Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution" started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: hooligans on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: blipey on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



{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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're obviously under the impression that these people are in the EDUCATION field.  I understand how that might throw you  :O
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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 >.

###

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


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



links:
< http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_24-25.pdf >
< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 13 2007,19:09

That's excellent!

If they want open discussion, we can provide it.
Posted by: stevestory on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Posted by: argystokes on 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].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: stevestory on 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]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: hooligans on 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,”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Roland Anderson on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 14 2007,08:41

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


Same ole creationist crap.  (shrug)


These morons must be genetically incapable of learning from previous experience.
Posted by: Dr.GH on 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.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: hooligans on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 15 2007,06:17



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

Abrupt Appearance

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



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?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as they say on Law and Order, "asked and answered".
Posted by: stevestory on 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....
Posted by: stevestory on July 15 2007,13:19

Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

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


Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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).   :)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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."

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


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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).   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, since creationism is already illegal to teach in public schools, what utility do you see for your, uh, "science textbook" . . . ?
Posted by: stevestory on July 15 2007,17:48

Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 15 2007,17:57

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


You pretty much could have used this.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.

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


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.

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



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.

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



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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.
Posted by: BWE on 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).   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 16 2007,00:58

EE:



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

One of us is a science curriculum writer.

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



< 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.

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



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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.

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



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.

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


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 16 2007,07:15

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


A reminder for you, Paul:

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

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

(sound of crickets chirping)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A reminder for you, Paul:

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

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

(sound of crickets chirping)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny

While you're awaiting a response, take a peek < here > for some additional help with this problem.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: BWE on July 16 2007,14:53

Curses, foiled again.
Posted by: ck1 on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

;)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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. >
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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. >
---------------------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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



The canonical example of that strategy being Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial".
Posted by: Paul Nelson on July 17 2007,05:18

Steve,

I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point being...?
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point being...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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?)
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, so what?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 17 2007,17:13

I see that Paul is logged in right now.  I sure hope he will answer my question!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 17 2007,17:13

Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again.
Posted by: stevestory on 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?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.


Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 17 2007,18:15

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

Why not?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

And far more accurate.

Too honest for you, though, huh.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it from DI's publishing company, too?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: hooligans on 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?
Posted by: silverspoon on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, uh, missed that, too.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 17 2007,19:14

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


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 . . . . ?
Posted by: Augray on 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 >
Posted by: Paul Nelson on July 18 2007,07:07

Afarensis wrote:



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



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?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on July 18 2007,07:42

Oldman,

By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 18 2007,09:30

Thanks, I've added a link to the Raup quote discussion.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: JAM on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: silverspoon on July 18 2007,17:16

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


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------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?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------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)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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 . . . . . .
Posted by: JAM on July 18 2007,17:40

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


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?
Posted by: silverspoon on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: JAM on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.

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


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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



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


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


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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Paul?

Am I?


(sound of crickets chirping)


Yep, I thought so . . . . . .
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on 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
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IanBrown_101


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



stevestory:


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



Lenny:


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



Wesley R. Elsberry:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's ask the Wikipedia question: is Moneymaker's status as an author of science curricula verifiable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Doc Bill:


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



Lenny:


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



Lenny:


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

Why not?

(snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No drugs for bugs.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Well, I think we already got the answer to THIS question . . . .
Posted by: JAM on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: stevestory on July 20 2007,17:34

How is Explore Evolution supposed to advance the Discovery Institute's goal of promoting ID?
Posted by: ck1 on 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?
   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: Hermagoras on 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?
   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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?
Posted by: J-Dog on 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?
   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Hermagoras on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ck1 on 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).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  It is actually jarring to come across a direct quote in a technical paper, so rarely is this device used.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: JAM on 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).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
Posted by: silverspoon on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: ck1 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...)?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, would you be so kind as to provide us with the complete text of footnote 21, page 38?
Posted by: Hermagoras on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: kdaddy on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: kdaddy on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: JonF on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because that hides the important data, masking it with true but irrelevant data.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on July 21 2007,14:29

EXPLORE ILLUSTRATION
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: BWE on July 21 2007,18:41

Paul,

I'm getting nervous a little bit. Aren't you going to take Lenny's bet?
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on July 21 2007,19:43


Posted by: ck1 on 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?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a teacher, but it's clear that the target audience is very ignorant religious people of all ages.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 22 2007,11:59



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

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.

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



Not < "no one" >.
Posted by: fusilier on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


#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
Posted by: Art on 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?
Posted by: stevestory on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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 . . . .
Posted by: ck1 on 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.

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



Not < "no one" >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 22 2007,17:34



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

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

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



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.
Posted by: ck1 on 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?

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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: ck1 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: hooligans on 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
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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."

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



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.

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



See < here >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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."

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



Additional commentary:

 

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

It should be noted that this comes in a section defending species selection.

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



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 >


Posted by: Paul Nelson on 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.
Posted by: J-Dog on 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.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on July 23 2007,15:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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



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.
Posted by: JAM on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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]."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

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



There's nothing resembling the context added by Paul and his lying colleagues, and omitting the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.
Posted by: JAM on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

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



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.


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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 . . . . .
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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]."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

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



There's nothing resembling the context added by Paul and his lying colleagues, and omitting the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.

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


Then he tells us he'll be checking in from *gasp* Rome.

Um...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,17:48

Paul didn't say that other people around him weren't going to have net access...
Posted by: JAM on 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

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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,18:13

Ah, I see now. OK, the asterisk convention confused me. I will get on updating the quotations page.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I think you're either being sardonic or charitable.

I smell yet another dodge.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Based on context it sounds like Darwin was referring to the geological discussion immediately preceding. You make the call.
Posted by: J-Dog on 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.

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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah Ha!  Lightbulb goes off...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

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


Posted by: JAM on 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."
Posted by: ck1 on 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?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 24 2007,14:24

Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.
Posted by: JAM on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny,

Who's your favorite yacht dealer?
Posted by: ck1 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny,

Who's your favorite yacht dealer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.   ;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn Italy's third world status!
Posted by: ck1 on 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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 25 2007,21:41

Contributing examples would be a fine thing.
Posted by: ck1 on July 26 2007,19:23

So until Paul Nelson re-surfaces, or EE becomes available, this thread is dead?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 26 2007,19:28

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 25 2007,21:41)
Contributing examples would be a fine thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: Bob O'H on 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
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 01 2007,12:01

Quote (Bob O'H @ 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the suggestion. Luckily it is a short book, or I might end up in Florida eventually...

For Paul Nelson - The press release for this book says, in part      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...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 and college levels
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a reviewer for countless introductory biology textbooks that are used at both the high school and college level, and a major reviewer for a new edition of Starr's Biology: Concepts and Applications, I am interested in knowing who these reviewers and testers might be. In general these individuals and their institutions are named in the front matter of the textbook. In the book we currently use, in fact, that list takes up an entire page, in small type. So I have two simple questions.

1) Why didn't you acknowledge the reviewers and testers in the front matter of the book? I suspect that they put in a lot of work, and an acknowledgment would be appreciated.

2) Is a list of reviewers and testers available anywhere?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 01 2007,13:32

Interesting bit from < UD > about how to cite critics of an idea:



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

4] Citing a string of critics on one side of a debate among research level scientists as though they have the last word is obviously an improper appeal to authority.

