RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:04   

Paul Nelson mentioned how he was looking into having an open discussion area for the content of "Explore Evolution".

Well, this one is up and running.

If you do post over on the DI's website, though, please remember to copy the text before you hit "submit" and bring it right over here.

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

    
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:17   

I posted this on PT but thought I'd add it here as well:

I can see that the DI and this teacher from Tacoma are trying to shave as close as possible to what is allowed. The key reason I object to this "teach the controversy" concept is because a better approach is to teach what is understood and admit ignorance when you don't know the answer. Virtually all controversy is born from a lack of knowledge about a particular subject. In science, the best method for reducing controversy is to review what is known and then set about filling in the gaps of knowledge through research.

What this text, Explore Evolution, attempts to do is use the gaps of knowledge to create controversy where none should exist. Instead, a sound educatinal program would teach what is known and understood and make clear where and what is not known or what is still unclear. This way future biologists can form ideas of how best to apply their research and labrotory skills in college and in life.

More important than teachimg any controversy is teaching kids how to actually conduct labrotory investigations and how to use the scienctific method.

If you need to teach the controversy to get kids excited about science, your not much of a teacher.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,14:40   

http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:00   

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

Yeah, and part of the deception is that even though they say this book is for (among others)    
Quote
College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution. Explore Evolution is an excellent college-level supplementary textbook providing much more information about the evidence for and against contemporary Darwin’s theory than standard textbooks are able to offer.

they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it.

Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that 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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:19   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,15:00)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.


{snip}

they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it.

Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book!

You're obviously under the impression that these people are in the EDUCATION field.  I understand how that might throw you  :O

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:34   

Their press release gave contact information. I asked; they didn't seem to have enough review copies to go around. At least, I asked in early June, and it hadn't appeared in my mailbox as of about ten days ago.

Quote

New Biology Textbook Seeks to Improve Teaching of Evolution by Promoting Inquiry-Based Approach

For Immediate Release

Contact: Anika Smith (206) 292-0401 x155 questions@exploreevolution.com

Explore Evolution
(link)
: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers Ltd., Melbourne and London, 2007) is the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution. "Sadly, the majority of biology textbooks in use today are 'dumbed-down' and do a poor job explaining evolution," said Dr. John West of Discovery Institute, the book's United States distributor. "Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level." West is Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Explore Evolution promotes inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation, and argument that scientists use to form their theories. "Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals," emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. "Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science." Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels. The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin's theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion. Explore Evolution is ideally suited for:
   * AP Biology teachers who need a stimulating capstone unit for the last 5-6 weeks of their AP course after their students have taken the AP biology test.
   * High School General Biology teachers who wish to deepen their own understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory and want to incorporate inquiry-based learning into their teaching of evolution.
   * College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution.
   * Home school teachers who want to provide their students with a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum in the life sciences that stresses critical thinking skills.
   * Parents who desire to supplement and enrich their children's school instruction in biological evolution in preparation for college.
   * Interested adults who wish to inform themselves about the scientific debates over key aspects of modern evolutionary theory.
For more information, visit the textbook website at
www.exploreevolution.com
(link), where you will find the introduction to the textbook, table of contents, author and publisher information, as well as sample pages from the book.
Review copies and materials can be requested from Anika Smith, (206) 292-0401 ext. 155, or [EMAIL=asmith@discovery.org.]asmith@discovery.org.[/EMAIL] About the Publisher Established in 1982, Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (Melbourne and London) specializes in publishing science and nature books of exceptional quality. In addition to Explore Evolution, its books include The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (2001), The Birds of Asia, vol. 7 (1992), The Mammals of Australia, vol 2 (2002), and World Butterflies (2006). A publishing partner of the Natural History Museum in London, Hill House has been awarded an exclusive license by the museum to produce authentic facsimiles of priceless and rare antiquarian books, prints and maps from the world-famous libraries of that institution. For more information about Hill House Publishers, visit www.worldbutterflies.co.uk
Link.

###


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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,17:46   

From the "Explore Evolution" site:

Quote

One way scientists have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge is through spirited, yet civil, debate about the meaning of publicly accessible evidence. Scientists often debate how best to interpret the available evidence. Controversy in science is nothing new. It’s not a distraction; it’s normal. Explore Evolution is part of the continuing debate over Neo-Darwinism. In the Further Debate section of the website we invite serious scientists and educators to take part in the ongoing discussion about the scientific issues raised in Explore Evolution.

If you’d like to submit scientific comments or critiques about Explore Evolution, please send them in. We will review them and address them on these pages. For some particularly relevant comments or critiques, we will ask the author’s permission to publish their response, so please include your name, address, e-mail address and phone number with your submission. Submit items to furtherdebate@exploreevolution.com


Ok, that's peachy. Here's a game we can play, and it is easy. When going through "Explore Evolution", trace arguments it makes back to the usual antievolution lore, classified and enumerated via Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims. Send it in, noting the page where it occurs in "Explore Evolution", the URL where Isaak has dissected it, and ask why they believe telling children falsehoods makes for good education. Oh, yeah, don't forget to post what you write here... we can add points for the number of arguments each person submits that get the big "Ignored" response.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,18:14   

the email I just sent

 
Quote
I was disappointed to see the same old creationist arguments in the new ID textbook "Explore Evolution". Your sample pages 30-31 (http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_30-31.pdf) repeat old claims about the cambrian explosion appearing out of nowhere. As you well know, this argument comes from the days when ID advocates were still calling themselves creationists. It is documented at the Index of Creationist Claims here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html This is not exploring evolution, it is promoting creationism. Sowing confusion among children in order to advance your religion is unethical. I hope it fails the same way renaming yourselves ID Theorists failed.

Steve Story
[redacted]
Chapel Hill, NC
919-[redacted]


Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,19:19

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:03   

Dang. Here's one which is very similar, but doesn't exactly match the ICC:

dishonest creationist textbook:
Quote
Critics of the fossil succession argument
point out that what is true of animals is also
true of plants. For example, flowering plants
appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period,
145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance
is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom.
“The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”
writes one team of researchers. “Angiosperms
appear rather suddenly in the fossil record…with
no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90
million years before their appearance.”10 This
contradiction was so perplexing that Darwin
himself referred to it as “an abominable mystery.”11
As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil
appearance does not support Darwin’s picture of
a gradually branching tree.


Index of creationist BS:
Quote
Claim CC301:
In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery, pp. 40-45
Response:

  1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

  2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

  3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

  4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.


links:
http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_24-25.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:09   

That's excellent!

If they want open discussion, we can provide it.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:25   

That creationist textbook which is increasingly pissing me off:



well where have I seen that kind of crap before? Oh yeah

Quote
Evolution and Creation

Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (July 2005)



Why is it important to study EVOLUTION (Darwinism)?



•         Darwinism Poisons Morals



•         Darwinism Poisons Evangelism



•         Darwinism Poisons Truth (Not AJTB)

[snip]


Principle of Irreducible Complexity applied to …



•         Bird Lungs and Wings from Reptiles?


and speaking of birds, how about our jailbird friend Kent Hovind?

Quote
Hovind: "Reptiles have a sack-type lung, and they breathe in and out. Birds have a tubular-type lung, and they breathe through their lungs, not in and out of their lungs."


http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/F.html
http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek_inside_1.pdf
http://www.ontruth.com/creationevolutionnotes.htm

Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,20:31

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:36   

Seeing the ellipse in that quote made me curious as to what the whole thing says.
Quote
Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record during the Jurassic [b][208–145 million years ago (Mya)][b], with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80–90 million years before their appearance. Nevertheless, the existence during the Jurassic of all known sister taxa to the angiosperms implies that the angiosperm lineage must have been established by that time [1]. However, this ancestral lineage, coined ‘angiophytes’, is unlikely to be equivalent to angiosperms as known from the Cretaceous (145 Mya) through to recent forms because it might have lacked many of the characteristic angiosperm features [2]. It is presumed that angiophytes went through a period of little diversification during the Late Triassic (220 Mya) and Jurassic, either because the diversity-enhancing features, such as flowers, of the crown-group angiosperms had not yet evolved in stem angiophytes or because the diversity among angiophytes was inhibited during the Jurassic by environmental conditions or biotic interactions [2].
(my emphasis).

The removed portion describes the range of the Jurassic period, rather than the "Big Bloom." But a couple paragraphs later, some more interesting detail is given:

Quote
The fossil record provides excellent evidence for this rapid diversification in floral form during the earliest phases of recorded flowering plant history [5]. Only 10–12 million years elapsed between the first fossil records (not, vert, similar130 Mya) and clear documentation of all of the major lines of flowering plants 1 and 6. This diversification of angiosperms occurred during a period (the Aptian, 125–112 Mya; Figure 1) when their pollen and megafossils were rare components of terrestrial floras and species diversity was low 1 and 6. Angiosperm fossils show a dramatic increase in diversity between the Albian (112–99.6 Mya) and the Cenomanian (99.6–93.5 Mya) at a global scale 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Figure 1).


Shockingly, Figure 1 is a "gradually branching tree," which these mysterious critics say the data does not support. It's too bad the sample cuts off there; I'd like to know what these critics do think the data supports.

I also have a brief question for Paul Nelson, if he does show up. Do you honestly believe that this is a college-level textbook, appropriate for use at the University of Washington, for example?

Source:Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume 20, Issue 11, November 2005, Pages 591-597

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:45   

Wikipedia:
Quote
n 1998, Nelson gained a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago. The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document,[2] amongst other sources, claimed that Nelson was publishing a work derived from his thesis, "Common Descent, Generative Entrenchment, and the Epistemology in Evolutionary Inference", criticizing the principle of common descent, as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series. The Evolutionary Monographs series is edited by evolutionary biologist Leigh van Valen. Biologist John M. Lynch however notes that it is a "second-tier publication" unsuited to such work, and that the work has been "forthcoming" for quite some time.[3]

Considering that Paul's approaching his 10th year overdue, I really don't think he should have stopped to write a textbook. Poor time-management skills.

   
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,20:40   

EE states that:
Quote
For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”


Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link In Evolution Of Flowering Plants.

The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,03:44   

Got it! Wesley, that press release contains what I think could well be the name of the next scam:

"Inquiry-based approach."

