arbitrariness in placing things into "homology v. homoplasy" categories. But even a cursory scan of the relevant literature today has yielded me a bounty of information on the very topic...in just ten minutes, I gathered these papers:

Abouheif E. Developmental genetics and homology: a hierarchical approach. Trends Ecol Evol. 1997;12:405-408.
Abouheif E, Akam M, Dickinson WJ, Holland PWH, Meyer A, Patel NH, Raff RA, Roth VL, Wray GA. Homology and developmental genes. Trends Genet. 1997;13:432-433.
Arthur W. The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanisms. Evol Dev. 2000;2:49-57
Arthur W. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evol Dev. 2001;3:271-278
Arthur W. The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology. Nature. 2002;415:757-764
Brigandt, I. (2003) “Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: The radiation of a concept.” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 299B: 9-17
Caroll S. Endless forms: the evolution of gene regulation and morphological diversity. Cell. 2000;101:577-580.
Carroll, SB.;Grenier, JK.; Weatherbee, SD. From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 2001. Shimeld SM, Holland
Carroll SB. Evolution at two levels: on genes and form. PLOS Biology. 2005;3:e245.
Davidson, EH. Genomic Regulatory Systems. Development and Evolution. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001.
Donoghue M, Ree RH. Homoplasy and developmental constraint: a model and an example from plants. Am Zool. 2000;40:759-769.
Fitch W. Homology - a personal view on some of the problems. Trends Genet. 2000;16:227-231.
Galliot B, Miller DJ. Origin of anterior patterning - how old is our head? Trends Genet. 2000;16:1-5.
Hedges SB. The origin and evolution of model organisms. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3:838-849
Hedges SB, Blair JE, Venturi ML, Shoe JL. A molecular timescale of eukaryote evolution and the rise of complex multicellular life. BMC Evol Biol. 2004;4:2.
Hughes AL, Friedmann R. Shedding genomic ballast; extensive parallel loss of ancestral gene families in animals. J Mol Evol. 2004;59:827-833.
Jenner RA. Evolution of animal body plans: the role of metazoan phylogeny at the interface between patterns and processes. Evol Dev. 2000;2:208-221
Levine M, Tjian R. Transcription regulation and animal diversity. Nature. 2003;424:147-151
Meyer, A. Homology and homoplasy: the retention of genetic programs. In: Brock GR, Cardew G. , editor. Homology Symposium on Homology held at the Novartis Foundation (Symposium 222); London. Wiley: Chichester, UK; 1999. pp. 141-157.
Mindell DP, Meyer A. Homology evolving. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16:434-440.
Raff, RA. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1996.
Raible F, Arendt D. Metazoan evolution: some animals are more equal than others. Curr Biol. 2004;14:R106-108.
Telford MJ, Budd GE. The place of phylogeny and cladistics in Evo-Devo research. Int J Dev Biol. 2003;47:479-490.
True JR, Carroll SB. Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2002;18:53-80.
Wake, DB. Homology and homoplasy. In: Edited by Hall BK, Olson WM. , editor. Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Harvard: Harvard University Press; 2003. pp. 190-201.
Wilkins, AS. The Evolution of Developmental Pathways. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates; 2002.
Wray GA, Abouheif E. When is homology not homology? Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1998;8:675-680.

Now, I have no particular interest in this area, but even I can see there's a lot of work being done there. Science is rarely satisfied by arbitrariness, and there seems to be a distinct trend in justifying how we categorize traits/characters.

Do we HAVE a specific algorithm NOW? No...but won't you join us and contribute to our search, Mr. Hunter?
Again, a mind is a terrible thing to waste at DI, which does little peer-reviewed research that I know of.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 30 2007,12:55

< Alan Gishlick on homology >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2007,13:21

Dr. Hunter:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Paley writes: If the structural convergence between marsupial and placental wolves argues against common descent as you seem to think, then why did the molecular analysis I cited earlier place the thylacines with other marsupials, in conformance with evolutionary predictions? Is this not an example of a passed test?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Please be careful. First, I did not say convergence argues against common descent. I'm merely using it to raise questions about a claim of powerful evidence. Second, no one is denying that evolution passes tests (a much weaker claim).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, I just wanted be be sure, since many people have used the morphological similarities between the placental and marsupial wolves to argue that one can't make claims about common descent with respect to these creatures. I'm glad that you concede that thylacines share a common ancestor with other marsupials, and that common descent is falsifiable. Not all ID proponents would agree with these claims.

It seems your complaint is that evolutionary biologists do not use a consistent definition for homology when tracing lines of descent. If they were to use a consistent and objective criterion to distinguish between homologous and homoplastic characters, they might find that animals would be grouped in ways incongruent with their predictions. Therefore, homology, being a vague and ill-applied concept, does not support common descent.

Is the above a correct summary of your views?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 30 2007,13:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 30 2007,12:16)

Uh, if anyone can translate Mr. Hunter's statements from vague jargonese into clear english, please post a version of it, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hunter to English translation:

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.  Please send us your cash donations."
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 30 2007,13:34

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just a layman when it comes to science, and even I can tell this is BS.  It seems far easier for organisms to change proportion than to change structure.  Just look at dog breeds.  When I look at a thylacine, I see a stretched-out Tasmanian devil - not a wolf.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 30 2007,14:17

Mike PSS:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Corny Hunter:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it need not be carried by all mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dood!  Try to keep up here: pendactyly need not be carried by all mammals, if their limbs were "designed" to optimize their current functionality, but it is. Why?  As we are reasonably entitled to conclude from looking around at current mammals, from reviewing the evidence from fossil mammals and the geologic contexts in which they are found, and from the genetic molecular and developmental evidence, the pendactyly we observe among all extant and extinct mammals is the result of common descent.  This is a prediction of evolution that's contra "intelligent design" (or, as we respectfully and civilly call it around here: sheer IDiocy...).

If some lineages of mammals are around long enough, and the adaptive pressures are powerful and persistent enough, maybe the outward phenotypic indicia of pendactyl ancestry would eventually disappear (the tippy-toes of horses, the back ends of whales, a strain of eight-toed cats or--more far-fetched, six-fingered psychic humans...).

The developmental and genetic indicia of ancestral pandyctyly would linger on for many ages but, after the passage of sufficient time, perhaps even those signs would be covered over by the palimpsest of later changes.

Arguably, however, it would take a very long time indeed for all traces of common mammal heritage to disappear, just as mammalian inner ear-bones may still be traced back to earlier quadruped jawbones, pandyctyly itself can be traced back to a "frozen accident" or early set of selections among the variant digit patterns seen in the earliest transitional tetrapods, and vertebrate body plans can be traced back to duplications of the urbilaterian Hox tool-kit.

If you have some kind of point here, not obscured beneath your verbal vagaries and determination to avoid the obvious implications of the evidence, it has so far failed to surface.

Either get on with it.

Or admit there is no actual "it" wherever you are at.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 30 2007,14:55

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 30 2007,13:34)
 
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just a layman when it comes to science, and even I can tell this is BS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, it's just nonsense.
And this observation would be far more puzzling for IDers. Why would a 'designed' whale have 5 fingers? I'm asking.
???


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As we are reasonably entitled to conclude from looking around at current mammals, from reviewing the evidence from fossil mammals and the geologic contexts in which they are found
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I'm not mistaken, pentadactyly appeared with the tetrapods. Ichthyostega (devonian) had 5 fingers.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 30 2007,15:33

A few comments and questions:

(1)It seems odd to me that Mr. Hunter should decry the "theory-laden" views of science in regard to homology and homoplasy designations ;  isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "LESS than"  "theory-Unladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? Of course, I'm merely being facetious here, right? ;)

(2) When asked what specific characters Mr. Hunter finds "equal and greater in similarity" to pentadactyly...Mr Hunter has yet to respond.  I would wager that what Mr. Hunter will present is not a single character, but rather a suite of characters, i.e. they look alike in teeth, skull shape, quadrupedal body form, etc. Is there a term for this sort of fallacy in comparing one to many?

(3) When Mr. Hunter mentioned that patagium and pentadactyly were comparable characters in  terms of significance, I asked how did he determine this...and I've still gotten no answer. If I were pressed for an answer about MY views, I would point to studies in fossils, genetics and embryology/development that seem to indicate that pentadactyly is more significant. Mr. Hunter has (apparently) claimed that patagium are of "equal or greater significance," as pentadactyly...Can you show how you determined this, Mr. Hunter?  

Was it due to "theory-laden" observations?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 30 2007,15:42

Jeannot: you might want to read this little bit on polydactyl Ichthyostega and Acanthostega: < http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 30 2007,17:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 30 2007,11:16)
I also notice that you didn't answer my questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or mine.
Posted by: N.Wells on Jan. 30 2007,18:50

From Cornelius Hunter
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.

Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There do seem to be features in organisms that, when we look at them, we think, "wow, even I could have designed that better", so we do make some intuitive arguments along these lines.  The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is a good example here.

However, there is much more substance and depth to these sorts of arguments than CH admits.  First, we know that better designs are possible because they exist in other organisms.  Giraffe necks are made out of the same seven neck vertebrae that we have, but this is only a constraint due to evolutionary history: hummingbirds (not being mammals) have 14 neck verterbrae.  In a world that contains squirrels and monkeys, you don’t have to be either a genius or a metaphysical philosopher to realize that tree kangaroos are not the epitome of adaptation to life in trees. There are many similar examples, although few are quite so comical.  This is an evidence-based conclusion.

Secondly, claims about ‘what biological designs ought to be like’ only get made in the most obvious of cases (like the giraffe's nerve, above).  The argument tends not to be how wings ought to work for birds or for bats, nor whether the basic tetrapod forelimb and its modifications work better for bats or for birds, but that all birds possess one version of the basic tetrapod forelimb, whereas all bats possess a different version.  The easiest explanation, given substantial overlaps in function between bird wings and bat wings, is that one set of solutions happened in some ancestral bird and has been inherited by all subsequent birds, whereas a different set of solutions happened in some bat ancestor and has since been inherited by all bats.  Similarly, but at another level, the commonalities in all tetrapod limbs are best explained by common inheritance.  If we go into subgroups of birds, we see additional patterns of shared similarities within groups and differences between groups.  As we get into finer and finer taxonomic levels, we are increasingly likely to run into difficulties with convergence.  However, CH initially claimed that convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels (as between thylacines and wolves), when it is not so much, and that biologists ignore convergence, when they study it with great care and considerable interest.

(edited to change "vertebrate" to "tetrapod", in order to exclude fish from the discussion.)
Posted by: k.e on Jan. 30 2007,22:46

Gee CH .....You poured on more Nuance and Obscurantism, and STILL couldn't fool them!

Find an easier audience.

Isn't the DI only interested in teenagers?

You might like to look up the meaning of 'canard' and 'red herring' and throw in more nuance while you ring around for a compliant creationist crowd.

You even adjusted your right wing rhetoric....you toned down the bitching  ...when you can fake sincerity they say you've made it.

You need to be careful there though...don't forget to remind the audience why you are doing what you're doing.

Like this guy
Who has no problems nailing his colors to the mast.


New Mexico House sponsor Rep. W.C. “Dub” Williams, R-Glencoe sponsor of Senate Bill 371, “SCHOOL SCIENCE CONTENT STANDARDS,” and Senate Joint Memorial 9, “OBJECTIVE TEACHING OF BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS.”



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

“However we evolved, we’re here. What we evolved from we will never figure out,” Williams said. “There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this and if you have the faith I have, God did it all.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



....yeah .......yeah I know that seems a nonsequitur to you.

All you are worried about is how god decided to let his designs seem to appear evolved rather than plain outright easily identifiable as designed like a Ford or GM car.

Instantly recognizable as pointing to a designer.... clear as day because the design is clearly separate from the object as determined by your neurons.

What you want to say is..."look at these two wolves god decided he needed a wolf so he made a wolf 'design 'and then let evolution fill in the gaps."

Now since you can read the mind of god all you have to do is say to anyone who will listen to the 'trvth'….” the very fact that we have a wolf design independent of evolution; that itself is evidence for the designer.”

Oh it's all so clear now.....yawn ...pathetic.

Lenny's questions? Any progress?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 31 2007,23:21

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, it need not be carried by all mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummmm...
Common Descent = Nested Hierarchy
ALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.
Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.
If you want to discuss nested hierarchies then I'll probably have to channel Zachrial to this thread as he has numerous recent posts trying to explain this subject to a JoeG (over on the UD thread).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My questions are NOT burden of proof questions.  The questions are based on sound logic so that your argumentary claims can be logically LINKED to one another.  Without some type of answer (notice that you only have to answer one of them) then you don't have a linked comparative argument.  You just have two seperate observations that result in seperate answers.  There is NO claim you can make by comparing the two observations without some logical (NOTE: NOT EVIDENTIAL BUT LOGICAL) underpinnings to your statements.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm merely asking how those similarities, that happen to fit the evolutionary pattern, are supposed to count as powerful evidence. Of course evolution has an explanation, as you outlined above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you agree that my answers count as powerful evidence?
If you don't agree then you have to answer one of my questions to logically link the statements.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer to my question, according to standard evolutionary theory is, as Theobald concisely put it: "In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs)."

In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote.  You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made.  In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement.  Context in quoted phrases is important.

Maybe in your world view there has to be a "reason" associated with the use of similar design.  However, as the answers I gave above indicate there is NO puzzle to the functional dissimilarity of the pentadactyl homology in mammals.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, no one but IDists seem to claim "optimum or efficient design".  I know I don't in my answer (nor does Theobold).  The only evolutionary claim made is that the pattern need only have enough function to support the organism.  This function, over time, may be "optimized" where version 2 (being a slight modification of version 1 due to evolutinary mechanisms) is better adapted to the function when compared to version 1.  However this is not "optimum design" nor does it have to be "efficient design".  There is no "best design" in the evolutionary pentadactyl pattern, only usefull function.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this is a strawman argument that you tried to create by claiming that pentadactyl limbs need to have "optimal or efficient design".

I'm blowing your straw down and you should look at my counter-point to your "optimal or efficient design" claim above and answer this first before making any conclusions based upon your "optimal or efficient design" claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent).  Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward.  I'm confused with this response.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 01 2007,11:56

Among us, we seem to have sliced, diced, shredded, and decimated this guy's "claims."  To the point of duplication, in some instances (but that's okay--duplication's a covert metaphor for how "bigger" changes can occur, not to mention that--on the level of discourse--making much the same point from different angles or with different words or examples may benefit someone out there...).

Odd though that Corny is just sitting back, allowing the shredding to proceed without even token opposition.

'Fraid?  "Busy"?  

Lurkers should note this common IDiot behavior pattern: they seem to have plenty of time to waltz onto the stage making bold claims, and to hang in there for one or two rounds of shredding, but then they can't seem to find the time to "stay the course" when the going gets tough, or to respond with evidence, specific answers to pointed questions, little things like that...

Time is of course a precious commodity.  If only these chaps would give some thought to that rather obvious fact of life before they first opened their yaps.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2007,12:18

Steviepinhead:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Among us, we seem to have sliced, diced, shredded, and decimated this guy's "claims."  To the point of duplication, in some instances (but that's okay--duplication's a covert metaphor for how "bigger" changes can occur, not to mention that--on the level of discourse--making much the same point from different angles or with different words or examples may benefit someone out there...).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Has Dr. Hunter ever clarified his views on what homoplasy implies for common descent? Or does he think the term "homoplasy" is circular?

I don't know anything about his views outside this thread. I hope he hasn't abandoned this board.  :angry:
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,19:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 01 2007,12:18)
I hope he hasn't abandoned this board.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*I* hope he answers my #### questions.  (shrug)
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Feb. 02 2007,02:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: Uh, if anyone is skilled and  can translate Mr. Hunter's statements from vague jargonese into clear english,  post a version of it, please?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You and many others have repeatedly argued against falsification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, how? Can you repost where I did this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, in an earlier post you wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to say " but this is merely subjective"  uh...okay. Gosh, Waterloo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a sarcastic way of saying "you've not falsified my position." If you agree that the claim that homologies are powerful evidence for evolution is subjective, then we're on the same page.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: It's sort of interesting: I assume (perhaps mistakenly, given the ambiguity of how Mr. Hunter has been posting) that he's essentially asking HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories. Can we justify our assumptions there? [...]

Well, here's the deal:

I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: In the past, prior to the genetic revolution and evo-devo studies, yep, there was a lot more seeming arbitrariness in placing things into "homology v. homoplasy" categories. But even a cursory scan of the relevant literature today has yielded me a bounty of information on the very topic...in just ten minutes, I gathered these papers:

Now, I have no particular interest in this area ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be appealing to the genetic revolution.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: When asked what specific characters Mr. Hunter finds "equal and greater in similarity" to pentadactyly...Mr Hunter has yet to respond.  I would wager that what Mr. Hunter will present is not a single character, but rather a suite of characters, i.e. they look alike in teeth, skull shape, quadrupedal body form, etc. Is there a term for this sort of fallacy in comparing one to many?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Arrggh!! You have anticipated my next move. I was amassing a mammoth list (I'm on page 167, single-spaced) of incredible similarities. But of course, it is all a grand fallacy. The dreaded one-to-many fallacy, as you point out. How foolish to think that anything could stand up to the bat versus horse limb similarity:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

One can easily see that they must share a common ancestor. What powerful evidence!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
N. Wells wrote: There do seem to be features in organisms that, when we look at them, we think, "wow, even I could have designed that better", so we do make some intuitive arguments along these lines.  The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is a good example here.

However, there is much more substance and depth to these sorts of arguments than CH admits.  First, we know that better designs are possible because they exist in other organisms.  Giraffe necks are made out of the same seven neck vertebrae that we have, but this is only a constraint due to evolutionary history: hummingbirds (not being mammals) have 14 neck verterbrae.  In a world that contains squirrels and monkeys, you don’t have to be either a genius or a metaphysical philosopher to realize that tree kangaroos are not the epitome of adaptation to life in trees. There are many similar examples, although few are quite so comical.  This is an evidence-based conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, agreed. I did not mean to say there is no reasonable evidence for functionally non optimal biological designs. My comments were directed at the pentadactyl pattern. Given the substantial differences between the horse and bat limbs, for instance, and given that we've never built a horse or a bat, it seems that it would be difficult for us to be certain that those designs are substantially inefficient.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
N. Wells wrote: Secondly, claims about ‘what biological designs ought to be like’ only get made in the most obvious of cases (like the giraffe's nerve, above).  The argument tends not to be how wings ought to work for birds or for bats, nor whether the basic tetrapod forelimb and its modifications work better for bats or for birds, but that all birds possess one version of the basic tetrapod forelimb, whereas all bats possess a different version.  The easiest explanation, given substantial overlaps in function between bird wings and bat wings, is that one set of solutions happened in some ancestral bird and has been inherited by all subsequent birds, whereas a different set of solutions happened in some bat ancestor and has since been inherited by all bats. Similarly, but at another level, the commonalities in all tetrapod limbs are best explained by common inheritance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
N. Wells wrote: CH initially claimed that convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels (as between thylacines and wolves), when it is not so much, and that biologists ignore convergence, when they study it with great care and considerable interest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I did not claim that "convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels." I used it as an example of one of the many problems with the "homology is powerful evidence" claim. Nor did I say that biologists ignore convergence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

Me: No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

Mike PSS responds:
Ummmm...
Common Descent = Nested Hierarchy
ALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.
Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are confusing observations with predictions. I was merely pointing out that evolution does not maintain that the pentadactyl pattern must be carried by all mammals or, by extension, that homologies must be present in all species in a lineage (otherwise evolution would have been falsified long ago).


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote.  You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made.  In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement.  Context in quoted phrases is important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was quoting from Theobald's post.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent).  Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward.  I'm confused with this response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that you have diluted the evolutionary claim to make it defensible. The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling. This is supposed to be powerful evidence. Look here:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Do you seriously expect anyone, except for evolutionists, to find this convincing? People just roll their eyes at this stuff. I suggest you come up with something better than "we're puzzled by this so it is powerful evidence for evolution."
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 02 2007,03:35

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 02 2007,02:50)
...etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sir,
You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions.
Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 02 2007,06:28

C.H.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People just roll their eyes at this stuff
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are of course aware that that is the well known logical fallacy

Argumentum populus iustus oculae volvo ?


Not quite as well known as the "Joseph Goebbels   shuffle" distract the hoi poloi with the old three card shuffle and If you are going to tell a lie make sure its a big one

So whats in your hand behind your back C.H. ?

The answers to Lenny's questions?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 02 2007,06:30

Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it:
1. You arrive and say


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).
Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

5. Repeat #1.

Very cute, sir!
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 02 2007,06:46

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,14:30)
Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it:
1. You arrive and say


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).
Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

5. Repeat #1.

Very cute, sir!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cute in a 4 year old.

Discombobulated in a Post Doc.

Tell me C.H. do you have dreams of standing naked at bus stops?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,07:12

Hey Doc, are you gonna answer my goddamn questions, or aren't you . . . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,07:27

In case you've forgotten my simple questions, Doc:

*ahem*



DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.






IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?





Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?



For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?
(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?,  and
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 02 2007,07:49

Mr. Hunter: A few additional thoughts. Note that I have given responses to your questions and that I would hope that fairness and honesty in debate would compel you to respond to the questions of others directly.

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory? If you assert it is not "theory-laden", can you please explain your association with DI?

2. How did you determine that  characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim? Was it due to "theory-laden" observations? On this point, I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than  "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"
 
4. Varying degrees of subjectivity and falsifiability are  different things, sir. I suggest you learn what falisifiability is before you go equating the two. Falsifiability, in Popper's terms, primarily involves conceiving of a statement/observation that would negate claim X. Many "subjective" claims can be falsified.
If, for instance, a person claims that theory-laden observations are inferior to those observations done without such theoretical "baggage," then this is an undemonstrated subjective claim.
Such a claim can be falsified by pointing to observations that are "theory-laden" ( such as evolutionary theory) and showing that the observations in question are the best-supported we have, in addition to fulfilling other criteria such as testability, repeatability, etc. Conversely, I don't know of any other "theory-laden" observations that provide the breadth and depth of explanatory and predictive value that evolutionary theory has in regard to observations such as the fossil record and it's interrelations to comparative anatomical observations and genetic/evo-devo.
These facts run counter to your subjective view of " inferior theory-laden" observations (beyond the fact that you have yet to even demonstrate that "theory-unladen" scientific observations even exist at all...much less the notion of "unladen" observations in general) Got it?

I eagerly await your direct and concisely unambiguous responses.
Posted by: phonon on Feb. 02 2007,09:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you agree, Cornelius, that ID is sufficiently characterized as a "research program... based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions?" Since you didn't want to mischaracterize it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.


All you are doing Cornelius is to make the common descent vs. common design argument over and over and over. Sorry that I'm not providing a dissertation in this comment box, but when all available evidence is taken into account common descent is the better of the two explanations.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Please re-read your own statements. You obviously have a problem with common descent, then you say that common descent is no problem. You say that the evolutionary claim is that homology is evidence of common descent, then you say that this is not the case, that the evolutionary claim is that homology must be "compelling" evidence. I think you should seriously consider running for public office. I think you'd do well.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 02 2007,09:55

Mr. Hunter,
I can't quite accuse you of obfuscation (yet).  You responded (thank you) BUT you didn't quite capture everything that I was saying.  That makes your responses either incomplete in reasoning or incorrect in conclusions.

   
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 02 2007,03:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

Me: No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

Mike PSS responds:
Ummmm...
Common Descent = Nested Hierarchy
ALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.
Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are confusing observations with predictions. I was merely pointing out that evolution does not maintain that the pentadactyl pattern must be carried by all mammals or, by extension, that homologies must be present in all species in a lineage (otherwise evolution would have been falsified long ago).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you were not.  You were using the pentadactyl pattern as supporting data to your argument.  ANY statements made specifically about pentadactyl patterns must hold true to the facts UNLESS you clarify your point.  You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals."  That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.  To correctly answer without confusing the subject you could easily have stated the more general observation about homologous structures.  But you chose pentadactyl and that is what I countered.

Also, it seems you understand the point about nested hierarchies as a structure to map out homologies but don't accept the concept.  The Wiki page you reference has a lot of pictures of the pentadactyl pattern, and ALL of the creatures pictured happen to fit within the "pentadactyl nested hierarchy".  If you don't understand what this means then we can get into more detail about the evolutionary claims related to nested hierarchies.  We could then create a picture map of "placenta nested hierarchies" and "marsupial nested hierarchies".  But I think what your missing in this whole structure is the basic tree of life structure that the evolutionary claim has created.

< Tree of Life >

When any of the above hierarchies are mapped onto the tree of life you will see a single source point for the claimed structure and every creature below that point will have homology with that claimed structure.  The homology map of the structure will not travel upward, or to other branches or twigs.

So let's be a bit less semantic and a bit more factual in the claims and comments.  The evolutionary claim is clear with supporting points both within biology and external to show that a nested hierarchy of the pentadactyl limb is strong evidence of common descent supported by the nested hierarchy that was created by factual analysis of present day animals (biology), fossils (paleontology), limb analysis (physiology), limb function (biology/physics), and many other data points.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote.  You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made.  In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement.  Context in quoted phrases is important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was quoting from Theobald's post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said.  In other words you were using a selective quote AND a faulty conclusion without providing contextual support from Theobald.  Give the board the whole Theobald article, or the context around the quote and we'll see more clearly whether your conclusions fit the quote.

Specifically I would like to see if Theobald's use of the term "puzzled" fits your interpretation and subsequent claim of the term "puzzled".  THAT is why I need more information.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent).  Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward.  I'm confused with this response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that you have diluted the evolutionary claim to make it defensible. The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling. This is supposed to be powerful evidence. Look here:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Do you seriously expect anyone, except for evolutionists, to find this convincing? People just roll their eyes at this stuff. I suggest you come up with something better than "we're puzzled by this so it is powerful evidence for evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for clarifying.
My answer is contained in my responses above relating to the tree of life.  There is a lot more information behind the answer "Common Descent".  Maybe in my answers I'll have to assume the questioner has NO knowledge of the theory of evolution.  That way I can explain (like I did above) that there is a structure, with supporting data, that exists to support the "Common Descent" conclusion.  Because contained within this structure is NON-CONTRADICTORY evidence based upon the interpretation of data within an evolutionary framework.  The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

Do I really need to explain this to you?
Or are you really saying that evolutionists are not good salespeople with the theory?

