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

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

Pages: (29) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,23:33    fellers Paul thinks he is mighty swuft on this'un.  Paul reckons that he and his Culture Renewal Warriors can claim just because creationists have used these arguments   before   that   doesn't necessarily mean that you have to call it a creationist argument because it is still a free country even though it is clear Lenny hates freedom because he is commie. and that is pretty a much a greatest hits of this thread.  paul i thought you were interested in correcting the errors in your book, Of Pandas And PeopleExplore Evolution? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,14:04    I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.) But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth. We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,14:49    I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors! -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,16:39    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49) I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors! Dang.  This seems like a fun game, now that Paul has abandoned us again.  But my copy of the book is at work, and I'm not. So I'll have to wait! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:13    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49) I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors! Well, I had to go in to the office to pick up some papers to grade (sigh), and got my copy of EE. The challenge to find the first error on page 94 of EE was too easy; there is an error in the first complete sentence on that page! On page 93 we read Quote The second problem is where the moths were placed. Peppered moths in the wild normally find resting places high up in the canopy of the trees—not on the tree trunks where the experimenters placed them. The upshot is that the experimenters released peppered moths that were sleepy and disoriented, placing them on tree (continued on p. 94) - trunks by hand, where they became unnaturally easy targets for predatory birds. Clearly, this does not simulate what takes place in the wild.(footnote 14) Footnote 14 refers to the appalling book by Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002). So the first error is that first complete sentence - Michael Majerus, addressing all of the creationist criticisms of Kettlewell's work with peppered moths, demonstrated differential predation of black and white peppered moths in the wild, in their natural resting positions. Incidentally, Majerus also discusses Hooper's book and the arrary of criticisms that have been leveled against it. To be fair, Majerus' work was not known when EE was being written. I'm sure that Paul will pass this updated information along to his co-authors and remove this error from the second printing. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:45    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,12:04) I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.) But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth. We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified. Wait, Wait... I love the idea, but I havent' got the copy that Paul sent. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:50    Any others? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:51    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2008,18:45) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,12:04) I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.) But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth. We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified. Wait, Wait... I love the idea, but I havent' got the copy that Paul sent. Maybe you can still participate by being the person that tosses out the random numbers? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:05    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,18:50) Any others? Hopefully this one isn't as easy as the last one   Using a web-based random number generator I propose page 29 for the next assignment. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:21    Pardon me while I giggle hysterically. We are now back to my question to Paul. Namely. what the f$%k size has to do with the reptile mammal transition. Or we can go with the Henry Gee In Search of Deeptime quotemine: Quote "The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." Random number generator says page 40. Oh, when I said any others I meant on page 94... -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:30    Darn, people are fast. I was about to note the size issue was first up given p.29 as a starting position. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:31    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:30) Darn, people are fast. I was about to note the size issue was first up given p.29 as a starting position. Aww, I didn't even have to look that one up. Just saw page 29 and started laughing at the serendipity of it -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:34    p.40, first sentence again: Quote You've seen that there is a spirited debate over what the fossil record actually tells us about the history of life. Mischaracterization. EE wants to promote the notion of separate origin/creation, and none of the "spirited debate" goes in that direction. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,19:41    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:34) p.40, first sentence again:   Quote You've seen that there is a spirited debate over what the fossil record actually tells us about the history of life. Mischaracterization. EE wants to promote the notion of separate origin/creation, and none of the "spirited debate" goes in that direction. One of my favorite WTF moments occurs on page 40 in the third paragraph where they say: Quote Of course, pigs and humans did not inherit the bones themselves from their common ancestor. That would be ludicrous.* When you follow the asterisk you get: Quote *Not to mention borderline disgusting. I'm not sure if they were trying to make a joke that went badly astray or if they really think their audience is stupid enough to think that bones were actually passed along. Either way WTF? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,20:20    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,17:41) I'm not sure if they were trying to make a joke that went badly astray or if they really think their audience is stupid enough to think that bones were actually passed along. Either way WTF? :O Remember the target audience believes that woman was created (err, designed) from mans rib. So this is an important clarification: Bones inherited from animals are ludicrous and borderline disgusting, woman from ribs is not!