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



Yet this is exactly what "Explore Evolution" does over and over... it gives the antievolutionists the last word concerning topic after topic.

For those looking for it, let's say it: "Projection."
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 01 2007,17:28

Day 2. I should have left this one for Lenny, but it was easy, and I had lots of other things to do today.

As expected, Haeckel's embryos make an appearance (p. 67). As expected, these straw-critters are trotted out in the "Case For" section, so that the the authors can express outrage at these fakes, and so that the straw-critters can be ritually slaughtered in the "Reply" section. As expected, Icons of Evolution is cited, and Wells' opus is referred to in a footnote (8) to this sentence
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to some critics of the standard embryology argument, the evidence strongly suggests that biologists should re-evaluate whether all animals shared a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is interesting that Wells, a singular author, is multiplied into "some critics". But I'm sure they could find other critics. They just might not be biologists. Of course, there is no mention of the silliness of their conclusion that a single debunked (by scientists, incidentally) figure can trump all of the other evidence from developmental biology. Perhaps the student is expected to take it from here in the standard "inquiry-based" model. But, as noted before, errors of omission like that don't make it easy for a student to go much further...

The expected refrain also appears
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
They mention two textbooks in a footnote, Raven and Johnson 2002, and Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology 1999. I don't have a copy of either book, not do I have a copy of that other noted biology textbook (the EB), but I did happen to have 21 different intro biology textbooks on the shelves in my office; publication dates ranged from 1983-2007. So I did some actual research.

Two of them mentioned Haeckel and the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" conclusion, and showed a version of his original figure. Both of these (Guttman's Biology 1999 and McFadden and Keeton (1995) correctly noted in the text that this conclusion is not valid and that Haeckel over-interpreted his data. One other (Starr and Taggart, 4/e, 1987) mentioned only the conclusion without showing the offensive figure. This text also correctly pointed out that Haeckel's conclusion is not accepted any longer.

Let's see. Three out of 21 = 14%, hardly a majority. And none of the three tried to convince students that Haeckel was right. Not quite the problem that the book sets up, is it?

Can you make sure that this strawman is removed from the second printing, Paul?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 01 2007,19:13

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,17:28)
Day 2. I should have left this one for Lenny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let me clear about what I'll be doing:  if this book is to survive in court, it MUST, absolutely MUST, differentiate itself from creation "science" AND from intelligent design "theory" (both of which have already been ruled illegal by the courts).

So my task, as I see it, is to trace the geneology and history of every argument the book presents, to demonstrate where it is just a re-hashed version of previous creationist and/or ID "scientific arguments".

So far, I've not even seen the book, and I already know that the whole crapola about therapsid diaphragms and bones is just a re-hashed version of the same arguments presented decades ago in Duane Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!".

Add that to the fact that two of the book's authors are IDers, and one is a YECer, and it certainly doesn't look like this book will stand a snowball's chance in hell, once it gets to court.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 01 2007,19:20

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,17:28)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to some critics of the standard embryology argument, the evidence strongly suggests that biologists should re-evaluate whether all animals shared a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Of the six characteristics of creation "science" cited in the 1981 Arkansas law that was struck down by Judge Overton, two of these were:

--the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of all living kinds from a single organism

and

--changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals


The one sentence quoted here would seem to fit both of these.


I'm assuming that this characteristic of creation "science" is also covered somewhere in the book:

--separate ancestry for man and apes



I ain't even read the book yet, and can *already* see that it is DOA in any courtroom in the United States of America.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 01 2007,19:34

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,12:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Can I safely assume that one of these, uh, peer-reviewers was Bryan Leonard, the, uh, "education expert" who testified for the IDers at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt . . . .  ?

(snicker)  (giggle)

And didn't Behe testify at Dover that his book was, uh, "peer-reviewed" too . . . ?

BWA HA HA !!!!!!!


Geez, even earthworms are capable of learning from previous experience.

Creationists, apparently, aren't that bright.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 01 2007,19:39

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,18:28)
The expected refrain also appears
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
They mention two textbooks in a footnote, Raven and Johnson 2002, and Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology 1999. I don't have a copy of either book, not do I have a copy of that other noted biology textbook (the EB), but I did happen to have 21 different intro biology textbooks on the shelves in my office; publication dates ranged from 1983-2007. So I did some actual research.

Two of them mentioned Haeckel and the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" conclusion, and showed a version of his original figure. Both of these (Guttman's Biology 1999 and McFadden and Keeton (1995) correctly noted in the text that this conclusion is not valid and that Haeckel over-interpreted his data. One other (Starr and Taggart, 4/e, 1987) mentioned only the conclusion without showing the offensive figure. This text also correctly pointed out that Haeckel's conclusion is not accepted any longer.

Let's see. Three out of 21 = 14%, hardly a majority. And none of the three tried to convince students that Haeckel was right. Not quite the problem that the book sets up, is it?

Can you make sure that this strawman is removed from the second printing, Paul?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 01 2007,20:36

I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 01 2007,20:58

Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 01 2007,20:36)
I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For anybody who is interested, I've scanned the two pages that contain the embryo image and the context of the discussion.




Note especially the text on the bottom of the 1st page and also the caption text.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 01 2007,23:25

Section 4 on the second pages is also pretty good.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 02 2007,07:22

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,19:39)
No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think he'll show up in court?

Think he'll testify that he agrees with all six of the characteristics of "creation science"?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 02 2007,07:54

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:22)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,19:39)
No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think he'll show up in court?

Think he'll testify that he agrees with all six of the characteristics of "creation science"?

(snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would be even more entertaining to get Wells on a witness stand under oath. Unfortunately, since he is mysteriously  NOT one of the authors of this textbook, that probably won't happen...
Posted by: Steverino on Aug. 03 2007,19:36

These people absolutely crack me up.  They live in a totally different reality.

They just can't see that the entire world is laughing behind their backs.

What's interesting is, one does not have to be a scientist to see they are full of shit.  One just had to examine their logic to know, they are full of shit.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 03 2007,20:48

Just got my first look at the tome today.  I can sum up my feelings in one word:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and desperate.

Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.  "Cambrian Explosion".  "Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use ***that very phrase***, repeatedly)".  "Fossil Gaps".   "Created Kinds".  "Microevolution and Macroevolution".  "Bats have no fossil ancestors".  "Flowering plants appear suddenly".  "Common structures are the result of common function".  "Common structures are just convergence".  "Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars".  "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures".  "Peppered moths were faked".  "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption".  "Biological information cannot increase".  "No new genetic information".  "No beneficial mutations".  "Goldschmidt's monster".  "Behe and the flagellum".  "Irreducible complexity".  "Evolution is a tautology".  "The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent".

Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!".  The whole Introduction is one big long AiG "were you there?" discussion.  The "A New Challenge" section is all about "Intelligent Design Theory", without ever mentioning the name (I expect that Dover had something to do with that, right Paul?).

Give me the weekend, and I'll link all of these to their previously published creationist/ID ancestors.  While ALL of these are standard ICR/AiG/DI boilerplate, some of them I literally haven't heard in 20 years, so it'll take some digging to find them again in print.



Paul, do you REALLY think you can convince a judge that this pile of crap isn't just creationism/ID?  Really and truly?


(sigh)  What a tard.  No wonder you doofi keep losing court cases.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,20:59

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:48)
Just got my first look at the tome today.  I can sum up my feelings in one word:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and desperate.

Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny, you just warmed my heart.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 03 2007,21:13

One problem I face----years ago, I stole copies of Morris's "Scientific Creationism" and Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by photocopying the entire books in the library (I don't want to give the bastards any of my money).  Alas, when I moved to Florida eleven years ago, I lost a box in transit --- and it contained my photocopied books.

Those two books, between them, contain virtually every creationist argument of any significance made throughout the 70's and 80's (and I recall seeing many of "Explore Evolution"'s arguments in them).

So if anyone out there has a copy of these books handy (or can steal one somewhere without getting caught), let me know.  I absolutely recall the whole "therapsids diaphragm" BS being discussed therein, and I'm pretty sure the turtle shell thingie is there too.

On the other hand, ICR has all its "Acts and Facts" crapola online, and those are all just regurgitated bits and pieces of Morris and Gish's standard boilerplate arguments.  So I'm pretty sure I can tie every argument made in EE to some piece or another that ran in "Acts and Facts" years ago.

It's the same old crap.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 04 2007,00:08

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:48)
Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I am shocked! Shocked, to discover that 4 creationists from the creationist PR-tank have produced a book full of creationism!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 04 2007,08:48

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:13)
One problem I face----years ago, I stole copies of Morris's "Scientific Creationism" and Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by photocopying the entire books in the library (I don't want to give the bastards any of my money).  Alas, when I moved to Florida eleven years ago, I lost a box in transit --- and it contained my photocopied books.

Those two books, between them, contain virtually every creationist argument of any significance made throughout the 70's and 80's (and I recall seeing many of "Explore Evolution"'s arguments in them).

So if anyone out there has a copy of these books handy (or can steal one somewhere without getting caught), let me know.  I absolutely recall the whole "therapsids diaphragm" BS being discussed therein, and I'm pretty sure the turtle shell thingie is there too.

On the other hand, ICR has all its "Acts and Facts" crapola online, and those are all just regurgitated bits and pieces of Morris and Gish's standard boilerplate arguments.  So I'm pretty sure I can tie every argument made in EE to some piece or another that ran in "Acts and Facts" years ago.

It's the same old crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,11:27

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.

The turtle thingie may be in one of the old ICR Impact articles.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,11:36

Taking the quickest method, I've begun cross-checking the statements in the tome with the standard creationist/ICR boilerplate enumerated in the Index of Creationist Claims.

So far, just in the three-page Preface, we get:

“The theory of evolution remains the focus of intense public controversy.  So what’s all the controversy about?”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA201 “Evolution is only a theory”


“We hope this book will help you understand what contemporary Darwinian theory is, why many scientific find it persuasive, and why other scientists question key aspects of it.”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“It allows you to evaluate answers to scientific questions on your own and form your own conclusions”.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“Teaching scientific ideas openly and critically not only helps prepare you for possible careers in science, but it helps you learn to make informed decisions about such issues.”
CA041, “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“This allows you to do what scientists do – think and argue about how best to interpret evidence.”
CA230 “Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation”, CA230.1 “Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions”

“United States federal education policy, for example, calls for teaching students about competing views of controversial scientific issues.  As the US Congress has stated, “[W]here topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist”.  FOOTNOTE: This statement occurs in the authoritative conference report language of the No Child Left Behind federal education act.”
CA041.1 “Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives”

(Note also that this statement is a flat-out deceptive lie ---- not only is the conference report NOT "authoritative", in fact it has no legal authority whatsoever, but teaching creationism and ID is illegal under Federal law.  Period.)  


“Throughout this book, you will discover that there are, indeed, important scientific controversies about the key claims of evolutionary theory and about the arguments used to support them.”
CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“We have written this book, in part, so that you could learn about the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“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”.
CA510 “Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models”, CA510.1 “Problems with evolution are evidence for creation”

“The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks.”
CA230 “scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”.

“As you will find throughout this book, there are qualified, respected scientists on both sides of each argument.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“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.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”




The one phrase in the Preface that leaped right out at me, though, was this one:

“This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate”.


That word "origins" is significant.  It ties, I believe, this book directly to not only creationism and ID, but specifically to their previous legal attempts to introduce creationism and ID into public school science classrooms, since the phrases "origins science" and "origins debate" is not used in any scientific sense and does not appear in any scientific papers or textbooks --- but it appears EVERYWHERE in creationist/ID tracts and in their legal arguments, where it has a very specific meaning for the anti-evolutionists (a meaning held by no other political, religious or educational group).

I am in the process of tracking down a couple references that I recall, and will post more when I'm done.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Aug. 04 2007,11:38

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,11:27)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.

The turtle thingie may be in one of the old ICR Impact articles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's < this > from NCSE, which includes a copy of the cover page from a 1982 issue of Creation/Evolution:

Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,11:45

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 04 2007,11:38)

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


Nice.  Note the date -- 1982.

Wherever possible, when tying EE's claims to creationist claims, I am trying to tie it to pre-Aguillard sources, and when tying EE to ID claims, I'm trying to tie it to pre-Dover sources.  The reason -- I want to demonstrate that despite all the cosmetic changes that the anti-evolution movement has made in response to various losses in court, the very same "scientific arguments" continued, unchanged, right from the very beginning, whether they are being used to present "the alternative scientific theory of creation science" or "the alternative scientific theory of intelligent design" or "the scientific controversy over evolution" or "the scientific arguments against evolution". It's all the same crap.  And EE is just more of the same.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,12:25

Sorry for the length of this:


OK.  On the first page of the preface of "Explore Evolution", in the second paragraph, we find the sentence " “This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate”.

That phrase "origins debate" is significant -- it (along with its companion phrase "origins science") ties this book directly not only to the creationist/ID movement, but specifically to previous legal attempts to push religiously-motivated criticisms of evolution into classrooms.

The phrase "origins science" or "origins debate" or "origins model" does not occur in scientific papers, or in scientific textbooks.  But it appears extensively in creation "science" and intelligent design "theory" literature, a history that goes back over 30 years -- in ICR Impact June 1, 1973, Duane Gish writes, “To restrict the teaching concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis.”

The phrase has a very specific meanign to creationists -- a meaning that is used by them alone, and by no other education or sciecne group.  That meaning is explained by creationsit Jonathan Sarfati at the Answers In Genesis website:


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

“This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.”

“In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.”  (Jonathan Sarfati, “Who’s Really Pushing  ‘Bad Science’?”)

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




As used by creationists, "origins science" ties directly to the standard creationist "were you there?" argument, as well as to the "evolution and creation are just different interpretations of the same evidence" argument.  And, as Sarfati notes, the concept ties directly to their religious beliefs ("Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science").

