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) < ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2008,18:44    It's been 2 weeks since he said anything, so those of you who are jonesing for a Paul Nelson fix, check out this old post of PZ's, where he beats Paul like a rented mule. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/ontogenetic_depth.php BTW Paul, when's OCD coming out? Is it still (still still still) upcoming? Or did you give up?

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2008,20:48    I think Paul Nelson is taking flouncing lessons from FtK. Paul is like FtK but with a degree in a useless subject. Oh, wait a minute...

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2008,21:04    Well, I suffer from liberal guilt.  Paul did finally pony-up with a review copy of EE, and I promised to review it. I have stalled at page 22. I have read eight or so books in the mean time, but I just have a block about EE. Some of those 8 have been creationist BS, so that is not the whole problem. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2008,21:09    Do you have any thoughts about why you hit a wall with it?

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,08:08    I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out, but the book seems to be a smashing success.  From the Amazon.com page: Quote Explore Evolution (Paperback) by stephen c. Meyer (Author), Scott Minnish (Author), Jonathan Moneymaker (Author), Paul A Nelson (Author), Ralph Seelke (Author) No customer reviews yet. Be the first. Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,385,858 in Books Looks like you can only buy it through the Disco store. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,11:04    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2008,21:04) Well, I suffer from liberal guilt.  Paul did finally pony-up with a review copy of EE, and I promised to review it. I have stalled at page 22. I have read eight or so books in the mean time, but I just have a block about EE. Some of those 8 have been creationist BS, so that is not the whole problem. I have that same problem with The Design of Life -------------- 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.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,14:19    Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2008,19:09) Do you have any thoughts about why you hit a wall with it? Interesting question. From page 16 to 21 the "case for" fossils succession is supposedly presented. On page 22 they begin their case against. The "case for" was biased in its presentation, and their reply is simply 14 pages of lies. The rest of the book, based on spot checks, maintains this ratio of 4 biased "proscience" pages  to 14 pages of creationist lies supposedly presenting "... the most qualified proponents and critics that we could." If Paul Nelson could have signed on to these lies (and he did), then there is no point what-so-ever to expect him to honest about anything. It is depressing. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Marion Delgado Posts: 89 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,21:52    It's obvious to this person, with an IQ somewhat east  of 151, that you are all deeply threatened by the inquisitive scientific attitude of cdevolution proskeptics.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,23:30    Re "cdevolution proskeptics" The who whatting how with huh?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2008,07:53    Over a year later, and the DI's EE "Discussion" page is just a blog-like compendium of reactions to news about EE. No sign of an open forum there. Maybe they should change their label to "Preach the Controversy". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2008,08:57    Some recent review of "explore evolution" (thanks oldman). http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2008,10:21    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 25 2008,06:57) Some recent review of "explore evolution" (thanks oldman). http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1 That was an excellent piece of work.  Thanks for the link. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,23:25    A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp via PZ ETA: hmm...it appears other people peruse the internet as well. How unexpected. Edited by stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,00:26

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,23:53    Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches. Quote Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up. This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth. Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,08:54    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53) Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.   Quote Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up. This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth. Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right. Be sure to follow the link to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,09:34    The paper is published in "cell cycles", which seems a respectable journal. This is rather disturbing.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,10:55    Cell Cycle?  Rings a bell. The paper gets off to a bad start, this is the second sentence of the abstract: Quote In an effort to fit the past events to the prevailing theory of evolution, the natural phenomenon has become so convoluted and polemic-ridden that it has floated clear out of the roam of science. The natural phenomenon?  Which one?  And "roam of science"?  Not a good way to start a paper. I'm not going to read the whole paper - just skimming it is causing my brain cells to rebel. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,12:52    Ok, so the editor of cell cycle has some sympathy with ID or what?

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,11:20    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2008,11:55) Cell Cycle?  Rings a bell. The Sherman paper just reappeared in a quote mine comment on this PT thread. #Already sent to the Bathroom Wall, apparently! What was interesting to me was that the version of the paper linked to was hosted on a Jewish revival web site. Not sure what the connection is... its all about science, right? -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,11:44    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 28 2008,08:54) Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53) Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.     Quote Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up. This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth. Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right. Be sure to follow the link to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic. What sort of weird moon-man language was that written in? Were NONE of his references checked by the reviewers?

