Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,13:57

it's not just dense. It's

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,14:37

Le Tard reveals more of his impoverished inner life:

Quote

Music doesn�t give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It�s not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines.

Comment by DaveScot � September 7, 2006 @ 4:48 am

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Fross

Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,15:47

I find it odd that a site called �stop lying to us� is making such an incorrect comparison.
-Fross

let me clarify. Odd yet very expected and unsurprising.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,16:06

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 07 2006,19:37)

Le Tard reveals more of his impoverished inner life:
�

Quote

Music doesn�t give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It�s not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines.

Comment by DaveScot � September 7, 2006 @ 4:48 am

Hmm... should I ask the obvious question here?

Naaahh. Too obvious. Screw it.

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

djmullen

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,18:55

jujuquisp says: "I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines. �I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins. �A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment."

Yes! �Enought of those d*mn*d asterisks!

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,18:59

Quote

Music doesn�t give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It�s not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines.
Comment by DaveScot � September 7, 2006 @ 4:48 am

"music (art)...is a ...bit like sex and very similar to amphetamines" And herein we find the essence of DaveTard. It's not a bad thing to imagine music, art...the song of a bird and the sight of a sunset...as "similar to amphetemines"...it is, however, stupid.

Apparently your view of beauty is like the hallucinators who see themselves "as one" with nature until the LSD wears off--you get a bit tingly and then remove it. It's not you.

"Sometimes natural beauty will cause that response"
You mean being a part of the world, DaveTard, and not a world unto yourself? What would you know of it? Your world is divided into four parts: Dave before the Marines. Dave during the Marines. Dave as an "engineer." Dave no longer an engineer, but rather a toady, seeking recognition.

Those are the four stages of your life, DaveTardI. In this last stage, you see the futility of your previous life and you seek to recognition even yet. This, for instance, is the "goal " of your "mushroom experiments..." This is why you latched onto ID....this is why you posed yourself as a spokesman and returned despite having to suck up to your lesser, Dembski.

You want a "name."

Yet the sad fact is, that much like the Marines, or Dell, or any other path you've taken...you're not a leader. You're not a trailblazer.

You're a follower that tries hard to take credit for ideas not your own. You are, in essence...a leech. Not a leader. A leech.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 07 2006,19:47

Casey Luskin was complaining about Nick Matzke's post on PT discussing the publication of Pallen and Matzke's Nature Reviews Microbiology article on bacterial flagella.

Quote

I just learned about this today�could somebody please remind me where did I say in a currently published essay that 2/3 of flagellar parts lack homologs and what does Nick say in response to Mike Gene�s critique of his homology arguments?

Comment by Casey Luskin � September 7, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

Nick had quoted Casey in the PT post... and provided a link to the article. So, Casey is asking about where he can find out where he said anything like that, as if there wasn't an accurate quote with a working link to the original.

As for "Mike Gene/Julie Thomas/whoever", perhaps Nick could simply quote Bill Dembski on responding to Internet criticism: "As a rule I don�t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science." Just substitute "microbiology" for the topics Dembski demurred on.

Now, that's entertainment.

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

Ved

Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,03:53

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,05:28

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh this is so great.

If all you knew about David Heddle was his "cosmological ID", you might assume he's a patient drooling in an institution somewhere. However, when religious beliefs aren't involved, he actually used to be a scientist and still knows some things. So when BarryA posted some gibberish starting with

Quote

September 8, 2006
The Illusion of Knowledge II

In Illusion of Knowledge I, I discussed dark matter and dark energy. Even though neither has ever been observed (i.e., confirmed by experience),

David Heddle and Davetard showed up and started kicking the crap out of him.

Heddle said that we see things through their interactions, and we've seen interactions from dark matter. BarryA's response? I have to spoil it, it's so great:

Quote

�We see things by their interactions�

No, actually, we don�t. We see things by seeing them. We �infer� things by their interactions. This is a simple and obvious distinction. I am surprised someone as obviously intelligent as you has trouble grasping it.