Mike PSS
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 02 2007,13:46

GoP, if there was any reasonable hope that this guy was going to come back and get specific, then I might have joined your appeal to CH that he not precipitately "abandon" (horrors!) our little board...

But, despite your heavy hint--and the explicit requests from several others--that he come back and tell us in plain English what characters he's talking about and how he thinks these non-nested homologies do or don't challenge the powerfully-compelling nested hierarchies of common descent, Mr. Hunter instead took several days to mull things over but still came back with nothing the predictable handwaving vagaries and vapors.

Leaving any number of very pointed and trenchant questions unanswered.  The guy gives every indication of being a rather run-of-the-mill sort of maroon, and not even a very interesting or entertaining one.

At this point, I could care less whether he shows up again or not.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,17:59

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Feb. 02 2007,13:46)
At this point, I could care less whether he shows up again or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just want him to answer my #### questions.  (shrug)

No chance of that though, right Doc . . . .?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,18:04

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 02 2007,07:27)
Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It occurs to me that there might be some newbie lurkers out there who haven't heard about Mr Ahmanson.  So I offer:

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8).

The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."  

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself.  However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

And now that everyone knows the sort of company that Doc Hunter keeps, maybe NOW he will  . . . uh . . .  answer my #### questions.

Or, even better, maybe he will NOT.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 02 2007,23:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh no, if you were wasting your time as an entertainer, we wouldn't have made a thread for you!

you're doin' fine, keep it up.

your contortions and spin moves are better than Cirque du Solei!

It's definetly fun to watch, and not a waste of my time, at least, to observe it and show my friends.

bravo!

billy asked me if you will jump through a flaming hoop or do some sword swallowing next?

BTW, Lenny:

thanks, that bit on Ahmanson was exactly the kind of thing I love you for.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 03 2007,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, Lenny:

thanks, that bit on Ahmanson was exactly the kind of thing I love you for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I couldn't agree more Ichthyic.

10/10 for idiot grinding.

Dr.C.H. and the rest of them can run but they can't hide the fact they are tied up with the worst possible scum imaginable.

I don't have the slightest sympathy for them.
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Feb. 05 2007,01:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: 1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. Let's go back to your point and I'll try to do a better job of explaining the problem:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?” First, this question is misphrased.  The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance.  In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance.   Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are preaching to the choir. The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: 3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than  "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deadman, you are beating a dead horse. We've already compared the pentadactyl pattern with the skin stretched between the fore and hindfeet of the phalanger and flying squirrel. Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phonon wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems ... explanations such as yours above fail to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you agree that homologies, on their own, are not powerful evidence for evolution? Because it is not the only so-called "powerful" evidence with problems.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS wrote: You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals."  That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, my statement was correct. Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was quoting from Theobald's post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said.  In other words you were using a selective quote AND a faulty conclusion without providing contextual support from Theobald.  Give the board the whole Theobald article, or the context around the quote and we'll see more clearly whether your conclusions fit the quote.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is the entire Theobald post:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theobald wrote:
The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS wrote:
The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,01:48

HEY!

Cirque du Hunter is back!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



nyah nyah.

gees, one would think you could be the bigger man, if you felt your position so strong.

i guess you don't.

*shrug*



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please be careful. (nice bit of patronizing idiocy to start with a comment like that) My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



totall and utter BS.  it's like saying I show you a picture of a rock, and you say it's open to interpretation that it might be a bird instead, and make the assumption that just because everbody else thinks it's a rock, that doesn't make it so.

I'm sure there is a name for the logical fallacy you just pulled out of your ass there, but it escapes me at the moment.

your continued detailing of the "problem" just digs you in deeper, rather than elucidates any logical argument on your part.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman, you are beating a dead horse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



no, he's not, as YOU are the one who keeps raising the issue in order to start your cycle of idiocy all over again.

hmm, not so much beating a dead horse, as a phoenix-from-the-ashes kind of thing on your part.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you agree that homologies, on their own, are not powerful evidence for evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's not at all what he said.  just stop it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh, just restating your eroneous conclusion does not make it so.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



no, idiot, he was describing the definition of homology as used in evolutionary theory, by showing which was an example of it, and which is not.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



indeed it is, and when you come up with anything remotely credible, we will be able to discuss it intelligently.

you have yet to do so, however.

oh, almost forgot:

Billy repeats his request for you to either do some knife swallowing or jump through a flaming hoop.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 05 2007,07:15

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,01:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's for me to answer?  You don't know the difference between "homology" and "analogy".  That's not MY fault.  (shrug)

As I said before, IDers ***NEVER*** answer my questions.  None of them.  Not Sal Cordova.  Not Paul Nelson.  Not you.

As I also said before, it doesn't matter.  My questions make their point all by themselves.  I don't need your cooperation.  

Although it does help emphasize the point when all of you refuse to answer.  Makes it look like . . . well . . . you all have something to hide.

Which, of course, you DO.

I will ask my questions again.  And again and again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer them or run away.  I'm a very patient man.



*ahem*

DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.






IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?





Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?



For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?
(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?,  and
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 05 2007,07:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I said before, IDers ***NEVER*** answer my questions.  None of them.  Not Sal Cordova.  Not Paul Nelson.  Not you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Considering we already know the answer and they know we know the answer you would think they would be running around making up all sorts of stories to cover those facts up.

Or shock horror admit they are a bunch of lying sleazebags and they were going to resign and change their ways like Haggard.

........Oh wait they're not Gay.

Bwhahahhahahahhahhahahahahahaha.


.....hey C.H. how do you feel when a Gay drug taking preacher who spent his parishners cash on his hobbies is more honest than you and homophobe Howard Ahmanson?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 05 2007,08:44

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,02:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theobald wrote:
The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Theobald indicates that the similarity is superficially puzzling, but makes perfect sense if you consider common ancestry.  You seem to have this exactly backwards.

And you never responded to my previous comment about structure vs. proportions.  Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again.  Look at dog breeds.  They all share a basic dog structure, but the proportions of the structure can vary tremendously.  So it seems far easier for differences in prportions to evolve than it is for differences in structure.

Seriously, dude, this should stuff should be pretty easy to understand.  Maybe you should look into taking an intro bio course at a local community college or something.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 05 2007,08:49

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,02:31)
This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would have been WAY more impressive if you had actually come up with examples of evidence against evolution.
Posted by: N.Wells on Feb. 05 2007,10:20

[quote=Cornelius Hunter,Feb. 05 2007,01:31][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CH, addressing various people):
Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory.
......  

The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."
.....

We've already compared the pentadactyl pattern with the skin stretched between the fore and hindfeet of the phalanger and flying squirrel. Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




CH,

I’m going to repeat some of what I said earlier, because I think I already answered your points.  Theory holds and observations confirm that functionally important features are subject to considerable selective pressure, so we expect many overall similarities between unrelated organisms that are doing similar things.  However, when similarities are arrived at through separate evolutionary histories, then we should also see significant differences within or underlying the grossly similar features, and most of those differences that are not brand new innovations should be consistent with features of the ancestral group rather than with features of the morphologically analogous group.  Differences should be especially obvious in parts of the feature that aren't functionally important or which resolve a functional problem in substantially different ways.

The various forms of the vertebrate forelimbs are therefore important evidence for evolution because 1) they share fundamental similarities, 2) at the same time they fall into subsets that are characterized by shared differences (differences between the subgroups but shared within them), and 3) in both cases, the similarities and the differences are better explained by evolutionary history than by design.

A good specific example of this is bats, birds, and pterosaurs.  They all fly and all have wings.  In each of them, the wing is made of a scapula, one upper-arm bone (the humerus), and two lower-arm bones (the radius and the ulna).   There is no particular reason to make a wing with those particular bones: insect wings work fine with no bones whatsoever, for example.  If you were making wings for hovering (humingbirds), dynamic soaring (albatrosses, large pterosaurs), strong pumping flight (geese, sparrows), swimming (penguins), and waving around to impress potential mates (ostriches), it is unlikely that you would want to make wings out of the same basic components.  (Since when are helicopters, submarines,  sailplanes, and 747s constrained to utilize the same basic construction?)  

However, underneath that unnecessary basic similarity, each group has a significantly different type of wing construction, with features that are unique to each group.  Birds have feathers, alulas, & fusion of fingers 2 & 3; pterosaurs have pteroid bones and the tip of their wing is supported by an extremely long “little finger”, and bats have highly reduced ulnas, with four fingers stretching out to the tips of the wing.  And again, many of the differences between the groups of fliers tie each type to their ancestral group rather than to other types of fliers (i.e., other functional groups): early birds had reptilian tails and teeth, and even modern birds lay reptilian eggs with chorion, allantois, and amnion membranes.  Bats have fur and give milk.  We see this pattern extending down into genetic and biochemical character traits, and it is also widespread (albeit with some notably complex and confusing exceptions) in the fossil records of the various groups.

The best evidence for homology is found when we see the same embryological tissues contribute to a feature in two different organisms, when the same genes are activated during the feature's construction, when the same developmental pathways are utilized, and when the same bones end up in much the same places in the same basic relationships to adjacent bones, nerves, blood vessels, and so forth. Then we can make a reasonably secure claim of homology.  If we additionally have a fossil record that shows similar structures or a gradation of change in probable intermediates then the claim is that much stronger.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 05 2007,14:59

Let's begin correcting your errors, Mr. Hunter:
First, you begin by posting a quote from me:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: 1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You then say : "Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. "

I assure you, Mr. Hunter, I am quite careful in how I use words. You are not, however. You stated that evidence drawn from paleontology, evo-devo, genetics, etc. is "theory-laden" and I asked a specific set of questions to you about your circular mode of denying the relevance of those data:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it:
1. You arrive and say    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).
Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"
3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.
4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;
5. Repeat #1.
Very cute, Sir!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this you have replied:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But you say you won't accept genetic, paleontological, evo-devo evidence of this because it is tautological and "theory-laden"

Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it.

I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl. I find that genetic information and evo-devo data exist that indicate this common shared character has a strong and relatively unchanged time-span on this planet. I therefore will take that data to mean things on this planet are connected and have a deep time-frame in which they arose. I can do this without any evolutionary framework at all in my mind.

Now, I will ask you once again...WHAT CHARACTER/TRAIT in THYLACINES and WOLVES do you want me to compare this evidence to?

Be specific, Mr. Hunter and make sure you don't merely cite a suite of characters/traits...and please don't just point to a cartoon and say "those," because I want to finish this little thought experiment in epistemology, Mr. Hunter.

Oh, and you mentioned this about my example of patagium in phalangers/flying squirrels and pentadactyly:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it's not subjective or circular , and that is a misrepresentation of what I did say. I specifically noted that the flying squirrel and phalanger don't have structurally identical patagium...BUT their pentadactyly IS precisely the same. Further, I am in fact arguing that skin attachments and increased skin area in between attachments IS in fact easier for a strain of animals to change than basic bone structure...why do I say that? Because we have no large-scale evidence of septadactyly or octadactyly to point to. We have only pentadactyl mammals on the planet. We have only a few gliding mammals. Further, we can conduct experiments showing that basic bauplan features are far less susceptible to mutation and alteration than skin attachments to bone, especially under selection by the environment and reproductive success. None of these observations or experiments would NECCESSARILY involve any preconceived "theory-laden" position on my part.

You also claimed erroneously that I had said this:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman wrote: Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?” First, this question is misphrased.  The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance.  In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance.   Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was N.Wells here: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48807 >

Now, Mr. Hunter, can you please address my points that I made?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr. Hunter: A few additional thoughts. Note that I have given responses to your questions and that I would hope that fairness and honesty in debate would compel you to respond to the questions of others directly.

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory? If you assert it is not "theory-laden", can you please explain your association with DI?

2. How did you determine that  characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim? Was it due to "theory-laden" observations? On this point, I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than  "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"
 
4. Varying degrees of subjectivity and falsifiability are  different things, sir. I suggest you learn what falisifiability is before you go equating the two. Falsifiability, in Popper's terms, primarily involves conceiving of a statement/observation that would negate claim X. Many "subjective" claims can be falsified.
If, for instance, a person claims that theory-laden observations are inferior to those observations done without such theoretical "baggage," then this is an undemonstrated subjective claim.
Such a claim can be falsified by pointing to observations that are "theory-laden" ( such as evolutionary theory) and showing that the observations in question are the best-supported we have, in addition to fulfilling other criteria such as testability, repeatability, etc. Conversely, I don't know of any other "theory-laden" observations that provide the breadth and depth of explanatory and predictive value that evolutionary theory has in regard to observations such as the fossil record and it's interrelations to comparative anatomical observations and genetic/evo-devo.
These facts run counter to your subjective view of " inferior theory-laden" observations (beyond the fact that you have yet to even demonstrate that "theory-unladen" scientific observations even exist at all...much less the notion of "unladen" observations in general) Got it?

I eagerly await your direct and concisely unambiguous responses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this is to be seen as an actual exchange of claims/supporting evidence, then you have to actually respond to posts fully, Mr. Hunter, not just the parts you like.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 05 2007,15:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 05 2007,17:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,15:21)
Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd love to hear it too.  I've been asking for DECADES to see a scientific theory of creation or ID, along with a demonstration of how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, all I have ever gotten are various versions of "Jesus saves!" or "I don't have to tell you."

It's almost enough to make me think that . . . well . . . there *IS NO* scientific theory of creation or ID, and all those creation "scientists" and ID "theorists" are just . . .  well . . . LYING to us when they claim there is.

Are IDers lying to us when they claim there is a scientific theory of ID, Doc . . . . ?

If so, then Judge Jones was right, wasn't he.

If not, then . . . um . . . would you mind then telling us what that scientific theory of ID *is*?

Thanks in advance for not answering any of these questions.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 05 2007,18:02

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,02:31)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS wrote: You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals."  That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, my statement was correct. Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, your statement was incorrect for the reasons noted.  Pentadactyl pattern MUST be part of the mammilian body plan or else the nested hierarchy (thus common descent thus a large part of evolutionary theory) has a big issue to overcome.

The GENERAL statement about homology IS correct, when stated in the light of a nested hierarchy.

Do you agree that a nested hierarchy of organisms is formed from homologous structures?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the entire Theobald post:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theobald wrote:
The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you ignore the bolded writing in the Theobald quote then you have come to the wrong conclusions.  If you notice the bolded writing then you must admit that Theobald agrees with me (how presumptuous of me).  The bolded statement means the pentadactyl limb pattern forms a nested hierarchy BECAUSE OF COMMON DESCENT.
{cue Jackie Chan: "Do yu unnerstan the wurds cummin out of mi mouth?"  Chris Tucker:  "####, nobody understands the words coming out of your mouth!")

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS wrote:
The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very philisophical of you.
Do you have any contrary evidence or are you just whinging here.
I think Deadman got on the bandwagon and asked for some logical link between your "similarity claim" of pentadactyl versus thylacine/wolf.  I asked you that a few days ago.  Remember?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My questions are NOT burden of proof questions.  The questions are based on sound logic so that your argumentary claims can be logically LINKED to one another.  Without some type of answer (notice that you only have to answer one of them) then you don't have a linked comparative argument.  You just have two seperate observations that result in seperate answers.  There is NO claim you can make by comparing the two observations without some logical (NOTE: NOT EVIDENTIAL BUT LOGICAL) underpinnings to your statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mike PSS
***********************
TO THE BOARD...
Is it me or are we having the same conversation on page 5 as on page 1, page 2, and page 3?
When his bio outline has the following...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics. He is Adjunct Professor of Biophysics at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science, and the forthcoming 2006 book Science's Blindspot (Baker/Brazos Press).

Dr. Hunter's research interests include optimal estimation and control of nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics.  Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution involves both the scientific, historical and theological aspects of the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would think that Dr. Hunter would have a fairly clear and concise rebuttal for almost every point we've made.  Because the scientific, historical and theological facts of evolution are his own interest.
{cue Mugato:  "Tigra, Magnum, Blue Steel, there all the same!!!  Doesn't anyone notice this but me?!?!"}

Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 06 2007,13:19

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,01:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?...

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.

How about this one. What exactly is the scientific theory/hypothesis of ID?

Surely that one is easy to answer.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 06 2007,18:46

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2007,13:19)
Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he's not un-ABLE, he's un-WILLING.

He knows just as well as I do just what *honest* answers would do to the ID movement.

Just ask Judge Jones.

(snicker) (giggle)
Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Feb. 07 2007,00:30

Hmm, this one reminds me of my least favorite Taxi Driver. Considering the level of smarm, I dub Coney Hunter the Limo Driver.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 07 2007,12:06

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 06 2007,18:46)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2007,13:19)
Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he's not un-ABLE, he's un-WILLING.

He knows just as well as I do just what *honest* answers would do to the ID movement.

Just ask Judge Jones.

(snicker) (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes Lenny, I know.

I was being polite. Well sorta.

SteveStory has recently convinced me that his method of moderation is sound.

Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*

*That last paragraph was not Steve's words, just my interpretation.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 07 2007,14:40

Stephen Elliot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Also, it lets the lurkers see the vast range of evidence the creationists have to combat. People who have read this thread and have followed the references have a much better appreciation of how scientists distinguish between homology and homoplasy. The molecular evidence alone shows that marsupial wolves are wolves in name only. This thread also demonstrates how creationists exaggerate the similarities between thylacines and wolves.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 07 2007,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This thread also demonstrates how creationists exaggerate the similarities between thylacines and wolves.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's an understatement, given the pictorial evidence Wes presented.

;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 07 2007,17:34

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 07 2007,12:06)
Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, I've been asking them questions for YEARS now.  The SAME questions. And never getting any answers.

As for whining about "persecution", they will whine anyway.  No matter WHAT we do or don't do.  Just like they did after they got their holy little asses kicked in Dover.   (shrug)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 07 2007,20:01

too bad you quit PT, Lenny.

Sal is busy over in two threads there as I write this.

I'm sure he'd love to answer the questions you have for him.

;)
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 07 2007,20:33

What the heck, Lenny I ain't, but I undertook, in my humble pinheaded way, to at least remind Sal--or, more importantly, that "vast" ocean of lurkers--that Sal has left a few pretty basic questions unanswered:

Steviepinhead on the Evo Sunday thread on PT:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Sal, as long as you’ve reappeared here, however incoherently–

Aren’t we still waiting for your answers to Lenny’s simple, easy, little list of questions?

You know, like what the heck IS the “theory” of Intelligent Design in the first frickin’ place?

And, while we’re at it, where oh where, anywhere in the world, are there any ID-espousing scientists who are actually working in labs or the field to “test” any of ID’s hypotheses, whatever they are?

Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath for you to trip all over yourself being honest, articulate, and forthcoming with, ahem, answers to any of these obvious and seemingly easy-to-answer-if-only-ID-were-science questions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...Could possibly prove entertaining.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 07 2007,21:10

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Feb. 07 2007,20:33)
What the heck, Lenny I ain't, but I undertook, in my humble pinheaded way, to at least remind Sal--or, more importantly, that "vast" ocean of lurkers--that Sal has left a few pretty basic questions unanswered:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet Sal talks pretty bravely when I'm not around . . .

If he shoots his mouth off too much, a surprise visit could certainly be arranged.

;)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 07 2007,22:18

don't bother.

Matt Young is playing mr. good cop on that thread right now.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 08 2007,06:10

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 07 2007,22:18)
don't bother.

Matt Young is playing mr. good cop on that thread right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that takes all the fun right out of it, huh.

:(
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 08 2007,06:20

One of the reasons I left PT is because it had been taken over by PZ's Puppies, who wanted to do nothing more than wage pointless religious wars.

Does that situation continue?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 08 2007,06:24

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 05 2007,17:45)
I've been asking for DECADES to see a scientific theory of creation or ID, along with a demonstration of how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, all I have ever gotten are various versions of "Jesus saves!" or "I don't have to tell you."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, by his utter silence,  I guess the implied answer from Dr Hunter to my simple question is "I dont have to tell you".


I'm shocked that he won't answer any of my simple questions.

Shocked, I say.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 08 2007,19:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does that situation continue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



haven't had a major religious war thread for a while.

longest thread recently is about Michael Balter's "teach the controversy" proposal.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Feb. 09 2007,03:15

Ah, Balter.  If ever there was a guy who seriously needed a 'Lenny takedown'.  Miss ya at PT, Lenny.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 09 2007,03:31

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 08 2007,06:20)
One of the reasons I left PT is because it had been taken over by PZ's Puppies, who wanted to do nothing more than wage pointless religious wars.

Does that situation continue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is quite a big topic and probably should have it's own thread. Direct answers to that statement would probably go "all over the place"*.

* An English coloquialism that means several things, ie: "could go anywhere" "cause confusion" "create controversy" etc.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2007,14:18

I think Mr. Hunter realized his hand-waving pseudoarguments weren't going to work here.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 09 2007,15:01

In using the word "realize" I think you give the man far too much credit, Steve.

;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 09 2007,17:41

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 09 2007,14:18)
I think Mr. Hunter realized his hand-waving pseudoarguments weren't going to work here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I think Dr Hunter is a gonad-less coward who, like other IDers, runs fast and far away from any conversation where he or his pals don't control the forum.

Not that I'm being impolite towards him, or anything . . . .
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Feb. 12 2007,00:24

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2007,13:19)

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,01:31)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,03:29)
Responding to Flank:
Flank: "Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?"

And what money would that be? Please be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I need the specifics (dates, amounts, and check#’s would be nice) so I can contact DI and have them re-cut and send out those checks I never received. I had no idea they sent me money. I’m thankful to Lenny for apprising me of this, I could use some cash right about now (they’ve got a lot of money, don’t they?)

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)
No, Theobald indicates that the similarity is superficially puzzling,  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it is merely superficially puzzling then why do we need evolution to explain it?

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)
, but makes perfect sense if you consider common ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Makes perfect sense? If this is your claim then we are on the same page, but the evolution claim here is that it is powerful evidence.

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)
And you never responded to my previous comment about structure vs. proportions.  Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again.  Look at dog breeds.  They all share a basic dog structure, but the proportions of the structure can vary tremendously.  So it seems far easier for differences in prportions to evolve than it is for differences in structure. Seriously, dude, this should stuff should be pretty easy to understand.  Maybe you should look into taking an intro bio course at a local community college or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know my questions must seem terribly naďve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?

Quote (N. Wells @ Feb. 05 2007,10:20)
A good specific example of this is bats, birds, and pterosaurs.  They all fly and all have wings.  In each of them, the wing is made of a scapula, one upper-arm bone (the humerus), and two lower-arm bones (the radius and the ulna).   There is no particular reason to make a wing with those particular bones: insect wings work fine with no bones whatsoever, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.

Quote (N. Wells @ Feb. 05 2007,10:20)
If you were making wings for hovering (humingbirds), dynamic soaring (albatrosses, large pterosaurs), strong pumping flight (geese, sparrows), swimming (penguins), and waving around to impress potential mates (ostriches), it is unlikely that you would want to make wings out of the same basic components.  (Since when are helicopters, submarines,  sailplanes, and 747s constrained to utilize the same basic construction?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way? And when they ask “says who?” how do I respond? I’m afraid saying “Evolutionists” isn’t going to cut it.

And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 12 2007,00:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,03:29)
Responding to Flank:
Flank: "Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And what money would that be? Please be specific.  


I need the specifics (dates, amounts, and check#’s would be nice) so I can contact DI and have them re-cut and send out those checks I never received. I had no idea they sent me money. I’m thankful to Lenny for apprising me of this, I could use some cash right about now (they’ve got a lot of money, don’t they?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah the Nuremberg Defense,  "I wasn't paid for being a member of an organisation that was funded by one the the most reviled men in American politics".

Smart Arse.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 12 2007,00:47

So, Mr. Hunter, why did you ignore my posts?  My questions are at the top of the page, Mr. Hunter. I don't think you missed them. What stops you from dealing with them?

Would you like to borrow some ethics? Perhaps a bit of honest inquiry and intellectual courage?
Pfft. And you wonder why people like you get laughed at.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 12 2007,00:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it is merely superficially puzzling then why do we need evolution to explain it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*sigh*

again, you are sending up one strawman after another.

the answer of course is, WE DON'T.

reason:

because we don't need science to explain why something "appears" puzzling to morons.

We don't need science to explain why the earth "looks" flat, either (or at least, we haven't for hundreds of years).

OTOH, evolutionary theory explains homology quite well, as has been amply demonstrated over the last 100 years or so, and touched on yet again in this very thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know my questions must seem terribly naďve,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



actually, they more seem disingenuous and downright dishonest to me.

Oh, and Billy says he's gotten bored with the spins and contortions part of your act.

He wonders if you're nothing more than a one-trick pony?
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Feb. 12 2007,02:18

Addressing the first part of Deadman's post:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
But you say you won't accept genetic, paleontological, evo-devo evidence of this because it is tautological and "theory-laden"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so? It seems strange that the answer is that we need first to understand the evidence in the context of other evidences, most of which were not available to Darwin, for instance. But be that as it may, these other evidences bring along their own problems. I think most people will gladly accept such evidences as supports for the homology evidential argument, but only when they are not force-fit to evolution in the first place. If we brush problems under the rug, then we’re not following the data. Instead, we’re presenting a theory-laden interpretation of the evidences.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it. I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you can dig up fossils with other forms.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
I find that genetic information and evo-devo data exist that indicate this common shared character has a strong and relatively unchanged time-span on this planet. I therefore will take that data to mean things on this planet are connected and have a deep time-frame in which they arose. I can do this without any evolutionary framework at all in my mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well it depends on what you mean by “things on this planet are connected.” If you mean common descent, then this very much does reflect evolutionary thinking. The existence of a character for a long time span in many species does not, in itself, imply common descent.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
Now, I will ask you once again...WHAT CHARACTER/TRAIT in THYLACINES and WOLVES do you want me to compare this evidence to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Look here at the pentadactyl patterns:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Then look here at thylacine:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine >

and see the similarities with Canis lupus:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution.   The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer. Pick any similarity between thylacines and wolves if you feel that will help.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 12 2007,03:32

Mr. Hunter posts my quote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it. I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Hunter replies:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you can dig up fossils with other forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? what other fossils that fit the same pattern of non-reptilian, non -amphibian quadruped carnivore can I dig up that **doesn't** have pentadactyly within the last, oh, say 40 million years of fossil history? Why don't I see other arrangements of multidactyly for those carnivore fossils that fit the mammalian plan in that time period?