For creationists, "origins science" and the "origins debate"  mean far more than just explanations of previous earth history -- it ties directly to their religious and moral worldview, and their religious and moral rejection of evolutionary biology:  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Does what one believes about creation and evolution affect his or her worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a foundation upon which important moral questions are answered? Creationists have advanced the idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects his or her worldview. For example, Morris [24] stated in the "When Two Worldviews Collide" videotape, "wrong thinking always begets wrong behavior and evolution is wrong thinking." Ham [14, p. 41] said, "there is a connection between origins and issues affecting society such as marriage, clothing, abortion, sexual deviancy, parental authority, etc." More directly, Barnes [5, p. 21] claims, "not only have many given away institutions of higher learning to the evolutionary establishment, but they are also giving away their own children to be trained in an evolutionary mind set. This is causing our children to abandon the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which our society is founded." Morris and Morris [22, p. 12] state, "a person's philosophy of origins will inevitably determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny, and even what he believes about the meaning and purpose of his life and actions right now in the present world" (emphasis added).”   (COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND MORAL VIEWS , RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S., Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




ICR still declares today that consideration of "origins" is vital to its religious message:  “The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false.” (http://www.icr.org/home/faq/)


Given the religious importance of the idea of "origins", and the religious implications of the "origins debate", it's no surprise that this terminology is found in ICR's earliest attempts to legislate the inclusion of "origins science" in public school classrooms as creation "science":



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

"Evolution is science, creation is religion, we cannot have religion in the classroom." All too often this is the rule when it comes to the manner in which teachers perceive their role in the instruction of origins in the classroom. Fortunately, this type of thinking does not prevail in the majority of cases.”  

“A Two-Model Approach to Origins should not include sectarian religion for the public schools; the approach should base its emphasis on the interpretation of scientific data presently available. It is conceivable, even, desirable, that sectarian schools will embellish the scientific limits of the model by making open reference to biblical history. A Two-Model Approach, in essence, is significant only when students have had an opportunity to hear, see, or read, all pertinent data on topics relating to origins.”  A Two-Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative, by Richard Bliss, Ph.D., ICR Impact June 1, 1976)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






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

“Proposal To Anderson School District #5
Board Of Trustees
by Paul Ellwanger
03/14/78
Whereas, the Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon free exercise of an individual's religion, and
Whereas, an infringement occurs when a state program has content contrary to religious precepts, and
Whereas, exclusive instruction by public secondary and elementary schools in the general theory of evolution infringes upon the free exercise of creationist students and parents, and
Whereas, many citizens of this community believe in the special creation concept of origins and are convinced that exclusive indoctrination of their children in the evolutionary concept is inimical to their religious faith and to their moral and civic teachings, as well as to scientific objectivity, academic freedom, and civil rights, and
Whereas, even most citizens who are not opposed to the evolution concept at least favor a balanced treatment of these two alternative views of origins in their schools, so as to allow students to consider all of the evidences favoring each concept before deciding which to believe, and
Whereas, instruction in creation in a scientific context without use of the Bible would not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are now available, though quite limited in options, instructional material which do not expound the Bible in presenting creation science, but instead, employ scientific discussion by authors highly trained in science,
I hereby propose that the Board of Trustees of Anderson School District #5 take whatever steps necessary to have objectively presented in the public classrooms of District #5 a balanced treatment of evolution and creation in all courses and library materials dealing in any way with the subject of origins, such treatment to be limited to the scientific, rather than the religious aspects of the two concepts.
In the event this Board goes on record in favor of this proposal, I respectfully suggest ...
1. That only those instructional materials be considered which would supplement current State-adopted texts in providing unbiased information about these two explanations for origins.
2. That only instructional materials be considered for selection which give an objective and nondogmatic treatment of the creation model, so as not to violate the establishment clause of our Constitution.
The following resource/reference items are immediately available, upon request, and offered as a courtesy/convenience, from Paul Ellwanger, 2820 LeConte Road, Anderson, either as a complimentary copy or loan-item (as indicated): [This section is summarized as follows]
-  article by Bird6
-  an unpublished article by Gish, "Creation, Evolution and Public Education" (available from ICR)
-  a news article about Dr. John N. Moore and one of his Impact articles (No. 52, published October, 1977).
-  Impact article No. 51, September, 1977, by Henry Morris.
-  Impact article No. 36, June, 1976, by Richard Bliss.
-  the student's book, teacher’s guide, and transparencies entitled Origins: Two Models, Creation/Evolution by Richard Bliss.
-  Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition, by Henry Morris.”  (ICR Impact,  January 1, 1979, "Creation Science and the Local School District")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







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

“[T]hose of creationist persuasion could maintain church-state separation in the same manner as an evolutionist teacher might, so long as they teach both views of origins and limit their approach to empirical evidence?”  (ICR Impact, March 1, 1981, Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins-Instruction in the Public Education, by Judith Tarr Harding)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Given the pervasive presence of "origins" language in ICR's effort to introduce creation 'science', it is no surprise that Act 590, the Arkansas law that introduced "balanced treatment" for "evolution science" and "creation science", was permeated by the same "origins" language:



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

Act 590 of 1981

"AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS

This Act does not require or permit instruction in any religious doctrine or materials. This Act does not require any instruction in the subject of origins, but simply requires instruction in both scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if public schools choose to teach either.

Only evolution-science is presented to students in virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of origins. Public schools generally censor creation-science and evidence contrary to evolution.

Public school presentation of only evolution-science without any alternative model of origins abridges the United States Constitution's protections of freedom of religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech for students and parents, because it undermines their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their unconscionable professions of belief, and hinders religious training and moral training by parents.

Presentation of only one model rather than alternative scientific models of origins is not required by any compelling interest of the State

Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific data best support creation-science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for creation-science.

Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools of alternative scientific models of origins for better guiding students in their search for knowledge, and they favor a neutral approach toward subjects affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convictions of students."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





And indeed ICR still uses this same "origins science" language to refer to bills requiring  that the "controversy over evolution" be taught:



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

“Earlier this year House Bill 481 was submitted to the Ohio State Assembly. The bill addresses the issue of teaching "origins science" in the Ohio public schools. The carefully crafted bill scrupulously follows the intent of recent Supreme Court decisions and attempts to implement the 2002 U.S. Education Bill, specifically its Santorum Amendment.
Quoting directly from HB 481:
It is the intent of the general assembly that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and non-religious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that "origins science," which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity, be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption. To further this intent, the instructional program provided by any school district or educational service center shall do all of the following:
(A) Encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption;
(B) Require that whenever explanations regarding the origins of life are presented, appropriate explanation and disclosure shall be provided regarding the historical nature of origins science and the use of any material assumption which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented;
© Encourage the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy. “  (ICR Impact, Oct 1, 2002, Who Could Argue with Teaching Good Science? by John Morris, Ph.D.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This same "origins debate" language was also quickly adopted by the Intelligent Design movement.  It is found on many existing ID websites:



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

Welcome to Origins. This site features scholarly and popular
resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism.

< http://www.origins.org/ >

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






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 “The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest  response to what in fairness can only be described as  evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).  This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. “

“The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. “

< http://www.trueorigin.org/ >

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







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“This graphic shows the ideal way to practice origins science, where only the scientific method--not religion or naturalistic philosophy--is guiding the research.”

< http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/964 >
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







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

Intelligent Design Network:  “Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science”
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.
< http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ >


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





And finally, the very same "origins" language is found in legal arguments for the teaching of Intelligent Design 'theory' in schools:




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

Utah Law Review, 2000 39:1

“Teaching the Origins Controversy:
Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?”