I am looking forward to the Chesterfield, VA "Inquiry-based approach" trial already.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,05:24   

As you might have expected by now, "inquiry-based approach" is already-existing jargon in the education field. The Discovery Institute's relentless drive to Humpty-Dumpty-ize speech continues.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,06:04   

Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution":

Quote

PREFACE
INTRODUCTION 1
DEFINING SOME TERMS 7
ISSUES IN QUESTION 9

UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT
Arguments For and Against

FOSSIL SUCCESSION 15
Case For 16
Reply 22
Further Debate 30

ANATOMICAL HOMOLOGY 39
Case For 40
Reply 43
Further Debate 49

MOLECULAR HOMOLOGY 51
Case For 52
Reply 57
Further Debate 61

EMBRYOLOGY 65
Case For 66
Reply 68
Further Debate 70

BIOGEOGRAPHY 73
Case For 74
Reply 76
Further Debate 79

THE CREATIVE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION
Arguments For and Against

NATURAL SELECTION 83
Case For 84
Reply 90

NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION 97
Case For 98
Reply 102
Further Debate 108

A NEW CHALLENGE
Arguments For and Against

MOLECULAR MACHINES 115
Case For 116
Reply 119
Further Debate 121

SPECIAL STUDIES
NATURAL SELECTION AS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 126
WHAT FOSSILS CAN'T TELL YOU 128

CONCLUSION
THE NATURE OF DISSENT IN SCIENCE 142

GLOSSARY 144
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 149
CREDITS 154
INDEX 157


Does this look like a list of current issues in evolutionary science? I don't think so.

The notion that the Discovery Institute is engaged in any small quibble concerning the power of evolutionary process to produce the history and diversity of life is blown by line six in the table of contents, where they note the heading for the first eighty pages or so will be "Arguments for and against universal common descent". What is the alternative to universal common descent? I expect that they never say so directly here, but our culture is permeated with the telling of the narrow religious doctrine of special creation, so one can certainly ask whether the text that follows especially privileges special creation. That is, they have eighty pages in which to include a sentence saying, "Of course, scientists in the 19th century investigated the doctrine of special creation and found it not amenable to scientific study, and the claims of particular mythologies concerning life's history to have no basis in fact." Will we see any such straightforward disavowal that that is what they want children to accept as an alternative? I don't think so.

Various Index entries that look like they will be applicable:

# CB800: Systematics

   * CB801. Science cannot define "species."
   * CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
         o (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
   * CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
   * CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
   * CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
   * CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.

The whole section under CB900: Evolution

The whole section under CC: Paleontology

And a bunch of entries related to natural selection, of course.

We shall see.

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,08:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2007,06:04)
Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution":

Same ole creationist crap.  (shrug)


These morons must be genetically incapable of learning from previous experience.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2138
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:44   

I see that "Exploring Evolution" is not available on Amazon.  Since I only buy creationist books used or remaindered, it will be a while before I read this one.

I got a copy of Behe's latest book already for $11.  Since it was a new copy, I suppose it was considered overstock.

Edited by Dr.GH on July 14 2007,13:46

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,20:29   

I've made a start on an "Explore Evolution" companion. I see this as a resource to complete the critical analysis experience that EE's authors failed to make any progress upon.

Something that I just spent a chunk of time on was setting up for comparisons of quotations in EE to original sources. I've already incorporated the one on angiosperm evolution from earlier in this thread, and located another in the TOA Quotemine Project.

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

    
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:18   

Why are they quoting the Science Framework for California Schools from 1990 in EE? I couldn't find anything on the framework from 1990. However I did find this gem on page ix of the 2004 framework :
Quote
Discussions of any scientific fact, hy­ pothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history–social science and English–language arts curricula.

and
Quote
As a matter of principle, sci­ence teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard. Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation.

I'm wondering how the 2004 frameworks mesh with what EE is trying to convey. Too me it looks like the California standards are well written and clear. I'm also wondering how the DI can support secret research labs in light of what I read in the 2004 Science Framework for California Schools on page 20:
Quote
Science does not take place in a secret place isolated from the rest of society.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:27   

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me?

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,06:17   

Quote

Abrupt Appearance


That's a section heading from EE on page 22, as they begin to talk about why they don't like "Universal Common Descent".

"Abrupt appearance" has a long history in antievolution, being probably most notably developed by lawyer Wendell Bird. It is also a feature of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, and many of its explicitly creation science drafts.

Its deployment in EE differs in no discernible particular from its past use.

Come on, Paul; did you think that we wouldn't notice?

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,08:17   

Quote (stevestory @ July 14 2007,22:27)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me?

Although it's a common locution, your sentence demands a lot of "computation" to extract its meaning, which slows the reader down. Example: "tell me you aren't irritated" is more elaborate than "you'll be irritated," a cousin to a double negative that requires that I imagine someone denying the obvious. (Naturally, it is the obviousness of the deception that this rhetorical device intends to emphasize).

"How deceptive they are being" slows down because of the verb form "being deceptive"; the noun "deception" is simpler.

"Read that page. You'll be irritated by the deception" doesn't require this sort of computation (although is quite prosaic).

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

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:06   

Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:44   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE?

I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:14   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Just read the Wedge document, the manifold criticisms of Pandas (and moldering junk such as Icons of Evolution) and the Dover Decision.  Why start the whole process over again? Do you really think you're that clever?

Edit: typo

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:32   

Hi Paul,

Will you be responding on this thread? I would sincerely like some help trying to explain this stuff.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:09   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 15 2007,12:44)
I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists.

as they say on Law and Order, "asked and answered".

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:16   

1980's Scientific Creationism: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God did it.
1990's Intelligent Design: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it.
2000's Exploring Evolution: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it....

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:19   

Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:26   

Another quotation examined:


In EE, p.7, cited as from California Science Framework, 1990:14 & 17:
 
Quote

"The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language ... [and] ...Scientists, teachers, and students must communicate the definitions of scientific terms and use them with consistency."4


The quotation appears to be taken from a secondary source: Wiester, John L., "Teaching Evolution as Non-Science: Examples From California's 1990 Science Framework," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (September 1991): 190-193.

 
Quote

The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language .... (p. 14). Educators must be precise in the use of scientific language because that language is crucial to its teaching (p. 17). For clear communication scientists, teachers, and students must communicate the definitions of scientific terms and use them with consistency (p. 17).


Notice the identical placement of the first ellipsis. Note also the unmarked change in case of "Scientists", which means either Wiester misquoted the Framework, EE misquoted Wiester, or both. There is a long history of antievolution advocates playing "telephone" with quotes and arguments.

The quotation appears not to be the only thing borrowed from Wiester; the following conceptual summation appears to be the thrust of EE as well:

 
Quote

While the California Framework contains some excellent statements of what science is and how it should be taught, it treats evolution as exempt from the very principles of science it so vigorously espouses. This paper presents three examples of the Framework departing from its stated rules of science to treat evolution in a non-scientific manner. The examples chosen are: 1. Lack of definition and consistency in use of terms; 2. Failure to discuss both similarities and differences when comparing evolution to other branches of science; and 3. Failure to present evolutionary science as open to challenge and free of dogmatism.


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

    
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:30   

I'll wager a bottle of scotch that in the end, we'll trace over 100 items from Explore (Some Lies About) Evolution back to earlier creationist junk.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:32   

Given that two of the three quotations examined so far contribute to that tally, who do you expect to take that bet?

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

    
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,16:21   

Steve & Wes,

If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it.

Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:05   

Dang.

Wiester:

Quote

In biology, the word "evolution" has at least three separate meanings. These are 1. change over time, a statement about pattern; 2. Organisms are related by descent through common ancestry, a statement about process; and 3. A particular explanatory mechanism (Darwinism) for the pattern and process described in the first and second meanings.2


Three headings from EE's introduction:

Quote

Evolution #1: "Change over time."

Evolution #2: "Universal Common Descent."

Evolution #3: "The Creative Power of Natural Selection."


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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:07   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

Hi Paul.

I have a few questions that I asked you months ago, that you ran off without answering.  If you like, I'd be happy to set up another thread, just for the two of us, so you can run away again without answering any of them.

OK?


BTW, Paul, has creation, uh, "science", come up with any new arguments in the past 40 years?  Any at all?

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:09   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 15 2007,11:44)
WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE?

I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation

I think you've just answered your own question.

Young-earth creationists NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES "debate" anyone in any forum that they can't control.

(shrug)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:11   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,16:21)
Steve & Wes,

If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it.

Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :)

Paul, since creationism is already illegal to teach in public schools, what utility do you see for your, uh, "science textbook" . . . ?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:48   

Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:57   

Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,17:48)
Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single... argument...?

You pretty much could have used this.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,18:03   

Hmm...100 was a hasty number-- from the table of contents, http://exploreevolution.com/table_of_contents.php , the book only has about 143 pages of text. Expecting to find 100 creationist retreads in 143 pages might be a bit much. I do expect to find at least one every three or four pages, though, so I bet we'll find at least 40.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,18:56   

Quote
As we said before, Darwin’s theory is made up of several ideas, each with supporting arguments. For each argument in Darwin’s case, we will begin by explaining the argument, and examining the evidence in support of it. (We call this the Case For.) Then, we will spend some time examining the claims and evidence that lead some scientists to question the argument. (We call this the Reply.) We then look at the current state of the discussion in a section called “Further Debate.”

Throughout the book, you may notice that the Reply section is often longer than the Case For section. There is an important reason for this.


Yeah, the reason for this is, they don't give a shit about teaching evolution. They just want to cast doubt on it.

Every piece of this book I read is thick with dishonesty, and it's making me revise my opinion about the honesty of some people.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,22:11   

Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,19:56)
Yeah, the reason for this is, they don't give a shit about teaching evolution. They just want to cast doubt on it.

Every piece of this book I read is thick with dishonesty, and it's making me revise my opinion about the honesty of some people.



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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,23:56   

Henry M. Morris, 1977, The Scientific Case for Creation, Creation-Life Publishers.

Quote

The scientific model of origins that best fits all the available scientific data is that of a recent, supernatural creation of the universe and all its basic components by a transcendent Creator. The writer hopes this brief study will prove challenging to the reader and will encourage him or her to further consideration of this vital issue and all its implications.


EE presents no alternative, but does have this:

Quote

One final word. We don't want you to simply accept this book as the last word on this subject any more than we'd want you to uncritically accept the word of other textbooks that present only the case for Darwinian evolution. That's the beauty of open inquiry—and of science, itself. That's also an example of the kind of critical thinking that we hope this book will encourage. Look at the evidence, listen to the arguments, and think for yourself.


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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:20   

EE in preface:

Quote

Throughout the book, you may notice that the Reply section is often longer than the Case For section. There is an important reason for this. The Case For is the version taught in most school textbooks, and you should, therefore, already be familiar with it to some extent. The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks. The Reply is sometimes longer simply because it often takes more time to explain an unfamiliar concept or idea.


EE one page further down in preface:

Quote

Finally, you should know something about us, the authors. Two of us are biology professors doing research on evolution-related topics. Two of us are philosophers of science who have specialized in studying the logic of evolutionary arguments. One of us is a science curriculum writer. All of us happen to have reservations about various aspects of contemporary evolutionary theory, but we all think that students should learn more—not less—about this theory than they presently do. So, while we present criticisms of the theory that many biology books don't present, we also explain and develop the arguments for contemporary Darwinian theory in more detail than other standard textbooks.