Please respond to that and my other questions above, and I will respond to yours fully. You DO want to at least give the IMPRESSION that you're not being disingenuous or deceptive, right?

And by the way, why DOESN'T comparative DNA count for you? I mean besides your claim that it too, is "theory-laden" despite you  being unable to address my questions about "theory-unladen" science above?

You also might want to address what specific alternate scientific theory you have in mind when you bemoan the inclusion of such anatomical/genetic into evolutionary theory? Don't be coy, Mr. Hunter. Be bold and present your alternate theory that can encompass such data.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 12 2007,07:18

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,15:21)
Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.

I'd love to hear it too.  I've been asking for DECADES to see a scientific theory of creation or ID, along with a demonstration of how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, all I have ever gotten are various versions of "Jesus saves!" or "I don't have to tell you."

It's almost enough to make me think that . . . well . . . there *IS NO* scientific theory of creation or ID, and all those creation "scientists" and ID "theorists" are just . . .  well . . . LYING to us when they claim there is.

Are IDers lying to us when they claim there is a scientific theory of ID, Doc . . . . ?

If so, then Judge Jones was right, wasn't he.

If not, then . . . um . . . would you mind then telling us what that scientific theory of ID *is*?

Thanks in advance for not answering any of these questions.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 12 2007,07:20

In case you've forgotten my simple questions, Doc:

*ahem*



DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.






IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?





Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?



For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?
(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?,  and
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 12 2007,09:37

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 12 2007,03:18)
And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer. Pick any similarity between thylacines and wolves if you feel that will help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you're looking at features that are relatively easy to modify (skull size/proportions) vs. ones that are not (pentadactyl pattern).  This seems quite simple, so I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from.  You're comparing structure to proportion.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 12 2007,11:14

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 12 2007,01:24)
I know my questions must seem terribly naďve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do shellfish show a pentadactyl pattern?  But shellfish share some very common traits (the SHELL) while exhibiting vastly different body types (CRAB versus SHRIMP) while maintaining that distinct similarity (the SHELL).

NESTED HIERARCHY Mr. Hunter.  Nowhere in my explanation do I invoke evolutionary terminology OTHER THAN the tree of life.  We can compare similarities in structure (not shape) and function and form a nested hierarchy that will construct a tree of life.  All of this is based upon direct measurement of facts.

Now, the theory of evolution takes these facts and ties them together into the theoretical model that defines common descent.

However, the tree of life, when constructed by measurements of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms IS NOT INVOKING EVOLUTION.

If YOU have a seperate interpretation of the measurement of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms then WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I call Shenanigans.  This statement on Reynold's Number is only used to cofuse the issue.  We aren't aruing about the releative OPTIMUM of design, only that the PATH of design can occur to solve the problem (flight) through seperate paths with seperate structures (pentadactyl on one hand and insect structure on the other).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way? And when they ask “says who?” how do I respond? I’m afraid saying “Evolutionists” isn’t going to cut it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

SO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE SAID INSTEAD OF NOT LIKING WHAT IS BEING SAID.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you done philosiphising?  Are you ready to put your own words down to point out "the problems" you've identified above?  Or are you just going to vent some more.

PLEASE TELL US THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH USING GENETIC AND BIOCHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS TO COMPARE HOMOLOGIES.

Please??
Mike PSS
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 12 2007,12:19

Dr. Hunter:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so? It seems strange that the answer is that we need first to understand the evidence in the context of other evidences, most of which were not available to Darwin, for instance. But be that as it may, these other evidences bring along their own problems. I think most people will gladly accept such evidences as supports for the homology evidential argument, but only when they are not force-fit to evolution in the first place. If we brush problems under the rug, then we’re not following the data. Instead, we’re presenting a theory-laden interpretation of the evidences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So are you saying that evolutionists don't use homology consistently, and if they did, then homology might not support common descent? Please be clear here.

Since I still don't understand your point, let me just say this: When scientists interpret the pentadactyl limb as homologous across tetrapods, they assume that changing the basic structure of the limb bones is more difficult than simply altering their relative proportions. Some scientists may also surmise that a creator is free to modify his (its) designs to maximise their usefulness, so we'd expect substantially different limb structures across creatures in different environments. This evidence is indeed entangled in background assumptions. Yet look where this leads: given the above, the pentadactyl limb suggests a common ancestor for tetrapods under evolutionary theory. The theory then predicts that other measures of relatedness will group tetrapods together relative to other creatures. So look at the pentadactyl limb as a prediction, with subsequent analyses verifying that prediction. Now it's true that you can't use the same evidence to generate and test a hypothesis, so under this reasoning the limbs can't be used as evidence. But it does count as a prediction, and the subsequent morphological and molecular analyses would therefore be powerful evidence for common descent.

So even if you're right, you're wrong.
Posted by: mitschlag on Feb. 12 2007,16:34

Multiple statements by Cornelius Hunter on Feb 12, 2007:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Makes perfect sense? If this is your claim then we are on the same page, but the evolution claim here is that it is powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know my questions must seem terribly naďve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"POWERFUL EVIDENCE" has been a Cornelius Hunter mantra from the beginning of this thread.  I have encountered this terminology in theology and law, but not in a scientific context.  Is there an epistemological point here, or is it empty rhetoric?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 12 2007,17:41

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2007,16:34)
"POWERFUL EVIDENCE" has been a Cornelius Hunter mantra from the beginning of this thread.  I have encountered this terminology in theology and law, but not in a scientific context.  Is there an epistemological point here, or is it empty rhetoric?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Empty rhetoric" is indeed all that the, uh, "scientific theory of ID" consists of.  (shrug)


If Dr Hunter feels otherwise, he is entirely welcome to show us the scientific theory of ID, and explain to us how to test it using the scientific method.

But he won't.

He can't.

There isn't any.  (shrug)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 12 2007,17:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is there an epistemological point here, or is it empty rhetoric?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I trust you meant that as a rhetorical question?
Posted by: N.Wells on Feb. 12 2007,20:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As someone else noted, the Reynold's number difference is more of a red herring than anything else.  (For example, the group of "flying insects" includes a dragonfly with a 6 ft wingspan.)  More importantly, all these flying groups exist, but each group maintains its own unique innovations. Whatever differences you come up with in how the different groups fly will be trumped by the existence of flightless birds, like ostriches and flightless rails, that still maintain basic bird hand-and-wing construction.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those sorts of things pose difficulties, but not insuperable problems.  If all those separate things align, then homology is hard to refute.  If they fail to align and a biologist still thinks the features are homologous (which can happen), then the biologist needs some fancy evidence to support that claim.  If you, CH, want to dispute homology then you have to demonstrate that biochemistry, DNA, developmental histories, and nested hierarchies involving minor nonfunctional features can be achieved other than by common descent.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2007,13:06

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 12 2007,00:24)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2007,13:19)

   
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,01:31)

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So clarify. What is the "Theory of Inteligent Design"?

Sorry Mr. Hunter,
But so far you have answered just about nothing.
Look, I am possibly the least educated person on this board. Yet I have no problem spotting the quality of your "answers".
You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.
Do you think normal people cannot see the evasiveness not only in your "answers" but even in the weasly non-specific questions, worded in such a way as to be able to claim "that is not what I meant" when somebody gives an honest atempt at a reply?

Anyway, an answer to the most basic question would be a start. What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design"?

Don't tell me that is too difficult to answer. If it is (too difficult), maybe ID is not science.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 14 2007,17:57

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:06)
You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, that is the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture  in a nutshell.

The ID movement is nothing but legal evasions and PR.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 14 2007,19:16

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 15 2007,01:57)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:06)
You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, that is the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture  in a nutshell.

The ID movement is nothing but legal evasions and PR.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup that's it.

He's not here to consider careful argument , he's here to preach.

Anything that doesn't agree with his teaspoon of urine as  honey , is just waved away in the time honored fashion of the Priest or Politician.

It must be hard being a failed fraud as well as a failed scientist .......eh CH?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 15 2007,11:21

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 14 2007,17:57)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:06)
You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, that is the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture  in a nutshell.

The ID movement is nothing but legal evasions and PR.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes sir!
I think that I get that.
It just amuses me that ID idiots want to claim a
scientific basis for ID while dodging fair questions.

How old is the Earth/Universe? ID says..."doesn't matter"
Is common descent true? ID says...."Yes and No"

ID is a joke Lenny. That much I do understand.

I arived here as an ID suporter. Didn't take much to see which "side" had facts and evidence (thank you to all those people that lead me to facts).

Funnily enough, I consider most ID iluminaries as sales-men. Debating them would be daft as the buggers are happy to lie.

EDIT:
Cornelious Hunter is a clasic example. I have noticed how he dodges questions.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 15 2007,17:24

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 15 2007,11:21)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 14 2007,17:57)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:06)
You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, that is the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture  in a nutshell.

The ID movement is nothing but legal evasions and PR.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes sir!
I think that I get that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh heck, I know you do.

You were not my intended audience.  ;)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 15 2007,18:44

heh, ya know what we should discuss in this thread instead of thylacines and wolves?

thumbs.

like, oh, i dunno, how about the "thumb" of a black and white bamboo eating mammal, for example?
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 15 2007,19:08

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 15 2007,19:44)
heh, ya know what we should discuss in this thread instead of thylacines and wolves?

thumbs.

like, oh, i dunno, how about the "thumb" of a black and white bamboo eating mammal, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever really looked at your thumb?  I mean really looked at it?  Wow.
Posted by: Cornelius Hunter on Feb. 18 2007,02:41

Addressing the second part of Deadman's post:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
Actually, it's not subjective or circular , and that is a misrepresentation of what I did say. I specifically noted that the flying squirrel and phalanger don't have structurally identical patagium...BUT their pentadactyly IS precisely the same.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you find it to be significant that the pentadactyl pattern is “precisely the same”? Are you claiming that the homology evidential claim would falter if this were not the case?

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
Further, I am in fact arguing that skin attachments and increased skin area in between attachments IS in fact easier for a strain of animals to change than basic bone structure...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, good...

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
why do I say that? Because we have no large-scale evidence of septadactyly or octadactyly to point to. We have only pentadactyl mammals on the planet.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it important that septadactyly or octadactyly is not found in “large-scale”? And why is it important that mammals have only pentadactyl?

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
Further, we can conduct experiments showing that basic bauplan features are far less susceptible to mutation and alteration than skin attachments to bone, especially under selection by the environment and reproductive success.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself. If you disagree, then so be it. But I’m looking for justifications that are free of such theory laden-ness. More below.

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
can you please explain your association with DI?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am a Fellow, which is a fairly loose association. I need not agree with DI on anything in particular, and vice versa. I have not been given the secret handshake.

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
2. How did you determine that  characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Look here at the pentadactyl patterns:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Then look here at thylacine:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine >

and see the similarities with Canis lupus:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution.   The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is not a matter of whether or not theory-free observations are possible. Perhaps all observations are theory-laden, but the theory-laden-ness need not be particular to the theory one is trying to advocate. Here’s an example. An astronomer makes observations of distant galaxies and constructs a new theory about galaxies. His observations are laden with assumptions about the universality of natural laws, for instance. But such assumptions are generally accepted by his audience, though his new theory is not. The theory-laden-ness of his observations is not the problem. Rather, his new theory does not fit all the observations very well, though no one objects to the theory-laden-ness of the observations.

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, look here at the pentadactyl patterns:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Then look here at thylacine:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine >

and see the similarities with Canis lupus:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution.   The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than  "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But the genetic and developmental evidence need not be theory laden (that is, in ways that are peculiar to evolutionary theory). That’s the key.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 18 2007,07:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Given your rather obvious aversion to answering direct questions, Mr. Hunter, you'll understand why I don't "trust you" on this or any other point. You have refused to answer a number of those, like WHAT SPECIFIC characters you wish to compare pentadactyly to. You also refuse to answer what ALTERNATE theory you hold to that can be similarly examined.  

Your primary refusal to accept evidence supporting homology is incredibly weak, Mr. Hunter.  

I asked for specific examples of characters that you wanted me to compare pentadactyly to. You still can't respond except to point at pretty pictures and say " look at their skulls and body shape and sharp teeth" ( those are your specific comments) Well, what about their skulls? The fact that they are generally what? WEDGE-shaped? That they have orbital bones in common? What?

What about their body shape, Mr. Hunter? That they are quadrupeds? What about their digitigrade locomotion? What other animals possess that? Are mammals with this condition that we see today fast runners? Do I need the taint of Darwinian theory to tell me that? No. You ignore all the observations that can be made about how the hunting carnivory lifestyle of the two animals would lead to vaguely similar skulls, with similarly "sharp  teeth" You ignore that carnivore skulls like the mustelids follow the same pattern, or mongooses, or many other examples. Will you argue that a weasel skull and wolf skull and "sharp teeth" and quadrupedal form are all "powerful evidence " of something? If so, what?

You rely on this claim of "you can't use that because it's 'theory-laden' " when I point out that Australia is known (in a evolutionary-theory-free way) to have split off from other land masses 30-35 million years ago.

You ignore the fossil data ( which can be observed in an "evolution-free-way") --that shows the marsupial "wolf"  to be distinct from C. Lupus -- for the same spurious reason.

You use the same unsupported premise when you disallow genetic data (by the way, Mr. Hunter, your caricature of how genetic phylogenies are done is hilarious.)

I have a little gift for you, Mr. Hunter. When I first read your little screed here, I was reminded of something: Faust. This was, of course, written by Goethe.

Goethe wrote many other things, one of which was " The Metamorphosis of Animals" (1816). Here's a quote:
"...the way of life powerfully reacts on form.
Thus the orderly growth of form is seen to hold,
Whilst yielding to change from externally acting causes."

Note that Goethe was able ( prior to Darwin) see that similar niches can and would lead to SOME similarities that have little basis in immediate common descent.  


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See above. I don't HAVE to presuppose evolution in order to say that radiometric dating of fossils and geology shows that they cannot have immediate common descent.

I'll go back to my little thought experiment, Mr. Hunter:
**************************************************************************
I wish to present two VERY long-lived and industrious beings that tirelessly  investigated life on this planet.  These beings are merely going to observe and gather data prior to formulating a hypothesis about the data. I will call these hypothetical beings the WE..and I submit to you that WE will find these things:  

1.Time exists, along with various ways of measuring it. One powerfully-justified way of measuring will be called "Radiometric"
2. Organisms on this planet fall into large-scale groupings based on similar morphology and DNA that WE can call "reptiles" "amphibians" and "mammals." There are of course, other groups, but for now, let's concentrate on "mammals" that have specific features.
3. In observing the mammal group, pentadactyly is seen to be universal at the moment. WE have also observed that animals are born, give birth and die. When they give birth, variation in offspring is seen. Those variations can result in better/worse opportunities for a long life and breeding
4. Using observation of extant mammals, WE can group them according to characteristics that WE observe. WE can also note that observed  LOCOMOTION AND DIET aid in sorting animals into quasi-Linnean groups without invoking common descent.
5. WE find raised heels and sharp teeth in deer (yes, deer can bite and have "sharp teeth,"  so do horses) wolves, cats, lots of species, but not all. We observe that deer don't consistently eat meat and are not carnivores, but canids and felines are, as were some marsupials like Thylacines. WE observe that carnivory and herbivory and omnivory are most often accompanied by differing teeth and surface features of teeth. 
6. WE can examine the DNA of such species and further refine groupings. Contrary to your claim that such studies NECCESSITATE some evolutionary bias, I challenge YOU, Mr. Hunter, to demonstrate that this is so.
7. Using radiocarbon dating WE can find recent examples of dead canids and felines and Thylacines. WE observe them to be the same structurally to modern ones. WE then find increasingly older but anatomically identical examples as WE tirelessly dig up and compare fossils and entire suites of anatomical characteristics.
8. Reaching deeper into the bag of radiometric tools, WE find increasingly older forms of canids,  felines, and Thylacines--- keeping in mind that in our thought -experiment our long-lived beings can dig a LONG time and can dig up fossils anywhere ( or everywhere) on Earth. WE find lots of **other** fossils, too and begin the same process of comparing KNOWN extant specimens to recently-dead and much more distantly-dead specimens of mammals and other groups.
9.   WE refine such groups of fossils as well, based only on observed characteristics
10. WE find that "raised heels" and "sharp mammalian CARNIVORE teeth" reflect diet and locomotion and are not found universally . WE find that pentadactyly is still universal in mammals even in the deep, deep past.
11.  WE find that geology indicates Australia has been separate from other land masses for quite a long time, and that it was most recently connected to South America and Antarctica some 30-35 MYA. WE also observe that marsupials and mammals don't co-exist on Australia until recently. WE find that marsupials don't exist outside of Australia today except for Opossums. WE observe that only in deep time do WE find fossils bearing marsupial characters.

Given that locomotive modes and diet coincide with specific forms of teeth and digitigrade anatomy today, and given that WE have a "theoretically" NEAR-PERFECT fossil collection to compare current forms and ancient forms, given that We can use DNA comparatives, given that WE can isolate thylacines to Australia AND given that marsupial Thylacine dentition and multiple other characteristics are quite different from Wolf dentition and basio-cranial morphology, epipubic bones, etc., AND given that WE can show evolution occurs today, and given that Geology gives an evolutionarily-unbiased set of dates based on rocks that contain fossils....the question is why do YOU NOT view pentadactyly and dentition or digitigrade locomotion as carrying different value in constructing relatedness-relationships?

So... what do YOU say our hypothetical beings should do at this point? Place "sharp carnivore teeth," "wedge-shaped skull" and "digitigrade locomotion" as being  homologous or homoplasic ? If you select homologous or homoplasic, Justify your answer.

Now do the same with pentadactyly.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 18 2007,07:59

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 18 2007,03:41)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to   "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself. If you disagree, then so be it. But I’m looking for justifications that are free of such theory laden-ness. More below.
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)
I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is not a matter of whether or not theory-free observations are possible. Perhaps all observations are theory-laden, but the theory-laden-ness need not be particular to the theory one is trying to advocate. Here’s an example. An astronomer makes observations of distant galaxies and constructs a new theory about galaxies. His observations are laden with assumptions about the universality of natural laws, for instance. But such assumptions are generally accepted by his audience, though his new theory is not. The theory-laden-ness of his observations is not the problem. Rather, his new theory does not fit all the observations very well, though no one objects to the theory-laden-ness of the observations.

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see.  You've concluded that the conclusions are flimsy, and no matter how much confirmatory evidence is found, you will continue to contend that the conclusions are still flimsy.  So, it doesn't matter how many times the theory turns out to be right.  You've already decided that it isn't right, so all those confirmations of the theory are therefore "theory-laden" and therefore wrong.  Nice one.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 18 2007,08:19

Unlike you, I will answer EACH of your questions, Mr. Hunter ( while noting that you have failed to do the same ).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you find it to be significant that the pentadactyl pattern is “precisely the same”? Are you claiming that the homology evidential claim would falter if this were not the case?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it significant in terms of homology because it has great time-depth that is unaltered IN. Yes, YOU can point to bats or Horses and say "look at the differences" between bats and horses and canids, but the fact remains that their five digits at the distal ends of limbs...remain precisely the same. You probably will be able to gull the public, though. People are often swayed by selective illustrations that ignore that EVERY mammal has pentadactyly.

Of course you'll exploit the "similarities" while ignoring the differences in other characters...wait...you already have done that.

For myself, yes, the pentadactyly evidence FOR common descent would fall apart IF...IF we saw that Miocene mammals were all octadactyl and that octadactyl mammals existed today.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it important that septadactyly or octadactyly is not found in “large-scale”? And why is it important that mammals have only pentadactyl?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See above


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cite those specific bauplan features that you think are relevant in mammals, Mr. Hunter. Don't be coy. "wedge-shaped skull?" "Sharp teeth?" "Quadrupedal form?" What?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not "insubstantial," no. I have made my point clear. It is up to you to read and comprehend.

Now, Mr. Hunter...given that I have addressed EACH of your questions, please answer mine.
Do environmental constraints and feeding patterns and locomotion have an effect on "design space" that is NOT neutral in regards to selection?

What SPECIFICALLY is your "alterate theory" Mr. Hunter? You mentioned it in passing and I'd like to hear it. I have defended my views. Let's see what yours are, without your usual evasion.

Don't be shy, Mr. hunter -- I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Make sure you respond to my posts FULLY, Mr. Hunter. Don't be so stingy with your responses. Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 18 2007,08:35

Quote (GCT @ Feb. 18 2007,07:59)
Ah, I see.  You've concluded that the conclusions are flimsy, and no matter how much confirmatory evidence is found, you will continue to contend that the conclusions are still flimsy.  So, it doesn't matter how many times the theory turns out to be right.  You've already decided that it isn't right, so all those confirmations of the theory are therefore "theory-laden" and therefore wrong.  Nice one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Your observation, GCT, is remarkably similar to my observation and objection that I had noted earlier in the thread:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,06:30)
Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it:
1. You arrive and say
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).
Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

5. Repeat #1.

Very cute, sir!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting how many unsupported premises Mr. hunter uses...and how he consistently avoids dealing with his circular approaches.

And how he consistently avoids describing his claimed theory that is "ignored" by evolutionists in accounting for what we observe.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 18 2007,09:06

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2007,07:55)
Given your rather obvious aversion to answering direct questions, Mr. Hunter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of which . . . . shall I repeat my questions for you once again, Dr Hunter?  

No problem.  No need to thank me --- I'm happy to do it.

*ahem*




DI continually tells us that ID is not creationism.

In the DI's Wedge Document, it states:

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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


If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.






IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism".  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?





Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?  If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?



For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?
(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?,  and
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?




Thank you once again for not answering my simple questions, Dr Hunter.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 18 2007,09:10

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2007,08:35)
And how he consistently avoids describing his claimed theory that is "ignored" by evolutionists in accounting for what we observe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are IDers just lying to us when they claim there is a scientific theory of ID, Doc . . . . ?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 18 2007,10:14

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2007,08:19)
You probably will be able to gull the public, though. People are often swayed by selective illustrations that ignore that EVERY mammal has pentadactyly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be too certain about that. While I do not understand most of the science in this discussion, I can spot (very easily) just who is avoiding questions.

C.H. is looking no better than AFdave, Larry Fafarman or Thordaddy. Used car salesmen look trustworthy by comparison.

You know. I have yet to see an ID pedler look good outside a restricted posting arena. These people have no ability to argue whatsoever on a board where they can't ban/remove opposition.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 18 2007,17:00

S. Elliot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't be too certain about that. While I do not understand most of the science in this discussion, I can spot (very easily) just who is avoiding questions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what I don't understand about Dr. Hunter. If he really believes that his argument is strong, he should welcome questions. Yet he won't even clarify his position for a layman like myself. That says something, I think.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 18 2007,17:15

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 18 2007,10:14)
You know. I have yet to see an ID pedler look good outside a restricted posting arena. These people have no ability to argue whatsoever on a board where they can't ban/remove opposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose that must be why they do so well in court.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: bystander on Feb. 18 2007,18:13

This is an excellent thread. The emptiness of Mr Hunter's arguments have been clearly shown with no real insults. I think that Mr Hunter regrets ever posting here but also realises all of the potential suckers that will google his name and find this thread, so he keeps coming back but unfortunately digging himself deeper.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 18 2007,21:05

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 18 2007,03:41)
Addressing the second part of Deadman's post:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh...  Selective answering (or maybe you think deadmans questions were all encompasing).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's find out when the pentadactyl pattern occurs during organism development.  If it is early in the embryonic stage then the pattern could be considered "set" for all homologous creatures.  After all, within the nested hierarchy of pentadactyl patterns we don't see ANY alterations to this pattern.  We do see alterations to the FUNCTION of the pattern, but the pattern remains the same.  Maybe alteration (read mutation) of this basic pattern causes too much developmental stress within the organism (there are too many faults expressed in a fully grown creature because of this mutation) that override any potential benefit from a change in this pattern.

Isn't the pentadactyl pattern a fundamental item in embryonic development just like notochords or hemispheric symmetry?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look here at the pentadactyl patterns:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks >

Then look here at thylacine:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine >

and see the similarities with Canis lupus:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution.   The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The developmental patterns between thylacine and wolves are teeth, jaws, heels and body forms.  Answerring without "theory laden" explanations leads me to ask a couple questions about these two creatures.

1.  What is the basic food chain of the thylacine and wolves?
2.  What is the hunting technique of these two creatures?

In (1.) I would answer that both creatures need to take down a variety of creatures both small and large.  These are hunters more than scavengers most likely.  The rate of food intake would probably require the creatures to fully consume any prey (as opposed to choice bits like lions) which would require consumption of not only meaty items but also of bone marrow.  Since cracking bones requires set amount of forces I would surmise that the heavy set and muscular jaws are needed.  Ever seen a hyena?  Hunts in packs, hunter more than scavenger, eats (or trys to) everything on the body, looks like a wolf or a thylacine too.  Amazing.

In (2.) the hunting technique is a pack technique with a lopeing gait instead of a fast dash.  These creatures work together in tandem to wear down their prey over time, not to rush their prey like the cats.  If the thylacine hunted like a cat then I would expect the body shape to resemble a leopord or lion more than a wolf or hyena.  Are hyena's and wolves related?


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.

But the genetic and developmental evidence need not be theory laden (that is, in ways that are peculiar to evolutionary theory). That’s the key.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is buried deep within the embryonic stage of all the organisms that express this pattern.  Changes to this pattern result in non-survivable offspring.

However, similarities with creatures who's environmental habits and lifestyle habits coincide lead to body plan developments that take advantage of that niche that they occupy.


What about Allosaurus and Tyranosaurus?  They were only seperated by 90 million years (give or take).  Yet their body plans are SO SIMILAR.  Why don't we make this comparison to support evolution?