David K. DeWolf
Stephen C. Meyer
Mark Edward DeForrest

www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






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


Teaching Origins Science In Public Schools

John H. Calvert, J.D.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
 
Published by Intelligent Design network, inc
Copyright © 2001 by Intelligent Design network, inc..
Subject: Legal Opinion Regarding the Teaching of Origins Science in Public Schools
< http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm >


John H. Calvert, Esq.
Attorney at Law
460 Lake Shore Drive West                                                                                                               913-268-3778
Lake Quivira, Kansas 66217                                                                                                      
Fax: 913-268-0852
jcalvert@att.net
March 21, 2001
Intelligent Design network, inc.
P.O. Box 14702,
Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285-4702
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have requested my opinion as to how public schools may develop science curriculum regarding the teaching of biological origins (the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life) in a way that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I will refer to this area of science as "origins science."
< http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm >


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







So it's no surprise at all to see the same "origins" language re-appearing in EE.  It's the same meaning as before.  And, in the case of Meyer, it's the very same guy making the arguments.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Aug. 04 2007,14:08

As the evidence against EE mounts, it becomes more apparent that the DI is hoping for a sacrificial hick school board somewhere, and another religious advocacy law practice like Thomas More.  Only thing is, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed, the DI won't be able sneak away like they did at Dover.  I think this thread should go a long way towards giving them second thoughts about the whole thing. Unless, of course, they're able to solicit the services of Joe G, < who will provide devastating cross examination > of plaintiff experts, and win the day.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,14:14

Well, just in case Joe G isn't on the case, let me continue to point out all the standard creationist arguments (as indicated in the Index of Creationist Claims) that appear in EE . . . .    ;)

OK, moving on to EE's Introduction, we find that it's just one big long discussion of "where you there?"  (creationist claim CA221):
"All theories of origins confront us with the challenge of explaining the unobservable past.  These theories try to explain unseen events, such as the origin of plants and animals -- or the origin of our own species, Homo sapiens.  This task can be difficult because, for nearly all of the history of life on earth, there was no one there to observe these events."



"Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions.  However, historical scientists, like archaeologists and paleontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing the past directly."
CA220 "Evolution cannot be replicated"


"Sometimes, we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way.  When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.  Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events."
CA230 "Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation"


"Some people use 'evolution' to refer to something as simple as small changes in bird beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching.  Used one way, the term 'evolution' isn't controversial at all; used another way, it's hotly debated."
CB901 "macroevolution has never been observed", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"



"Evolution as 'change over time' can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species -- changes which take place over a short amount of time.  Many biologists think this kind of evolution (sometimes called 'microevolution') results from a change in the proportion of different variants of a gene within a population."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"


"Evolution #1: 'Change over time'
Evolution #2: 'Universal Common Descent'
Evolution #3: 'The creative power of natural selection' "
"The discussion also gets confusing when someone takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2."
CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB 902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB902.2 "Small changes do not imply large changes"



"Many of these scientists have begun to doubt whether natural selection can produce fundamentally new forms of life, or major innovations in the anatomical structure of animals (their 'body plans').  They see natural selection acting as an editor, weeding out harmful variations in body design, while conserving (keeping) helpful variations."
CB 904 "No entirely new features have evolved"


"Neo-Darwinists contend that 'a single tree of lfie containing multiple branches' is the most accurate picture of the history of life.  Other scientists doubt that all organisms have descended from one -- and only one -- common ancestor.  They say the evidence does indeed show some branching taking place within larger groups of organisms, but not between the larger groups.  According to these scientists, the history of life should not be represented as a single tree, but as a series of parallel lines representing an orchard of distinct trees.  In the orchard view, each of the trees has a separate beginning."
CB822 "Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited", CB 901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"


"When we use the term common descent (no capitals), we're referring to limited common descent -- the view that separate groups of organisms have common ancestors."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Aug. 04 2007,14:25

In the < same thread > I referenced above, Joe G confirms Lenny's oft-stated contention that the dopes can't go 10 minutes without bringing jebus into the discussion. Why ID doesn't depend on supernatural explanations:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“God” is nature and therefore does not exist outside of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, the scare quotes around God are indicative of the fact that "God" might be space aliens.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,14:55

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to several sources, the "turtle shell" crapola appears in Duane Gish, "Evolution; The Fossils STILL Say No!", which is apparently a newer version of his, uh, magnum opus, published in 1995, on pages 112-115.

Anyone have a copy handy who can confirm this for me, please?


The turtle thingie is not in any ICR Impact articles that I can find, but Kofahl talks about it in Chapter Three of his "Creation Explanation" (online edition March 1995), and AiG has a piece about it in its "Creation" magazine, March 1999.

I couldn't find any online version of the Creation/Evolution article from 1982 . . .  but it certainly appears to be the same argument.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,15:23

Chapter heading "Universal Common Descent -- Arguments for and Against"

"The purpose of this book is to introduce you to both the case for and the case against major aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
CA510 "creation and evolution are the only 2 models", CA510.1 "Problems with evolution are evidence for creation"


"About 530 million years ago, more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. . .  Many evolutionary biologists doubt that this is enough time for the slow, gradual Darwinian processes to produce the amount of change that arises in the Cambrian explosion.  For this reason, many scientists think this geologically sudden appearance of many new life forms contradicts Darwin's prediction that new forms would emerge gradually over vast spans of geological time."
CC301 "Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary tree pattern"



"Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record.  The order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million years ago.  The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the fossil record without intermediates."

(This argument isn't specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but it appears in several creationist sources, and apparently has at least 25 years of history behind it:



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

"The oldest fossil turtles (along with the earliest dinosaurs) appear abruptly in the Triassic rocks, fully developed and without any obvious precursors. ...Proganocheles retained many features inherited from its pareiasaurian forebears. ...Nevertheless, a forty-million-year gap, spanning almost the entire Triassic still exists between the last pareiasaurs and the earliest-known turtles. When turtles first appear in the fossil record, in the late Triassic, they are represented by at least four distinct lineages, suggesting that the group evolved and radiated slightly earlier."  The Creation Explanation, Robert Kofahl, Chapter 3b, March 1995)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






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

Evolutionists claim turtles first appeared during the Triassic Period (supposedly 200 million years ago), when they were ‘numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics.’ Turtles allegedly sprang from the ‘primitive’ reptiles called cotylosaurs, yet intermediates are ‘completely lacking.’
Paula Weston, "Turtles; ", Creation Magazine, Answers in Genesis, March 1999
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





"The first fossil bat appears suddenly in the fossil record.  When it does, it is unquestionably a bat, capable of true flight.  Yet, we find nothing resembling a bat in the earlier rocks."


(This one, too, is not specifically in the Index of Creationist claims, but appears to have a long creationist history behind it:



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

"Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"
ancestors.  Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs.  (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!)  Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to
channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats."  David Menton,  "The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution", June 1994)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







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

Bats (of the order Chiroptera), the only flying mammal, are especially interesting. Evolutionists assume, of course, that bats must have evolved from a non-flying mammal. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record, however, to support such speculations, for, as Romer says, "Bats appear full fledged in both hemispheres in the Middle Eocene …"

On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of the accompanying article (pp. 1333-1339) describes as the oldest known bat. He reports that it was found in Early Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few "primitive" characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an "anatomically precocious" contemporary of Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including when, from what, where, and how did bats originate?

ICR Impact, Sept 1, 1980, "The Origin of Mammals", by Duane Gish)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




"For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago."
CC250 "THere are no fossil ancestors of plants"



"As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil appearance does not support Darwin's picture of a gradually branching tree."
CC201 "We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps."