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,21:12    Albatrossity, maybe we should aim to toss out another random page tomorrow morning. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,21:35    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,21:12) Albatrossity, maybe we should aim to toss out another random page tomorrow morning. Should we just do one per day, and see how many errors can be cited from one page? It might take a bunch of people a full day to completely mine just one page for errors. Thank goodness it is a short book! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:04    How do we keep the friendly competition aspect if we are completely scouring a page? Should we encourage people to submit errors as they find them, and rank folks on who submits the most errors for that page? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:13    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,22:04) How do we keep the friendly competition aspect if we are completely scouring a page? Should we encourage people to submit errors as they find them, and rank folks on who submits the most errors for that page? That sounds reasonable if we are going to scour each page for errors. I would also do one page a day to give folks like me (I work all day and don't have computer access during that time) a chance to participate. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:23    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 15 2008,19:13) Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49) I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors! Well, I had to go in to the office to pick up some papers to grade (sigh), and got my copy of EE. The challenge to find the first error on page 94 of EE was too easy; there is an error in the first complete sentence on that page! On page 93 we read   Quote The second problem is where the moths were placed. Peppered moths in the wild normally find resting places high up in the canopy of the trees—not on the tree trunks where the experimenters placed them. The upshot is that the experimenters released peppered moths that were sleepy and disoriented, placing them on tree (continued on p. 94) - trunks by hand, where they became unnaturally easy targets for predatory birds. Clearly, this does not simulate what takes place in the wild.(footnote 14) Footnote 14 refers to the appalling book by Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002). So the first error is that first complete sentence - Michael Majerus, addressing all of the creationist criticisms of Kettlewell's work with peppered moths, demonstrated differential predation of black and white peppered moths in the wild, in their natural resting positions. Incidentally, Majerus also discusses Hooper's book and the arrary of criticisms that have been leveled against it. To be fair, Majerus' work was not known when EE was being written. I'm sure that Paul will pass this updated information along to his co-authors and remove this error from the second printing. That's how jam-packed with creationist crap Paul's book is. You can just turn to any random page and find it. Index to Creationist Claims Quote CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.    * CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.    * CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.          o CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.          o CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.          o CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.          o CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.          o CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter. Edited by stevestory on Mar. 15 2008,23:26

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:35    I propose 34.

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:53    Mr. Nelson, Would you mind updating us on the following article from Student News Daily. It stated back in August that: Quote This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. "It's made my work a lot easier," Cowan said. Explore Evolution encapsulates a "teach the controversy" paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not. Hows that little experiment going?