Mr. Hunter.
Are you going to get specific or do we continue with this charade.  Actually, please be MORE condescending with us laymen.  I'm just an engineer and my biology terminology stinks.  Yet your latest attempt at conflation leaves me chuckling.

As I've said to AFDave before.  Is that all you've got?

Mike PSS
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 18 2007,21:47

given that mike just brought up hyenas, should we talk about how the clitoris has developed in that particular beastie?

it relates on point to issues of homology, that's for #### sure.

why is CH so stuck on comparing thylacines and wolves, when there are so many more interesting comparisons to be made?

hmm...
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 18 2007,22:40

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 18 2007,22:47)
given that mike just brought up hyenas, should we talk about how the clittoris has developed in that particular beastie?

it relates on point to issues of homology, that's for #### sure.

why is CH so stuck on comparing thylacines and wolves, when there are so many more interesting comparisons to be made?

hmm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Calling Janiebell and CK!!

One "on-topic" squeege match that needs your particular attention.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The anatomical position of the genitalia gives females total sexual control over who is allowed to mate with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now there is an adaptation I hope I never see expressed physiologically.

Homo Sapiens only have the psychological part of this one perfected (point... laugh...).

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyena >
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 19 2007,01:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The anatomical position of the genitalia gives females total sexual control over who is allowed to mate with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's length is variable, and considered a secondary sexual trait as well.

bigger the better.

There is a professor of behavioral ecology/psychology (Steve Glickman) at Berkeley who specializes in studying hyena social behavior.

He's raised some of them from babes, and they readily accept him as part of the "pack".

fascinating animals, really (well, the spotted ones anyway, striped hyenas are kinda shy and boring, IMO).  I recall spending time watching him work with the animals directly at the facility up in Strawberry Canyon.  Not only unusual social behavior based on entirely matriarchal heirarchies, but the vocalizations are quite complex as well.

and yes, they indeed can crunch a thighbone in a single bite.

< http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/sglickman.html >

It was a blast having a psychologist on my advisory comittee who spent most of his time studying hyenas.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 19 2007,19:32

Dr. Hunter:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's a lot to say about this paragraph, but since I'm tired and irritable, I'll give you time to support this statement if you wish. Just two questions:

If molecular phylogenies are simply exercises in forcing the evidence to match preconceived ideas, then:

1) Why do the molecular trees surprise scientists so often, and

2) How are these phylogenies able to predict < patterns of SINE insertions? > The Afrotheria hypothesis was validated by retroposon evidence, and while it's true that the authors posit a "hypothetical evolutionary scenario" to explain a possible < discrepancy caused by one insertion, > the < overall pattern supports common ancestry for these mammals. >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 26 2007,13:14

Which animal has the stronger bite: the hyena, or the American Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier? Does anybody have any data on this? Is there even a reliable way to measure bite strength? Just curious, cause I hear so many different claims.
Posted by: argystokes on Feb. 26 2007,13:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,11:14)
Which animal has the stronger bite: the hyena, or the American Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier? Does anybody have any data on this? Is there even a reliable way to measure bite strength? Just curious, cause I hear so many different claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard that there isn't any way of measuring bite strength (from folks opposing breed-specific legislation). I suppose one could measure the amount of pressure put on something as a dog/hyena bites it, but I imagine getting the animal to bite as hard as possible might be difficult.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 26 2007,14:54

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,13:14)
Which animal has the stronger bite: the hyena, or the American Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier? Does anybody have any data on this? Is there even a reliable way to measure bite strength? Just curious, cause I hear so many different claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, you can measure bite strength with a pressure sensitive strip.  Often, it is encased inside a malleable cylinder.  You have to calculate the proper position to place it to get maximum bite strength, which is often the most difficult thing when comparing one animal to another.

it's been done for lots of animals, though I haven't done a search to see if the results are on a website somewhere.

that said, I've never seen a pit bull that was able to crack a bone the diameter of a human thigh bone with a single bite.

my money would be on the hyena.

a quick google search shows MANY studies on bite strength; if you have access, there are several studies on hyena bite strength mentioned.

shouldn't be too hard to anwer your question.

< http://www.google.com/search?....spell=1 >

oh, here's a video showing the mechanism commonly used to measure bite force, along with (in the first part of the video) a clip from a nat geo show that came out a while back where some dufus (Jim Fowler, maybe?) got paid to go all over the world to measure bite strengths.

note in the chart that domestic dogs are typically measured at around 330, while hyenas are around 1000.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByAL6vGsQL8 >

...oh, and don't ask me why the person who did the youtube decided to use Lakme as background music.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 26 2007,16:37

Cool!

So, in theory at least (subject cooperation could admittedly be an issue...), we could find out exactly how hard Dr. Hunter is chomping on his foot while he types the tard he posts here?
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 26 2007,16:48

I saw a program in which they were measuring the bite strength of snapping turtles.  One of the things they found was that the bite of turtles in the wild was MUCH greater than that of ones in zoos.  So I would expect that getting any particular animal - especially a domsticated one - to bite as hard as it can would be problematic.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 26 2007,16:53

Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. < This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength: >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out < http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. < Or don't. >
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 26 2007,17:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
we could find out exactly how hard Dr. Hunter is chomping on his foot while he types the tard he posts here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yes, provided you could somehow get his foot out of his mouth long enough to be able to insert a bite meter.

which of course is the real challenge.

oh, and I think those bite meters do have an upper limit of around 2000 lbs, so they might not be adequate in this case.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm, it's my understanding it's equated to the amount of pressure a stationary object of given weight would exert.

IOW, if it states "1000 lbs." that would equate to a solid weight of 1000 lbs being placed on the meter.

I'm sure the pressure meter actually measures it directly as PSI, which is then translated into a measure that is easier for pop. science buffs to translate into real-world examples.

so when someone says 1000 lbs of pressure, it allows comparison between parking a VW on the meter, for example.

It's legit enough, if not the most accurate representation.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 26 2007,18:48

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 28 2007,10:11)
This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern. Why are those that can be fitted to the common descent pattern cited as such powerful evidence? Without some justification, this fundamental claim of evolution appears to be selective. Unfortunately, good justification is hard to come by. The vast majority of the responses simply avoided the question and made up their own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to see these "examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern." Are you saying you've identified unambiguous violations of nested hierarchies? I'd be surprised to find that there are known falsifications of common descent with modification. Such falsifications would, of course, fatally undermine the Theory of Evolution in its entirety.

Are you sure that's what you're talking about here? Or are you talking about apparent violations of nested hierarchies. Convergent evolution may make it difficult to construct accurate phylogenentic trees, but you sound like you've found something that makes it impossible to construct such trees. Are you sure that's what you mean?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 26 2007,20:38

Quote (ericmurphy @ Feb. 26 2007,18:48)
I'd be interested to see these "examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.

Alas, though, Doc Hunter is apparently, like every other IDer I've ever run into, lethally allergic to answering direct questions. Almost as if he, ya know, has something he needs to hide, or something.

(I mean something OTHER than the fact that he's too uninformed to tell the difference between "homologous" and "analogous". . . . .)
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,07:41

This just in

Hunter allies himself with creo-legal nut Caldwell and get's slapped around again.

Thanks to Ed Brayton for the report.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/caldwell_loses_suit.php >
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 12 2007,07:49

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 19 2007,19:32)
Dr. Hunter:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's a lot to say about this paragraph, but since I'm tired and irritable, I'll give you time to support this statement if you wish. Just two questions:

If molecular phylogenies are simply exercises in forcing the evidence to match preconceived ideas, then:

1) Why do the molecular trees surprise scientists so often, and

2) How are these phylogenies able to predict < patterns of SINE insertions? > The Afrotheria hypothesis was validated by retroposon evidence, and while it's true that the authors posit a "hypothetical evolutionary scenario" to explain a possible < discrepancy caused by one insertion, > the < overall pattern supports common ancestry for these mammals. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hunter:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant fool.

He must have gone to the Paul Nelson school of molecular phylogenetics.

Nelson once claimed that the order in which a taxon is placed in a dataset and then aligned will dictate its position in the phylogeny, that experimenter bias essentially produces the desired outcome.

So, I took a dataset that I had been working on at the time, scrambled the order of the taxa in the alignment, coded their names, and removed all gaps.  I offered to send him this dataset, provided links to free software with which he could align them himself, and to free phylogenetic software that he could then run his dataset through.  I wrote that if his outcome was different than the outcomes that I got with that dataset, then he might have a point worth discussing.

But...

Darn it, he just didn't have the time...

... to test his claim....

But he went right on making it.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that these people are just plain old pathological liars.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,09:08

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 12 2007,07:49)
The more I read, the more I am convinced that these people are just plain old pathological liars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good post!

Unfortunately, they are plain old patholgical liers that want to teach crap to our kids, which is why they need to be constantly monitored and slapped around.  And which leads us to why we are here. :)
Posted by: Zachriel on June 06 2009,07:48

Cornelius Hunter has posted several new threads at Uncommon Descent most of which link back to his own blog for the balance of the essay. But there doesn't seem to be a way to comment on his blog.

< How Future Scholars Will View Evolution >

< PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian >

< The Three Fallacies of Evolution >

< Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine >
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 06 2009,18:51

Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2009,08:48)
Cornelius Hunter has posted several new threads at Uncommon Descent most of which link back to his own blog for the balance of the essay. But there doesn't seem to be a way to comment on his blog.

< How Future Scholars Will View Evolution >

< PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian >

< The Three Fallacies of Evolution >

< Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its odd. You'd figure he would prefer to be slapped around in private than be humiliated in front of his mates at UD.
Posted by: sledgehammer on June 07 2009,15:49

Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2009,05:48)
Cornelius Hunter has posted several new threads at Uncommon Descent most of which link back to his own blog for the balance of the essay. But there doesn't seem to be a way to comment on his blog.

< How Future Scholars Will View Evolution >

< PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian >

< The Three Fallacies of Evolution >

< Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every single one of those topics include at least one, and sometimes several, links to his own pathetic blaggery.
Looks like Corny is taking lessons from Densye on how to use UD in a pitifully blatant attempt to direct traffic to their own blogs.
Posted by: sparc on June 10 2009,23:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every single one of those topics include at least one, and sometimes several, links to his own pathetic blaggery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thus, we can be optimistic that he will copy his recent < Pyknon prediction > that he alredy linked copied to < ENV > will show up at UD. Of course he doesn't mention that the Pyknon concept has been criticized:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An example of underestimating the probability of frequent word occurrences is apparent in a recent study by Rigoutsos et al [16]. They reported that certain DNA words, termed pyknons, appear frequently in human gene-related sequences andin noncoding regions, in restricted configurations, and presented many arguments for the pyknon’s functionality. By relying on a Bernoulli model, they reasoned that 16-mers should appear in a random genome sequence more than forty times with a probability <10-32. Such a word frequency, however, is not as extraordinary if we take into account the universal shape of genomic spectra. A DPL distribution fitted to the human genome spectrum yields a P-value of 0.001 (see Supplementary Material).This latter translates to about four million 16-mers that are expected to occur at least forty times in a random genome-sized sequence. Strikingly, at least 460 thousand frequent words appear already in the repeat-masked sequence as accidental constituents of the fitted distribution’s heavy tail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Csurös M, Noé L, Kucherov G. (2007): Reconsidering the significance of genomic word frequencies. Trends Genet. 23(11):543-546; a free author's copy can be found < here >)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 12 2009,07:30

Someone I went to school with has an interesting post on < Cornelius Hunter >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 18 2009,20:42

< I had a go at Hunter's water strider post > if anybody is interested.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 18 2009,21:41

afarensis you now know more about water striders than Cornytard ever will.  what a maroon
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 27 2010,22:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< learned-hand >: Zachriel, I believe you're being successfully trolled. Has Ilion said anything with any content at all in this thread? No response can be anything more than a jumping-off point for more angry, empty rhetoric.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who would have thought!?

As for being "successfully" trolled, that requires having provoked a reaction rather than a response. Fortunately, our patented {not really} DeSnark® desnarkification field suppressor (remark desnider) limits the amount of trolling emissions before viewing. Here's an example.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ilion (no filter): Of course! How trollish of me to help the "Darwinists" demonstrate to one and all that they do not reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ilion (filtered at 70%): Sorry. I'm not following your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Special appreciation to learned-hand and Alan Fox for outing Ilion's trolling behavior.
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 28 2010,09:18

Ilion is a fun one. He came up with a "disproof" of evolution (regarding the human chromosome 2 fusion) in some gaming forum years ago), and has been traveling from forum to forum peddling it ever since. His argument has been dismantled several times by different people, but when that happens he just leaves (because he just can't stand "intellectual dishonesty", you see) and finds another where the members haven't seen his pet argument demolished.

Here is a thread on  < ARN > where I dealt with him, and < here > is a blog where he tried it again ( a friend who frequents the blog  noticed his presence and let me know).

He is nasty piece of work, but easily refuted. The trouble is, many laypeople are impressed by his 'sciency' schtick.


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 02 2010,00:24

I haven't read this entire thread. Has someone made the Hunter-Byers link? Too obvious to miss, really, innit.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 02 2010,17:32

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 02 2010,00:24)
I haven't read this entire thread. Has someone made the Hunter-Byers link? Too obvious to miss, really, innit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was about to suggest that your hypothesis could be refuted by the simple fact that no one could fake the word salad that is Byers's prose.  Then I realized I wasn't thinking in the 21st century.  Maybe Hunter is using one of those online translation programs to go from English to ? and back to English.  Someone should try that with a known sample of Hunter's writing and see how it compares.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 02 2010,19:03

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 02 2010,17:32)
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 02 2010,00:24)
I haven't read this entire thread. Has someone made the Hunter-Byers link? Too obvious to miss, really, innit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was about to suggest that your hypothesis could be refuted by the simple fact that no one could fake the word salad that is Byers's prose.  Then I realized I wasn't thinking in the 21st century.  Maybe Hunter is using one of those online translation programs to go from English to ? and back to English.  Someone should try that with a known sample of Hunter's writing and see how it compares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently you have never read anything by Denyse O'Leary - Canadian journalist and editor. Contributes to UD a lot. Rumored to be an Inuit morphodyke...  :p
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 03 2010,10:23

never mind
Posted by: REC on Mar. 04 2010,15:26

How long till he moderates his blog?  He and the standard crowd are getting trounced fairly regularly.......
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 13 2010,05:54

Quote (REC @ Mar. 04 2010,10:26)
How long till he moderates his blog?  He and the standard crowd are getting trounced fairly regularly.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've tried asking about the age of the Earth and his alternative to the ToE but I can still comment!
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 13 2010,13:31

I agree it seems unusual for the Blog to be staying as open as it is.

I'm glad "our" side seems to be keeping the name calling down to a minimum.

Unfortunately, Robert stepped into it with < this > comment.

As bad as the "Does fire create fire?" was, the AGW versus GW was a wild goose chase which could only end up distracting the conversation.  (IMHO)

Oh well.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 13 2010,13:57

Eh.  Ill conceived snark, but it followed the actual defense of that scenario (which, of course was cut out in the quotemine).  That Hunter frames it as a 'defense' of an entirely new topic shows what a goon he really is.

At any rate, its a high standard to be always right at a blog that offers no alternative hypothesis, no advocacy of any position, and is generally factually wrong.

For god's sake (literally) one of Hunter's defenders is using the Dorchester Pot to critique the fossil record.


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester_Pot >

< mynn or whatever >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 13 2010,14:47

So, what do you think of my God Hypothesis?

Edit - added < link >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 15 2010,12:06

Excuse me, while I post this here in case it "accidently" disappears.

Dr. Hunter, may I suggest this for a blog entry (or we can continue it here if you like).

A God Hypothesis.

Premise – There is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being who created the universe and man. Furthermore, mankind is the primary focus of this being’s benevolence.

For ease of reference, this being is called “God” which may or may not correspond to he who the Jews called ????.

God, by definition, would control the fabric and deflections of space-time which is our universe. By necessity, such a being would be timeless.

Since Quantum Mechanics informs us there is nothing material which exists outside of space-time wavefunctions, God is in direct control of all things we think of as material.

God’s benevolence towards mankind would likely include concern for mankind’s continued existence. Another probable act of benevolence would be the allowance of mankind to have Free Will.

There very well could have been a Garden of Eden approximately 6,014 years ago and Eve chose, for all mankind, to obtain the knowledge of good and evil. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t matter because God could have either instantly created a whole new reality complete with millions of year-old fossils and billions of year-old stars, or he could have known what Eve’s choice was going to be and honored it by taking billions of years to create Eve’s requested reality. Time doesn’t matter to a timeless being.

However, the premise presumes it does matter to God whether or not mankind survives. In the movie Matrix it was noted mankind would reject a utopian reality. If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies. Man is also intelligent enough to see through a faux simulation of adversity. The adversity has to be real. This would include an inherent doubt of God’s existence. For man’s own good, God made it so his existence could never be known as a certainty which included providing scientists a difficult but consistent set of clues suggesting his existence was unnecessary.

Early on, God provided hints. The parting of the Red Sea was a piece of cake; “Brownian Motion, shift left and right”. The great flood wasn’t that much more difficult. God showed off a little with the Sun standing still trick, but give the guy a break, being a timeless being has got to be somewhat boring.

Currently, God’s plan is working perfectly (as if there was any doubt). Over 3.5 Billion people believe he exists but can’t be certain. Science is moving along at a good clip. We even managed to keep from blowing ourselves up (probably with God’s unseen help).

BTW, a scientific falsification of this hypothesis would be if mankind ceased to exists. I’m sure it would be enough to convince any E.T. scientists “nope, they weren’t God’s chosen”.

In conclusion, I suggest scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, are just as likely doing God’s work as televangelists, maybe even more so.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 21 2010,10:40

Ok, which one of you is Harpy666?

It looks like Dr. Cornelius Hunter has stepped in it big time.< link >

Lately, Hunter has been ignoring my comments and continuing as if nothing happened.

He may do it again if too many negative comments are made.  I should probably have restrained myself but I couldn't help it.

So, yes, I am being hypocritical to suggest you guys/gals look, but don't touch, but that is what I am doing.

Let's see if this gets interesting.

Edit - modified for readability and gender neutrality
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 25 2010,19:31

< Peter Olofsson > makes an appearance. The subject is Bayesian analysis.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< peter olofsson >: Dear Mr Hunter,

I do not think your calculations make any sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 25 2010,20:44

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. < This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength: >

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out < http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. < Or don't. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 27 2010,23:25

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 25 2010,21:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. < This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength: >

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out < http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. < Or don't. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agree. Its just the force developed by the muscles, the leverage multiplier, and the size of the bite area (which is very small).


And fear.
Fear and surprise.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 28 2010,01:35

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 27 2010,23:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 25 2010,21:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. < This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength: >

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out < http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. < Or don't. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agree. Its just the force developed by the muscles, the leverage multiplier, and the size of the bite area (which is very small).


And fear.
Fear and surprise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...But not a ruthless, or is it fanatical, devotion to the pope?
Posted by: Hermagoras on May 30 2010,09:26

Hunter's latest attempt at mountain/molehill ID alchemy: < get excited > about an op-ed in the Lancet by a Frenchman interested in metaphors.  

I can't comment on UD, but I did < note the idiocy > at Hunter's blog.
Posted by: Quack on May 30 2010,09:34

There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?
Posted by: didymos on May 30 2010,09:55

Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,07:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To laugh at him and his creationist commenters.  That or to rake him and his crap arguments over the coals in the comments so that others may laugh.  I.e., the same reasons for visiting any IDC blog.
Posted by: Hermagoras on May 30 2010,10:06

Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same could be said for UD and every Disco institute site.  And yet we came, we saw, we mocked.
Posted by: keiths on May 30 2010,10:07

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,07:26)
Hunter's latest attempt at mountain/molehill ID alchemy: < get excited > about an op-ed in the Lancet by a Frenchman interested in metaphors.  

I can't comment on UD, but I did < note the idiocy > at Hunter's blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Herm's comment deserves to be quoted here:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Hunter,

What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you.

You are starting to rival Denyse O'Leary for your focus on the trivial. Of course Darwin was constrained by the conceptual trends of his day. So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 30 2010,10:19

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,08:06)
Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:34)
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same could be said for UD and every Disco institute site.  And yet we came, we saw, we mocked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Veni, vidi, risi.
Posted by: Hermagoras on May 30 2010,20:23

Hunter has < responded > to me, after a fashion, but I can't make head or tail of it.  Is he always this incoherent?

NB: ======== is used instead of quote marked or block quote paragraphs, so the bits between those ======== are from me.  A Cornelius Hunter idiosyncracy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hermagoras:

========
What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you.
========

And anyone else familiar with the evidence. The fact that Raoult takes a position outside the mainstream does not mean the evidence he grapples with doesn't matter. This is a good example of your folly because it is a manifestation of the evidential problems that have been there all along.



=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on May 30 2010,22:07

Quote (Hermagoras @ May 30 2010,18:23)
Hunter has < responded > to me, after a fashion, but I can't make head or tail of it.  Is he always this incoherent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite often, yes.  He tries to make everything about his single "The evidence for evolution isn't that good.  It's all just religion" talking point.  Problem is, his point is a bunch of shit and none of the stories he blogs on or comments he responds to actually conform to his little delusion, so a very common result is vague nonsense and failed attempts at sarcastic barbs.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 30 2010,22:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Split the atom, discover antibiotics and anesthesia, make it possible to feed the world, you know, the usual -- for science.
Posted by: Texas Teach on May 31 2010,11:30

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 30 2010,22:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


=====
So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.
=====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Split the atom, discover antibiotics and anesthesia, make it possible to feed the world, you know, the usual -- for science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but apart from splitting the atom, discovering antibiotics and anesthesia, and making it possible to feed the world, what have scientists done for us?
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 31 2010,16:58

American scientists say they have developed a vaccine which has prevented breast cancer from developing in mice. The researchers - whose findings are published in the journal, Nature Medicine - are now planning to conduct trials of the drug in humans.

But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????
Posted by: Henry J on May 31 2010,20:11

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 31 2010,15:58)
But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Had lunch?
Posted by: fnxtr on May 31 2010,22:36

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 31 2010,14:58)
American scientists say they have developed a vaccine which has prevented breast cancer from developing in mice. The researchers - whose findings are published in the journal, Nature Medicine - are now planning to conduct trials of the drug in humans.

But that was this morning. What have they done this afternoon????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then there's the report in this month's SciAm about the product that apparently attacks the lipo coating of some very lethal viruses... I gotta ask ERV about this one...
Posted by: Henry J on June 01 2010,13:16

That could give a new meaning to the term "liposuction".
Posted by: Ptaylor on June 02 2010,18:47

Hunter's blog is currently outrunning UD in the inane comments races. I particularly like this one from < natschuster >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I only know of three cases of the Israelites commiting genocide. There's the Canaanites, because they where really bad people. There's the Midianites because they attacked the Israelites first. And only the women who weren't virgins were killed because they seduced the Isralites into sinning. And there's the Amalekites, who started it.

And what exactly is your basis for saying the Bible is immoral beyod your own moral sense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tardalicious.
Posted by: didymos on June 03 2010,08:30

Yeah, it's becoming quite the tardlode over there.  Some threads are approaching 100 comments. And Cornelius doesn't seem to mind much when people demolish him in comments.  I'm guessing he doesn't realize quite how badly and how often he gets utterly owned.  Good times.

ETA: Also, he's stopped spewing that wretched catchphrase at the end of every single post. I really hated that line.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 03 2010,09:27

I don't have a history with Corny long enough to know, but is really as clueless about science as he seems?  Or is he just pulling a Rush Limbaugh, being purposely arrogant and idiotic just to snag more responses and drive up his blog numbers?
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 03 2010,09:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please specify whether you mean

evolution - the ample evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Meanwhile, back at UD, there has been heated  controversy regarding the difference between common ancestry and common descent.

Teach it.
Posted by: Henry J on June 03 2010,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, back at UD, there has been heated controversy regarding the difference between common ancestry and common descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there a semantic difference between those two phrases? "Common ancestry" strikes me as more to the point, but if there is a subtle difference in meaning it might not be.

Henry
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 03 2010,22:42

Common ancestry popped up some months back. I'm not clever enough even to figure out what a creationist means by it.

Usually I can jigger my brain a bit and understand what they are saying, even if I think it's nuts.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on June 04 2010,06:18

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 04 2010,04:42)
Common ancestry popped up some months back. I'm not clever enough even to figure out what a creationist means by it.

Usually I can jigger my brain a bit and understand what they are saying, even if I think it's nuts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could try to guess on that one.

"Ancestry" is probably a more potent (read "revolting", "insulting") word to the creomass than "descent". "Ancestry" speaks directly to the heart of the biblically brainwashed, since a lot of the old testament is about lineage, ancestors and shit (well, it's not about shit*, this was just a figure of speech...or was it?).

When the average educated man talks about his ancestors, furry animals will eventually come up. But when a creotard talks about it, he will limit his "tree" to good ol' Jebedhia back in the ol' days of right after the flood.

"Ancestry" is definitely more potent when it comes to the mentally disfonctional mass.  

In other words, no religion so far...




*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)

**Louis is out, as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Robin on June 04 2010,15:22

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 04 2010,06:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feh...amateur...

I'd give 'em at least a one-month-stand...probably several years of stands (and sits and even lie downs.)

:p
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on June 05 2010,13:38

Quote (Robin @ June 04 2010,21:22)
[quote=Schroedinger's Dog,June 04 2010,06:18][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feh...amateur...

I'd give 'em at least a one-month-stand...probably several years of stands (and sits and even lie downs.)

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Touché, sir, touché!

Although there's a limit to what an adult woman can endure*







*Too far?
Posted by: khan on June 05 2010,13:43

We all have our limits.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 24 2010,11:16

Quote (khan @ June 05 2010,13:43)
We all have our limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of limits, don't even think about looking at < this thread >, wherein Zachriel and Joe G 'discuss' the nested hierarchy, a.k.a. Pattern X.

< >
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2010,10:02

Zachriel has gone too far!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zachriel's comments are now disappearing from Darwin's God. Just as with Telic Thoughts, no explanation is given. Must have been the notion of humans having sex with low-browed Neanderthals.