Concerning the background of one of the authors, Scott Minnich, who is one of the two researchers referred to in the second sentence above, we have this self-testimony in the KvD trial:

Quote

[495]Q. Please tell us your experience with regard to that quote that nothing makes sense in biology in light of evolution.

[496]A. In my entire academic training as an undergraduate or graduate student or as a post-doc at Purdue and Princeton University, I never once took a formal course in evolution. In fact, when I requested it as a graduate student, you know, to include it on my graduate student study plan, it was refused by my committee with a, you know, you don't have time to do it, it's not necessary.

So that has been my experience as a biologist and a practicing, you know, experimental biologist, I've never been required to take a single course in evolution. My exposure formally was in my undergraduate 100 and 200 level introductory biology classes were we got basic evolution, you know, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, founder effect. So the basis tenets were there, but in terms of really looking at this in detail, I haven't.


I guess for Scott Minnich, other people should learn more, not less, concerning evolution. Of course, that rather destroys the notion that Minnich is well-qualified to present
evolution "in more detail" than the various textbooks that he never bothered to take an accompanying course in.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:47   

Ralph Seelke, Paul Nelson's co-author on EE, giving testimony on the age of the earth:

Quote

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, 15 minutes.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do believe 4.5 billion years.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I'm glad to hear that. We have no questions for you.


The fossil record section at least discusses all ages in standard geological timeframes. I have not seen anywhere that an age of the earth is mentioned so far.

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

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:54   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,16:21)
Steve & Wes,

If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it.

Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :)

Paul,

I've been trying to get these guys to stick their facts down ever since Dover. I think you should engage them here. You have the power of conviction and eloquence on our side.

This Lenny guy simply won't shut up. And Steve and Wes, well, it goes without saying.

Thanks for your consideration,

BWE

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:58   

EE:

Quote

One of us is a science curriculum writer.


Intervarsity Press:

Quote

Moneymaker is a cartoonist and illustrator. He and his wife, Janet, operate Readable, Ink, a writing services company in Seattle, Washington. He is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.


Let's ask the Wikipedia question: is Moneymaker's status as an author of science curricula verifiable? Intervarsity Press doesn't seem to have taken note of that, and one would think that they would be inclined to do so.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,01:33   

EE, p.44:

Quote

In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce different adult structures.' Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly, and mouse. (ee Figure 2:2) The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes.


What, was it too hard to add a sentence to note that the downstream activation triggered by hox gene expression is different among all of those species? Or, at least that Pax6 is just one gene among many needed for camera eye formation?

Georg Halder discussed the compound eye of Drosophila in this way:

Quote

The potential of eyeless to act as a developmental switch was tested by targeted expression of eyeless in tissues that do not normally express it (6). To do so, a transposon carrying the eyeless gene under the control of a transcriptional enhancer that stimulates expression in wing, leg, and antennal primordia was introduced into the fly genome. As a consequence, extra eyes developed on wings, legs, and antennae! These eyes consist of the full complement of different cell types normally found in a compound eye, including photoreceptors, pigment cells, cone cells, and bristles. In addition, the arrangement of the different cell types is the same as in a normal eye and the photoreceptors depolarize upon illumination. Evidently, eyeless can switch on the eye developmental program in which several thousand genes may act, thereby directing the formation of an organ with all its complexity.


Several thousand genes... several thousand more than are brought to the attention of readers of EE.

If this isn't mendacious on its face, then it bespeaks a deep incompetence in handling the data. It certainly isn't an example of teaching students more about evolution than they would learn from standard textbooks.

Let me put up Halder's conclusion, a statement that, unlike the quote from EE, is actually informative:

Quote

What do these findings tell us about the evolution of eyes? The parallels in the eye developmental programs lead us to favor the idea that the common ancestor of all higher animals, including vertebrates and insects, already had a primitive eye and that the development of this ancestral eye was regulated by Pax-6 (16). This eye may have been a simple eyespot consisting of a cluster of photo-sensitive cells with no ability to form an image, a type of organ found in many animal phyla. Once a functional light sensing organ had evolved, nature apparently improved on its optical performance in many different ways, leading to the incredible variety of eyes seen today. During this process, Pax-6/eyeless continued to be used to control the development of the evolving eyes.


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

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,07:09   

Judging from Wes' discussion so far, it appears that many of the problems with this book, as was the case for Pandas, are omissions. Not exactly lies, but certainly not the whole truth as we know it today. That is a serious problem for any textbook, but it is unforgivable in a textbook that claims to explain things "in more detail" than a regular intro textbook.

And it also makes it harder for students and teachers to discover the problems. Nice work, Mr. Nelson.

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,07:15   

Quote (BWE @ July 16 2007,00:54)
This Lenny guy simply won't shut up.

A reminder for you, Paul:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html

Any time you're ready . . . . . .

(sound of crickets chirping)

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,09:26   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 16 2007,07:15)
 
Quote (BWE @ July 16 2007,00:54)
This Lenny guy simply won't shut up.

A reminder for you, Paul:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html

Any time you're ready . . . . . .

(sound of crickets chirping)

Lenny

While you're awaiting a response, take a peek here for some additional help with this problem.

--------------
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: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,10:37   

Quote

Judging from Wes' discussion so far, it appears that many of the problems with this book, as was the case for Pandas, are omissions. Not exactly lies, but certainly not the whole truth as we know it today.


As it is known to researchers and those interested in the research, anyway.

They are likely going to have to defend this incredible dog in court at some point, and it looks like instead of one moment of stacking references in a witness's lap, there are going to be tens, if not hundreds of such opportunities for courtroom drama, multiplied by as many authors as happen to be called. They'd have been in much better position if they had actually presented "the case for", as they claimed to be doing. As it is, it can be demonstrated that they have short-changed "the case for", and in the instance of the "different eyes resulting from the same gene" gambit, to have manufactured a "case against" out of pure ignorance.

I've said before that it is relatively simple to prove that someone is lying in these discussions, when you have the conditions in place of someone (1) claiming to be an expert in the topic and (2) spouting nonsense on the topic. It may be a bit fuzzy about whether they are lying about (1) or about (2), but it is certain that there is a lie about one of those. Certainly the brag from the preface about the EE authors' credentials qualifies to establish (1). I think that we will have plenty of instances of (2) by the time the examination is done.

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

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,12:26   

Wes,

Don't you know  that a case against Darwinian materialism is a case for a return to good old religious values?

Hmmm.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,14:10   

Well, yeah, that's the whole "dual model" or "contrived dualism" thing, inherent in antievolution argumentation for at least several decades. The whole, "There are only two alternatives, evolution or creation, so if evolution is disproved, you must accept creationism!" schtick. IMO, EE is presented as a way to get at least the "not evolution!" part in front of public school students, and rely upon the general ubiquity of our social knowledge of creationism to fill in the rest.

It did not work in McLean v. Arkansas. It did not work in Edwards v. Aguillard. And it didn't work in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I doubt it will work in whatever the next one is called, either.

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

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,14:53   

Curses, foiled again.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,15:22   

On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,16:24   

Here's an interesting one. In the same pages that discuss the "artifact hypothesis", we find this statement    
Quote
This point has been further emphasized by a recent Precambrian fossil find near Chengjiang, China. Scientists there recently discovered incredibly preserved microscopic fossils of sponge
embryos. (Sponges are obviously soft-bodied. Their embryos are small and soft-bodied, too—other than their tiny spicules.) Paul Chien, a marine paleobiologist at the University of San Francisco argues that this discovery poses a grave difficulty for the artifact hypothesis.

So I look up Paul Chien. The USF webpage lists his research interests thusly  
Quote
Prof. Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions.

He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which blurbs him  
Quote
Paul Chien is a Professor in the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco and he was elected Chairman of his department twice. He received his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at Irvine's Department of Developmental & Cell Biology. He has held such positions as Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Environmental Engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (CIT); Instructor of Biology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong; and a consultant to both the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory of the CIT, and the Scanning Electron Microscopy & Micro X-ray Analyst in the Biology Department of Santa Clara University, California. Dr. Chien's work has been published in over fifty technical journals and he has spoken internationally, and on numerous occasions, from Brazil to mainland China-where he has also been involved in cooperative research programs. Dr. Chien edited and translated Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial into Chinese as well as Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution.

A search of Web of Science revealed that he is the author of 15 peer-reviewed articles, but none in the area of "marine paleobiology". The most recent one is dated 1998, and is not biology at all; the title is "Relocation of civilization centers in ancient China: Environmental factors". The most recent biology-related article is from 1995; all of the articles seem to be focused on heavy metal toxicity and antidotes in marine critters, particularly worms (e.g.  UPTAKE, BINDING AND CLEARANCE OF DIVALENT CADMIUM IN GLYCERA-DIBRANCHIATA (ANNELIDA-POLYCHAETA);
Author(s): RICE MA, CHIEN PK; Source: MARINE BIOLOGY 53 (1): 33-39 1979)

So I guess my question to Paul Nelson would be "By what criteria is Paul K. Chien listed as a marine paleobiologist?" He looks like a run-of-the-mill toxicologist to me, and not a very productive one at that. Those articles in "over fifty technical journals" somehow never made it into the Web of Science...

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,17:04   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 16 2007,09:26)
Lenny

While you're awaiting a response, take a peek here for some additional help with this problem.

Aha.  So apparently it *IS* easier to nail Jello to a wall than it is to get a creationist to answer direct questions.

;)

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:44   

Quote (ck1 @ July 16 2007,15:22)
On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.

A number of paleontologists and paleoanthropologists have looked at the question of whether current collections of fossils are representative of the fossil record (for example, Rob Martin looked at the subject of how well the primate fossil record is sampled in his paper Primates a definition). Most of the studies along these lines indicate that the fossil record is poorly sampled and that there is still a lot out there to be uncovered. The writers of EE have labeled this the "artifact hypothesis".
My question for Paul concerns the misleading and inadequate portrayal of the reptile/mammal transition. For example this:
Quote
Some textbooks alter the scale of pictures showing the order of appearance of group such as the mammal-like reptiles. This makes the features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship, and an easy transition between different types of animals. Presentations of the reptile-to-mammal sequence, in particular, often enlarge some skulls and shrink others to make them appear more similar in size than they actually are.


Which makes it sound like paleontologists have suggested that a linear increase in size is what unites all the species in the transition. Not surprising that ID proponents would be so misleading about this, because the reptile/mammal transition is actually a good example of the de novo origination of a complex organ (the mammalian ear) - something ID says is impossible. In reality, a whole slew of traits link the species in question - traits that are not dependent on trends in size.

--------------
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: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:55   

Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:58   

I have to go play some poker. This book is just one big attempt to decieve, and it's angering up my blood.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,19:04   

Hey Paul, what happened to you . . . ?

I thought you were, ya know, gonna discuss some things with us, or something . . . .?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that's what I thought.


It's easy to fight in a forum where you can kick out people who disagree with you, isn't it -- and NOT so easy to fight in a forum where you CAN'T (such as, oh, federal courtrooms, for instance).