The whole godawful and hilarious thread

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,05:42

Quote

Quote
�We see things by their interactions�

No, actually, we don�t. We see things by seeing them. We �infer� things by their interactions. This is a simple and obvious distinction. I am surprised someone as obviously intelligent as you has trouble grasping it.

Is this a combination of BarryA's scientific ignorance combined with him trying to 'think like a lawyer'?

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

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,05:51

And don't you love the obligatory ID move, the "You're an expert and I'm not, so I'm surprised that you can't understand I'm right."

As a 5-year old girl I used to know would say, "What a doofus goofus poofus."

When Davetard can correct your scientific mistakes, you really should STFU.

2ndclass

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,05:52

Speaking of DaveScot and Berlinski, BarryA says:

Quote

You are two of the smartest guys I know, and I cannot judge between you.

Heaven help his law firm.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,06:32

Quote

I am surprised someone as obviously intelligent as you has trouble grasping it.

One should always stop and think first before saying this kind of thing.

Quote

If all you knew about David Heddle was his "cosmological ID", you might assume he's a patient drooling in an institution somewhere. However, when religious beliefs aren't involved, he actually used to be a scientist and still knows some things.

I think Barry got a little carried away with the traditional "nothing scientists say is true" ethos of UD, to where he started throwing out stuff even IDers accept. Must be a fine line.

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

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,06:34

true that.

ScaryFacts

Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,06:35

OK guys, I'm out of my depth (which is not too surprising.)

Read the latest at
UD

Then popped over to see the entire article UD refers to at PsyOrg

The ID folks seem to be jumping in their jeans (witty pun) over how this destroys another "long held belief" of you evil evos.

But here's the questions I have--being a layman I really don't have a good background so I am counting on you:

1. �Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random? �To prove it is not random wouldn�t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?

2. �If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?

3. �Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?

4. �Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate? �How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

Remember, I am a layman so type slowly using small words. �Thanks.

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,06:48

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Sep. 08 2006,09:35)

OK guys, I'm out of my depth (which is not too surprising.)

Read the latest at
UD

Then popped over to see the entire article UD refers to at PsyOrg

The ID folks seem to be jumping in their jeans (witty pun) over how this destroys another "long held belief" of you evil evos.

But here's the questions I have--being a layman I really don't have a good background so I am counting on you:

1. Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random? To prove it is not random wouldn�t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?

2. If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?

3. Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?

4. Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate? How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

Remember, I am a layman so type slowly using small words. Thanks.

Here goes...
1. That's exactly right (though I'd replace "all" with "statistically significant.") They're still random in that we cannot predict the change in fitness of the organism that has a transposon event.

2. HOW DARE YOU BRING THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE DESIGNER INTO THIS? We cannot know His will, outside of a certain object involving thin slices of dead trees and ink.

3. Do transposon events happen because of selection pressure and random mutation? I don't know; it's certainly possible that certain environmental conditions would instigate a "jump," but I wouldn't bet on it. Transposons probably did originally arise by random mutation.

4. That depends on who you ask. "ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree." In terms of the most minimalist definitions of ID, it's almost indistinguishable from theistic evolution. But most IDist are creationists who believe in separate creation of the genera, and common descent from there as a result of the fall (as far as I can tell).

Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf.

Erm, I mean, argy.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Robert O'Brien

Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:09

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,10:28)

If all you knew about David Heddle was his "cosmological ID", you might assume he's a patient drooling in an institution somewhere.

No.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:15

Davey grovels at the feet of WAD and DOL:

Quote

Bill, Denyse, and I all agree that we want a G-rated blog suitable for all audiences. No exceptions.

I realize that I am guilty of breaking these rules in the past, especially in regard to respecting the beliefs of others, and for that I offer my humble apology. It was wrong of me.

Comment by DaveScot � September 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Who knew how desperate Dave was to get back into the UD fold?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:26

And Davison replies:

Quote

I will promise nothing to David Sprnger or anyone else as that demand has intrinsic in it that I am guilty of what he asserts. That I may have made a few blue comments long ago go here, but I did absolutely nothing to justify his most recent bannishment of me except to suggest that Richard Dawkins may have been molested as an altar boy by an Anglican priest, a propsotion I feel is fully justified by Dawkins� unbelievable attitude toward anything religious.