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,22:54    Are you going to give him a new set of textbooks for free given all the mistakes in the first edition?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,04:45    p.34, first complete sentence (again).   Quote Species selection did not form an eye. EE is trying to beat up on punctuated equilibria there, starting on p.33.   Quote And that's the dilemma, say the critics. If the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is right about the rate of evolutionary change -- if it accurately describes how rapidly the branches of the Tree of Life split off -- then it has no mechanism that can produce new structures as rapidly as the fossil record shows them arising. As invertebrate zoologist Jeffrey Levinton argues, "[I]t is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution [[p.34]] of detailed morphological structures...Species selection did not form an eye." So, for EE to be accurate here, Levinton must be talking about rates of origination of features in his full quote. Let's have a look.   Quote Even without this argument, it is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution of complex morphological structures. The elaboration of some of these structures has of course taken more that the life of any one species; cladogenesis is coincidental to any major evolutionary trend, but it does not follow that it is a causal mechanism. If anything, cladogenesis may slow down the evolution of complex structures, simply because species are continually winding up in new and complex environments that might constrain the further improvement of a structure down a main evolutionary path. In contrast to the arguments of Stanley (1979), phyletic evolution is the likely source of complex adaptations, whereas species drift or selection is likely to bring about evolutionary trends such as changes in overall body size or degrees of ornamentation. Species selection did not form an eye or a secondary palate. Funny how that whole rate of evolutionary change emphasis is absent from Levinton's discussion. The quote doesn't support the argument being advanced on rate of evolutionary change. Funny, also, how the editorial brackets occur at the start, but not also at the end, which is prematurely terminated with an unmarked period where there actually was a further clause in the original. The whole p.33 discussion of PE is full of the sorts of talk that Gould and Eldredge laid out as common errors in discussion in their 1977 paper on the topic. Edit: I've updated the EE quotations page with this one. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 16 2008,04:50 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,09:55    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 16 2008,04:45) p.34, first complete sentence (again).   Quote Species selection did not form an eye. EE is trying to beat up on punctuated equilibria there, starting on p.33.   Quote And that's the dilemma, say the critics. If the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is right about the rate of evolutionary change -- if it accurately describes how rapidly the branches of the Tree of Life split off -- then it has no mechanism that can produce new structures as rapidly as the fossil record shows them arising. As invertebrate zoologist Jeffrey Levinton argues, "[I]t is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution [[p.34]] of detailed morphological structures...Species selection did not form an eye." So, for EE to be accurate here, Levinton must be talking about rates of origination of features in his full quote. Let's have a look.   Quote Even without this argument, it is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution of complex morphological structures. The elaboration of some of these structures has of course taken more that the life of any one species; cladogenesis is coincidental to any major evolutionary trend, but it does not follow that it is a causal mechanism. If anything, cladogenesis may slow down the evolution of complex structures, simply because species are continually winding up in new and complex environments that might constrain the further improvement of a structure down a main evolutionary path. In contrast to the arguments of Stanley (1979), phyletic evolution is the likely source of complex adaptations, whereas species drift or selection is likely to bring about evolutionary trends such as changes in overall body size or degrees of ornamentation. Species selection did not form an eye or a secondary palate. Funny how that whole rate of evolutionary change emphasis is absent from Levinton's discussion. The quote doesn't support the argument being advanced on rate of evolutionary change. Funny, also, how the editorial brackets occur at the start, but not also at the end, which is prematurely terminated with an unmarked period where there actually was a further clause in the original. The whole p.33 discussion of PE is full of the sorts of talk that Gould and Eldredge laid out as common errors in discussion in their 1977 paper on the topic. Edit: I've updated the EE quotations page with this one. Holy Crapola ! So, in the "Second Edition", the "EE" will stand for Erstwhile Enema? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,12:43    It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread? Edit: Wohoo my 100th comment! -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,12:53    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 16 2008,12:43) It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread? Yeah, but I don't have a copy of that one. I got a review copy of EE, but the guardians at the gates for TDOL have ignored all of my requests for a review copy of that thing. I'll see if I can find a used one at Amazon. Again, to give credit where it is due, Paul has provided copies and participated here. One simply cannot imagine that Dr. Dr. Dembski would do either one of those things... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,13:02    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2008,12:53) Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 16 2008,12:43) It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread? Yeah, but I don't have a copy of that one. I got a review copy of EE, but the guardians at the gates for TDOL have ignored all of my requests for a review copy of that thing. I'll see if I can find a used one at Amazon. Again, to give credit where it is due, Paul has provided copies and participated here. One simply cannot imagine that Dr. Dr. Dembski would do either one of those things... That is true, I can't imagine Dembski participating in this discussion. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2008,12:38    I guess Paul wasn't fishing for compliments here this morning...   Quote Paul Nelson   Viewing Board index   Mar. 18 2008,10:52 -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,09:23    Another update -- I have three weeks of travel coming up, starting tomorrow (South Carolina & then Brazil), but I'll try to check in here periodically. I'm continuing to work on JAM's question about body size, which has resolved itself into two sub-questions (a) how does one infer the genetic basis of traits for extinct taxa? and (b) what is the relevance of variation under domestication to possible ranges of variation for extinct or natural (i.e., not domesticated) groups? Question for Wesley: what do you see as the canonical formulation (by Eldredge and Gould) of punctuated equilibria?  Do you see any contradictions, or simply changes of emphasis, between their 1972, 1977, and subsequent (e.g., 1993) papers? Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu

Pages: (29) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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