Cowards.

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,22:12   

Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,18:55)
Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried.

Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists.

--------------
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: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,01:09   

Quote

Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists.


The canonical example of that strategy being Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial".

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

    
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:18   

Steve,

I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:23   

Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33   

Hmm. Did you post a sample page that leaves out it's context? Brilliant! Is that so that you can rope these evolutionist dogmatists into bets they couldn't possibly win?

Kudos.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

The point being...?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,06:36   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 17 2007,05:33)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

The point being...?

To apparently cast apersions on the credibility of scientists without challenging them on the actual science.

Reminds me of this incident as related by Wes.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:40   

I can see why EE references a 17-year-old science framework and not the current California science framework: the particular quote in question does not appear to exist within the current framework.

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

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:56   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

Hi, Paul

It's good to see you here and responding to questions.

When you get a free moment, please see my previous comment and let me know what credentials (i.e. peer-reviewed publications, advanced graduate training, etc.) allow you to claim that Paul K. Chien is a "marine paleobiologist".

Thanks in advance.

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,09:20   

Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am.

When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed?

I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly.

(And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,16:58   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,06:18)
Steve,

I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.

I'll make no official bet. Everyone here knows you can't just admit this is repackaged creationism. That deception is the whole point of the 'textbook'. What use is this textbook to the Discovery Institute if you admit that? This book is an attempt to slip the same old bogus antievolution arguments into the schoolhouse. You tried it and called it creationism, that didn't work, you changed 'god' to 'intelligent designer', that didn't work, now you've take the words 'intelligent designer' out. But it's still the same old crap. I'm sure we're going to find plenty of creationist nonsense in the book. We've already found several items from the few excerpts we've been given.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:12   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

Um, so what?

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13   

I see that Paul is logged in right now.  I sure hope he will answer my question!

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13   

Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 17 2007,10:20)
Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am.

When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed?

I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly.

(And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?)

A few years ago, Paul Nelson kind of admitted that, you know, we IDers don't exactly have what you might call a theory. Compared to people like Dembski bragging about our imminent Waterloo and comparing themselves to Isaac Newton, this seemed to be very honest. We gave him too much credit. If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers.

Edited by stevestory on July 17 2007,18:27

   
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

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

(from Seattle)

Albatrossity,

I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term.

Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:47   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32)
(from Seattle)

Albatrossity,

I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term.

Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

Well, actually, "toxicologist" would be an even more accurate description. Of the 10 biologically-relevant papers attributed to him on Web of Science, the most recent one being 1995, one is on yeast, three are on non-marine worms, one is on human erythrocytes,  and 5 are on various marine or saltmarsh organisms. ALMOST ALL of them deal with heavy metal toxicity. His qualifications to comment on a fossil and its relevance to the bogus "artifact hypothesis" seem to me to be non-existent. Finally, his publication record would suggest that he might not even be up to speed in toxicology...

I'm sure that this will be changed in the next printing, but that section should read "toxicologist" rather than marine paleobiologist. Of course, that wouldn't be as impressive in the context of that paragraph.

thanks

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:59   

Stephen C. Meyer
Scott Minnich
Jonathan Moneymaker
Paul A. Nelson
Ralph Seelke

4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design?

Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:13   

Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:26)
If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers.

Indeed -- it ain't "intelligent design theory" anymore, now it's "teach the controversy about evolution".  They tried it in Georgia, tried it in Ohio, tried it in Kansas.  And got their ass kicked every time.

I sincerely hope that we'll get to see this latest magnum opus get incinerated in court, too.  I *love* the smell of fried creationist in the morning.

And I hope we get to watch Nelson testify about it.  But, alas, he doesn't have the ping-pongs for it.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:15   

Hey Paul, does this magnificent, uh, "science textbook" tell us how old the earth is?

Why not?

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:17   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32)
I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term.

"A scientist who objects to evolution for religious reasons" would be even better, Paul.

And far more accurate.

Too honest for you, though, huh.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:18   

Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:59)
Stephen C. Meyer
Scott Minnich
Jonathan Moneymaker
Paul A. Nelson
Ralph Seelke

4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design?

Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul.

Is it from DI's publishing company, too?

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:43   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything?

--------------
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: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:44   

Ralph Seelke:
Quote
Conclusion

Much has been written about whether ID can result in a viable research program (see, for example, Moreland, 1994). I believe the time has come for ID proponents to be actively contributing to important research areas. The examples I have given are meant to stimulate thinking about areas of research for ID proponents; they are by no means exhaustive. The ID interpretation of the results of this type of research will clearly be different from they typical neo–Darwinian explanation. But in time, the weight of the evidence would make the design inference more and more attractive.


That was written in 2003, back when the IDers were publishing their fake journal. ID has gotten less attractive since then, if you can possibly imagine that.

   
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:54   

Hey Mr. Paul Nelson,

I am a science teacher in the state of Washington and would love a review copy of EE. How can I get one?

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:03   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32)
(from Seattle)

Albatrossity,

I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term.

Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

Hi Paul. You should check with Stephen Meyer. He (or one of the other authors) identifies Chien as a "marine paleobiologist” in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook.

He (Meyer) also did so in his expert witness report (revised) that never made it into the Dover trial because he withdrew. Since he is a co-author of the book in question I suggest you talk with him.

I’m glad I could be of assistance in your search for the truth of who the culprit might be.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:08   

Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2007,19:03)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32)
(from Seattle)

Albatrossity,

I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term.

Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

Hi Paul. You should check with Stephen Meyer. He (or one of the other authors) identifies Chien as a "marine paleobiologist” in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook.

He (Meyer) also did so in his expert witness report (revised) that never made it into the Dover trial because he withdrew.

Paul, uh, missed that, too.

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:14   

Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2007,19:03)
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook.

BTW, Paul, that particular tome laid out a specific legal strategy for getting ID into classrooms.  How'd that, uh, work out for y'all . . . ?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's right.  I remember something about a trial in Pennsylvania . . . . As I recall, the judge concluded that "Of Pandas and People" (and ID) was just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Edwards v Aguillard.

Kind of like, ya know, "Explore Evolution" is just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Kitzmiller v Dover . . .


Given the fact that ID/creationism has managed the rather remarkable feat of losing every single Federal court case it has ever been involved with, I'm a little curious as to why on earth you would have any hope at all that THIS crap will do any better in court than the LAST dozen batches of crap did . . . . ?

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

  
Augray



Posts: 1
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,06:54   

The Raup quote on http://www.antievolution.org/cs/node/693 has previously been clarified at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote25

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:07   

Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07)
Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

maybe because if they did not do that some would have been bigger then the page itself and some would have been too small to see clearly.

Or is that being too logical for this discussion?

I find the "without telling the reader" comment laughable, as already on this thread there are loads of things that EE does not tell the reader! I call shenanigans!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:37   

Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:42   

Oldman,

By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,09:30   

Thanks, I've added a link to the Raup quote discussion.

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

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,10:56   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Because it is irelevant to the point being made? Recall that Afarensis wrote:
Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc.

In other words, size is irrelevant for the point being made.

It may be true that some folks find this "objectionable" (although I would be curious to know who they are and where they stand on evolutionary theory). Frankly, it seems odd to point to this as any sort of objection to the theory of evolution. But give the DI's track record on the figures for Haeckel's embryos, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a priority given to presentation rather than to factual reality.

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

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,16:46   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Because changes in size aren't a big deal genetically:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112

Do you have some data that suggest that size changes are a big deal?

Oh, I forgot--you produce no data, because you're lack sufficient faith to test your hypotheses. Instead, you just spin the data of others.

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:16   

Just look what they’re teaching our first graders. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!



--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:24   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07)
Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

Why not explain why _Diarthrognathus_ has two jaw joints -- one mammalian, one reptilian.

And why not explain why all this "therapsids" crapola is lifted nearly intact from Gish's writings at ICR from twenty-five years ago?  Since, ya know, "teach the controversy" doesn't have anything -- anything at all whatsoever -- to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".

(snicker)  (giggle)

Paul, ever wonder why everyone thinks creationists/IDers are dishonest evasive deceptive deliberate liars?

Think maybe books like this one have something to do with that?

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

My dad is taller than me, Paul.

Does that mean, in your opinion, that he's not my dad?


Just curious.


After all, we can't tell if he's my dad through a DNA paternity test, since we all KNOW that genetic similarity doesn't indicate descent either.  Right?  (snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:36   

Hey Paul, I've not read your, uh, wonderful new science textbook yet.  But, given the extensive past history of creationism/ID, I feel pretty confident that I can make a testable prediction about its contents:

*ahem*

I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**).

Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed science journal articles wherein any of these, uh, "scientific criticisms of evolution" have appeared?

Tell you what, Paul, since you're such an eager betting man and all, I'll even offer you a wager.  I'll give you one hundred dollars ($100) for every scientific argument against evolution presented in your magnum opus that has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and you will give me one hundred dollars ($100) for every one that has appeared in some creationist/ID tracts published by ICR, AiG, or one of DI's minions.

Deal?

I've always wanted a yacht of my own . . . . . .

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:40   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:42)
By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.

That's not what "actual size" means at all.

If you're going to write your posts in English, "actual size" means "actual size," not "on the same scale."

Writing "on the same relative scale" is mind-numbingly redundant. What do you think "scale" means?

If you can't master these simple terms, why are you writing a textbook? If you're a Christian, why can't you simply admit that you were wrong?

"The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language ... "

Do you remember where that quote is printed, Paul?

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:04   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Do these people you speak of only look at drawings?

My head is swinging from the pure idiocy of this line of reasoning. It reminds me of the Peppered Moth pictures are fake argument. As if somehow that was supposed to discredit natural selection.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:15   

But not to worry, Paul.

No doubt "Our Pal" Slimey Sal will be dropping by soon enough to pull your bacon off the frying pan.

And trip, stumble, oops!, pitch it in the fire blast furnace.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:21   

Re quotation #24,

The second and third quotations aren't in the cited paper. In fact, this very cool paper supports a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the rapid evolution of the turtle's shell, directly contradicting the apparently manufactured quote:

"The recognition of a simple developmental mechanism, namely an epithelial-mesenchymal interaction, at the initiation of carapace development provides a basis for hypotheses about the rapid evolution of this body plan (Burke 1989b).

Burke, A. C. 1989b. Development of the turtle carapace: implications for
the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199: 363–378.

Note also that the authors hypothesize which proteins are involved, which inductive relationships between tissues are involved, etc.

Clearly, this is another lie by omission, possibly compounded by lies of commission.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:47   

Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are:

Quote
GOALS

Governing Goals

   * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
   * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
   * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
   * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
   * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
   * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:37   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Sigh. No Paul, this is completely wrong. The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant. To give an example, in pelycosaurs the occipital condyle is single and hemispheric shaped. It evolves into a double condyle in mammals and an intermediate stage is seen in therapsids. None of this has anything to do with size. The mammal condyle is not just an allometrically scaled version of the pelycosaur. So explain how  
Quote
...fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother...
is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general?