I don�t care for Springer�s arrogant pontifical attitude anyway so I refuse to comply with such a completely ridiculous proposition. Besides all comments are here are monitored anyway.

I really don�t care whether my request is honored or not because I win and Springer loses either way. He put my papers there and then removed them with the explanation �The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.�

That was sufficient for me to lose all respect for the man, most of which I had already lost. David Springer has no business moderating any forum, any place, any time. The very word �moderate� is incompatible with every fiber of his body. He is a bully here and everywhere else he surfaces as he just proved once again with these unacceptable conditions he insisted on levying.

I recommnend O�Leary resume moderation here if you expect any positive contributions from me now or at any time in the future. I have a great many enemies in the ephemeral world of internet communication. One more one means absolutely nothing to me anymore.

Besides Springer seems to have forgottn that I have already been granted admission to the forum�s proceedings or I wouldn�t be responding here now. In other words is he threatening to remove my papers once again if I do not agree with his idiotic highly prejudicial demands? That would seem to be the situation. That is unacceptable to me as it would be to any published scientist. Indeed it is unthinkable that I might be expected to comply with such terms.

Do what you have to do Springer and deal with the consequences. To use one of your favorite expressions -

�Got that? Write that down.�

�A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.�

Comment by John A. Davison � September 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

Uncommonly Dense is the Greatest Website EVAR.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:31

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 08 2006,12:09)

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,10:28)

If all you knew about David Heddle was his "cosmological ID", you might assume he's a patient drooling in an institution somewhere.

No.

Well. Cleared that right up. Never think we don't appreciate your coherent, detailed arguments.

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

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:38

In my little home library, I have this tome entitled "Mobile DNA," edited by Douglas Berg and Martha Howe, circa 1989. Transposons Tn5 through Tn10 and "Transposable Elements in Gram-positive bacteria " have entire "chapters" as does transposable DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and maize, etc. To quote: " The reader will be struck by the great diversity of mobile DNAs ."
PaV over at Uncommonly Dense seems unaware of the work by Theodosius D. (a great name in science,second only to Leda Cosmides as fun to know) and Barbara McClintock way back when (she got the Nobel in '83, I think). Some sequences appear to have random motility, others seem to be predisposed to insertion in specified regions. At least "johnnyb" discusses CONSTRAINED randomness, which seems to be a novel concept for those Sh1theads at UD.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:44

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 08 2006,12:15)

Davey grovels at the feet of WAD and DOL:
� �

Quote

Bill, Denyse, and I all agree that we want a G-rated blog suitable for all audiences. No exceptions.

I realize that I am guilty of breaking these rules in the past, especially in regard to respecting the beliefs of others, and for that I offer my humble apology. It was wrong of me.

Comment by DaveScot � September 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Good lord, 'craven' and 'fawning' also come to mind. What happened to the Mister Tough Guy we all knew?

�

Quote

Who knew how desperate Dave was to get back into the UD fold?

Well, what ELSE was he going to do? Dave seems desparate to glom onto some 'authority figures' in the Culture Wars, and I think he's figured out that on his own he's too underqualified and clownish to command any kind of loyalty, even among the creationists (who probably distrust him for not being a fundie like themselves).

But this seems to confirm my theory that ex-Marine Dave sees everyone in terms of superiors and subordinates. He's a classic sergeant: a nobody barking abuse at those he perceives as below him, but sucking up to people he views as above him. He seems to really dig domineering over people, and *only* UD can provide him with that -- no one else takes him seriously enough to defer to him. So some serious ass-kissing is worth it to him if that's what it takes to get there.

Tho clearly Davison isn't gonna make it easy for him.

It's all pretty funny, when you think about it.

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

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,07:55

Quote

Dave seems desparate to glom onto some 'authority figures' in the Culture Wars

That's exactly what I was saying above, he IS desperate and it oozes unctuously out of his posts and his actions. Always good to have Mr. Mertz agreeing. By the way, Lucy was wayyyyyyy hawt back in the Ziegfeld days.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:39

But Lucille was into some weird scenes, tho:

Tho nothing beats Fred himself as a fine all-around male role model:

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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:48

Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 07 2006,16:41)

I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines. �I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins. �A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment.