"Hot" evolution.
Posted by: dogdidit on July 06 2010,11:07

Quote (Zachriel @ June 24 2010,11:16)
 
Quote (khan @ June 05 2010,13:43)
We all have our limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of limits, don't even think about looking at < this thread >, wherein Zachriel and Joe G 'discuss' the nested hierarchy, a.k.a. Pattern X.

< >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Best comment from ID Joe:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At one time I was studying to become a marine biologist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2010,11:19

Quote (Zachriel @ July 06 2010,10:02)
Zachriel has gone too far!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zachriel's comments are now disappearing from Darwin's God. Just as with Telic Thoughts, no explanation is given. Must have been the notion of humans having sex with low-browed Neanderthals.

"Hot" evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of the comments have shown up all of a sudden! Others are having the same problem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< oleg >: Is there any particular reason why my comments started disappearing on this thread? Just curious.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: What is happening to my comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2010,11:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Cornelius Hunter >: No, it seems to be another Google-ism. I've been having strange problems with my comments on this post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It didn't seem like Cornelius Hunter to ban comments. But we were hoping the "hot" evolution was too hot.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on July 06 2010,11:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G: What is happening to my comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok. If that kind of stuff has been happening lately*, we might be on for the Rapture...





*If it could happen more often, I would be gratefull. Not the rapture, obviously, just Joe G getting a hair of the dog who bit him......
Posted by: rhmc on July 06 2010,17:36

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 06 2010,12:39)
*If it could happen more often, I would be gratefull. Not the rapture, obviously, just Joe G getting a hair of the dog who bit him......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if those who would be leaving us would kindly leave their keys plainly labeled with the device it starts and directions to their house...why would you not be grateful for the rapture?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2010,21:16

Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.
Posted by: raguel on July 07 2010,10:19

Quote (Zachriel @ June 24 2010,11:16)
Quote (khan @ June 05 2010,13:43)
We all have our limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of limits, don't even think about looking at < this thread >, wherein Zachriel and Joe G 'discuss' the nested hierarchy, a.k.a. Pattern X.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After reading that dreadful post re: embryology, I'm curious: who coined the phrase "gill slits"? I'm assuming it was von Baer, but I don't know for sure.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 07 2010,11:47

Quote (raguel @ July 07 2010,10:19)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 24 2010,11:16)
 
Quote (khan @ June 05 2010,13:43)
We all have our limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of limits, don't even think about looking at < this thread >, wherein Zachriel and Joe G 'discuss' the nested hierarchy, a.k.a. Pattern X.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After reading that dreadful post re: embryology, I'm curious: who coined the phrase "gill slits"? I'm assuming it was von Baer, but I don't know for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rumor has it that it is a typical case of miscommunication...

Gil The Frill doomed to go through history as Gill Slit...


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2010,13:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2010,21:16)
Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As they're not there, they wont have any recourse when they rapture?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 07 2010,13:13

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2010,13:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2010,21:16)
Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As they're not there, they wont have any recourse when they rapture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And clearly he must hire heathens or atheists as pet caretakers, since all the good Xtians will be raptured away. Do those rapture-ready folks understand that atheists could be caring for Fido when they are gone?
Posted by: Robin on July 07 2010,14:42

[quote=Zachriel,July 06 2010,11:24][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Cornelius Hunter >: No, it seems to be another Google-ism. I've been having strange problems with my comments on this post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It didn't seem like Cornelius Hunter to ban comments. But we were hoping the "hot" evolution was too hot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nah...just 'intelligent design' at work...
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 11 2010,20:34

Man, this is too funny!

batshit77 has now discovered Corny's blog and is doing a system dump of megabytes of his C&Ped tard.

:D  :D  :D
Posted by: olegt on July 11 2010,21:06

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 11 2010,20:34)
Man, this is too funny!

batshit77 has now discovered Corny's blog and is doing a system dump of megabytes of his C&Ped tard.

:D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm discussing quantum entanglement with him.  So much fun!  

< Linky >
Posted by: REC on July 12 2010,00:14

Just throwing this out here, but if your worldview causes you to say something like:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is it that theists of diverse creed (present company excluded) and atheists can agree on this?
===
Because they hold the same religious views about god, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe you should step back, have a beer, and think things over.

This from a Hunter thread, where he starts with quoting Popper via Scientific American (for a PhD, he loves him the pop literature), flies in the face of Popper, into an attack on methodological naturalism of sorts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“so what’s your alternative?” it is implicit that god must not be the answer. That answer is dismissed out of hand, for it has long since been falsified
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Denies having said this, admits having said this, then decides:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"There's nothing wrong with MN, in biology or any other area of science"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We get into an argument about Cornelius' claim that saying god is a falsified hypothesis of evolution is identical to saying god is a non-falsifiable hypothesis not considered by science, to which he replies:

"I said "distinction without a difference," not "identical.""

WTF does that mean?

I swear, Cornelius has invented an opposite-day philosophy where science=religion, theism=naturalism (but MN is fine), atheism~theism. It's quite challenging to argue with him....
Posted by: Zachriel on July 12 2010,07:28

Quote (olegt @ July 11 2010,21:06)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 11 2010,20:34)
Man, this is too funny!

batshit77 has now discovered Corny's blog and is doing a system dump of megabytes of his C&Ped tard.

:D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm discussing quantum entanglement with him.  So much fun!  

< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Delectable.

Bornagain77 tries to wiggle out.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< oleg >: Explain what, bornagain77?

< bornagain77 >: oleg, exactly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on July 12 2010,14:32

Look who's < here >!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I presume I will be allowed to speak here.

< jadavison.wordpress.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This should be fun!
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 12 2010,14:56

Quote (olegt @ July 12 2010,14:32)
Look who's < here >!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I presume I will be allowed to speak here.

< jadavison.wordpress.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This should be fun! I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 12 2010,15:02

Quote (olegt @ July 12 2010,14:32)
Look who's < here >!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I presume I will be allowed to speak here.

< jadavison.wordpress.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This should be fun!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's getting to be quite the retard convention over there.  Wonder if any more of the regular UD asswipes like Clive will wander over too.  UD is turning into a ghost town.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 12 2010,15:22

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 12 2010,15:02)
It's getting to be quite the retard convention over there.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are not kidding. I helped argue Joe into a standstill on a couple of threads. Was fun.

< On this thread > Joe fails to provide any more details then "it wuz the designer wot did it" and on < this thread > Joe says


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see we no longer think that lightning is an act of the "gods" because we now know what causes it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When asked for proof, similar proof to that which Joe has been demanding for years, that in fact no "gods" do it Joe said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. That's right.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A guy called < Derek > sums it up better then I can


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seriously guys, 24 hours and no response? That's a long time for these threads. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Nat? Cornelius? Even Joe?

It's essentially the same thing you ask us to demonstrate in every single blog post. Surely you can demonstrate why lightning isn't designed. I mean unless your belief that lightning isn't designed is based solely on your metaphysical bias towards naturalism, and therefore lightning can't be the product of intelligence. Religion drives meteorology and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far that remains the last post.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 12 2010,15:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 12 2010,15:22)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 12 2010,15:02)
It's getting to be quite the retard convention over there.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are not kidding. I helped argue Joe into a standstill on a couple of threads. Was fun.

< On this thread > Joe fails to provide any more details then "it wuz the designer wot did it" and on < this thread > Joe says
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see we no longer think that lightning is an act of the "gods" because we now know what causes it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When asked for proof, similar proof to that which Joe has been demanding for years, that in fact no "gods" do it Joe said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. That's right.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A guy called < Derek > sums it up better then I can
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seriously guys, 24 hours and no response? That's a long time for these threads. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Nat? Cornelius? Even Joe?

It's essentially the same thing you ask us to demonstrate in every single blog post. Surely you can demonstrate why lightning isn't designed. I mean unless your belief that lightning isn't designed is based solely on your metaphysical bias towards naturalism, and therefore lightning can't be the product of intelligence. Religion drives meteorology and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far that remains the last post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we give Derek a Post of the Week from over here?  That was beautiful.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 12 2010,16:31

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 12 2010,15:02)
It's getting to be quite the retard convention over there.  Wonder if any more of the regular UD asswipes like Clive will wander over too.  UD is turning into a ghost town.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One reason might be that Hunter is rerouting his OPs to his own site. But maybe it is also the curse of the gavel at UD - posters might tend to censor themselves and debates get boring.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 12 2010,20:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Gary >: Of course most Darwinians reject the application of probabilities to their inane theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is going to hurt.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe Felsenstein >:  trained in theoretical population genetics, the application of mathematics to changes in populations. This involved a lot of methods for calculating probabilities. In 1981 I published the first bibliography of papers in that field, finding 7,982 papers had been published by then. By now it is maybe another 4,000-5,000. At least a large minority concern stochastic processes, using Markov chains or Kolmogorov's Backward Equation. We use probabilities -- a lot.

So Gary, a quick question: why are you talking such nonsense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouchy.

Joe Felsenstein
< http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/felsenstein.html >
Posted by: olegt on July 12 2010,21:31

Never mind.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 12 2010,21:34

Slimy Sal Cordova has now added his rancid bullshit wrapped in faux-politeness to the mix.  

Things are getting good!
Posted by: MichaelJ on July 12 2010,23:09

Wow good going the IDers are taking a pounding, it is great to see somebody calling Sal a liar without the comment disappearing.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 16 2010,04:43

In vain Thorton tried to point out that in science, there is a difference between proof and evidence.
Now it's Peter's turn:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... To verify a scientific claim you need proof. Evolution has none. At least you are honest on that point. No one believes that the earth is flat because it has been proven by photographs from space. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, prior to that it was perfectly legimate to believe in a flat earth. And any day now, we could find out that those photographs were 'shopped, like they did about the landing on the moon.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 16 2010,04:47

Ooops - just in case you want to read it:
< http://tinyurl.com/3ymy93r >
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 16 2010,08:02

I've often wondered if Corny and Cordova are the same person.

On the thread "Peter" is discussing the Nature of Science because that's what creationists do.  I must say, his closing argument is irrefutable.  Why didn't we see this before??



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No evidence so you have to resort to ad hominens. How typical of a person who's words are hollow. Yell louder and maybe you can drown out the truth. Face it, your secular worldview is unsupportable. Try as you might, you can not successfully argue that there is no God because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Last one out turn off the lights and lock the lab door!  We're done.
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 25 2010,17:34

From over at the UD thread:
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,09:37)
The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://tinyurl.com/33f2tak >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Troy > takes him/her up on this and Bilbo < replies >, with uncharacteristic candour:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed. OTOH, there appears to be purpose to the arrangement of parts in flagellum and cilium. So they look designed.

Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective.

If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective.

If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science.

But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 26 2010,04:19

Would this creationist troll who confesses to use the moniker Bilbo (among others) be the one we were talking about?
< http://tinyurl.com/3xkzmul >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 26 2010,17:50

LOL!

Besides UD, Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute are now letting Corny Hunter post his nonsense as a lead story at their Evolution News & Views blog.

< linky thing >

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.  :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 28 2010,15:18

< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/816 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 28 2010,15:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2010,15:18)
< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/816 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8. An infinite regress is required only when one assumes there is no God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: REC on July 28 2010,16:33

Wow....I'll have to use that one.....the FAQs there is a goldmine of circular logic, 'metaphysics,' and all the sorts of things Cornelius tries to fault scientists for. Knowing he's contributed to it makes it even sweeter...
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 28 2010,16:35

Quote (REC @ July 28 2010,16:33)
Wow....I'll have to use that one.....the FAQs there is a goldmine of circular logic, 'metaphysics,' and all the sorts of things Cornelius tries to fault scientists for. Knowing he's contributed to it makes it even sweeter...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:





i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Experimentation! WTF!!!!11111one
Posted by: REC on July 28 2010,16:50

q: "ID is asking us to accept the existence of an intelligent designer. Where is there evidence for the intelligent designer?"

a: "The answer is that intelligent design theory itself is the evidence for the intelligent designer."

I almost peed.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 28 2010,19:01

iii), translated, means "Nature is full of a bunch of weird shit that actually works. Therefore Jesus."

edit: formatting.
Posted by: didymos on July 30 2010,19:21

LOL @ JAD's latest < "contribution" > to the discussion at Cornhole's place:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When are you clowns going to wake up and realize that evolution is finished and has been for quite some time?

Now delete this you cowardly blowhards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the hell?
Posted by: MichaelJ on July 31 2010,00:52

Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny

"David:

===
'And so there is no excuse for lying in the guise of science. But lie they do.'

To “lie” is to knowingly state a falsehood. So, Dr Hunter believes that Johnson and Losos know that their claims are false, but are promulgating them anyway. He’s not saying that they are mistaken, but that they are deliberately bearing false witness, which is a heinous sin.

I wonder how Dr Hunter can know this. What power has enabled him to see into the souls of Drs Johnson and Losos and discern their cognitions and motivations?
===

Good point, maybe they're just insane.
"

I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that.


< Linky >
Posted by: iconofid on July 31 2010,04:48

Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:52)
Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny


"Good point, maybe they're just insane."


I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that.


< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bornagain77 actually disagrees with Cornelius, and gives us some hard scientific analysis:

"Dr. Hunter, I don't think the authors are intentionally lying, or that they are insane, but as the title of your post "Blind Guides" says, I believe they may be truly blind to even a small glimpse of "The Greatness of Our God",,,

The Greatness of Our God - Hillsong Live
< http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=02bf2dc3145ca1d885bd >

The Greatness of Our God - Lyrics
Give me eyes to see
More of who You are
May what I behold
Still my anxious heart

Take what I have known
And break it all apart
You my God are greater still

No sky contains
No doubt restrains
All You are
The greatness of our God

I spend my life to know
And I'm far from home
To all You are
The greatness of our God

Give me grace to see
Beyond this moment here
To believe that there

Is nothing left to fear
That You alone are high above it all
You my God are greater still

And there is nothing
That can ever separate us
There is nothing that can ever

Separate if from Your love
No life no death of this I am convinced
You my God are greater still
< http://www.songlyrics.com/hillson....". >"

So, that explains why the authors think a series of fossils is evidence for the fact of macro-evolution. Metaphysics, as Cornelius would say, combined with their failure to listen to corny, crappy religious songs.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 31 2010,12:19

a.s.s.f.
Posted by: REC on July 31 2010,14:34

jadavison said...

Cornelius

Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me!

jadavison.wordpress.com

Thanks.

< I love it so!!! >
Posted by: fnxtr on July 31 2010,15:19

Quote (REC @ July 31 2010,12:34)
jadavison said...

Cornelius

Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me!

jadavison.wordpress.com

Thanks.

< I love it so!!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and boy, won't the world be pissed off about that!

Yawn.
Posted by: MichaelJ on July 31 2010,17:41

Quote (REC @ Aug. 01 2010,05:34)
jadavison said...

Cornelius

Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me!

jadavison.wordpress.com

Thanks.

< I love it so!!! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow JAD ejecting himself from a blog. Is this the first sign of the apocalypse?
Posted by: JAM on Oct. 12 2010,19:08

Corny jumped the shark today, claiming that "And Miller did not explain the great number (more than a thousand) genes unique to the human genome."

What a liar!

< http://tinyurl.com/2aa67zk >
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 12 2010,21:58

Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:52)
Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny

"David:

===
'And so there is no excuse for lying in the guise of science. But lie they do.'

To “lie” is to knowingly state a falsehood. So, Dr Hunter believes that Johnson and Losos know that their claims are false, but are promulgating them anyway. He’s not saying that they are mistaken, but that they are deliberately bearing false witness, which is a heinous sin.

I wonder how Dr Hunter can know this. What power has enabled him to see into the souls of Drs Johnson and Losos and discern their cognitions and motivations?
===

Good point, maybe they're just insane.
"

I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that.


< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently Corny has had a change of heart. The last statement of his OP has been modified without annotation in the OP or in the comments as to having done so; 'lying' becomes 'misinformation' and 'But lie they do' is no more. Microevolution at work.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 13 2010,02:25

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 13 2010,10:08)
Corny jumped the shark today, claiming that "And Miller did not explain the great number (more than a thousand) genes unique to the human genome."

What a liar!

< http://tinyurl.com/2aa67zk >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Corny jumps the shark so often that the shark is getting head spins
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 13 2010,09:27

Corny's latest shark arial excursion:  The evil evos may have won Kitzmiller v. Dover, but they had to give up their souls to do it.  

:O  :O  :O  :O

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Corny:  As I discussed here, here, here and here, evolutionists won the day in the Kitzmiller case. But their victory came at a cost. There were substantial legal costs, but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can’t be measured in dollars. They gave up their soul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



..and of course Joe G has to rush in to defend this stupidity.  There's just not enough rings for all the clowns in the circus over there.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 19 2010,14:25

One of young earthers offers < his theory > of the origin of the Universe:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied. The water would have assumed the shape of a sphere and there would have been tremendous force applied to the water near the center of the sphere (let's call it "CW" for "Center Water") due to pressure from the water above it. The force would have been sufficient to break chemical bonds and overcome the nuclear forces for the atoms in CW, which would have released a tremendous amount of energy and led to the formation of new elements by fusion in other parts of the watery mass. Some hydrogen and helium would also have been produced. Let's assume that a torque was applied to the watery mass and it began spinning. The H and He would have been located at the outer regions as an atmosphere of the watery mass. At some point let's assume that the hydrogen and helium and possibly some of the watery mass were separated from the original watery mass and formed stars. The key question here is, "What would have been the composition of the stars when they would have been formed in this scenario?" Clearly, it would not have been that of the main sequence stars as astronomers suppose them to have been composed at their beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is just so freaking awesome!
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2010,14:40

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 19 2010,12:25)
One of young earthers offers < his theory > of the origin of the Universe:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied. The water would have assumed the shape of a sphere and there would have been tremendous force applied to the water near the center of the sphere (let's call it "CW" for "Center Water") due to pressure from the water above it. The force would have been sufficient to break chemical bonds and overcome the nuclear forces for the atoms in CW, which would have released a tremendous amount of energy and led to the formation of new elements by fusion in other parts of the watery mass. Some hydrogen and helium would also have been produced. Let's assume that a torque was applied to the watery mass and it began spinning. The H and He would have been located at the outer regions as an atmosphere of the watery mass. At some point let's assume that the hydrogen and helium and possibly some of the watery mass were separated from the original watery mass and formed stars. The key question here is, "What would have been the composition of the stars when they would have been formed in this scenario?" Clearly, it would not have been that of the main sequence stars as astronomers suppose them to have been composed at their beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is just so freaking awesome!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the key question here is "Huh?"
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 19 2010,15:46

Our friend Joe participates in the < development of the model >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say that the universe's initial conditions were a large 3-D space and within it a ball of liquid water. The ball is >2 light-years across, large enough to contain all the mass in the universe. Because of this concentration of matter this ball of water is deep inside a black hole whose EH is more than .5 billion light-years away.

Gravity starts to take over compressing this ball of water toward the center making it extremely hot and dense. The heat then rips apart the water molecules, atoms, even the nuclei into elementary particles.

Are you with me so far?

Thermonuclear reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and liberating huge amounts of energy. There is rotation that speeds up as the compresion continues. Then we have the universe stretching out, the black hole becomes a white hole. The EH shrinks towards the Earth and as the EH reaches the earth, an ordinary day on Earth would be equal to billions of years worth of processes taking place in the distant cosmos.

Now you are aware of a thought experiment involving two people- one going towards a black hole and one observing that person? The person going towards the black hole seems to stop- that is from the other person's PoV- as he/ she reaches the EH.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



P.S. Joe's writing style is insufferable. His paragraphs are one-sentence long. I took the liberty to impose some structure on the excerpt.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 19 2010,15:50

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 19 2010,16:46)
Our friend Joe participates in the < development of the model >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say that the universe's initial conditions were a large 3-D space and within it a ball of liquid water. The ball is >2 light-years across, large enough to contain all the mass in the universe. Because of this concentration of matter this ball of water is deep inside a black hole whose EH is more than .5 billion light-years away.

Gravity starts to take over compressing this ball of water toward the center making it extremely hot and dense. The heat then rips apart the water molecules, atoms, even the nuclei into elementary particles.

Are you with me so far?

Thermonuclear reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and liberating huge amounts of energy. There is rotation that speeds up as the compresion continues. Then we have the universe stretching out, the black hole becomes a white hole. The EH shrinks towards the Earth and as the EH reaches the earth, an ordinary day on Earth would be equal to billions of years worth of processes taking place in the distant cosmos.

Now you are aware of a thought experiment involving two people- one going towards a black hole and one observing that person? The person going towards the black hole seems to stop- that is from the other person's PoV- as he/ she reaches the EH.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



P.S. Joe's writing style is insufferable. His paragraphs are one-sentence long. I took the liberty to impose some structure on the excerpt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But when was ice formed? And steam?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 19 2010,16:26

Joe is < humble >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   Derick:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   My IQ is only 150.

   There are people with higher IQs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< I think we know who that would be >.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 19 2010,16:58

After I point out that Joe's scenario violates the no-hair theorem, Joe < pouts >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oleg,

Read "Starlight and Time" and get back to me.

OR you can write to Dr Humphreys and discuss it with him.

OR you can keep arguing from ignorance.

Your choice.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mwahahaha!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 19 2010,21:26

Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?"

:p

Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG!
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 20 2010,04:09

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,19:26)
Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?"

:p

Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That wasn't Joe.  That was Derick Childress, in < this comment >, making fun of people like Joe.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 20 2010,10:47

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,20:26)
Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define "a lot". ;)
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 20 2010,11:04

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2010,04:09)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,19:26)
Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?"

:p

Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That wasn't Joe.  That was Derick Childress, in < this comment >, making fun of people like Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit, I've Poe'd myself ( or Joe'd - same difference).
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 20 2010,16:07

Paging Cornelius Hunter!

< New Analysis Groups Lampreys and Hagfish >

Corn bait:

A scientist expresses suprise.

The common ancestor of all vertebrates may be more complex than previously thought.

Therefore Jebus.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 20 2010,17:14

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 20 2010,14:07)
Paging Cornelius Hunter!

< New Analysis Groups Lampreys and Hagfish >

Corn bait:

A scientist expresses suprise.

The common ancestor of all vertebrates may be more complex than previously thought.

Therefore Jebus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The irony of course being that the expressed surprise is how a real scientist behaves (bolding mine):

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I was staggered by this paper," said Philippe Janvier, a paleontologist at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France, and a long time supporter of the idea that lampreys were more closely related to jawed vertebrates. "It's very hard for me to recognize that I've been wrong in my assumption," said Janvier, who did not participate in the research, but this paper provides "very, very strong support for the monophyly -- the common origin of lampreys and hagfishes apart from the origin of the jawed vertebrates."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And one of the co-authors was also surprised, because he too started out believing the opposite of what the new molecular data was saying. His response?  Go back to the morphological data and re-analyze it.  All of it.  Turns out it didn't support his previously held position. But I'm sure it was just religiously motivated and nothing to do with intellectual honesty or anything ridiculous like that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 21 2010,15:25

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....218.php >
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 12 2010,10:07

Sometimes, it hurts just to look. But < look > we must.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neal Tedford: We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Derick Childress: < Really? >



Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{You ain't seen nuttin' yet.}



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Heh. Those crazy humans. Next thing you know they'll be putting maps in phones and computers in ovens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neal Tedford: I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Derick Childress:

Neal, < does > < it > < hurt > < to > < be > < that > < stupid >?

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

Apparently, I was wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
















Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2010,10:55

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2010,10:07)
Sometimes, it hurts just to look. But < look > we must.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neal Tedford: We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Derick Childress: < Really? >



Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{You ain't seen nuttin' yet.}



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Heh. Those crazy humans. Next thing you know they'll be putting maps in phones and computers in ovens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neal Tedford: I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Derick Childress:

Neal, < does > < it > < hurt > < to > < be > < that > < stupid >?

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

Apparently, I was wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
















---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weapons grade PWNage.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 12 2010,20:17

But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.
Posted by: fusilier on Nov. 15 2010,08:24

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2010,21:17)
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check out the last pic.

Waterloo!!!11
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 16 2010,16:22

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 15 2010,06:24)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2010,21:17)
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check out the last pic.

Waterloo!!!11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Curses. Goalpost transport foiled again.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 16 2010,16:53

But can any of them go under water like that thing James Bond had in one of his movies?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 16 2010,17:21

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 16 2010,16:53)
But can any of them go under water like that thing James Bond had in one of his movies?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think all mini-vans can go under water.

The trouble is getting them back up.*


*Also a frequent complaint from Arden's mom
Posted by: REC on Nov. 18 2010,07:58

Joke, or most ignorant comment ever?

Paper: "Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >

He even included a link to a pic of cauliflower, in case I was confused. Guess I should have lead with the wikipedia entry on worm anatomy, less this fool think "annelid mushroom bodies" = fungus!
Posted by: BillB on Nov. 20 2010,11:37

< From Darwins God: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eocene said...

   Bill bigge:

   "To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments "
   =====

   Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it. You obviously knew what I meant , but predictably skirted around the edges of true rational logic using a "What Is Truth?" arguement about what is "immaterial thought". The problem continues to be your problem with the experiemnt and that is the point.
   -----

   Bille Bigge:

   "(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)"
   =====

   Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff. Bill, first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get.
   *eyes rolling*
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works."
   =====

   Really. Science is about physical and naturalistic proofs. You have done neither and neither has the Darwin gang without telling predictable myths and fables found only in a parallel universe of some online gaming site.
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?"
   =====

   Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill. We are talking about LIFE Bill, not some unilateral agenda to appease atheists so they'll promise to be your friend. The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year. Once again you are proving this is more about religious faith, than science. Thanks for illustrating that for us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just can't find the words ...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 21 2010,16:58

Wait...what?

He's not even doing it wrong.  That there is some weapons-grade ignorance.

If you'd like a few words, I doubt the Bard would mind if you borrowed his seven classic four-letter list...   :)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 21 2010,09:01

This concerns Neal Tedford's claim that iPods can be arranged into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Despite our own best efforts, Neal Tedford's position flitted from tree branch to tree branch.



However, Derick Childress has apparently found a true rarity, an isolated and concise bit of tard, a tardicle.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Derick Childress >: (shuffle, nano) ? (shuffle, nano, touch) ? (shuffle, nano, touch, classic). Am I right in that interpretation? ... Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?