--------------
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.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:57   

Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2007,18:47)
Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are:

Quote
GOALS

Governing Goals



You forgot one (one that, I'll bet, Paul is very fond of, since he's a young-earth creationist -- go ahead, Paul, tell everyone how old you think the earth is . . . .  snicker, giggle):

*ahem*

"Five Year Objectives:

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

So much for that whole "ID doesn't have anything to do with creationism, no sirree Bob" BS.

Oh, and as for this whole "our new exciting scientific textbook about scientific criticisms of evolution doesn't have anything to do with ID, no sirree Bob", it may be interesting to note that, in the Wedge Document itself, "Dr Paul Chien" is listed as part of a "Paleontology Research Program", which is itself listed as one of "The Wedge Projects".

Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:18   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,20:57)
Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars.

It appears they've given up even pretending to do research, to focus on yet another effort to sneak a textbook in. I would add 'shameless' to your long list of adjectives.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:26   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,17:36)
I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**).

Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?

Well, Paul?

Am I?


(sound of crickets chirping)


Yep, I thought so . . . . . .

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,20:50   

Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet.

Keep up the good work.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

Quote (BWE @ July 19 2007,20:50)
Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet.

Keep up the good work.

I can't wait to hear Paul and his ilk trying to explain to a Federal judge why not oen argument anywhjere in the book appears in any science journal, and why every one of them appears solely and only in creationist/ID religious texts.

(snicker)  (giggle)


But then, first they have to find a school board that is stupid enough to trust DI, after DI has already abandoned the Dover Dolts to twist alone in the wind, leaving them with a million bucks of legal debts and no more jobs.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,21:35   

I think this time they're being proactive and picking the school board themselves. You know the first thing they told those people was Rule 1 of Jesus Club: DO NOT F*%&ING TALK ABOUT JESUS CLUB!!!!!!!!1111 Act like this has NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS!!!!!11

I wonder if that's going to come out in court, or if they can count on their contacts' having a faulty memory on that point. Alternately, if they deliberately picked secular people, that's not going to work out for them.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,06:46   

Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2007,21:35)
I think this time they're being proactive and picking the school board themselves. You know the first thing they told those people was Rule 1 of Jesus Club: DO NOT F*%&ING TALK ABOUT JESUS CLUB!!!!!!!!1111 Act like this has NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS!!!!!11

I wonder if that's going to come out in court, or if they can count on their contacts' having a faulty memory on that point. Alternately, if they deliberately picked secular people, that's not going to work out for them.

They'd also have to hand-pick everyone who testifies at a hearing, shows up at a board meeting, or writes letters to the editor.  In every case, there will be plenty of brainless minions who will stand up and shout "JESUS SAVES !!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Fundie creationists are, by far, their own worst enemies.  They seem to suffer from a genetic inability to shut their big mouths.

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

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,09:54   

Afarensis wrote:

 
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?  If size doesn't matter, showing the fossils as one might see them lined up in a museum drawer shouldn't be a problem.

The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

JAM, can you say which quotes from the box "Coming Out of Their Shell?" you find objectionable, and why?  Also, Burke's data were interpreted by Rieppel (2001) as disproving the "correlated progression" model for turtle evolution, advanced by Kemp and others.  Rieppel writes:

   
Quote
The turtle body plan is evidently highly derived, indeed unique among tetrapods.  The problem for an evolutionary biologist is to explain these transformations in the context of a gradualistic process.  Given the recently obtained developmental evidence [Rieppel cites Burke 1989 here], the theory of "correlated progression" presents an incomplete explanation of the turtle body plan....Ribs can only be located either deep to, or superficial to, the scapula.  There are no intermediates, and there is only one way to get from one condition to the other, which is the redirection of the migration, through the embryonic body, of the precursor cells that will form the ribs.


O. Rieppel, "Turtles as hopeful monsters," BioEssays 23 (2001):987-991; pp. 990-991.

For his part, Kemp responds:

   
Quote
[Correlated progression] stands in contrast to an alternative view of the origin of turtles, expressed most recently by Rieppel (2001 [citing Burke]), that the rib-vertebrae-carapace-limb complex is too radically different from the ancestral amniote condition to have evolved gradually, but must have resulted from a macromutational event caused by a radical change in early development.  The difficulty with Rieppel's hypothesis is that it must account for how this sudden developmental change also caused what must have been simultaneous, but functionally integrated shifts in many other traits, notably the musculature, limb function, central neural control of locomotion, ventilation mechanism, dietary shift away from faunivory and so on: it is unrealistic in the extreme that any single macromutation could have such a comprehensive effect.


T.S. Kemp, "The concept of correlated progression as the basis for a model for the evolutionary origin of major new taxa," Proc. R. Soc. B. 274 (2007):16671673; pp. 1669-1670.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,10:03   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,09:54)
Afarensis wrote:

   
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?  If size doesn't matter, showing the fossils as one might see them lined up in a museum drawer shouldn't be a problem.

The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

Paul, the strawman is dead, so why don't you stop kicking it and put up another one?  Do you believe that textbooks are never questioned in classrooms, or that teachers play no part in elucidating supplementary materials? Even if your complaint regarding scaling made sense in light of relevancy, and we've established that it doesn't, I've never seen an instance of a teacher at any level refusing to answer questions about the subject at hand.

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

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,10:06   

You've never taken a class from Mr. Nelson, it appears.
Or Dembski, Behe, or Cordova.
Or Luskin, Wells, or, well, the list goes on and on...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,14:53   

Sheesh, Paul.  The size of the pages of paper whereupon books are printed is, um, finite.  Do I need to define this term, finite, or are you still with me so far?

Some glorious day--or perhaps not, if you're a fan of actually holding, fondling, and stroking books--maybe all textbooks and the like will be on screens or on wearable computer textiles, or some such.  Then we can simply click on each illustration to see it enlarged, or zoomed, or whatever.

In the meantime, back in finite-page world (let me know if connecting up those two terms in a novel manner gives you comprehension problems), pictures of early mammal jaw structure would be very, very small alongside pictures of therapsid or early-reptile jaw stuctures, which would be very, very large by comparison.

To show the relevant features--you know, the ones of actual interest--it just makes sense to show them all at a scale which is at once visible to the reader without, at the same time, requiring the (ahem) designer of the book to try to fit enlarged photos of early mammals on the same (ahem) finite page with super-enlarged photos of therapsids.

If you respond at all, which I doubt, please be specific regarding which of the above points and terms you find hard to follow or with which you disagree (and, in the latter case, please state why you do so).

IOW, please try very hard not to reply with your usual dodges, circumlocutions, and Gish gallops.

Thanks ever so.

No mugs for jugs.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,15:57   

There's no problem with scaling up or down in illustrations so that anatomical features can be seen.

Not telling the reader that one is making some skulls very much bigger, and others much smaller, however, or failing to provide the dimensions of the actual fossils -- that's problematic.  This is especially the case with extinct groups (e.g., therapsids), where the reader will have no frame of reference.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,16:04   

Paul, stop repeating yourself.

What exactly is problematic (misleading? deceptive? misrepresentational? what?) about not explicitly moving the scale issue to the forefront in the context of this particular example?

If it were relevant, that is, capable of being misinterpreted, etc., that would be one thing.  But you've admitted that it's not relevant.

One is having a difficult time avoiding the conclusion that you are zeroing in on this particular non-issue to dodge dealing with the many more significant problems with your work that have been raised by the others here.

Enough with the nit-picking.  Deal with the substance.

No slugs on rugs.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,16:49   

Paul, these questions are really beginning to pile up.  I've compiled some of them--I don't pretend to have caught them all, and I haven't included repeats and more extended criticisms-not-in-the-form-of-a-question, nor have I surveyed other blogs or websites reviewing/criticizing, just this thread--here, just for your convenience.

Like any accumulated workload, it's going to be hard to bite off all at once, so feel free to just start in somewhere.  But IF you don't get started (that is, if you continue to dance around the least relevant of the bunch as a way to avoid dealing with the rest), you certainly won't be getting anywhere fast.

(Though, unfortunately, that does seem to be the rap on your criticism-of-common-descent article.)

Anyway, here they be:

Argystokes:
Quote
I also have a brief question for Paul Nelson, if he does show up. Do you honestly believe that this is a college-level textbook, appropriate for use at the University of Washington, for example?


stevestory (paraphrasing):
When, ten years on, can we expect your much ballyhooed work criticizing common descent to finally appear?

Hooligans:
Quote
Why are they quoting the Science Framework for California Schools from 1990 in EE?


IanBrown_101
Quote
Why don't you just debate it [the issues arising from EE] HERE?


stevestory:
Quote
Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?


Lenny:
Quote
Paul, since creationism is already illegal to teach in public schools, what utility do you see for your, uh, "science textbook" . . . ?


Wesley R. Elsberry:
Quote
Let's ask the Wikipedia question: is Moneymaker's status as an author of science curricula verifiable?


Lenny (I’m gonna assume the link leads to some questions):
Quote
A reminder for you, Paul:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html

Any time you're ready . . . . . .

(sound of crickets chirping)


ck1:
Quote
On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.


Doc Bill:
Quote
When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed?


Lenny:
Quote
Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again.


Lenny:
Quote
Hey Paul, does this magnificent, uh, "science textbook" tell us how old the earth is?

Why not?

(snicker)  (giggle)


hooligans:
Quote
Hey Mr. Paul Nelson,

I am a science teacher in the state of Washington and would love a review copy of EE. How can I get one?


Lenny:
Quote
Why not explain why _Diarthrognathus_ has two jaw joints -- one mammalian, one reptilian.

And why not explain why all this "therapsids" crapola is lifted nearly intact from Gish's writings at ICR from twenty-five years ago?  Since, ya know, "teach the controversy" doesn't have anything -- anything at all whatsoever -- to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".

(snicker)  (giggle)

Paul, ever wonder why everyone thinks creationists/IDers are dishonest evasive deceptive deliberate liars?

Think maybe books like this one have something to do with that?


Lenny:
Quote
My dad is taller than me, Paul.

Does that mean, in your opinion, that he's not my dad?

Just curious.

After all, we can't tell if he's my dad through a DNA paternity test, since we all KNOW that genetic similarity doesn't indicate descent either.  Right?  (snicker)  (giggle)


Lenny (the indefatigable):
Quote
Tell you what, Paul, since you're such an eager betting man and all, I'll even offer you a wager.  I'll give you one hundred dollars ($100) for every scientific argument against evolution presented in your magnum opus that has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and you will give me one hundred dollars ($100) for every one that has appeared in some creationist/ID tracts published by ICR, AiG, or one of DI's minions.

Deal?


No drugs for bugs.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:08   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ July 20 2007,16:49)
Quote
Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again.