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2008,02:17    DI folks should have known better: Larry Moran debunked Schwabe's claims back in 1992. Still, they continue to cite Schwabe, the latest example being WE Lönnig in his Dollo's law paper. The reason is obvious: They present Schwabe's "Genomic Potential Hypothesis" (GPH) as another "alternative" to evolution theory to corroborate their claim that there is more dissent than just ID and that there is something like a controversy. However, ID-creationists do not dare to discuss Schwabe's claims (who IIRC according to a news article I once read claims to be an atheist). Either they are not interested in doing this or they are afraid of running the risk to question their own claims when doing so. Thus, they can cite Schwabe in footnotes or subordinate clauses only. Calling this     Quote Much Ado About A Footnote Citing Christian Schwabe is just ridiculous. BTW Paul Nelson has some problems with properly citing. He mentions Schwabes FASEB paper but doesn’t give the exact reference (Georges D and Schwabe C (1999): Porcine relaxin, a 500 million-year-old hormone? The tunicate Ciona intestinalis has porcine relaxin. FASEB J 13(10):1269-75). Is this just incompetence or did he do so by purpose? Being cited as     Quote Hafner and Korthof (2006) argue vigorously against Schwabe’s position doesn't really hit the point. Besides indeed discussing the absurdity of Schwabe's GPH Geert and myself have shown that at least Schwabe's Ciona data are completely flawed: Actually, there is no relaxin gene in C.  intestinalis. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2008,21:44    P. Nelson:   Quote In any case, the point of my Schwabe reply wasn't to endorse all of Schwabe's arguments or claims, but to illustrate the existence of a genuine controversy about relaxin, which Timmer had denied. In contrast, according to an article by Daniel Conover which appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on March 29, 2004 Schwabe doesn’t endorse Nelson’s arguments at all:   Quote It's the kind of argument that irritates mainstream scientists who say that regardless of whether intelligent design constitutes a meaningful critique of evolution, intelligent design is not science. Why?   Quote "Because you can't make predictions from (intelligent design)," said Schwabe, no fan of the movement himself. Despite his dismissal of I.D., descriptions of Schwabe's theory routinely show up on intelligent-design Web sites.     Quote "And this just makes it more difficult, you see," Schwabe said. "They're desperate to get rid of Darwin, and they're misusing (the idea)." -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,08:53    The topic here is the DI's "Explore Evolution" text, not generic IDC. I've sent some off-topic comments to the Bathroom Wall. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 08 2008,08:55 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2009,18:35    The journal Evolution and Development has reviewed Explore Evolution. The review can be found here. Here is one of the better parts: Quote This book is part of a strategy (Matzke 2006) that resembles not so much a Trojan horse as an email virus, or the introduction of sterile males into an insect population. Its effect in schools will be to teach students that the process of science consists of fatuous discussions using context-free quotes and no cogent treatment of any clear questions. Together with new state education bills allowing local groups to push this stuff into classrooms, it will help dilute and weaken the already thin preparation students receive for dealing with a world full of information they need to be able to think about. Note: The Matzke cite is this paper: New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again). Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26 (6): 28–30. Available from http://ncseweb.org/rncse/26/6/new-creationist-textbook-way-again -------------- 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.

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,00:18    Thanks afarensis!  I love the quote you cite, or more accurately, I love its description of a terrible problem.   Just earlier today,  I was dabbling in the blogs of some unabashed Christian apologists.  Writing comments, I was struggling to put into words how the creationists' response to Dover is even more cynical and nihilistic than the attempt to put ID on equal footing with evolutionary theory.  That response has been essentially that if we can't teach our view, we'll just teach the view that science is worthless anyway, so don't even bother.  The quote summed up the consequences of this response very nicely.   It was nice to see Lenny show up in the references. The period needs to be removed for the Matzke link to work.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:16    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57) Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again.  I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks. I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open. Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August.  Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms. One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale. I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome. P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms. How did that turn out?  Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution?  I'm betting not.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:49    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 09 2009,16:16) How did that turn out?  Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution?  I'm betting not. In the old days that bet would have won you a bottle of single-malt Scotch. Today, you win the bet, but you get zilch for that effort -------------- 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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,09:31    Here is the debate page at Explore Evolution: http://exploreevolution.org/debate.php The "debate" consists of 5 anonymous editorials posted ca. November 2008. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Gunthernacus Posts: 235 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,12:27    Paul Nelson posts at UD: Don’t use the D word. It’s being eliminated. Thanks for being ahead of the curve, Paul, and not using the D word in "Explore Evolution". -------------- Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,22:32    Paul Nelson sighting! Paul posts an insightful observation at EN&V! Here it is:  Paul Nelson has a Dream Paul cites a paper given at the recent AAAS conference then dreams of, get this, high school students attending the conference.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Yeah, he has high school students attending the conference because, er, why?  Oh, I know, it's because Ben Stein taught High School!  Well, in a movie script, but that's like a dream, isn't it?  Made up.  Fiction. A dreeeeeeeeaaaaaammmmmm. Anyway, then Paul has a Vision!  (cue creepy SciFi music)  Paul sees DEAD PEOPLE!  Stanley Miller and Leslie Orgel!  Why???? BECAUSE THEY'RE DEAD AND DEAD MEN DON'T TALK!! Remember last year or so when Casey Luskin, our favorite moronic attack gerbil, wrote that Orgel supported "irreducible complexity" and Luskin got so thoroughly trashed on the Intertubes that he doesn't venture out of the house TO THIS DAY without wearing his Nixon Halloween mask? Well, Paul Nelson is out there doing the same thing.  Imagining what Stan and Les would do. Hey, Paul, do you wear WWSD and WWLD bracelets?  Nelson has been reduced to Imaginary Friends.  I wonder if you go to Nelson's house and sit on a chair that Paul admonishes you for "sitting on Leslie." Srsly, Paul must be a freaking genius!  How else could a guy with the mind of a 4th grader get a PhD? It certainly does explain Explore Evolution, though.  Total.  Fiction.

Pages: (29) < ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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