"The fossil record provides many examples of living organisms that have remained stable in their form and structure over many millions of years -- sometimes over hundreds of millions of years."
CB930 "Some fossils pecies are still living"



In a discussion of punctuated equlibrium:

"The sudden appearance of major new forms of life, and the stability of these forms over time, have led some scientists to doubt that the fossil record supports the case for Common Descent".
CC201.1 "Punctuated equlibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps."  (I'm not really sure this shouldn't be a new entry in the Index, since this whole "sudden appearance and stasis supports creation" has been a creationist staple ever since Gould and Eldredge wrote their paper in 1972.)



"Even advocates of the Darwinian account acknowledge that the fossil record displays far fewer transitionals than predicted by the theory of Common Descent."
CC201 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"


"[B]iologist Malcolm Gordon and paleontologist Everett Olson point out that land-dwelling amphibians, themselves, appear suddenly in the fossil record.  They first show up in the late Devonian period, with no apparent connection to earlier life forms.  Gordon and Olson point out that the earliest amphibian fossils unmistakably show them as four-footed creatures."
CC212 "There are gaps between fish and amphibians".
(It should also be pointed out that the reference from Gordon and Olson givena bove is from *1995*, and that no mention is amde in EE of more recent fossil finds such as Tiktaalik.  I'm quite sure this is just an innocent oversite on the part of the authors, and not an attempt to be dishonest    --------  oh, who am I kidding.  Nelson, Meyer and their ilk are just being dishonest deceptive liars, deliberately and deceitfully.)




"Where were the multitudes of transitional forms connecting different groups, as predicted (and expected) by his theory?"
CC200.1 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"




Several pages of "punctuated eqilibrium says there is stasis and sudden appearance and thus disproves Darwinism" crapola.  Again, that is not specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but has been standard ICR fare for thirty years or more.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,15:54

Another phrase that appears several times in the "Common Descent" chapter of EE is "abrupt appearance", along with "sudden appearance".

Both phrases are extremely significant --- as with "origins science", these terms are not used in any scientific texts, but they both have long and glorious creationist histories.  As I recall, both of them were suggested by the YECs as alternative labels for creation 'science' after the 1987 Supreme Court decision, before ID 'theory' stepped in to fill their shoes.

And if I recall correctly, there was some talk during the Dover trial about "sudden appearance", which prompted the lawyer to wonder if everyone would be back in a few years for the "sudden appearance theory trial", and the judge to retort "Not in MY courtroom" . . .

Prescient.


I therefore am surprised beyond comprehension that even Paul Nelson was stupid enough to use these particularly loaded phrases in this book.  (I am assuming that it was Nelson who wrote that particular section, since the entire "fossil" discussion is nothing but regurgitated thirty-year-old ICR boilerplate, and Nelson is the only YEC hack amongst the book's authors).
Posted by: kdaddy on Aug. 04 2007,16:33

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 04 2007,14:08)
As the evidence against EE mounts, it becomes more apparent that the DI is hoping for a sacrificial hick school board somewhere, and another religious advocacy law practice like Thomas More.  Only thing is, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed, the DI won't be able sneak away like they did at Dover.  I think this thread should go a long way towards giving them second thoughts about the whole thing. Unless, of course, they're able to solicit the services of Joe G, < who will provide devastating cross examination > of plaintiff experts, and win the day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG! I've just read the "Vice Strategy" linked to in that post for the first time. It's absolutely hilarious.

Lawyer Bill asks: "And as a working hypothesis, aren’t scientists free to discard it (methodological naturalism) when they find that it 'no longer works'?"

Bill: As Indigo Montoya said "I don't think that word means what you think it means." A scientist cannot reject the scientific method - they wouldn't be a scientist anymore. If a lawyer disavows the rule of law, I wouldn't call them a lawyer anymore - anarchist, yes.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,17:14

As an aside, one of the funniest things I find in the book is when the authors TRY to be funny.  In the first page of the Homology section, for example, they write: "Of course, pigs and humans did not inherit the bones themselves from their common ancestor.  That would be ludicrous."  And in a footnote, they add: "Not to mention borderline disgusting."

Hardy har har, Paul.  You sure are a bunch of funny guys.  So hip, so kewl, so with it.  I suppose that's why your cool teenage hangout blog is doing so well, and why people like Dembski and Behe come off so well when they yuck it up on Comedy Central.


Here's some friendly advice for you'all, Paul ----- stop trying to be funny.  You're all humorless tightasses.  It just doesn't work.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Aug. 04 2007,17:41

Quote (kdaddy @ Aug. 04 2007,16:33)
If a lawyer disavows the rule of law, I wouldn't call them a lawyer anymore - anarchist, yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HOW DO YOU NO THE ANARCHIST WILL BE A LAWYER. THATS NOT WHAT TEH BIBLE SAYS.
HOMO.

Posted by: kdaddy on Aug. 04 2007,17:42

From < Judge Jones's decision > in the Kitzmiller case:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds alot like EE to me.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,18:32

In the Anatomical Homology section, we have:


"Many biologists before Darwin thought that these similarities (called "homologies") were due to a common plan or "archetype".

This one doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims, but the whole "common plan" or "common design" argument is a long-lived creationist argument:


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation.

Darwin revealed this was his position when he said some believe ‘that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan’. He finished that sentence by saying, ‘but this is not a scientific explanation.’3 He was therefore ruling out the possibility of creation based on a common plan by implying it was not scientific, so he wouldn’t believe it whether it was true or not."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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

"So-called homologous structures are no proof of common descent, so are no proof of evolution. Darwin’s approach—to reject the creation explanation as unscientific because you don’t want to believe it—is not rational. This is particularly so when the facts are readily explained as the product of a Designer who created each unique structure to fulfill a different purpose."

Answers in Genesis, Creation Magazine, "Similarities Don't Prove Evolution", March 1992


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



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My argument is that the “common ancestry” explanation for homology has not been empirically demonstrated, so the “common design” explanation cannot be ruled out.
(Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution -- A Response to Critics Pt 7"
[URL=http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_5.html
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 "The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent."
Henry Morris, "The Vanishing Case for Evolution", ICR Impact, June 1, 1986)

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







"Some modern biologists explain homology in another way.  Brian Goodwin of the Open university says homology does not reflect a process of historical change, but instead reflects contraints imposed upon the structure of organisms by the laws of nature.  Goodwin contends that the laws of nature dictate that a liquid, for example, has only a limited number of shapes it can take -- a spiralling funnel when going down the drain, a droplet when it falls, and so on.  In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible.  Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms."

This isn't addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims.  I cite it here just to point out that Nelson and his ilk are either too stupid or too dishonest to differentiate between "homology" and "analogy".



"Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and may follow different developmental pathways."
CB811 "Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes"



"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 the mouse (see figure 2:2).  The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses.  The squid and the 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."

This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811.  Nelson and his ilk, of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't regulate the detailed structure of the eye.



"Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times."

This isn't specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims  -- it's sort of a conflation of CB100 "mutations are rare", and CB 150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another".  I cite this sentence primarily to contrast it with the earlier sentence: " In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible.  Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms."  On page 43, we are told that body structures are tightly restricted by natural law to just a few possible SIMILAR STRUCTURES.  Then, just five pages later, we are told that evolution faces a problem because mutations KEEP PRODUCING SIMILAR STRUCTURES.    (sigh)  


"This made the concept of homology circular, say many critics.  If homology is defined as 'similarity due to common ancestry', then to say that homology provides evidence for common descent is to reason in a circle."
CB810 "Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus."
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,18:35

Quote (kdaddy @ Aug. 04 2007,17:42)
Sounds alot like EE to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  It seems pretty apparent to me that EE was actually written *before* the DI's "teach the controversy" crapola fell flat on its ass in Ohio and Kansas.  So now they're stuck with a "textbook" about a "controversy" that they can't teach.