Neal Tedford: Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful, isn't it?

Look quickly, because it probably won't last long. Normally, a tardicle can't be found in this state, but as with quintessence, disappears as soon as you look at it. With this phenomenal find, perhaps we can finally answer the question, what is the half-life of a tardicle?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Derick Childress >: Super, Neal. Glad that's finally over with. Now that you've actually presented what you think is a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, we get to the fun part: Determining if you're right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations to Derick Childress, and a special thanks to Neal Tedford, who, absent his providing a constant stream of tardicles for study, this discovery may never have occurred.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 21 2010,09:18

Derick Childress's images won't embed, so you'll have to click through.

< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample1.jpg >
< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample2.jpg >
< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample3.jpg >
< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample4.jpg >
< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample5.jpg >
< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample6.jpg >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 21 2010,10:15

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 21 2010,09:18)
Derick Childress's images won't embed, so you'll have to click through.


< http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample6.jpg >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly example 6, which is the Paul Nelson model.  Steve Jobs said:"Let there be profit" and it was good.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 31 2010,22:15

< Hunter on common descent >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hunter: There is evidence in favor of evolution and common descent, but the fact is there are substantial scientific problems with evolution and common descent.

me: Let's see what those scientific problems are. What are your specific objections to common descent?

Hunter: Well it depends on what you mean by common descent. Even many IDs and creationists accept certain types of common descent, but I suspect you don't mean that. If you mean common descent via evolution, then you could look at the many failed predictions.

me: Umm, common descent is common descent. You know, the tree of life. DO you accept it or not? That isn't a trick question, unless you want to make it so.

Hunter: OK, the tree of life. That has been falsified many times over. There are mismatches at all levels. Only a precommittment to CD could overlook these many contradictions.

me: Can you be a little more specific, Cornelius?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 31 2010,22:35

Ha, Corny Hunter!  You're talking about a guy who suffocated in his own bullshit decades ago.

The guy couldn't order a Big Mac without screwing it up.

Pitiful.
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 01 2011,02:29

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2010,20:15)
Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You win, though technically, he didn't cite them by name.  He just rambled on about Archaea and Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and how we don't know everything yet, etc.

You gotta < love > this bit, though:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent.  

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got that?  Nearby branches are too different.  Distant branches are too similiar. Thus, Common Descent is clearly wrong.  

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know.  Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.
Posted by: REC on Jan. 01 2011,15:49

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 01 2011,02:29)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2010,20:15)
Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You win, though technically, he didn't cite them by name.  He just rambled on about Archaea and Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and how we don't know everything yet, etc.

You gotta < love > this bit, though:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent.  

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got that?  Nearby branches are too different.  Distant branches are too similiar. Thus, Common Descent is clearly wrong.  

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know.  Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Metaphysics!!! Religion! I winz!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 01 2011,22:46

Would it be too harsh to suggest that perhaps the esteemed Mister Hunter might benefit from a little less enthusiastic consumption of recreational pharmaceuticals before setting fingers to keyboard?

His powers of analysis beggar description without recourse to some particularly coarse and ribald language and less than kind speculations concerning his sanity.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 02 2011,00:00

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 01 2011,22:46)
Would it be too harsh to suggest that perhaps the esteemed Mister Hunter might benefit from a little less enthusiastic consumption of recreational pharmaceuticals before setting fingers to keyboard?

His powers of analysis beggar description without recourse to some particularly coarse and ribald language and less than kind speculations concerning his sanity.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tears come to my eyes when I see your comment so nicely wrapped in cellophane.
Corny deserves our best!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 02 2011,11:38

I confess a tendency to wax Vancian (if not Shakespearean) when I am not pressed for time in responding to the incoherent inanities that result from these persons of prodigious ignorance.  My goal is to one day present a blow so cunningly disguised as to seem a pleasantry to the recipient but boldly recognizable by all onlookers for a harsh ego-lacerating stroke of the virtual pen.

Alas, I shall never in all likelihood achieve this, as it takes so very little to tempt me to go all JoeyKris on persons of this sort.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: paragwinn on Jan. 08 2011,00:17

"JoeyKris"? Is that anything similiar to going all GlennBeck on someone?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 08 2011,11:50

No.  Going GlennBeck involves public weeping, spit spraying, and paranoid delusions.  JoeyKris manifests something more like a severe case of Tourette's Syndrome.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Leftfield on April 05 2011,17:33

< Neal Tedford on scientific procedures: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waterloo!!!!!
Posted by: noncarborundum on April 06 2011,01:25

Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
< Neal Tedford on scientific procedures: >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waterloo!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 06 2011,01:33

Quote (noncarborundum @ April 06 2011,01:25)
Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
< Neal Tedford on scientific procedures: >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waterloo!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe they already did it, and the final filming is set for 2012?  If the Mythbusters crew gets into a spaceship, we'll know we're in for it!  The reapture is when the mythbusters fans get taken up into the space ark before they push the handle and blow up the planet!  It's all so clear!
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 06 2011,02:41

Quote (noncarborundum @ April 06 2011,01:25)
Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
< Neal Tedford on scientific procedures: >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waterloo!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps they'll have to demolish it to make way for a new hyperspace bypass.
Posted by: MichaelJ on April 06 2011,03:39

Quote (Leftfield @ April 06 2011,08:33)
< Neal Tedford on scientific procedures: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waterloo!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.
Posted by: didymos on April 06 2011,10:37

Quote (MichaelJ @ April 06 2011,01:39)
Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's clear they're all skeptics (though they're not all atheists as well), it's just that Adam Savage, as per his personality, actually attends skeptic events and likes to talk about it.  It's funny, because he did say this at one of those < events > back in 2007:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My goal this year is to prove natural selection on the show. It's gonna take a while, it's gonna be very hard to make it fascinating on film in the context of our narrative structure, but I figure screw it. The sky's the limit. Let's do natural selection. I'm sick of fifty percent of this country thinking creationism is reasonable. It's appalling. And I have the unique ability, maybe, to sell this idea to Discovery, and they'll, they might allow me to do it, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A year later he said it wasn't looking likely to ever happen. Which I find kind of strange, since Discovery has no problem talking about evolution in who-knows-how-many hours of their other programming.  I guess the show's style made them nervous about such topics though.
Posted by: Texas Teach on April 06 2011,17:48

Quote (didymos @ April 06 2011,10:37)
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 06 2011,01:39)
Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's clear they're all skeptics (though they're not all atheists as well), it's just that Adam Savage, as per his personality, actually attends skeptic events and likes to talk about it.  It's funny, because he did say this at one of those < events > back in 2007:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My goal this year is to prove natural selection on the show. It's gonna take a while, it's gonna be very hard to make it fascinating on film in the context of our narrative structure, but I figure screw it. The sky's the limit. Let's do natural selection. I'm sick of fifty percent of this country thinking creationism is reasonable. It's appalling. And I have the unique ability, maybe, to sell this idea to Discovery, and they'll, they might allow me to do it, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A year later he said it wasn't looking likely to ever happen. Which I find kind of strange, since Discovery has no problem talking about evolution in who-knows-how-many hours of their other programming.  I guess the show's style made them nervous about such topics though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kari Byron is on record as an atheist < as well >
Posted by: noncarborundum on April 06 2011,21:41

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 06 2011,17:48)
Quote (didymos @ April 06 2011,10:37)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 06 2011,01:39)
Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's clear they're all skeptics (though they're not all atheists as well), it's just that Adam Savage, as per his personality, actually attends skeptic events and likes to talk about it.  It's funny, because he did say this at one of those < events > back in 2007:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My goal this year is to prove natural selection on the show. It's gonna take a while, it's gonna be very hard to make it fascinating on film in the context of our narrative structure, but I figure screw it. The sky's the limit. Let's do natural selection. I'm sick of fifty percent of this country thinking creationism is reasonable. It's appalling. And I have the unique ability, maybe, to sell this idea to Discovery, and they'll, they might allow me to do it, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A year later he said it wasn't looking likely to ever happen. Which I find kind of strange, since Discovery has no problem talking about evolution in who-knows-how-many hours of their other programming.  I guess the show's style made them nervous about such topics though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kari Byron is on record as an atheist < as well >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just another reason why I want someday to become young and attractive enough to marry her.
Posted by: J-Dog on May 04 2011,07:57

Somebody needs to get in touch with Corny and tell him it is time to update his Wolf / Thalycine anatomy research coloring book.

< Science Daily Thalycine News >

added in edit:  I see that I was scooped on this by Albatrossity.  Congratulations, you beat me to it - this time Birdman... but maybe I'll surprise you the next time we post something that makes fun of Corny's positions.  :)
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 24 2011,17:44

After more than month away (and not getting Raptured), Cornelius Hunter is back.

Sorry, he's still a dick.
Posted by: J-Dog on May 24 2011,20:33

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 24 2011,17:44)
After more than month away (and not getting Raptured), Cornelius Hunter is back.

Sorry, he's still a dick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we should all refer to him as "Dick Hunter"? Or would it be more correct to call him "Dr. Dick Hunter"?

If only my Hugh Jass puppet was still alive - he could ask him which he preferred.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 25 2011,13:53

Cornelius Hunter:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Wells is not a creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/jonathan-wells >

under About CSI:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's no secret that the lie of evolution has become a stumbling block for many on their path to salvation. CSI is called to remove this stumbling block by teaching the truth that God is our Creator, that we are made in His image, and that by Him and through Him, all things were made.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All Science So Far!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 02 2011,23:14

Hey guys, did you know that over at UD (and his place) Corny Hunter has definitely, no kidding, cross-my-fingers-hope-to-die-stick-a-needle-in-my-eye, falsified evolution?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Corny Hunter:  

So to summarize, in addition to proteins violating evolution’s expected pattern in important ways, proteins cannot be evolved via gradualistic mechanisms. Do you remember your biology teacher’s lecture on gradualism and how crucial it was to evolutionary theory? Well forget it. It is out. Gradualism doesn’t evolve proteins.

But that is precisely what Darwin set forth as a crucial test of evolution. Remember, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well forget it. Gradualism is out, and with it Darwin’s falsification criterion has been met. Evolution has been falsified.  < linky >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it's the same old bullshit - argument from 'it's toooooo improbable!!" pulled out of his ass numbers, but what the hey.

Let's go over there (those who aren't banninated like me) and encourage him to submit this work to a bona fide scientific journal.  After all, it's not fair of him to keep such a monumental epic discovery from the scientific community.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 05 2011,15:29

OH, NOES, evolution even less likely!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Modeling these force fields and how molecules respond to them is a major problem in molecular dynamics studies. Both the modeling of the force fields, and the molecular dynamics is challenging and computationally intensive. For instance, each particle influences each of the other particles. And as a particle moves, all of its influences change. But other particles are moving as well, so the dynamics quickly become extremely complicated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another dolt who doesn't understand the difference between modeling and reality.  A force field is a set of parameters for empircal potential energy functions.  This is inherently inaccurate.  The only reason molecular dynamics is complicated is the number of interactions.  The real explanation (quantum mechanics, again a model - electrons do not compute the orbitals they should be in) is terribly complicated.  And yes, there is even quantum dynamics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The previous model, which had evolution designing the chromophore and its photoisomerization, was complicated enough. Now evolution must also design force fields and their dynamics caused by electron flow within the chromophore. The design space just took another quantum leap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The IDiot does not realize that the previous theory implicity has "electron flow within the chromophore".  This is merely time evolution of the excited electronic state.  What is new is that apparently isomerization is not a necessary part of the process - does the IDiot ask if such process was designed, then why is isomerization there?  No.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 08 2011,11:14

Corny barking at the carnival known as UD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7 July 2011
Response to Comments: The Problem With Miracles
Cornelius Hunter

Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, bullets are miraculous!  Analogy fail.
Posted by: Badger3k on July 08 2011,11:23

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 08 2011,11:14)
Corny barking at the carnival known as UD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7 July 2011
Response to Comments: The Problem With Miracles
Cornelius Hunter

Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, bullets are miraculous!  Analogy fail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that or he's saying that people are not natural...which fits with his theology, of course.  About the only thing unnatural there is his stupidity.  Sure stupid that deep has to be miraculous.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 08 2011,13:21

Sometimes it's difficult to decide whether Corny or Mung is the stupidest poster at UD.

Has anyone ever seen them together?
Posted by: olegt on July 18 2011,07:21

Hunter declares a recent < Nature paper > by Povolotskaya and Kondrashov "meaningless." He is so incensed that he writes < two > < posts > about it. Not surprisingly, he completely misunderstands what the authors did.

Join me for a round of a pińata < here > and learn some amazing science in the process.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 19 2011,09:56

Quote (olegt @ July 18 2011,07:21)
Join me for a round of a pińata < here > and learn some amazing science in the process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the reminder. Was intrigued by your first comment about "the distance squared is proportional to the number of steps taken," but had lost track of the conversation. Good stuff, though you actually had it covered with your first comment.
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2011,10:12

Zachriel,

I should say that the authors did not make it easy to follow their paper by stressing the analogy with the expansion of the universe. That is a deterministic process: every galaxy recedes from every other galaxy (on sufficiently long length scales).

In contrast, here we are dealing with a stochastic process: proteins move toward and away from each other. One has to do averaging in order to see a trend. The concept of equilibrium, crucial to the understanding of this work, is not stressed frequently enough. It took me a while to realize its importance. Those Hubble diagrams surely did not help.

I suppose experts had an easier time, but I am glad I took time to understand this work. It is very nice.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 19 2011,12:39

Seems to me Gould wrote a book about this. Full House.

I'm not qualified to review it, but I have carried the image of the random walk ever since.
Posted by: socle on July 20 2011,00:50

Quote (olegt @ July 18 2011,07:21)
Hunter declares a recent < Nature paper > by Povolotskaya and Kondrashov "meaningless." He is so incensed that he writes < two > < posts > about it. Not surprisingly, he completely misunderstands what the authors did.

Join me for a round of a pińata < here > and learn some amazing science in the process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brilliant, oleg, those tables in Tuesday's post are very helpful.  I wonder if CH will acknowledge them?
Posted by: olegt on July 20 2011,08:20

Hunter ratchets it up to a trilogy!

< Part I >, Peak Fallacy: Proteins Evolved Because They Evolved.
< Part II >, Peak Fallacy: A Follow-Up on Nature Paper Proving A = A.
< Part III >, Peak Fallacy: Evolutionists Citing Other Evolutionists or, How to Drink Your Own Bathwater.

The discussion of equilibrium, or lack thereof, began in Part II and has now moved to Part III.

To be continued!
Posted by: olegt on July 20 2011,11:42

Cornelius < shows up > in the comments section. He still doesn't have a clue.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 20 2011,11:52

Quote (olegt @ July 20 2011,11:42)
Cornelius < shows up > in the comments section. He still doesn't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cornelius will get it when pigs sing.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 20 2011,14:00

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 20 2011,11:52)
Quote (olegt @ July 20 2011,11:42)
Cornelius < shows up > in the comments section. He still doesn't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cornelius will get it when pigs sing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you can provide a complete mutation by mutation description of the morphological changes between non-singing pigs and singing pigs.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 20 2011,15:42

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 20 2011,12:00)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 20 2011,11:52)
 
Quote (olegt @ July 20 2011,11:42)
Cornelius < shows up > in the comments section. He still doesn't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cornelius will get it when pigs sing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you can provide a complete mutation by mutation description of the morphological changes between non-singing pigs and singing pigs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Seversky on July 20 2011,17:36

Quote (fnxtr @ July 20 2011,15:42)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 20 2011,12:00)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 20 2011,11:52)
   
Quote (olegt @ July 20 2011,11:42)
Cornelius < shows up > in the comments section. He still doesn't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cornelius will get it when pigs sing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you can provide a complete mutation by mutation description of the morphological changes between non-singing pigs and singing pigs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pig reference is apt.  Olegt's comments there are like pearls before swine.
Posted by: olegt on July 21 2011,07:25

Cornelius has finally seen the light. Or < so it seems >.

Yesterday he presented a calculation that, unbeknownst to him, actually follows the principle of detailed balance. I suppose that is progress.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 21 2011,09:32

Quote (olegt @ July 21 2011,07:25)
Cornelius has finally seen the light. Or < so it seems >.

Yesterday he presented a calculation that, unbeknownst to him, actually follows the principle of detailed balance. I suppose that is progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't explain the one-dimensional case, then you will probably have troubles with 11-dimensional chess.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 21 2011,10:51

Quote (Zachriel @ July 21 2011,07:32)
Quote (olegt @ July 21 2011,07:25)
Cornelius has finally seen the light. Or < so it seems >.

Yesterday he presented a calculation that, unbeknownst to him, actually follows the principle of detailed balance. I suppose that is progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't explain the one-dimensional case, then you will probably have troubles with 11-dimensional chess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


P->g-4-upsilon-eyeofhorus-chacmool-saji-alif-lalla-thunderbird-smiley-#.

Your move.
Posted by: olegt on July 21 2011,11:13

Nah, he still doesn't get it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 23 2012,07:31

Cornelius Hunter shows how to do a linear regression.

< >
< darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-evolution-enabler-of-all-kinds-of.html >


Some choice comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venture Free: Wh...what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps a bit technical. Here's a simpler explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
troy: Nice try, Cornelius.

I've done a linear regression on the data.

First of all, the best fitting straight line has a slope of 0.77 rather than the roughly 5 of your arrow. Misleading by a factor of 6.

Second, the slope is not significantly different from 0 (p=0.16). There is no evidence for a relationship between the two quantities.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robin on Mar. 08 2012,10:11

A certain "Scott" is handing Corny and his followers their asses < here > and < here. >

Very entertaining watching as the "faithful" unknowingly let the cat-out-of-the-bag, demonstrating quite specifically that ID has nothing to do with science.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 08 2012,12:13

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 08 2012,10:11)
A certain "Scott" is handing Corny and his followers their asses < here > and < here. >

Very entertaining watching as the "faithful" unknowingly let the cat-out-of-the-bag, demonstrating quite specifically that ID has nothing to do with science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't seem to post there.  Oh well...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fianna:

If God came down from on high and said "To be a true believer in ME, you must kill and consume one human baby"

What is your answer?

The only possible answer from a true Christian is "Pass the ketchup."  But I bet you will not choose this answer as you know that killing and eating human babies is wrong.  Here, your own personal morals (and that of the culture that raised you) overcome God's command.

You could answer "No way"... but again, you would be stating that your morals are superior to God's.  

No, you will choose the only other possible answer and that is "God would never do that".  However, that doesn't help you either, because you are stating that God cannot do something and that there is an objective moral construct that even God must obey.

In that sense you are correct, because "God" is a social and cultural construct that fits in with the culture in which you are currently living.  Two hundred years ago, slavery was perfectly OK and God and the Bible and Jesus were used to support that.  Why are God, the Bible, and Jesus not being used to support slavery now?

Because, as a culture, we have grown in near adulthood and understand that holding another human being as property is wrong.  God hasn't changed, the Bible hasn't changed.  We have changed... and therefore our interpretation of the Bible and God have changed.

Once you accept that, then it's just a short step to wonder why we even need the "God" construct at all and we can all lead perfectly moral and polite lives without It.

I also note that you did not list and "facts" about evolution that are taught but are wrong.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: REC on Mar. 10 2012,22:53

CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 11 2012,03:29

Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,20:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, according to corny, over 40 million abortions were "performed" last year by "evolutionists". Hmm, I wonder if he personally asked every person who "performed" any or all those alleged abortions if they're an "evolutionist"? Obviously, to corny, anyone who performs an abortion must be an "evolutionist" and corny absolutely hates "evolutionists" and blames "evolutionists" for all the world's ills whether they really are "evolutionists" or not.

joe g likes to say that ID isn't anti-evolution but anyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows that ID is anti-evolution, and in corny's case it's really, really obvious that he is ANTI-evolution! He constantly bitches about "evolution" and "evolutionists". He's a religious nutcase, just like all the other IDiots.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 11 2012,13:28

Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 11 2012,01:29)
   
Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,20:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, according to corny, over 40 million abortions were "performed" last year by "evolutionists". Hmm, I wonder if he personally asked every person who "performed" any or all those alleged abortions if they're an "evolutionist"? Obviously, to corny, anyone who performs an abortion must be an "evolutionist" and corny absolutely hates "evolutionists" and blames "evolutionists" for all the world's ills whether they really are "evolutionists" or not.

joe g likes to say that ID isn't anti-evolution but anyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows that ID is anti-evolution, and in corny's case it's really, really obvious that he is ANTI-evolution! He constantly bitches about "evolution" and "evolutionists". He's a religious nutcase, just like all the other IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps "evolutionists" perform the abortions, but I have a question for Corny if someone could relay it to his blog: Who gets abortions and supplies the demand "evolutionists" allegedly fulfill?

"Almost three-quarters of women obtaining abortions in 2008 reported a religious affiliation. The largest proportion were Protestant (37%), and most of the rest said that they were Catholic (28%) or that they had no religious affiliation (27%). One in five abortion patients identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist; 75% of these were Protestant."

From < here (PDF) >.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 11 2012,17:24

Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,22:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This kind of shit really twists my melon. I am a mild-mannered type, but - as a commenter on that piece suggested - evolutionists place no value on human life. Yes, of course. That would be why I'm such a shit dad, husband and friend, why I never stop to help strangers in a car crash, give blood or carry a donor card, why I regularly take myself off and torture babies and puppies, why I'm right behind killing Muslims in their beds and state executions. Oh, hang on, none of that's me. I do value life. And I don't even need a fucking celestial Reward to keep me on the straight and narrow. How can that be ...?

I was involved in an abortion decision, and it still breaks my fucking heart. I think it was the right thing to do, and I think that there is a need. In the real world people have sex, contraception isn't foolproof, not everyone is financially secure, and we are on our way to being the only species left on the planet. I'd rather there wasn't a need, and if I were God ... but no, it was a desperately hard decision that still haunts me. So fuck off Hunter, that is just contemptible.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 13 2012,18:31

Over on Corny's blog, regular UD IDiot < PaV > (posting as Lino D'Ischia) gives a lesson in probability theory



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I roll a six-sided die 24 times, what is the probability that I will get a six?

It's 24 x 1/6 = 4.0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A probability of 4.0

Comedy gold.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: socle on Mar. 13 2012,19:04

Corny's signature sign-off seems appropriate:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is yet another example of how the evolutionary thinking creationism is corrupting science and, in this case, basic mathematics.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 13 2012,20:57

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 13 2012,18:31)
Over on Corny's blog, regular UD IDiot < PaV > (posting as Lino D'Ischia) gives a lesson in probability theory

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I roll a six-sided die 24 times, what is the probability that I will get a six?

It's 24 x 1/6 = 4.0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A probability of 4.0

Comedy gold.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's amazingly wrong in every dimension! At least one 6? Just one six?

P>1 was the icing on the CAEK, though.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 13 2012,21:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2012,20:57)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 13 2012,18:31)
Over on Corny's blog, regular UD IDiot < PaV > (posting as Lino D'Ischia) gives a lesson in probability theory

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I roll a six-sided die 24 times, what is the probability that I will get a six?

It's 24 x 1/6 = 4.0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A probability of 4.0

Comedy gold.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's amazingly wrong in every dimension! At least one 6? Just one six?

P>1 was the icing on the CAEK, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PaV doubles down on the stupidity.

After his last error is pointed out to him, he 'corrects' it with

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's your answer:

The formula is:
{1-[(5/6)^5N]} = 0.9351
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



where N apparently equals 3.

...all you can do is shake your head.   :p
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 13 2012,22:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I roll a six-sided die 24 times, what is the probability that I will get a six?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not about right.

It's not about wrong.

It's about... power!

(i.e., exponent)

Henry
Posted by: REC on Mar. 14 2012,21:44

Did you see his attempt at Chemistry?!?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And let's look at the fact that entropy will cause the amino acids to become dilute in the ocean. The number of a.a. per mole, and the number of litres are roughly the same. So, for a molar concentration of 1 in a million (10^-6), this means each a.a. will be surrounded by a million litres = million x 1,000 c.c., = cube root of 10^9 divided by 8 radial distance = 125 cm. = 48 in. roughly. So EACH a.a. is 4 feet from the nearest next amino acid. How can they get close enough to form a bond exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is with creationists and moles?

I like the million liters occupying a few cubic feet after some "math."

A concentration of one micromolar has about 600 million molecules per nanoliter.


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 14 2012,22:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is with creationists and moles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is that the creationists keep running into moles in those holes that the creationists insist on digging for themselves.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 14 2012,22:26

So PaV was the guy trying to dismiss the paper by Jeff Shallit and me over on < Good Math, Bad Math >? Interesting.

Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 14 2012,22:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,21:26)
Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the one who did that "math" was giving it his 110 percent?
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 15 2012,03:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,22:26)
So PaV was the guy trying to dismiss the paper by Jeff Shallit and me over on < Good Math, Bad Math >? Interesting.

Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, but I get the impression that even I, non-mathematical me, are able to understand who's right and who's not in the Good Math, Bad Math thread. If that is right, the Bad Mathers must be awfully bad. Let me guess: It is because they are after a particular answer that they somehow 'know' has got to be there, or else? And that runs all the way back from the sycopanths to WMAD himself.

Just my opininon, too late for me to learn math now. I might as well keep my big mouth shut but sometimes one gets fed up with the attempts at creating irrational models of the world.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Mar. 15 2012,05:46

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 14 2012,22:40)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,21:26)
Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the one who did that "math" was giving it his 110 percent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


400%, more like.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 15 2012,06:21

REC:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A concentration of one micromolar has about 600 million molecules per nanoliter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you tell me. After I'd just ordered a set of 4-foot test-tubes.

Still, nothing acts against the tendency of molecules to dissipate in solution. Nothing.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 15 2012,06:23

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 15 2012,11:39)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,22:26)
So PaV was the guy trying to dismiss the paper by Jeff Shallit and me over on < Good Math, Bad Math >? Interesting.

Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, but I get the impression that even I, non-mathematical me, are able to understand who's right and who's not in the Good Math, Bad Math thread. If that is right, the Bad Mathers must be awfully bad. Let me guess: It is because they are after a particular answer that they somehow 'know' has got to be there, or else? And that runs all the way back from the sycopanths to WMAD himself.