Well, I think we already got the answer to THIS question . . . .

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:20   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,09:54)
The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

JAM, can you say which quotes from the box "Coming Out of Their Shell?" you find objectionable, and why?

All of them. Quoting instead of presenting the data is inherently dishonest, and you know it. How can anyone be so dishonest as to not see the hypocritical contrast between your statement to Afarensis, immediately followed by your attempt to defend your avoidance of representation of data in favor of quotes?

Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
     
Quote
Also, Burke's data were interpreted by Rieppel (2001) as disproving the "correlated progression" model for turtle evolution, advanced by Kemp and others.

So what? The bottom line is the accurate representation of the data, and you run away from that in the most cowardly way. Your intent is clearly to deceive.
     
Quote
Rieppel writes:

Why not show the students the data, Paul? The  Alcian-blue and Alizarin-red pictures from Figure 3 alone would demolish any doubt that the shell was derived from existing structures.
     
Quote
For his part, Kemp responds:

Selective quoting is inherently dishonest. Show the students the data. What are you afraid of?
     
Quote
[Correlated progression] stands in contrast to an alternative view of the origin of turtles, expressed most recently by Rieppel (2001 [citing Burke]), that the rib-vertebrae-carapace-limb complex is too radically different from the ancestral amniote condition to have evolved gradually, but must have resulted from a macromutational event caused by a radical change in early development.  The difficulty with Rieppel's hypothesis is that it must account for how this sudden developmental change also caused what must have been simultaneous, but functionally integrated

Wow. "Functionally integrated" is definitely not a term I'd use to describe a turtle!
   
Quote
... shifts in many other traits, notably the musculature, limb function, central neural control of locomotion, ventilation mechanism, dietary shift away from faunivory and so on: it is unrealistic in the extreme that any single macromutation could have such a comprehensive effect.

I don't find it unrealistic at all, but then, I've seen some pretty comprehensive effects of single mutations on skeletal morphogenesis. Have you looked at any of those data? Why don't you quote the predictions of which morphogenetically-important proteins will be involved from the Burke paper? Is it because you're too chicken to make a testable prediction yourself?

I know that you are renowned for your avoidance of simple questions, so here's another: why do real scientists cite data, but you choose to quote bits and pieces of interpretation? What would your target audience think if they saw Figure 3 of the Burke paper instead of your chosen quotes?

If you think my questions are unfair, what proportion of my own publications would you bet contain quotations?

Can I get the same bet as Lenny proposed?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:34   

How is Explore Evolution supposed to advance the Discovery Institute's goal of promoting ID?

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:42   

Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
   

This is an understatement.  I have never used a direct quote in any paper I have written, and the only paper I can think of from a peer-reviewed journal that makes liberal use of quotes is one that Afdave (remember him?) brought up a lot.  I guess this literary device appeals to creationists (because it is a common tactic in religous apologetics).

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:59   

Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,17:42)
   
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
   

This is an understatement.  I have never used a direct quote in any paper I have written, and the only paper I can think of from a peer-reviewed journal that makes liberal use of quotes is one that Afdave (remember him?) brought up a lot.  I guess this literary device appeals to creationists (because it is a common tactic in religous apologetics).

As a teacher of scientific writing, I totally agree with JAM.  Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  I comment briefly on this in a paper I published with Cary Moskovitz:

Moskovitz, Cary and David Kellogg. "Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course." CCC 57.2 (2005): 307-334.

For what it's worth, CCC is College Composition and Communication, the leading journal in the field.  (I'd quote the relevant passage here, but I'm on a relative's computer and don't have access to the paper directly.)  

I also have a reply to Paul Nelson's endlessly repeated comment re: figure sizes.  In general, as graphic design experts such as Edward Tufte have noted, scale provides information that is lost (!) when rescaling occurs without noting the activity.  Obviously some notation is better than none.  See his books The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and Envisioning Information.  If biology textbooks print such comparisons without a "not to scale" note, I actually agree with Nelson on this minor point.  But such failures to reach an ideal representation are (a) common throughout technical illustration, and (b) nothing compared with the regular and repeated distortions characteristic of the ID community.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,18:14   

Back when you guys imagined yourselves scientific revolutionaries, did you ever suspect this is how it would end up? No accomplishments, no theory, no experiments, no solution to any scientific problems whatsoever? Just sitting around complaining that an irrelevant aspect of a diagram maybe gave someone a wrong impression? While evolutionary science rolls on, unaffected, publishing thousands of papers a month. Looking back, would you have spend the last decade in the same way, if you could see that nothing would come of it?

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,18:25   

Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,17:59)
Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,17:42)
   
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
   

This is an understatement.  I have never used a direct quote in any paper I have written, and the only paper I can think of from a peer-reviewed journal that makes liberal use of quotes is one that Afdave (remember him?) brought up a lot.  I guess this literary device appeals to creationists (because it is a common tactic in religous apologetics).

As a teacher of scientific writing, I totally agree with JAM.  Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  I comment briefly on this in a paper I published with Cary Moskovitz:

Moskovitz, Cary and David Kellogg. "Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course." CCC 57.2 (2005): 307-334.

For what it's worth, CCC is College Composition and Communication, the leading journal in the field.  (I'd quote the relevant passage here, but I'm on a relative's computer and don't have access to the paper directly.)  

I also have a reply to Paul Nelson's endlessly repeated comment re: figure sizes.  In general, as graphic design experts such as Edward Tufte have noted, scale provides information that is lost (!) when rescaling occurs without noting the activity.  Obviously some notation is better than none.  See his books The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and Envisioning Information.  If biology textbooks print such comparisons without a "not to scale" note, I actually agree with Nelson on this minor point.  But such failures to reach an ideal representation are (a) common throughout technical illustration, and (b) nothing compared with the regular and repeated distortions characteristic of the ID community.

Jesus Christ Paul, this is not rocket science. You can drop a scale into any picture these days!  In the field you might us a rock hammer, but it's easy enough to put a ruler by a skull!

--------------
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: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,18:54   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,15:57)
There's no problem with scaling up or down in illustrations so that anatomical features can be seen.

Not telling the reader that one is making some skulls very much bigger, and others much smaller, however, or failing to provide the dimensions of the actual fossils -- that's problematic.  This is especially the case with extinct groups (e.g., therapsids), where the reader will have no frame of reference.

Yet in footnote 21 it is admitted that some authors do provide scale, others indicate that the pictures are not to scale. Seems to me that you are saying that the style used to present evolution is objectionable (evil Darwinists actually make people use their brains) therefore evolution must be false. That being the case one would have expected that "Exploring Evolution" would have lived up to its name and provided guidelines to help the reader interpret these pictures and help them "explore" the material more fully.

--------------
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.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,18:58   

Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2007,18:14)
Back when you guys imagined yourselves scientific revolutionaries, did you ever suspect this is how it would end up? No accomplishments, no theory, no experiments, no solution to any scientific problems whatsoever? Just sitting around complaining that an irrelevant aspect of a diagram maybe gave someone a wrong impression? While evolutionary science rolls on, unaffected, publishing thousands of papers a month. Looking back, would you have spend the last decade in the same way, if you could see that nothing would come of it?

Psalm 37:7  Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8  Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil. 9  For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Or something like that.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,19:04   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 20 2007,18:58)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2007,18:14)
Back when you guys imagined yourselves scientific revolutionaries, did you ever suspect this is how it would end up? No accomplishments, no theory, no experiments, no solution to any scientific problems whatsoever? Just sitting around complaining that an irrelevant aspect of a diagram maybe gave someone a wrong impression? While evolutionary science rolls on, unaffected, publishing thousands of papers a month. Looking back, would you have spend the last decade in the same way, if you could see that nothing would come of it?

Psalm 37:7  Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8  Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil. 9  For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Or something like that.

I prefer the word of Jules:  
Quote
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that sh** for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherf****r before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some sh** this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,20:05   

Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,17:59)
Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  

Yes.  It is actually jarring to come across a direct quote in a technical paper, so rarely is this device used.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,20:15   

He's from the Discovery Institute. Familiarity with real scientific communication is not going to be his strength.

I expect he can work a fax machine like a World Champion, though.

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,20:32   

Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,20:05)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,17:59)
Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  

Yes.  It is actually jarring to come across a direct quote in a technical paper, so rarely is this device used.

It's just as jarring to come across this device in a textbook.

Quote-mining also is a favorite of the equally corrupt animal-rights movement.

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,21:03   

Quote (afarensis @ July 20 2007,18:54)
Yet in footnote 21 it is admitted that some authors do provide scale, others indicate that the pictures are not to scale.

This is too funny. The Exploring Evolution people admit this in their book?

This is all beginning to look like an argument for Heap-Big-Illustrations because their intended audience hates to read. All those footnote numbers scattered throughout texts must give them hissy fits wondering what they mean.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,21:17   

Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,20:32)
Quote-mining also is a favorite of the equally corrupt animal-rights movement.

It is not the quote-mining I am referring to here (although doctored quotes are an obvious issue with creationists) - but the odd use of direct quotes to support an argument rather than a simple reference to the actual data.  This is not as much a question of dishonesty as it is a question of how arguments are made by actual scientists as opposed to religious apologists.

Is this use of direct quotes also seen with other denialists (HIV/AIDs, vaccine/autism, global warming...)?

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,22:30   

Quote (silverspoon @ July 20 2007,21:03)
Quote (afarensis @ July 20 2007,18:54)
Yet in footnote 21 it is admitted that some authors do provide scale, others indicate that the pictures are not to scale.

This is too funny. The Exploring Evolution people admit this in their book?

This is all beginning to look like an argument for Heap-Big-Illustrations because their intended audience hates to read. All those footnote numbers scattered throughout texts must give them hissy fits wondering what they mean.

Paul, would you be so kind as to provide us with the complete text of footnote 21, page 38?

--------------
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.

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,22:38   

Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,21:17)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,20:32)
Quote-mining also is a favorite of the equally corrupt animal-rights movement.

It is not the quote-mining I am referring to here (although doctored quotes are an obvious issue with creationists) - but the odd use of direct quotes to support an argument rather than a simple reference to the actual data.  This is not as much a question of dishonesty as it is a question of how arguments are made by actual scientists as opposed to religious apologists.

Is this use of direct quotes also seen with other denialists (HIV/AIDs, vaccine/autism, global warming...)?

ID produces no data as such, so it has nothing to pit against the scientific data.  ID's interpretive focus, and its use of quotes, is a direct consequence of this.  

This is, of course, an old creationist tactic.  Old-style creationists would acknowledge (for example) a universal genetic code, similar structures in related species, etc. etc. They would say that such evidence shows not universal common descent but a God with a common plan.  (The creationist god is like Isaiah Berlin's hedgehog: he's got just one good idea.)  

Creationists don't accept the claims of biology, but they have to deal with the data.  So for each claim, they focus on the warrant connecting them.  