But having already put all the effort and money into it, I guess they figure they have no choice but to try and sell enough copies to the rubes to make up for it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,18:46

Hey Paul, are you back from Rome yet?  I have a few questions for you . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 04 2007,18:46

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,18:32)
"Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and may follow different developmental pathways."
CB811 "Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes"

"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 the mouse (see figure 2:2).  The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses.  The squid and the 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."

This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811.  Nelson and his ilk, of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't regulate the detailed structure of the eye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. See < here >, just up the thread.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,20:57

Molecular Homology


"Critics of the argument from molecular homology agree that the molecules in living things exhibit many remarkable similarities in sequence.  They interpret this evidence differently, however.  Critics argue that similarities may reflect common functional requirements, rather than a common evolutionary past.  And they point out that some molecular evidence challenges common descent."

The same "common design" argument as in the previous chapter.  Long a creationist staple.



"A 'family tree' based on anatomy may show one pattern of relationships, while a tree based on DNA or RNA may show quite another. . . . In fact, a family tree based on one protein may differ from a family tree based on a different protein."
CB821 "Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent."


"Based on his study of the different domains of life, Woese says life probably had multiple, independent starting points."

This one isn't specifically addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims.  It's a variant of the standard creationist "created kinds" argument, CB901 and CB902.

This whole section appears to be the basis of Paul Nelson's always-forthcoming magnum opus disproving common descent.  It seems to consist largely of "lateral gene transfer disproves common descent".  It's not addressed specifically in the Index of Creationist Claims, and the stuff it is based on -- Woese's molecular studies, mostly -- are new enough that they don't have a long creationist history.  However, it has appeared in recent creationist and ID tracts:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In particular, Woese recommends abandoning the idea that the universal common ancestor is a living organism.  "The universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing," wrote Woese in 1998, "it is a process."  As Woese conceives it, that process did not involve organisms "in any conventional sense," but an interchange of genetic material in a complex primordial soup.  He concludes: "The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base."  (Jonathan Wells, Comments on the Majority's "Response to the Changes to the Science Curriculum Standards", August 1, 2005

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






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1998, Woese wrote: “No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.” He concluded that primitive organisms acquired many of their genes and proteins, not by Darwinian descent with modification, but by “lateral gene transfer” from other organisms. “The universal ancestor,”
he wrote,” is not an entity, a thing,” but a community of complex molecules—a sort of primordial soup—from which different kinds of cells emerged independently.

- from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 44

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


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,21:02

Embryology



"[Haeckel] formulated and popularized his famous 'Biogenetic Law', which states 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'."
CB701.1 "Recapitulation theory is not supported"


"It turns out that Haeckel's drawings misrepresented the features of the embryos, exaggerating their apparent similaritites to support the argument for Common Descent."
CB701 "Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures"
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,21:16

Biogeography


"These scientists accept that plants and animals of the Galapagos were transported or migrated to the islands and then adapted in some ways to their new environment. They point out, however, that migration and adaptation does not equal macroevolutionary change."
CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"




"If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal. Yet critics note that the examples of mockingbirds in the Galapagos and fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands show only small-scale variations in existing traits."
CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB901.3 "Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"


"Further, some geneticists think that these changes have occurred because the populations of these birds and fruit flies became isolated, and lost genetic information over time."
CB932 "Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms"



"Large-scale macroevolutionary change requires the addition of new genetic information, not the loss of genetic information."
CB102 "Mutations do not add new genetic information"




"For their part, dissenters will continue to point out that the evidence is completely consistent with other views of the history of life, in which small-scale changes in form and features do occur within separate but disconnected groups of organisms."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large changes".

(Note too that the "other views", of small changes within separate kinds, consist of creationism and intelligent design -- which the authors are too dishonest to point out.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,21:35

Steve, I think it was you who wondered if we could reach 100 documented arguments in EE that were just retreaded creationist arguments . . . ?


By my count, we're up to a little over 70 now, and we're only on page 80, and still have a few chapters to go . . . . .



Good thing for Paul that he didn't take my bet . . . . . .  

Gee, what I could do with $7,000 (and counting) . . . .
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 04 2007,22:26

Re "If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal."

I wonder about that "argument". Don't most of the features of reptiles and mammals have homologs (is that the right word?) in amphibians, and even in fish? If that's the case, where is the "fundamental difference" that evolution "requires"? (And is that too many quote marks?)

Henry
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 04 2007,22:30

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 04 2007,22:26)
Re "If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal."

I wonder about that "argument". Don't most of the features of reptiles and mammals have homologs (is that the right word?) in amphibians, and even in fish? If that's the case, where is the "fundamental difference" that evolution "requires"? (And is that too many quote marks?)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who knows?  Creationists have been blithering about "fundamentally different kinds" for forty years now, and no one STILL has any idea what the hell they are talking about.  

They don't know what a "kind" is any more than you or I do.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:11

Continuing our look at EE:



Natural Selection




Most critics of Darwin's argument would agree that nature can 'select' for successful variations or adaptations.  Moust would also agree that natural selection can produce small-scale changes (Evolution #1).  Nevertheless, critics contend that natural selection's power to change a species is limited; it does not have the almost boundless power the theory requires."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"



"For the critic, the question  is not whether sheep can become woollier sheep; the question is whether sheep can eventually become sheepdogs . . . or horses . . . or camels.  In other words, can natural selection transform one form of life into a fundamentally different form of life?"
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"





"No new traits arose.  The only thing that changed was the proportion of big beaks to small beaks."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"





"Nowhere in the finch beak story does a new family, genus, or even species emerge."
CB901.3 "Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB901.2 "No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared"



"Critics question whether the peppered moth story shows that microevolution can eventually produce large-scale change.  They point out that nothing new emerged."
CB601 "The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved".





"So what about all those amazing pictures of camouflaged moths on tree trunks? Most of these moths were placed on the tree trunks by the researchers themselves.  Some are actually pictures of dead moths that have been pinned or glued to the trunk!"
CB601.1 "Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them were faked"



"Just like a computer program, DNA contains the biological equivilent of lines of computer code."
CB180 "The genetic code is a language"




"So, biological information is stored in DNA. But where does new biological information come from? Critics of neo-Darwinism contend that contemporary evolutionary theory doesn't have an adequate answer for this question.  They say that the examples of artificial selection and microevolution in particular do not demonstrate the ability to add new biological ifnormation into a population."
CI010 "There is a law of conservation of information:, CB102 "Mutations do not add information"





"But these traits -- whether darw wings in moths or longer beaks in finches -- are not new.  The capacity to produce these traits was present all along in the gene pool of the original (large) population."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved", CB102 "Mutations do not add information"




"Here's the rub; producing new organs or new body plans requires new lines of genetic code -- more information, not less.  Not surprisingly, many scientists argue that small-scale microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation."
CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB 102 "Mutations do not add information"





"These critics would say that natural selection works well as an editor, but not an author.  It has a demonstrated capacity to weed out the failures from among what already exists, but it has not been shown to generate new biological informaiton or structures."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 05 2007,10:12

Apparently there are "supplemental materials" to go with the textbook as well. These were recently previewed at a symposium at Biola (no religious roots there, of course). Here is part of a blurb for a "pre-symposium consultation" for those who teach biology at the college level    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Examine the auxiliary materials (PowerPoint shows, teaching tips, etc.) that accompany the new Explore Evolution curriculum and consider how they might improve your classroom performance. The supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism does not teach about the theory of intelligent design. You may wish to introduce ID theory through other resources (both pro and con) that we will discuss in the optional early-bird session from 10:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. before our main consultation on teaching evolutionary biology begins at 1:00 p.m. Even if you think that the arguments against neo-Darwinism are inconsequential compared to the case for this majority viewpoint, you will find the supplementary textbook Explore Evolution a useful tool to spark discussion in the classroom. Regardless of your professional opinion on these matters, you will find it difficult to ignore the case both for and against neo-Darwinism that is so winsomely and accurately conveyed in Explore Evolution. If you include this new supplement alongside a standard textbook, your students will have exposure to all sides of the debate as expressed in the words of their most qualified proponents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and here is < a link > to the symposium information.