Just my opininon, too late for me to learn math now. I might as well keep my big mouth shut but sometimes one gets fed up with the attempts at creating irrational models of the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAH!  WHO ARE YOU TO TALK? HOMO.

IF YOU HAD A VALID CASE, A PHD AWARDED BY A SUNDAY SCHOOL DIPLOMA MILL WOULD BE INVALID.

WHEN NEWSPEAK TAKES OVER, ANYONE WITH A GRUDGE AGAINST THE TESTING THE DEFINITION OF TRUTH BY TEH SCIENTIFIC METHOD CAN LIKE BILL DISPENSE WITH IT AS EASY AS CLEANING OUT HIS COFFEE MACHINE.

FORGET THE MATH. BILL HAS SET A NEW PARAJIM. ANYONE WHO CAN PRESENT 2 x PHDs AT A CRACKPOT CONVENTION IS TEH WINNER.
Posted by: REC on April 23 2012,15:56

Hunter mega-botches the science again:

"Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well. This leaves evolution with yet another ridiculous just-so story. ... In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious."

Of course, he's confused endemic infectious retroviruses (like HIV and HTLV--which um, definitely affect Humans, despite Hunter's claim we lack them; or SIV) with endogenous retroviruses.

Endemic infectious retroviruses, being infectious (acquired), and not endogenous don't integrate in the germline and transmit--leaving nothing to be 'purged' from the genome after the host evolved to be non-susceptible to infection.

< Link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 23 2012,16:33

Perhaps ERV would want to weigh in on this.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 23 2012,17:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2012,16:33)
Perhaps ERV would want to weigh in on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK - I'd buy a ticket!

ERV vs. Corny is like Super Girl vs 7th Grade Bully - OK, I'd buy a ticket to that!

Just give me some time to buy some call options on Kiberly Clark.  I'm projecting a HUGE spike in sales of Kleenex and Depends...
Posted by: fnxtr on April 23 2012,19:59

Quote (J-Dog @ April 23 2012,15:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2012,16:33)
Perhaps ERV would want to weigh in on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK - I'd buy a ticket!

ERV vs. Corny is like Super Girl vs 7th Grade Bully - OK, I'd buy a ticket to that!

Just give me some time to buy some call options on Kiberly Clark.  I'm projecting a HUGE spike in sales of Kleenex and Depends...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and monitor screen wipes.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 23 2012,21:06

Quote (REC @ April 23 2012,15:56)
Hunter mega-botches the science again:

"Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well. This leaves evolution with yet another ridiculous just-so story. ... In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious."

Of course, he's confused endemic infectious retroviruses (like HIV and HTLV--which um, definitely affect Humans, despite Hunter's claim we lack them; or SIV) with endogenous retroviruses.

Endemic infectious retroviruses, being infectious (acquired), and not endogenous don't integrate in the germline and transmit--leaving nothing to be 'purged' from the genome after the host evolved to be non-susceptible to infection.

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Endemic vs endogenous.  Corny doesn't know his end from a hole in the ground.
Posted by: Febble on April 24 2012,11:09

Heh, I just made that comment!
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 24 2012,12:59

WTF?

Somebody want to tell Corey about;

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences" Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin,  PNAS August 31, 1999 vol. 96 no. 18 10254-10260
doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254
Posted by: REC on April 24 2012,13:16

Oddly, he deleted DNA "for clarity," while maintaining he made no mistake.

Now his incredible evidence against evolution is that viruses don't affect all lineages coming from a common ancestor equally well?

On that same thread, BA77 blows a gasket:

"bornagain77Apr 23, 2012 03:54 PM
Okie Dokie children, fun with Derick time,

See Derick? Derick is an atheist! Derick does not believe in objective morality! Poor Derick! Poor Derick cannot ground objective morality! Poor, Poor, Derick! Liar lie badly to Derick! Don't cry Derick! See Derick make moral argument against lying? Oh but poor Derick have no objective morality to appeal to! Poor, Poor, Derick! See Derick go to rubber room if he lived consistently in his atheistic worldview? Poor, poor, Derick!"
Posted by: JohnW on April 24 2012,13:33

Quote (REC @ April 24 2012,11:16)
Oddly, he deleted DNA "for clarity," while maintaining he made no mistake.

Now his incredible evidence against evolution is that viruses don't affect all lineages coming from a common ancestor equally well?

On that same thread, BA77 blows a gasket:

"bornagain77Apr 23, 2012 03:54 PM
Okie Dokie children, fun with Derick time,

See Derick? Derick is an atheist! Derick does not believe in objective morality! Poor Derick! Poor Derick cannot ground objective morality! Poor, Poor, Derick! Liar lie badly to Derick! Don't cry Derick! See Derick make moral argument against lying? Oh but poor Derick have no objective morality to appeal to! Poor, Poor, Derick! See Derick go to rubber room if he lived consistently in his atheistic worldview? Poor, poor, Derick!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt any of us can match Batshit's expertise on the subject of rubber rooms.
Posted by: REC on April 28 2012,11:09

Asking for a evolutionary prediction he has falsified, Cornelius has just informed me that:

"Evolution did not expect lineage-specific biology."

So I guess in 'descent with modification,' there is apparently no 'modification.' Some prediction.

< Link >

I guess others have known him longer than I, but I can't get over how an author with a Ph.D. can have such disrespect for and disinterest in the science he's mangling.
Posted by: Henry J on April 28 2012,18:14

Oh what a mangled web we weave when we first practice to dissemble?

Henry
Posted by: Amadan on April 29 2012,04:54

Oh how they kick our arses hard when e'er we preach our creo-tard?
Posted by: Cubist on April 29 2012,05:57

Zounds! the synapses doth tremble
When we practice to dissemble!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 29 2012,06:55

Our own Dr. Elizabeth Liddle (Febble) has begun posting at Corny's blog and in her usual sweet, polite way is kicking the crap out of Corny's anti-science nonsense.

Corny so far doesn't know how to react - his normal smarmy denials and evasions won't work, and he knows it.  So far he's just sort of hemming and hawing around, and just repeating his usual inane talking points.

This should be good.  :p
Posted by: REC on May 05 2012,11:40

Hunter shows his photoshop skills:



Wonder if he knows research academics were one of Ted Kaczynski's favorite targets?

I guess I don't get the message-abandon your research, or you might get a ticking package in the mail?
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2012,13:26

This is going to explode in Hunter's face.

The original ad was posted on a billboard by the Heartland Institute and had global warming in place of evolution. 24 hours later there was much outcry on both the left and the right, and Heartland pulled the ad.

Here is the story in the Guardian: < Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder >.
Posted by: Febble on May 06 2012,14:53

I've posted a piece about Hunter and Dembski here:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....7 >
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 14 2012,07:30

< Latest nonsense >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Other than the 'rapid' part (how rapid is rapid?), that could have been written in 1865. Darwin thought adaptations arose in response to environmental fluctuations!

Incidentally, it is to Hunter's credit that he appears to allow all comments (though little else about his highly selective viewpoint reflects credit upon him). KF shows up with the usual guff, and BA77 chips in with a shedload more - quite like old times! Then off KF scuttles to UD to pontificate interminably on the comments, untroubled by right of reply from the people he directly quotes.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 14 2012,09:37

Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 14 2012,05:30)
< Latest nonsense >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Other than the 'rapid' part (how rapid is rapid?), that could have been written in 1865. Darwin thought adaptations arose in response to environmental fluctuations!

Incidentally, it is to Hunter's credit that he appears to allow all comments (though little else about his highly selective viewpoint reflects credit upon him). KF shows up with the usual guff, and BA77 chips in with a shedload more - quite like old times! Then off KF scuttles to UD to pontificate interminably on the comments, untroubled by right of reply from the people he directly quotes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hunter used to allow most comments but now he's blocking or deleting comments that are derisive (in his opinion) toward him and/or other IDCs even though everything he says and everything his fellow creobot IDiots say is derisive toward non-IDiots. ALL he does and ALL he has ever done is attack evolutionists.

Want a good laugh? Picture him, ba77, mullings, and joe g out on the town trying to pick up some women.
Posted by: JohnW on May 14 2012,11:00

Quote (The whole truth @ May 14 2012,07:37)
Want a good laugh? Picture him, ba77, mullings, and joe g out on the town trying to pick up some women.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it impossible to imagine a homophobe of Gordshite's depth and breadth trying to pick up women.  "Dressed as", maybe, but not "trying to pick up".
Posted by: Kattarina98 on May 21 2012,15:11

Hunter < sets his pants on fire > - his last and pathetic resort to prove Lizzie wrong.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It makes no difference to me if evolution is true, false, or somewhere in between.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Febble on June 16 2012,06:58

Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

< http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp >

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.


Posted by: olegt on June 16 2012,08:54

Quote (Febble @ June 16 2012,06:58)
Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

< http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp >

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, come on, Liz. Hunter has been jumping all over that shark for a while now. On a previous occasion, he < photoshopped Heartland's infamous Unabomber ad >, substituting evolution for climate change.

I find it funny that Hunter refers to PZ Myers as a fundamentalist, even though Hunter himself teaches at Biola, the very place where Christian fundamentalism < was born >. If fundamentalism is so bad, shouldn't he put his money where his mouth is and quit Biola?
Posted by: Febble on June 16 2012,09:28

I guess.

I think I'd repressed the memory.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 16 2012,12:13

Quote (Febble @ June 16 2012,07:58)
Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

< http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp >

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. But < Lewontin! >
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 17 2012,05:31

Quote (Febble @ June 16 2012,06:58)
Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

< http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp >

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I usually try and go for a light tone. But what a stupid, arrogant, shit-for-brains fucknut. And good old King-of-the-Saved ba77 chimes in with that slime about objective morality! What does their Book say about bearing false witness, Love Thy Neighbour or Judge-Not? This does deserve some publicity - the thoroughly nasty side of what ought to be a force for good, however much I happen to disbelieve the factual utterances in the Bible.  

Personally, I have never regarded atheism as a license to do what the hell I pleased. And even if it did, I can think of much more fun things to do than killing a bunch of people whose opinions happened to differ from mine.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 17 2012,05:39

But Thorton raises a hearty chuckle: It's not just you Dr. Liddle. BA77 owes us all a new scroll wheel.
Posted by: Robin on June 18 2012,09:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am as capable of moral judgement as you are, ba77.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh now c'mon Lizzie, you're waaaay exaggerating here. BA77 is not capable of moral judgement.
Posted by: Amadan on June 18 2012,09:38

Oh he is - but just not about anything to do with morality.
Posted by: Robin on June 18 2012,13:47

Quote (Amadan @ June 18 2012,09:38)
Oh he is - but just not about anything to do with morality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh...touche!
Posted by: olegt on June 25 2012,07:17

< This > is sig-worthy!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs. It is just that the existence of God is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hold religious beliefs. In fact, their religious beliefs are denied, go unexamined, and are more dogmatic. That’s fundamentalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. A guy employed by Biola is wagging his finger at fundamentalism. Oh, the irony!
Posted by: NormOlsen on June 25 2012,17:50

Quote (olegt @ June 25 2012,07:17)
< This > is sig-worthy!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs. It is just that the existence of God is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hold religious beliefs. In fact, their religious beliefs are denied, go unexamined, and are more dogmatic. That’s fundamentalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. A guy employed by Biola is wagging his finger at fundamentalism. Oh, the irony!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cornelius wants to have his cake and eat it too.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are not allowed to speculate on whether or not the cake even exists, let alone has icing or not.
Posted by: olegt on July 15 2012,19:59

I just had a eureka moment. All this nonsense Hunter has been pouring at us makes sense when you realize that he is not speaking to you (the evilutionist). He is talking to an invisible audience of students at Biola.

More on that < here >.
Posted by: MichaelJ on July 15 2012,20:59

Quote (olegt @ July 16 2012,10:59)
I just had a eureka moment. All this nonsense Hunter has been pouring at us makes sense when you realize that he is not speaking to you (the evilutionist). He is talking to an invisible audience of students at Biola.

More on that < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that all of the ID crowd are preaching to choir. I think that Dover trial brought such an unwelcome light on ID that they gave up trying to convert anybody.

Does anybody pre Dover that the non-crazy MSM would uncritically publish anything by these guys with a token paragraph from a real scientist.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 15 2012,21:39

I find it interesting how quickly the ID movement abandoned the facade of secularism. It's like they expand every day on the Wedge Document.
Posted by: Febble on July 16 2012,05:51

So does Cornelius get some kind of retainer from the DI to write that blog?

He seems a to have a quota to fill, like news on UD.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 16 2012,06:46

I'm sure he does. He couldn't possibly run that blog for the pleasure of getting shredded in the comments on a daily basis. I bet he has nightmares about you :)
Posted by: Febble on July 16 2012,07:04

Well, he must put up his posts late at night US time, while I'm having my breakfast coffee, so I often get first post :)

He's pretty good about not banning people though, I have to hand it to him.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 16 2012,08:39

Corny has to be mental.  And, like Jon Davison, he would end up talking to himself if he banned people.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 16 2012,10:38

I don't think he's mental. I think it's a strategy not unlike the political strategy of slinging mud. Your opponent can wipe it off, but some of it sticks. You are not trying t converth heathens. You are trying to give your own troops something to cheer about.

It's obvious that creationists scroll past science the same way we scroll past BA77. You only pay attention to your own side.

But the standard of evidence for apologetics does't overlap with the stand of evidence for science. So there will never be any actual communication.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 16 2012,10:53

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2012,10:38)
I don't think he's mental. I think it's a strategy not unlike the political strategy of slinging mud. Your opponent can wipe it off, but some of it sticks. You are not trying t converth heathens. You are trying to give your own troops something to cheer about.

It's obvious that creationists scroll past science the same way we scroll past BA77. You only pay attention to your own side.

But the standard of evidence for apologetics does't overlap with the stand of evidence for science. So there will never be any actual communication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on July 16 2012,11:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2012,09:53)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2012,10:38)
I don't think he's mental. I think it's a strategy not unlike the political strategy of slinging mud. Your opponent can wipe it off, but some of it sticks. You are not trying t converth heathens. You are trying to give your own troops something to cheer about.

It's obvious that creationists scroll past science the same way we scroll past BA77. You only pay attention to your own side.

But the standard of evidence for apologetics does't overlap with the stand of evidence for science. So there will never be any actual communication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh what a sticky web we weave...
Posted by: NormOlsen on July 16 2012,11:49

Quote (Henry J @ July 16 2012,11:36)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2012,09:53)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2012,10:38)
I don't think he's mental. I think it's a strategy not unlike the political strategy of slinging mud. Your opponent can wipe it off, but some of it sticks. You are not trying t converth heathens. You are trying to give your own troops something to cheer about.

It's obvious that creationists scroll past science the same way we scroll past BA77. You only pay attention to your own side.

But the standard of evidence for apologetics does't overlap with the stand of evidence for science. So there will never be any actual communication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh what a sticky web we weave...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proof that there is no GOD or Spiderman.

Posted by: Raevmo on July 16 2012,16:33

Quote (olegt @ July 15 2012,19:59)
I just had a eureka moment. All this nonsense Hunter has been pouring at us makes sense when you realize that he is not speaking to you (the evilutionist). He is talking to an invisible audience of students at Biola.

More on that < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My theory is that Hunter is working on another book and he allows the "evolutionists" to comment on his crazy rants in order to analyze potential counter-arguments and develop counter-counter-arguments. It's obvious that he is not interested in dialogue.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 16 2012,16:46

If Galileo had  published Hunter's blog as a dialog on two world views, with Hunter defending the church, he would have been in a lot more trouble.
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 16 2012,18:48

Quote (Raevmo @ July 17 2012,09:33)

My theory is that Hunter is working on another book and he allows the "evolutionists" to comment on his crazy rants in order to analyze potential counter-arguments and develop counter-counter-arguments. It's obvious that he is not interested in dialogue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. I once tried to suggest an analogy to the movie Groundhog Day, but teknickle problems failed me:
This blog reads like a real life version of Groundhog Day. CH wakes up and thinks "Aha - today I shall smash the theory of evolution!". He then proceeds to write a Devastating Article, only to see his arguments shredded in the comments. The next day CH wakes up and thinks "Aha - today I shall smash the theory of evolution!"...

Perhaps he does learn a little each time, if only to somehow improve his performance for the next post, as in the movie. Maybe he is working toward the day when he gets it just right; the mainstream scientific world will collectively say "He's got us there, we're calling it a day" and bow to cdesign proponentsism.

However I've got news for CH - that day's never going to come. Maybe, though, just maybe, one day Cornelius will wake up and think "Hmm - maybe mainstream science has got it right - I'll look into it", but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 16 2012,18:58

Creationists come back week after week with exactly the same arguments, never acknowledging anything that has been discussed before. Upright Biped will, in a week or two, go back to Elizabeth's blog and start his spiel from the beginning as if nothing went before.

Meanwhile, biologists continue to unearth nonexistent intermediate fossils in expected places, find functional sequences among randomly generated sequences, study live evolution in the laboratory, etc.

And find free time to generate endless quotes that can be mined by creationists.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 16 2012,19:02

He's a trained scientist, as Lizzie keeps reminding him. Deep down, he must suspect that "mainstream science" got it right. I wonder how he can look into the mirror, see a liar each morning, and then claim the moral highground over the evil materialists.

BTW, I've become allergic to the term mainstream science since I learnt what those who use it want to supplant it with.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 17 2012,03:35

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2012,13:58)
Creationists come back week after week with exactly the same arguments, never acknowledging anything that has been discussed before. Upright Biped will, in a week or two, go back to Elizabeth's blog and start his spiel from the beginning as if nothing went before.

Meanwhile, biologists continue to unearth nonexistent intermediate fossils in expected places, find functional sequences among randomly generated sequences, study live evolution in the laboratory, etc.

And find free time to generate endless quotes that can be mined by creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are quite a few creationist/Id proponents with whom it's fruitless to engage (not that it can't still be fun. And it can help to sharpen up one's arguments). I think it was Lennie Flank who said something about watchful waiting till the next round of legal issues. Monitoring with the occasional prod to check current activity seems a good approach.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 28 2012,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Cornelius Hunter >: Joe G:

Sorry, comments are tricky and implementing a comment policy is even trickier. Most straightforward policies are all and none (i.e., allow all comments or allow no comments). We'll probably have to turn them off for awhile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on July 28 2012,11:13

Begs the question - to where are Batshit77 and JoeTard going to relocate? Which blog has unwittingly become their latest nest?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 28 2012,11:52

I can't understand why Hunter has chosen to close comments rather than simply suspending or banning the offender. He must know that Joe will be back as soon as comments are allowed.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on July 28 2012,12:13

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 28 2012,11:52)
I can't understand why Hunter has chosen to close comments rather than simply suspending or banning the offender. He must know that Joe will be back as soon as comments are allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess, to him, Joe isn't an 'offender'. I've seen the same elsewhere - people on the same 'side' as Joe tend to regard him as a lovable ragamuffin who talks much common sense. And a case could be made that Joe was not the sole cause of the thread's degeneration.
Posted by: Febble on July 28 2012,12:58

It occurs to me that perhaps Cornelius' tolerance of dissent is just that he hasn't figured out how to ban people.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 28 2012,13:06

On his own blog, joe brags that he has shut down a blog where evilutionists were allowed to argue their case.
Posted by: Seversky on July 28 2012,14:55

Quote (Febble @ July 28 2012,12:58)
It occurs to me that perhaps Cornelius' tolerance of dissent is just that he hasn't figured out how to ban people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is possible.  I don't remember him banning an individual before.  Does anyone else?

My theory about his toleration of dissent is that he uses the blog as a sort of proving-ground for his arguments.  In my view, Hunter is an anti-evolution propagandist.  His intended audience is the sort of crowd you find at Uncommon Descent.  He wants to know what goes down well with them but also what evolutionists have most difficulty countering - or appear to have most difficulty countering - and what are their best shots so that he can develop an effective reply.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 28 2012,15:14

That would imply his motives are the same as mine, which is a bit frightening.

I do this to improve my own understanding. Having to defend something is kind of fun.

But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow.
Posted by: Seversky on July 29 2012,05:23

Hunter is interested in science but largely from the perspective of finding whatever can be enlisted to support his religious position.  The understanding he is most concerned with increasing is that of his opponents arguments with a view to gaining a tactical advantage in debates.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 29 2012,08:07

Joe:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also it appears that I have fixed Dr Hunter’s blog- no more evoTARD white trash- like you and your twin thorton- can mess with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dennis-venema-begs-the-question-and-warns-the-church-that-it-must-come-to-terms-with-human

-chimp-common-ancestry/#comment-428741]Duh.[/URL]
I'm not sure that Dr Hunter sees it that way...
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 29 2012,08:37

Looks like planned vulgarity - I mean, can Joe's meltdown last a whole weekend?
Posted by: Seversky on July 29 2012,11:19

In his latest post, Dr Hunter very kindly provides evidence to support the hypothesis that his blog is all about anti-evolution propaganda, not science.

This time, he is denying that the observed variation in the size of finches beaks in the Galapagos Islands is evidence of Darwinian evolution.  He takes the standard IDC line that it only shows that less fit populations die off, that evolution is eliminative not not creative.

Even if he disagrees with it for whatever reasons, I find highly improbable that someone with his education and intelligence does not at least understand that this is a clear case of adaptive evolution in action.  

The most likely conclusion, therefore, is that he has chosen to sacrifice whatever scientific integrity he once had in the cause of attempting to discredit a scientific theory because, in his mind, it cannot be reconciled with his religious beliefs.

His religion drives his science and that's what's the matter with it.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 30 2012,09:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 28 2012,13:14)
But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dibs!
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2012,08:02

New thread.
< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012....ue.html >

Comments are enabled, but "Comments on this blog are restricted to team members."
Posted by: The whole truth on Aug. 28 2012,16:45

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 28 2012,06:02)
New thread.
< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012.......ue.html >

Comments are enabled, but "Comments on this blog are restricted to team members."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So, my question will not be allowed there.

And I don't see a way to become a "team member". Apparently it's by invitation only. I wonder if joey g will get an invitation?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 28 2012,19:03

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 28 2012,16:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 28 2012,06:02)
New thread.
< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012.......ue.html >

Comments are enabled, but "Comments on this blog are restricted to team members."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So, my question will not be allowed there.

And I don't see a way to become a "team member". Apparently it's by invitation only. I wonder if joey g will get an invitation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would guess it involves immersion in water and other rituals of that sort.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 21 2012,13:16

The once courageous Hunter has posted another opus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution’s predictions have consistently failed and the species do not form an evolutionary tree. These are yet more manifestations of evolution’s underlying anti realism. But evolution remains a fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comments still turned off.

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012....le.html >


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 23 2012,16:44

Corny seems to have comments turned back on over at his blog.

Batshit77 picked up right where he left off, with several long meaningless copypasta-fests.

Same as it ever was.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 23 2012,17:28

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 24 2012,09:44)
Corny seems to have comments turned back on over at his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick - someone tell Joe! :D
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 24 2012,02:46

20 bucks for the NCSE say that Joe feels far too cosy as an esteemed commenter at UD to migrate back; KF's positive feedback can't be emulated by Hunter who rarely bothers to comment once he has made the OP.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,09:56

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 24 2012,02:46)
20 bucks for the NCSE say that Joe feels far too cosy as an esteemed commenter at UD to migrate back; KF's positive feedback can't be emulated by Hunter who rarely bothers to comment once he has made the OP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You lost that one already.  JoeTard is already back spouting his usual anti-science one liners.

I give him a week before his next obscenity-spewing meltdown and Corny has to disable comments again.
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 26 2012,10:47

Joe's getting some great quotes in over there.  He even trots out the old favourite from Privileged Planet ...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” "The Privileged Planet"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Humans get the best opportunity to see a solar eclipse, therefore god. Excellent.  

Also ...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has. And I understand that bothers you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence.  I do not think that word means what ... etc.  If I had more characters for my sig entry I would snag that one too :-(
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,11:26

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 26 2012,10:47)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has. And I understand that bothers you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence.  I do not think that word means what ... etc.  If I had more characters for my sig entry I would snag that one too :-(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reincarnation must be true.  JoeTard came back as a giant horse's ass.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,12:28

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 26 2012,09:56)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 24 2012,02:46)
20 bucks for the NCSE say that Joe feels far too cosy as an esteemed commenter at UD to migrate back; KF's positive feedback can't be emulated by Hunter who rarely bothers to comment once he has made the OP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You lost that one already.  JoeTard is already back spouting his usual anti-science one liners.

I give him a week before his next obscenity-spewing meltdown and Corny has to disable comments again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh well ... Merry Christmas, NCSE. :-))
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 15 2012,22:29

Cornelius Hunter has now surpassed every other Creationist and IDiot in the biggest, most despicable dickhead department.

Today on his blog he posted a piece comparing the madman's killing of those innocent children in Connecticut to "all evolutionists" being just as bad by supporting abortion.

I've see some pretty repulsive acts by Creationists - comparing the 2011 mass murders in Norway to "natural selection" for example, but exploiting these poor slain first graders is just too much.

Cornelius Hunter you worthless piece of dog shit, I hope you get the most painfully slow bone cancer imaginable and live in fucking terrible pain for the next three decades.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 16 2012,01:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
comparing the 2011 mass murders in Norway to "natural selection" for example,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chalk up one decade for us to.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 11 2013,12:46

The evil Darwinists are perpetrating the Warfare Thesis with respect to science and religion:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ever since its foundation was laid in the nineteenth century, the Warfare Thesis has found increasing application. It can be recognized by its two basic components: an attack on science and an attack on scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh-huh, this from the author of this book:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG, it's the warfare thesis.  Corny must be a Darwinist.

Sure, you might say that Corny's using two different ideas of "religion" there.  And I'd say, precisely, he lies about science being religion and thereby  plays the warfare thesis to the hilt, even saying that said "religion" won ('illegitimately'--with bollocks to back up that claim), then the very real attacks on science that this mutt perpetrates are supposedly false "warfare" because the warfare thesis is "flawed."  There's some truth to the flaw idea, but, especially in the US, it's just a bit flawed yet a very real and unending fact, even though (flaw) not all religious denominations agree with dumbshits like Hunter.