All of the IDCs, from Johnson to Wells, practice what is essentially rhetorical criticism.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
kdaddy



Posts: 4
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,00:32   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,15:57)
There's no problem with scaling up or down in illustrations so that anatomical features can be seen.

Not telling the reader that one is making some skulls very much bigger, and others much smaller, however, or failing to provide the dimensions of the actual fossils -- that's problematic.  This is especially the case with extinct groups (e.g., therapsids), where the reader will have no frame of reference.


I teach high school biology and zoology and have many labs where students compare drawings of skulls, both of living animals and fossils. Apparently, I've been unethical all this time by not informing them that the skulls are scaled to fit the paper. Oh well, at least the students don't seem to be bothered by it as no one has ever complained. I wonder if that's because they don't care because it is irrelevant or because of my nefarious plot to misinform them? I suppose I can just test this out by letting them complete the lab unawares and then asking them this after the lab is done: "I didn't tell you before the lab started that these drawings aren't actual size. Some were scaled down to fit the paper and some were scaled up to allow you to see certain features more clearly. Is anyone bothered that I didn't share this with you at first?" Why do I have the feeling that I would get a lot blank "duh" stares?

  
kdaddy



Posts: 4
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,01:10   

This is a question for Paul Nelson about the Explore Evolution book and website. On the website, there is a Discussion: News page that contains an errata section. It says:    
Quote
Page 129, 4th complete paragraph, second sentence:

Should read: Most reptiles lay eggs, while mammals carry fertilized eggs internally, which they nourish through a placenta, and bear live young.


I have no idea what was originally corrected (did you say "All reptiles lay eggs..." perhaps), but why did you not correct the second part while you were at it? There are two things wrong with this part. First, the monotremes (platypuses and echidnas) are mammals that lay eggs and do not bear live young. Second, not all mammals nourish embryos through a placenta as monotremes, as I just pointed out, lay eggs and marsupials (kangaroos and possums) have only primitive placentas and use pouches to further develop their young.

I'm also curious what the context of this terrible sentence is. For example, ignoring the platypus in mammalian evolution discussions is a big deal, since it displays so many reptilian traits (shelled egg, cloaca) and transitional mammalian features (lack of nipples).

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,07:17   

Quote (kdaddy @ July 21 2007,01:10)
I have no idea what was originally corrected (did you say "All reptiles lay eggs..." perhaps), but why did you not correct the second part while you were at it? There are two things wrong with this part. First, the monotremes (platypuses and echidnas) are mammals that lay eggs and do not bear live young. Second, not all mammals nourish embryos through a placenta as monotremes, as I just pointed out, lay eggs and marsupials (kangaroos and possums) have only primitive placentas and use pouches to further develop their young.

I'm also curious what the context of this terrible sentence is. For example, ignoring the platypus in mammalian evolution discussions is a big deal, since it displays so many reptilian traits (shelled egg, cloaca) and transitional mammalian features (lack of nipples).

It should also be pointed out that some viviparous reptiles (garter snakes, for instance) have a primitive type of placenta that provides nutrients to the growing embryos.


I've always found it odd that, for people who like to yammer long and loud about the wonders of God's -- uh, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer's -- creation, creationists know virtually nothing about the world around them.

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,11:48   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,10:54)
Afarensis wrote:

   
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?

Because that hides the important data, masking it with true but irrelevant data.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,12:04   

Quote (JonF @ July 21 2007,11:48)
   
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,10:54)
Afarensis wrote:

         
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?

Because that hides the important data, masking it with true but irrelevant data.

There is another dynamic that is at work here, and I call it, for lack of a better word, literalism. I see it in my intro biology students all the time.

Say that there is a figure in the textbook that shows a process like photosynthesis, and the Calvin cycle reactions are to the right of the ATP-producing light-dependent reactions, and I want the students to know where the ATP comes from. There is an arrow going from left to right in this figure, showing ATP moving from the light-dependent reactions to the Calvin cycle reacions.

If I write a test question and use a revised figure from another textbook with the Calvin cycle to the left, remove the labels and arrows, and ask where the ATP comes from, a large fraction will answer that it comes from the Calvin cycle. Because that part of the pathway is now at the left, and that is the only way that they can recall it. They don't think about the concepts, they focus on the details of a picture. These students are concrete and literal thinkers to a fault. And they will bitch at me for writing a "tricky question".

I suspect (but have no data to prove it) that these students and Paul (and his acquaintances who object to scaling of figures in textbooks) are similar in lots of other ways as well.

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

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,14:29   

EXPLORE ILLUSTRATION

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,15:57   

That was funny, C.J.

And it wasn't just funny standing "on its own"--or simply in the context of Paul's attempt to divert all discussion to this triviality--but in the entire context of the page, contrasting the top-down authoritarian approach of the ID-YECists with the bottom-up evidence driven approach of science and scientists.

A brilliant and bust-out-laughin' summation of a whole series of relevant comments and questions.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,18:41   

Paul,

I'm getting nervous a little bit. Aren't you going to take Lenny's bet?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:27   

I love this. Where are we in getting several review copies of this book? This thing's coming apart line by line.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

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


   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

Two questions:

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

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

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

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


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

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

Quote

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.


Not "no one".

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

    
fusilier



Posts: 247
Joined: Feb. 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fusilier
James 2:24

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

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

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

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

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

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


   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.


Not "no one".

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

Quote

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


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

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

    
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

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


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

Is this how Pandas was published? Same publisher?

How many copies of Pandas are in print?

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

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

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

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

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

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

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

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

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

But you sound like the voice of experience.

  
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

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

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


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



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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4808
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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

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

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

"Afarensis" tracked down another of the EE quotes.

Page, citation, and quote in EE:

 
Quote

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

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


And now, the original:

 
Quote

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


Additional comment:

 
Quote

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


See here.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

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

EE page, citation, and quote:

 
Quote

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

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


Now for the original:

 
Quote

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

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


Additional commentary:

 
Quote

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


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

Added: Link

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

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

    
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

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

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

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

And why should we do their work for them again?

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

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

Paul

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

Quote

And why should we do their work for them again?

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


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

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

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

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

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

Quote (JAM @ July 18 2007,18:21)
Re quotation #24,

The second and third quotations aren't in the cited paper. In fact, this very cool paper supports a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the rapid evolution of the turtle's shell, directly contradicting the apparently manufactured quote:

"The recognition of a simple developmental mechanism, namely an epithelial-mesenchymal interaction, at the initiation of carapace development provides a basis for hypotheses about the rapid evolution of this body plan (Burke 1989b).

Burke, A. C. 1989b. Development of the turtle carapace: implications for
the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199: 363–378.

Note also that the authors hypothesize which proteins are involved, which inductive relationships between tissues are involved, etc.

Clearly, this is another lie by omission, possibly compounded by lies of commission.

Wesley,

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

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

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


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


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


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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

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

Quote

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


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

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

Added: OK, I've set up a

Turtle Evolution

subpage under the "Universal Common Descent" page.

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

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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


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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

Indeed, we should be preparing for the lawsuit now.

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

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

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:34   

Mr. Nelson first suggest that he is traveling deep into the (parts of the) Third World (that have been endowed with the least infrastructure):
Quote
I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

Then he tells us he'll be checking in from *gasp* Rome.

Um...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:48   

Paul didn't say that other people around him weren't going to have net access...

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,17:21)
Quote

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


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

Sorry for not being more clear. The asterisks in EE indicate which paper is being quote-mined. The second and third quotations are from the second paper cited.

You should edit the page you wrote--if you'd like, I'll do it.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:13   

Ah, I see now. OK, the asterisk convention confused me. I will get on updating the quotations page.

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

    
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,15:48)
Paul didn't say that other people around him weren't going to have net access...

Well, I think you're either being sardonic or charitable.

I smell yet another dodge.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,19:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,14:47)
"Afarensis" again comes through with an examination of an EE quotation.

I have also tracked down the quote by Foote, which I will be posting when time permits. In the meantime, I would like to throw this one out there:

Quote
For this reason, Darwin himself said that the pattern of abrupt appearance (his own term), "may be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory of Common Descent.12


This is supposed to come from page 308 of the first edition of On the Origin of Species

On page 307-308 we find:

 
Quote
But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great. If these most ancient beds had been wholly worn away by denudation, or obliterated by metamorphic action, we ought to find only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these ought to be very generally in a metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we now possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more it has suffered the extremity of denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.


Based on context it sounds like Darwin was referring to the geological discussion immediately preceding. You make the call.

--------------
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.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,21:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,15:48)
Quote

And why should we do their work for them again?

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


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

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

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

Ah Ha!  Lightbulb goes off...

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,22:13   

Re: Darwin "abrupt appearance" and "valid argument" quotes

I spent a chunk of time entering quoted text from the sixth edition and commentary. Then, on trying to save, I discovered that my session had expired, and my edit was lost. I've just put in the quote context at the moment, but, yeah, that was no more honest than the various other quotes that have been examined.

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

    
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

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

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,22:13)
Re: Darwin "abrupt appearance" and "valid argument" quotes

I spent a chunk of time entering quoted text from the sixth edition and commentary. Then, on trying to save, I discovered that my session had expired, and my edit was lost. I've just put in the quote context at the moment, but, yeah, that was no more honest than the various other quotes that have been examined.

On an intellectual level, I was well aware of the way ID advocates, and other creationists, abused the scientific literature, but you don't realize just how intellectually dishonest they are until you get involved in a project like the "Explore Evolution" Companion and find this kind of poor scholarship on quote after quote. Yet, the quotes are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the way they portray evolutionary theory. Makes me wonder how they can face themselves in a mirror...

--------------
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: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,12:20   

I've reorganized the quotations pages. Now there are subpages for sections of Explore Evolution. I've also expanded the introductory text for the quotations section:

Quote

This is intended to eventually hold a complete list of quotations used in Explore Evolution. As time goes by, people can contribute full quotations in context to be shown side-by-side with what appears in the book.

Quotations are a staple of antievolutionary argumentation. The fondness that antievolution advocates have for quoting sources apparently stems from the idea of proof-texts in religious apologetics. Within that endeavor, a brief quotation from an authoritative source is taken to be dispositive concerning a point of argument. Science, though, operates differently from apologetics, a fact that seems to continually elude and perplex antievolution advocates. In science, evidence trumps authority. In fact, authority in science is correlated strongly with ability to reliably deploy evidence in argument. Since authority is secondary to scientific argument, how sources are handled varies from what is seen in religious apologetics. While concepts and evidence are usefully cited from prior work, one will find that quotation of prior work is rare in the primary scientific literature and in scientific textbooks, and relatively uncommon even within popular treatments of science written by scientists.

Quotation in antievolutionary argument, though, is relatively abundant. Further, there is abundant misquotation within antievolutionary argument. Misquotation comes in a number of different forms:

* Misquotation by fabrication : (np) 1. A "quotation" which has no original.

* Misquotation by omission : (np) 1. Leaving out text from a {quotation}, thereby altering its meaning.