Raise the baby to be a rational, well-educated liberal secular humanist. That's the ultimate gesture to piss Dave off.

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

jeannot

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:40

Quote

1. �Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random? �To prove it is not random wouldn�t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?

You still wouldn't know whether that one gene jumped in a natural process or not. However, transposable elements and other chromosomal re-arrangements are known for decades and are guided by natural processes, as far as we know. It's up to the DI to prove that the designer guides transpositions. They can even start their project rigth know.

Quote

2. �If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?

Well, IDers are very good at misinterpreting scientific results.

Quote

3. �Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?

Yes they could and they do. But the fixation of the transposition, which appears deleterious (produces sterile males), is the results probably from genetic drift, unless it was adaptive in a way we don't know. �

Quote

4. �Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate? �How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

See my answer to your second point. This find is another evidence for macro-evolution by mutations, dift and/or NS. Actually, I would have expected IDers to dismiss this discovery.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:09

Quote

Comment #127168

Posted by Thought Provoker on September 8, 2006 02:57 PM

I posted this in reply to the Uncommon Descent thread. However, my posts there have generally show up days/weeks later or not at all. Therefore, I am cross-posting it here. Thank you for your indulgence.

Scott wrote� �C�mon folks, why are we even still discussing the rediculous [sic] notion that the flagellum could have come about via Darwinian mechanisms?�

The reason this subject is of interest because it is something scientifically tangible. It provides an opportunity to explore the predictive nature of both ID and evolution. More importantly, debating this topic helps inform and define what is meant by the term �Intelligent Design� by various proponents.

At its core, the flagellum embodies the concept that if it looks designed it probably is. It also presents the challenge/opportunity to evolution proponents to hypothesize how this came about naturally. Why should anyone be surprised when evolution proponents start making predictions about the origin of the flagellum and testing those predictions? In my opinion debating this is both very topical and constructive (as opposed to arguing about who is and isn�t a true Christian).

I read with interest Joseph�s comments (even checked out his blog). This is an example of the positive aspects in discussing this. I can understand the position that the existence of the flagellum isn�t �anti-evolution� but is designed the same way that the earth/moon system is designed. They both came about via natural processes but, if I understand correctly, Joseph and other ID proponents are arguing that it is unlikely, if not impossible, that either came about from �sheer-dumb-luck�.

Unless ID wants to remain a simple variant of a �God in the gaps� argument, its proponents need to encourage discovery and discussion. We should all be eager for �actual molecular biologist[s]� to study and discuss evidence of the natural process that lead to the flagellum. This, of course, might be problematic for those whose real agenda is the promotion of the supernatural.

jeannot

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:15

Odd, it seems that each new page in this topic now appears without delay, as it should.

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:25

Johnny B kicks in up a notch.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1567#comment-59289

Quote

1. �Having parts of genes switch locations is a type of mutation, different than a point mutation but a mutation nonetheless.�
But they aren�t _random_ mutations. Jumping genes are well-defined semantic units. They don�t split out arbitrarily, they split out across fairly well-defined boundaries. And, these jumping genes often just so happen to correspond to functional domains of proteins, or other such �functional unit�. So the �jumping unit� closely corresponds to the �jumping unit�. The question is, is this just a bizarre coincidence? Or is the genome made for specific acts of change?

Wow. Totally, Johnny. I mean if you roll a dice, that number is an integer between one and six. Moreover, Dice are MADE to be rolled. Actually, let�s use designed instead of made. Another example, if you say �pick any card�, I know its one of 52. I can�t get the 15.3 of marshmallows, and I can�t get the king of Tards, because Johhny B is the king of Tards.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

C.J.O'Brien

Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:49

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the Uncommonly Dense poker party.

Highlights:
beta testing the EF as a means of cheater-detection.

High CSI hand wins.

SpringerBot calls PaV's literature bluff.

Sal Cordova quotemines the other Hoyle for a change.

JAD loses all his money, flips the table over and storms out in a rage, only to emerge sheepishly from the closet door he just slammed behind him.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

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