But I suppose it's just a religion to want consistency and a cessation of hypocrisy.  It's fair to say that such a "religion" is science, though, not at all the disgusting religious melange of prejudice and stupidity that drives Hunter.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 17 2013,18:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Person X: “supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry”

Person Y: “So the appearance of species through time, as seen in fossils, is far from random. …  No theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [emphasis in original]

The answer is that Person X and Person Y are the same person. In this case the person is Jerry Coyne but it could be any one of the leading evolutionists because they commonly make these kinds of self-revealing pronouncements. The first statement delegitimizes supernatural explanations and the second statement is a supernatural explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, um, what was the whine about "materialists" ruling out supernatural explanations?

Seems that they don't at all.  Or Corny's too stupid and/or dishonest to care even about maintaining any internal consistency in ID lies.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 17 2013,20:05

Corny is one of the few creationists I think is mentally ill.  Some are just obnoxious, like FL, and some are so very strange that they may have severe mental problems.  Corny falls into that category.  It's a religious delusion that's beyond banter.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 18 2013,10:14

I have no idea what warps Corny, but he is sort of the etymological idiot.  Which seques into a couple of idiots exchanging amazement over the fact that we actually infer a cause adequate to the effects we discover:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Peter WadeckFebruary 17, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say. When they say there is mountains of evidence for evolution they think that this is true. For example, if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything. They only show a similarity. Evolution attempts to explain the change from one species to another. Similar morphologies say nothing about how one species could change into another. It is no evidence for evolution at all. It is a mistake in logic that would fail a first year philosophy student. This is incredible. And yet these biology professors consistently make this mistake. So when an evolutionist says there is mountains of evidence for evolution, in fact there is none. Words escape me to describe this unbelievable error throughout this field of knowledge. I can't bring myself to call it science.
Reply
Replies

   Cornelius HunterFebruary 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

   Peter:

   I think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say.

   Yes, it takes a long time to finally get it. Amazingly simple once you see it, but it usually takes a long time. Like those incredible optical illusions:

< http://kathrynvercillo.hubpages.com/hub........lusions >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




It's just amazing, Darwinists know what to expect from evolution, find it in life, and then just assume that life evolved.  

Why can't they just follow the evidence where it leads?

A dead body with bullets from Fred's gun is just a dead body with bullets from Fred's gun in it.  Why would you suppose that means anything important?  

And it all might be an illusion anyhow.  Aliens work in mysterious ways, you know (well, substitute words where necessary).

My God, next you'll see people supposing that Greek and German evolved from a common ancestor.  That all humans are related, simply because of their similarities.  Well, they're not all the same, you atheistic bozos.

Determining cause from effect is absolutely beyond science.  Or, at least beyond ID science, which just happens to be the latest and greatest, so the only one that matters.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2013,10:19

If words escape that guy, why does he have so many of them?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 18 2013,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right, and similar patterns in 'silent' substitution don't prove anything. And hierarchic commonality of longer stretches of DNA inversion and insertion and deletion  doesn't prove anything. And commonality of transpositional insert positions don't prove anything. And relationships between karyotypes don't prove anything. And the fact that trees are recovered from objective phylogenetic analysis doesn't prove anything. And the concordance of many independent lines of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Fucking Darwinists. They're just determined to see relationship where none exists.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2013,13:48

Well of course two species taken by themselves don't prove a general principle. It's several overall patterns among a huge number of species that are the reason the theory gets accepted by people who've studied the subject matter.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 15 2013,16:05

Missed this one, but Cornelius Hunter kindly reposted it.

The Evolution of Circular RNA: A Marshall McLuhan Moment
< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013....ll.html >
Posted by: Peter Henderson on June 12 2013,05:10

Somehow, there's one giant conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2013....-0.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 01 2013,23:54

Corny's at it again.  His latest steaming pile is a rant about the Supreme Court overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8.  The evil gheys are now free to marry and ruin society even faster than before.  Oh, and it's somehow the theory of evolution's fault.  The same evil conspiracy of scientists that EXPEL the Creationists and publish all that false data somehow influenced the Supreme Court to help with civilization's destruction.

< DOMA and Evolution’s Dangerous Cocktail >

Corny really does have a screw loose somewhere.  Or several dozen.
Posted by: stevestory on July 02 2013,09:29

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 02 2013,00:54)
Corny's at it again.  His latest steaming pile is a rant about the Supreme Court overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8.  The evil gheys are now free to marry and ruin society even faster than before.  Oh, and it's somehow the theory of evolution's fault.  The same evil conspiracy of scientists that EXPEL the Creationists and publish all that false data somehow influenced the Supreme Court to help with civilization's destruction.

< DOMA and Evolution’s Dangerous Cocktail >

Corny really does have a screw loose somewhere.  Or several dozen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His contention seems to be that just as scientists find creationists not just wrong but in fact immoral people, gay marriage supporters argue that anti-gay marriage people are not just wrong, but immoral as well.

He considers both to be examples of "out of touch elites", when in fact they're just examples of people with better values, vs dumb bigots like himself.

More and more I'm seeing "stop gays from marrying" morph into "stop calling me a bigot just because I'm a bigot you meanies."
Posted by: stevestory on July 02 2013,09:31

Some of them, like K-Lo at NRO, are starting to sense that they'll be remembered in a similar way to how we remember segregationists, and they are not happy.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 02 2013,09:35

Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2013,09:31)
Some of them, like K-Lo at NRO, are starting to sense that they'll be remembered in a similar way to how we remember segregationists, and they are not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some say that's already happened.
Posted by: JohnW on July 02 2013,10:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 02 2013,07:35)
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2013,09:31)
Some of them, like K-Lo at NRO, are starting to sense that they'll be remembered in a similar way to how we remember segregationists, and they are not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some say that's already happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The gay marriage debate in 50 years. >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 02 2013,12:31

Quote (JohnW @ July 02 2013,10:39)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 02 2013,07:35)
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2013,09:31)
Some of them, like K-Lo at NRO, are starting to sense that they'll be remembered in a similar way to how we remember segregationists, and they are not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some say that's already happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The gay marriage debate in 50 years. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I frequent some "conservative" sites -- where else to find the evolution debate -- and the more intelligent conservatives abandoned gay bashing years ago. Quite a few are openly gay.

But half of everybody are below average, so it's not hard to find bigots on every issue.
Posted by: olegt on July 31 2013,16:39

Hunter has jumped the shark.

In a nutshell:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

me: Theory of evolution predicts the existence of transitional forms.

Hunter: No it doesn't.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Details >.
Posted by: didymos on Aug. 01 2013,01:37

Quote (olegt @ July 31 2013,14:39)
Hunter has jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While his latest nonsense is egregious even for him, let's face it: Cornelius "Thylacine" Hunter is a professional shark jumper.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 01 2013,07:58

Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2013,01:37)
Quote (olegt @ July 31 2013,14:39)
Hunter has jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While his latest nonsense is egregious even for him, let's face it: Cornelius "Thylacine" Hunter is a professional shark jumper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jumping the shark indeed.

Notice how no one is actually talking about the paper.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 01 2013,13:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But theory of evolution predicts unequivocally that transitional forms should have existed and should be found as transitional fossils.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually there can be no prediction that transitionals should be found as fossils.

We have found a lot of fossils, and we can deduce from theory where to look, but there are many conditions not conducive to preserving remains.
Posted by: REC on Aug. 02 2013,11:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For whereas man-made machines may have a great number of components, such machines are specifically designed to limit the number of interactions. The components only interact with a small number of other components and a matrix describing these interactions would be very sparse. Not so for many biological systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonder if he thought about this as he wrote. Biological systems' features are contrary to design, therefore they are designed.
Posted by: didymos on Aug. 02 2013,19:58

Quote (REC @ Aug. 02 2013,09:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For whereas man-made machines may have a great number of components, such machines are specifically designed to limit the number of interactions. The components only interact with a small number of other components and a matrix describing these interactions would be very sparse. Not so for many biological systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonder if he thought about this as he wrote. Biological systems' features are contrary to design, therefore they are designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the idea that biology is designed is just assumed.  What he's actually aiming at is this:

"Humans can only design things with limited interactions. Therefore, designed objects with this many interactions must have been created by something far, far greater than some mere human."
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 03 2013,22:21

Corny had a major meltdown on his blog today and has begun banning people and deleting comments.  At least three posts pointing out his quote-mining and misrepresentations were magically disappeared, quite possibly more.

First KF, now Corny.  Is there some sort of brain disease going around the IDiot camp?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 03 2013,22:57

One does kind of wonder.  That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes?  Quiet defections, perhaps?  The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public.  "Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds.  I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do.  Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you.  But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Oct. 04 2013,03:54

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 04 2013,04:57)
One does kind of wonder.  That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes?  Quiet defections, perhaps?  The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public.  "Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds.  I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do.  Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you.  But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2013,09:14

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 04 2013,03:54)
Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think there's quite a bit of truth in that.  The IDiots at the DI sunk quite a bit of time and money into Darwin's Doubt.  Now that it's done such a magnificent face plant and sunk into a quick obscurity the 'Tooters don't know what to do with themselves.

Not as bad for them as the Dover debacle, but in the same neighborhood.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2013,09:45

If you count Behe's Edge, it's three big strikes.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 04 2013,09:47

An attempt to comment on Hunter's blog produces this response:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comments on this blog are restricted to team members.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 04 2013,09:53

Team?

Away Team?

Can we expect a mass suicide of ID's failed revolutionaries?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 04 2013,09:53

ID no improvement on a bronze age bunch of cattle rustling Bedouin foreskin collectors. Look out for more camel races.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2013,09:56

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2013,09:47)
An attempt to comment on Hunter's blog produces this response:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comments on this blog are restricted to team members.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the cognitive dissonance finally made Corny snap?

Looks like he took his ball and went home.

ETA:  Maybe he's doing a Dave Hawkins style reboot.  I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 04 2013,11:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 04 2013,07:45)
If you count Behe's Edge, it's three big strikes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you got four strikes in American baseball....
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 04 2013,12:30

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 04 2013,03:54)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 04 2013,04:57)
One does kind of wonder.  That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes?  Quiet defections, perhaps?  The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public.  "Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds.  I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do.  Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you.  But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could be, I don't know.  

I guess I'm so cynical about the dreary old creationist BS about the Cambrian Explosion--which oddly ends up with all of metazoan life being "miraculously" related--that it seems to me that they shouldn't have any great hopes for it.  It's Meyer's old schtick, too, so the idea that somehow it's supposed to be some great revelation to the unwashed seems bizarre.

But I know that they're bizarre, so perhaps their triumphalist hopes still hyped it into some presage of the second coming.  Being ridiculous has not the same effect upon them as it does upon the non-ridiculous, after all.

There is the question of coffers that could play into all of this.  Whether or not  Darwin's Doubt would persuade anyone, the hope might have really been more of stimulating the "faithful" to cough up copious amounts of money, and I doubt their marks been especially enthusiastic about the DI's ability to make their case with Meyer's book.

In the end, I just don't know, but it is fun to watch the meltdowns, whatever the cause.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 05 2013,05:35

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,07:56)
 I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was because JoeG decided he was gonna play blog-sheriff and clean up the place (i.e., get rid of all the pesky evos) by going on a profanity-spewing rampage.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 05 2013,05:43

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 03 2013,20:21)
Corny had a major meltdown on his blog today and has begun banning people and deleting comments.  At least three posts pointing out his quote-mining and misrepresentations were magically disappeared, quite possibly more.

First KF, now Corny.  Is there some sort of brain disease going around the IDiot camp?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What exactly did he delete?
Posted by: Seversky on Oct. 05 2013,15:12

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,09:56)
ETA:  Maybe he's doing a Dave Hawkins style reboot.  I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he did.  It lasted until he couldn't stand the lack of attention any longer.  My prediction is the same thing will happen this time.  I give it about 3 months tops.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 11 2013,04:11

< http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013....er.html >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 11 2013,08:39

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2013,04:11)
< http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013.......er.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needs updating to current website name.
Posted by: Seversky on Dec. 18 2013,04:26

Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 05 2013,15:12)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,09:56)
ETA:  Maybe he's doing a Dave Hawkins style reboot.  I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he did.  It lasted until he couldn't stand the lack of attention any longer.  My prediction is the same thing will happen this time.  I give it about 3 months tops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like it was about 2 months this time.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 18 2013,14:33

Quote (Seversky @ Dec. 18 2013,04:26)
 
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 05 2013,15:12)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,09:56)
ETA:  Maybe he's doing a Dave Hawkins style reboot.  I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he did.  It lasted until he couldn't stand the lack of attention any longer.  My prediction is the same thing will happen this time.  I give it about 3 months tops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like it was about 2 months this time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Corny has decided to go with UD style moderation this time. Apparently a comment by oleg has already been deleted and replaced by this message from Corny:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oleg: Comments should not be rehashes of strawmen that have already been addressed several times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cornelius Hunter admits defeat already!  :D
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 18 2013,19:04

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 18 2013,14:33)
Quote (Seversky @ Dec. 18 2013,04:26)
 
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 05 2013,15:12)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,09:56)
ETA:  Maybe he's doing a Dave Hawkins style reboot.  I recall about a year ago Corny got a similar case of the grumpies and locked all comments on the blog for a few months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he did.  It lasted until he couldn't stand the lack of attention any longer.  My prediction is the same thing will happen this time.  I give it about 3 months tops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like it was about 2 months this time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Corny has decided to go with UD style moderation this time. Apparently a comment by oleg has already been deleted and replaced by this message from Corny:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oleg: Comments should not be rehashes of strawmen that have already been addressed several times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cornelius Hunter admits defeat already!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Corny...He'll never overcome the thylacines are wolves coloring book debacle!

Somebody should remind him of his roots!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 26 2013,16:31

LOL!  After all this time Corny Hunter is still managing to come up with new ways to make himself look like a scientifically illiterate boob.  This time it's "Problems With the Canonical Giant-Impact Model of Moon Evolution" disprove evolutionary theory!  Some highlights:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Modern evolutionary theories attempting to explain the Earth-Moon system go back to the late nineteenth century when George Darwin, son of Charles, proposed that the Moon was made of materials ejected from the Earth by tidal instabilities.
...

The many patches added to evolutionary theories result in high complexity and loss of parsimony. One example that Robin Canup recently discussed is the origin of the Earth-Moon system.

Canup’s acknowledgment of the problem is a rare exception to the rule of declaring evolution to be a scientific fact regardless of the failures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I won't link to the boob's blog since he has started implementing UD style censoring but go look for yourself if you need a good laugh.   The DI and BIOLA must be so proud to have a science scholar of his caliber on their staff.  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 04 2014,06:17

Corny's lying has become rather sloppy - why else would he build a strawman and demolish it with a quote right in the next sentence:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, have genomes that are around 95% identical, and most of the DNA differences are not differences that actually affect our forms. So, small changes accruing over time since we last shared a common ancestor was enough to shape our species since we parted ways – there is no evidence that evolution requires radical changes at the DNA level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will his followers notice? Bets are on.

TARD starts < here at UD > and continues < here at his blargh >.


Posted by: Febble on Jan. 04 2014,07:53

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 04 2014,06:17)
Corny's lying has become rather sloppy - why else would he build a strawman and demolish it with a quote right in the next sentence:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, have genomes that are around 95% identical, and most of the DNA differences are not differences that actually affect our forms. So, small changes accruing over time since we last shared a common ancestor was enough to shape our species since we parted ways – there is no evidence that evolution requires radical changes at the DNA level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will his followers notice? Bets are on.

TARD starts < here at UD > and continues < here at his blargh >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really don't think Hunter is very bright.  My hunch is that he doesn't understand the science very well, that's why he thinks  it doesn't make sense.

He probably didn't even notice the error.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 05 2014,03:05

Hi Febble, like you I prefer not to assume the worst about persons' motives, and I have a little penchant for Corny's stubbornness. However, he is supposed to be an (ex)scientist:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's from the < Disco Tute >.
And The University of Illinois is supposed to be one of the best research universities in the USA. Besides, he has had those discussions in the past and should know better.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 20 2014,13:08

Sad bastard that I am, and thanks to the tireless regulars here, I was tempted to post a comment at Corny's blog. It's been in moderation a while and it wasn't very polite so I don't suppose it will see the light of day. Tant pis! But I did tick the box to be notified of further comments in case it was published and there were responses.

Bob O'H (also at a loose end I guess) adds a much more sensible comment:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"One way I would describe the patterns is thick smoke under intelligent control."

Yes and no. Starling murmurations have been studied, and the current understanding is that they only need to follow their 7 neighbours. So there isn't a single intelligence guiding them, it's lots of small intelligences.

One obvious reason for flying in a group is as a defence against predators (i.e. safety in numbers, partly because there are more eyes to watch out for predators). But there may be more reasons, too, e.g. there may be social interactions. I'm not sure we know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but I can't see it published on the thread, yet. Email arrived 13.37 and it is now 20.04 CET. How does that work?

ETA never mind (nested comments).
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 04 2014,12:40

I see that our friend Cornelius has posted over at UD under the title "Here’s Darwin’s Solution for Convergent Evolution: Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention”

Is he going to reference his marsupial wolf picture as supporting evidence?
Posted by: Lethean on Mar. 05 2014,05:13

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 04 2014,12:40)
I see that our friend Cornelius has posted over at UD under the title "Here’s Darwin’s Solution for Convergent Evolution: Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention”

Is he going to reference his marsupial wolf picture as supporting evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I prefer to have my tard filtered by the brave souls who are certainly better equipped to snip and rebut, so I won't be offering UD my clickys. (and thank you for that) Would it be too outlandish to guess that Hunter is denigrating that idea and using it to prop up the designer is reusing His designs aka common design hypothesis?

In any case, I'm reminded of an excellent article I read a few years ago by Malcolm Gladwell concerning, among other things related to invention and discovery, the topic of independent discovery. In it he pulled together information from a number of historians of science and it's a really great read and for what it's worth I highly recommend it. Here's a snippet ~

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland.  “There were four independent discoveries of sunspots, all in 1611; namely, by Galileo in Italy, Scheiner in Germany, Fabricius in Holland and Harriott in England,” Ogburn and Thomas note, and they continue:

The law of the conservation of energy, so significant in science and philosophy, was formulated four times independently in 1847, by Joule, Thomson, Colding and Helmholz. They had been anticipated by Robert Mayer in 1842. There seem to have been at least six different inventors of the thermometer and no less than nine claimants of the invention of the telescope. Typewriting machines were invented simultaneously in England and in America by several individuals in these countries. The steamboat is claimed as the “exclusive” discovery of Fulton, Jouffroy, Rumsey, Stevens and Symmington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Full Article >

Wikipedia has an article as well, < Multiple discovery >. I like the section on "Civility," it being a hobby horse term over at UD.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In another classic case of multiple discovery, the two discoverers showed more civility. By June 1858 Charles Darwin had completed over two-thirds of his On the Origin of Species when he received a startling letter from a naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, 13 years his junior, with whom he had corresponded. The letter summarized Wallace's theory of natural selection, with conclusions identical to Darwin's own. Darwin turned for advice to his friend Charles Lyell, the foremost geologist of the day. Lyell proposed that Darwin and Wallace prepare a joint communication to the scientific community. Darwin being preoccupied with his mortally ill youngest son, Lyell enlisted Darwin's closest friend, Joseph Hooker, director of Kew Gardens, and together on 1 July 1858 they presented to the Linnean Society a joint paper that brought together Wallace's abstract with extracts from Darwin's earlier, 1844 essay on the subject. The paper was also published that year in the Society's journal. Neither the public reading of the joint paper nor its publication attracted the least interest; but Wallace, "admirably free from envy or jealousy," had been content to remain in Darwin's shadow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There was some news very recently of two researchers independently coming up with essentially the same test for some disease. Sadly I can't for the life of me recall what it was though.

Of course I'm probably missing Hunter's point anyway. I assume Hunter isn't denying that doesn't happen and will go on how that doesn't square with "blind undirected processes" yadda yadda. This was more about sharing that article by Gladwell I thought the regulars here would find interesting.
Posted by: JonF on Mar. 05 2014,07:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When it's time to railroad, people start railroading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



R.A. Heinlein
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 05 2014,13:49

The discussion of parallel inventions and discoveries is interesting, but humans engage in a lot of horizontal meme transfer.

Convergent evolution is "harder."
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 03 2014,13:28

Did you see the latest?

"Darwin Scholars" an affordable on-line course offered by none other than Corny his own self.

$1600 for the full set!

Holy Shamoly, he's become a televangelist!
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 03 2014,13:41

Corny stoll his webpage images from somewhere:

< http://informatika.stei.itb.ac.id/~rinald....076.pdf >

And does Ken ham show up in one of the slides?

< http://www.darwinscholars.com/....ars.com >
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 03 2014,15:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 03 2014,13:41)
Corny stoll his webpage images from somewhere:

< http://informatika.stei.itb.ac.id/~rinald....076.pdf >

And does Ken ham show up in one of the slides?

< http://www.darwinscholars.com/....ars....ars.com >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ken Ham!  What the hell?

Sure, it's the Ham on Nye debate, but still.  Corny's not even trying.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 03 2014,19:48

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 03 2014,13:28)
Did you see the latest?

"Darwin Scholars" an affordable on-line course offered by none other than Corny his own self.

$1600 for the full set!

Holy Shamoly, he's become a televangelist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's been obvious for years that Corny was extremely jealous of the ID bigwigs like Dembski, Behe, and Meyer.  They made all the coin while Corny played nursemaid to UD's IDiot second stringers.  

Corny wants a piece of the hot Tard con-man action and he's going to try his best to get it!
Posted by: REC on July 18 2014,14:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As usual, the problem cannot simply be explained away as a consequence of methodological problems and evolutionists are left with convergence or extinction as their only explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014.......ys.html >

In Hunter's mind EXTINCTION is contrary to evolutionary biology? Convergence I suppose he could piss on to the applause of only his loyal few, but extinction!?!

He's also missed the point. The paper suggests, as one explanation, that orb-weaving was an ancestral trait lost in some lineages, resulting in the orb-weaving persisting in lineages that are more closely related to those that now lack orb-weaving than other orb-weavers.

Alternatively, the diverse "orb-webs" might not be homologous traits. The authors' point out the silk used, the method of spinning and the use of the web isn't uniform.


Posted by: Henry J on July 18 2014,15:24

So either the common ancestor already had the web thing in some form, or else it had features that were close to having web spinning, and multiple descendant lineages evolved it the rest of the way separately?
Posted by: REC on July 18 2014,17:25

Those are the hypotheses that the authors' promise to test. And all spiders use silk (some for webs, other for lairs/dens, egg sacs...), so the idea different lineages purposed it for "webs" isn't really that astounding.

Especially when we're talking about the difference between this:


and these:




I actually have read up on this, from a materials science standpoint. The silk of the true orb spiders is thin and sticky. The guys on the out in this study have wooly, non-adhering silk. They also lack venom, and were already considered distant from the "Araneoidea" orb spiders based on morphology:

< http://entomology.si.edu/staffpa....tAl.pdf >

Take a look at figure 7 of that paper on spider morphology. To me, it looks like "Orbiculariae" is now not a valid group. There are true Araneoidea, and the outliers in this study were already the far left group, distant from the others, and without another outgroup to root them with the Araneoidea.


Posted by: didymos on July 19 2014,01:48

Here's the only thing about the Cornster you need to know:  all the evidence for evolution is actually evidence against evolution.  Biology is just doing it wrong.

For instance, he loves to declare that lineage-specific biology contradicts common descent. Nevermind that common descent doesn't rule that out in the least and that it's a basic tenet of evolutionary theory that such stuff will evolve.  Nope.  See, there's just way too much of it, and evolution is religion, and that matters and stuff.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 05 2014,22:47

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 03 2014,13:28)
Did you see the latest?

"Darwin Scholars" an affordable on-line course offered by none other than Corny his own self.

$1600 for the full set!

Holy Shamoly, he's become a televangelist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just checked Corny's site.  He's cut the cost of his "science" classes by 50%.  :D   I bet the asswipe can't even give the things away.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 05 2014,22:56

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 05 2014,22:47)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 03 2014,13:28)
Did you see the latest?

"Darwin Scholars" an affordable on-line course offered by none other than Corny his own self.

$1600 for the full set!

Holy Shamoly, he's become a televangelist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just checked Corny's site.  He's cut the cost of his "science" classes by 50%.  :D   I bet the asswipe can't even give the things away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only way I could see him getting people to pay would be if it marketed it as "I will teach you to fleece the rubes in 3 easy steps!"
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 13 2014,15:46

Cornhole Hunter must have a lot of time on his hands since no one signed up for his "Darwin Scholars" bullshit.  Now he's back to railing against Judge Jones and those evil Gheys again.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Latest from Corny's Blorg:

Should we point out that evolution is scientifically flawed? Or should we point out that homosexuality, the usual mental gymnastics of evolutionists notwithstanding, makes no sense under evolution? Remember that part about reproductive success?

What a classic mistrial. Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. If the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered, the perfect propaganda is the one that is never understood. Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”  Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All traces of "Darwin Scholars" have been removed from the blorg too. Poor lonely Corny.  Maybe he can get JoeTard to post some obscenities for him  :D
Posted by: KevinB on Sep. 13 2014,16:36

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 13 2014,15:46)
Cornhole Hunter must have a lot of time on his hands since no one signed up for his "Darwin Scholars" bullshit.  Now he's back to railing against Judge Jones and those evil Gheys again.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Latest from Corny's Blorg:

Should we point out that evolution is scientifically flawed? Or should we point out that homosexuality, the usual mental gymnastics of evolutionists notwithstanding, makes no sense under evolution? Remember that part about reproductive success?

What a classic mistrial. Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. If the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered, the perfect propaganda is the one that is never understood. Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”  Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All traces of "Darwin Scholars" have been removed from the blorg too. Poor lonely Corny.  Maybe he can get JoeTard to post some obscenities for him  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He got the name wrong, since he obviously intended "Scholars against Darwin". The people he wanted couldn't handle the double-think.

PS There have been a number of weightist comments. Do these have any connection with the references to fitness functions?
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.