* Misquotation by omission of context : (np) 1. Omitting the {context} of a {quotation}, thereby altering its meaning.

* Misquotation by patchwork : (np) 1. A particularly outrageous form of {misquotation by omission}, in which widely separated phrases or sentences are patched together.

* Misquotation by selection of strawmen : (np) 1. Quoting a hypothetical or rhetorical position presented by an author during exposition as if it was the actual position of the author; a form of {misquotation by omission of context}.

Because of the long antievolutionary history of misquoting sources, paying special attention to how quoted sources are treated in Explore Evolution is a worthwhile endeavor. Another point concerning the quotation of sources is that when misquotation occurs, it is often both exceedingly obvious when the misquote is compared with the original, and difficult to argue away the fault. The phrase, "He said, she said," has entered our cultural currency as the canonical argumentative morass, a place where everything is simply opinion and there is no firm place to ground a decision on who is wrong and who is right. But a misquotation actually has a firm resolution: if "He said she said *this*", but the original shows that, "She *actually* said *that*", then one can clearly see that the "He" in this case has mistreated his source. What remains after that determination is figuring out why he might have mistreated the source. Was it because he did not understand the material? One can look at the original to see whether it was more than usually confusing. Also, in a book like Explore Evolution that is the work of a group of people, the odds that all of them will be confused in just the same fashion by a source drop rapidly. Another consideration would be whether misquotations establish a pattern of bias: when sources are misquoted, are they only sometimes misquoted in favor of the authors' position, or are they consistently misquoted in such a way that the authors' position is given a false appearance of support?

Pay attention to the source, for as in the case of the second quotation, you can identify the use of misquotation by patchwork or portmanteaus composed of text taken from separated pages of a source.


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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:14   

Wesley,

I think that it would be more clear if each item in your list started with:

*Misrepresentation by...

instead of "misquotation."

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:59   

How many of the EE misquotes have been used previously by creationists, and how many have been publicly corrected in places such as the Quote Mine Project?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,14:24   

Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,14:47   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,14:24)
Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

Lenny,

Who's your favorite yacht dealer?

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,16:46   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,14:24)
Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

This seems important to me.  If specific quotemines have been documented in the past, how can Nelson justify using them again in a textbook, which should have accuracy as its major goal?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,17:27   

Quote (JAM @ July 24 2007,14:47)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,14:24)
Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

Lenny,

Who's your favorite yacht dealer?

Heck, I prefer to build my own boats (I hand-make my own kayaks).

But if it's gonna be on Paul's dime, I'm sure I can find something in the 40-50 foot range.   ;)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,17:31   

Quote (ck1 @ July 24 2007,16:46)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,14:24)
Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

This seems important to me.  If specific quotemines have been documented in the past, how can Nelson justify using them again in a textbook, which should have accuracy as its major goal?

Well, I think the most important thing is to tie everything in the book directly to previous creationist and/or ID propaganda pieces.  After all, the ONLY way this book can survive in court is if the authors (half of whom are, uh, from the Discovery Institute, and at least one of which is a young-earth creationist - snicker, giggle) can demonstrate that the book has nothing at all whatsoever to do with either ID or creation 'science', no sirree Bob.

It's an argument they simply cannot win.


Legally, it's not against the law to publish inaccurate science "textbooks".

It IS, however, against the law to publish creationist religious objections to evolution, and pretend they are "science".

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,17:39   

Maybe Paul would get back to us on all these points quicker if we posted up addresses for Internet cafes in Roma, Italia.

Poor guy.  Stuck out there in the sticks with "limited" access.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:37   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ July 24 2007,17:39)
Maybe Paul would get back to us on all these points quicker if we posted up addresses for Internet cafes in Roma, Italia.

Poor guy.  Stuck out there in the sticks with "limited" access.

Damn Italy's third world status!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:01   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,17:31)
 Well, I think the most important thing is to tie everything in the book directly to previous creationist and/or ID propaganda pieces.  

Legally, it's not against the law to publish inaccurate science "textbooks".

It IS, however, against the law to publish creationist religious objections to evolution, and pretend they are "science".

Absolutely. To tie quotemines in the book to previously debunked quotemines by creationists should document:

- their dishonesty - using known lies (not a good thing when insisting you have the moral high ground.)

- the connection between EE and creationism (not a good thing if you have to go to court).

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,21:41   

Contributing examples would be a fine thing.

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

    
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,19:23   

So until Paul Nelson re-surfaces, or EE becomes available, this thread is dead?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,19:28   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 25 2007,21:41)
Contributing examples would be a fine thing.

Well, at current, that would require buying the book, no?

I'd rather wait till I can steal it somewhere for free.

But at THAT point, I'd be more than happy to go through it line by line, as best I can.   :)

Creationists haven't come up with anything new in thirty years, so there's no doubt in my mind that every single argument made in EE is a direct descendent of some previous creationist crapola.

Including the authors.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:03   

Well, my examination copy of EE arrived today. If I get some time in the next few days, I'll peruse it and see what pops up.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:39   

Sweet!

Several of us are waiting to get our copies.

I'm most interested in getting a review copy into Lenny's hands. Though I have lots of disagreements with him, Lenny has got the fire in the belly. I believe him when he says he will go over this thing line by line, documenting it's creationist breeding.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:19   

Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2007,20:39)
Sweet!

Several of us are waiting to get our copies.

I'm most interested in getting a review copy into Lenny's hands. Though I have lots of disagreements with him, Lenny has got the fire in the belly. I believe him when he says he will go over this thing line by line, documenting it's creationist breeding.

Anyone who likes can send a review copy to me at:

Lenny Flank
c/o Red and Black Publishers
PO Box 7542
St Petersburg FL  33734


I'm quite sure there's nothing in it that hasn't been said by creationists decades ago.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,15:02   

And, my attempted funnies about Rome and internet access aside, I have received several emails from a professor friend who happens to be conferencing in Rome this past couple of weeks (emails re planning for an upcoming backpack in the Three Sisters Wilderness).

There's really no practical reason whatsoever that an "academic" like PN, traveling to Rome for whatever reason, couldn't find the means to continue our discussion here.  Particularly as it involves criticism of his most recent publication, square in the middle of his life's work (as opposed to something relatively peripheral, like my friend's backpacking emails).

Of course, communicating does take some minimal effort.  And motivation.

Both of which Nelson clearly lacks, despite his efforts to pretend to the contrary.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,15:05   

Well, my first impression after reading a couple of chapters in EE and browsing through the rest is that this, like most ID efforts, is full of omissions. Those are harder to pin down than outright falsehoods, but intellectually dishonest nonetheless.

My second impression is that, as an active practitioner of inquiry-based education in introductory biology, it seriously offends me to read the preface, where the authors pretend that this book is inquiry-based in that sense. Certainly they ask lots of questions, but these are mostly the standard arguments from ignorance. To imply that this book would teach anyone how to generate knowledge by asking questions and seeking answers is disingenuous in the extreme, particularly when one realizes that a large part of the arguments in support of evolutionary theory are mysteriously omitted from this book (see paragraph above). In order to ask useful questions, it really helps to have all the background information.

My third impression is that there is a tremendous amount of selective quoting of scientific articles that is genuinely misleading. Context is always missing. Furthermore the authors rely quite a lot on speculative wording in many of those articles, again omitting the context in which that speculation is imbedded. Some of the articles are not in scientific journals devoted to data presentation and analysis, and are even labeled as speculation, e.g. Malcolm Gordon, 1999, Biology and Philosophy 14:331-48, "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay". They make a lot of hay from that one, as you might imagine. Since its publication it has been cited a grand total of 5 times in any abstracted journal, only three times in a science journal, and two of those three were by Malcolm himself. Yet when you read EE, you'd think that this was a high-impact paper, they quote it so often.

Besides the hard work of finding the creationist common ancestors for this book, it also strikes me that it would be a good idea to contact all of the folks quoted in this book with a copy of the quote in its context and ask them if they agree with that characterization. Or ask them if they agree with a statement like that on the Project Steve site. We could call it Project Steamed, because that is how I suspect most of them would feel if they knew that their work was being used this way.

--------------
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: July 31 2007,16:13   

Here's a good one.

On p. 137 of EE, the authors argue that the radical transformation of the lung from reptilian to avian seems improbable. Part of the argument goes like this.      
Quote
Finally, what happens to the diaphragm? The reptiles thought to be the ancestors of birds almost certainly had a diaphragm breathing system (footnote 8). According to many evolutionary biologists, changing from a diaphragm lung system to a flow-through lung would require changing and increasing the musculature of the reptile's chest. At the same time, the diaphragm would need to gradually go away. This poses a fundamental problem. Evolutionary biologist John Ruben points out that the earliest stages of this transformation would have required a hole or hernia in the reptile's diaphragm. This would have immediately compromised the entire system and led to certain death for any animal unfortunate enough to possess this non-functioning intermediate structure.

Footnote eight refers to Ruben, et al. 1997, Science 278:1267-1269 (actually 1267-1270, at least in the reprint form that I have), and quotes from the article.      
Quote
"Therapod (sic) dinosaurs, like modern crocodiles, probably possessed a bellows-like septate lung, and that lung was probably ventilated...by a hepatic-piston diaphragm".

That tell-tale ellipsis. What was elided? From the original paper      
Quote
These observations, combined with the occurrence among theropods of a distinct, relatively vertical, crocodilelike, highly elongate pubis (Figs. 4 and 5), as well as well-developed gastralia, provide evidence that theropod dinosaurs, like modern crocodiles, probably possessed a bellows-like septate lung and that the lung was probably ventilated, at least in part, by a hepatic-piston diaphragm that was powered by diaphragmatic muscles that extended between the pubic bones and liver.

So the authors omitted something which might have led an inquiring student to conclude that perhaps something else was involved in breathing in the intermediate stages between the reptile lung and the bird lung. Inquiry-based? Not hardly.

But is that the whole story? No, their deception goes another level down. Ruben does not say anything about possible other mechanisms for bridging this anatomical/physiological gap, even though there might be some. Ruben is basically arguing in this paper that the theropod dinosaurs are not the earliest ancestors of birds, based on the problem with defining this intermediate.      
Quote
Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses fundamental problems for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage."

In other words, he is not saying that this poses an insurmountable obstacle for any theory that postulates evolution of the bird lung, he is saying that this argues against the theropod-bird ancestral connection. Birds (with their unique lungs) must, by his logic, be descended from other ancestors.

Whether one agrees with that logic or not, I suspect that Ruben would be steamed at this use of his Science publication...

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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2198
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,08:56   

Albatrossity2 - may I suggest a way of dealing with your frustration, and helping Lenny too.  You're going to become increasingly steamed up, so any time you feel like throwing it away, do so in the direction of Florida.  Then continue reading from where it lands.  Let's see if you finish the book or the delivery first.

Bob

--------------
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)