Has anybody seen these supplementary materials?  I don't think that they are even mentioned in any of the stuff that came with my copy of the book.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:30

Natural Selection and Mutation






"But critics point out that bacterial cells either have a penicillinase gene, or they don't.  They do not develop such a gene when penicillin is introduced.  Consequently, critics say that the enzyme defense system tells us nothing about whether mutations can produce novel forms of life."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"







"Critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge that point mutations can give bacterial cells resistance to some antibiotics.  They agree that when natural selection acts upon such mutations, it can produce small-scale (microevolutionary) change.  However, they do not think that mutations like those that cause antiobiotic resistance can go on to produce major (macroevolutionary) changes in organisms."
CB102 "Mutations do not add information", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change"




"The cell cannot endure an unlimited number of mutation-induced changes at these critical active sites.  At some point, the cell's information processing system will be damaged so badly that it stops functioning altogether.  For this reason, multiple mutations at active sites inevitably do more harm than good."
CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable"




"And because mutations at these critical active sites coem witha  fitness cost, critics of neo-Darwinism argue that additional mutations of the same kind are more likely to destroy essential functions than to produce fundamentally new forms of life.  This strongly suggests that there are limits to the amount of change that such mutations can produce."
CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change", CB102 "Mutations do not add information"




"They claim that mutations to many separate proteins are necessary to produce major biological change.  Yet critics insist that mutation-induced antiobiotic resistance provides no support for this claim either.  They note that mutations that cause antibiotic resistance only change a small site on the surface of a relatively large protein molecule and that these mutations do not alter the overall structure of the protein.  Since the kind of mutations that produce antibiotic resistance do not change the structure of the protein components of the organism, they will not fundamentally change the organization of the organism or the organism as a whole."
CA350 "No gradual biochemical models have been published", CB150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another"




"Small, limited mutations (like those that produce antibiotic resistance) can eb beneficial in certain environments, but they don't produce enough change to produce fundamentally new forms of life.  Major mutations can fundamentally alter an animal's anatomy and structure, but these mutations are always harmful or outright elthal."
CB101 "Most mutations are harmful", CB101.2 "Mutations do not produce new features"





(There is also a discussion of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster", which no serious evolutionary biologist today either supports or asserts.  As with in the extensive list of previous creationist tracts which drag Goldschmidt into the discussion, Nelson and his ilk have only mentioned it to dishonestly and deceptively erect an irrelevant strawman which they can happily set fire to.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 05 2007,10:35

Slightly OT but amusing nonetheless.

At < this blog post > someone who attended the aforementioned EE symposium at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (some of the folks who put the fun in fundamentalism) gushes about meeting Jonathan Wells at that shindig. He also notes    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Probably the best piece of information I gained today was Jonathan Wells' recommendation for a high school and AP/college biology textbook. He said that although the texts still contain evolution, most of the "icons" have been removed, largely as a result of his work.
Campbell and Reese (sic), Biology (7th edition)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Ironically, these authors are two of the authors of the < textbook >that I sent to FtK, and which she blasted as being way too full of evolution and its assumptions!


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:36

Here's one that I missed previously -- it's buried in an Endnote to the Introduction:




"Scientists define 'species' in many different ways.  (There are 25 different definitions at last count.)"
CB801 "Science cannot define 'species' "



I'm sure there are others that I've missed, so if anyone out there finds any more, please feel free to pile on and add to the fun.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:38

And by my count, we are now over the 100 mark (And still have a couple chapters to go).

Congrats, Steve.


:)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:41

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 05 2007,10:12)
Regardless of your professional opinion on these matters
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation:  "Even if you think creationism is crap"

(snicker) (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,10:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 05 2007,10:12)
The supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism does not teach about the theory of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horse shit.  The whole section "A New Challenge" is ID theory, all ID theory, and nothing *but* ID theory.

All they do is drop the name.


Paul Nelson, you and your ilk are dishonest, evasive, deceptive, lying sacks of shit.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 05 2007,10:56

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,11:38)
And by my count, we are now over the 100 mark (And still have a couple chapters to go).

Congrats, Steve.


:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,11:11

A New Challenge




"As it turns out, some scientific critics of neo-Darwinism have recently gone on the offensive.  They are making a new argument based upon some new discoveries about the complexity of life -- structures in the cell that have many intricate and interconencted parts.  Some scientists say that these structures cast doubt on the creative power of Natural Selection, because they canot be explained by numerous, small, successive changes."


(This one isn't listed in the Index of Creationist Claims.  I cite it here only to note that this "new argument" is nothing more than the same old "intelligent design theory" that IDers have been crowing about for ten years now  --  which the authors of EE are, naturally, too dishonest and evasive to point out.)



This entire chapter centers soley on Behe and his flagellum.  The entire chapter, then, falls under:

CB200.1  "Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex"



And as a further addition, we have:

"Research has shown that the motor only functions after all 30 of the motor's protein parts are in place."

CB200.1.1 "The flagellum has 30 or so unique (non-homologous) proteins"
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,11:32

Special Studies



Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest


"All we can say now is that some finches leave more offspring (our definition of 'survival') because they produce and sustain more eggs (our definition of 'fittest').  Cause and effect have flowed into each other, which makes the reasoning circular."
CA500 " 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology"


(I have to note here that I was very very happy to see this old chestnut in EE --- I haven't seen this "argument" in literally 20 years, and am happy to see Paul dig it out and dust it off.  I am assuming this nugget came from Nelson because the younger IDers have probbaly forgotten all about it by now.  Snicker, giggle.)


What Fossils Can't Tell You

This entire chapter is a rehash of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say NO!".

It deals with two topics, both covered in the Index of Creationist claims -- the reptile to mammal transition (CC215 "There are gaps between reptiles and mammals"), and the reptile to bird transition (CC214 "There are gaps between reptiles and birds")





EE concludes with a section titled "The Nature of Dissent in Science", which is a whine about how nobody ever presents "their side", and therefore falls under:

CA325 "Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals"







Thus endeth my look at "Explore Evolution".



To sum up, it consists of nothing but the same old crap that creationist/IDers have been putting out for forty years now, and it won't survive ten minutes in court.  If this book ever goes to trial, I want a front rwo seat --- I want to see, with my own eyes, Paul Nelson attempt to testify, with a straight face, that this book has nothing at all whatseover to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".

The only surprise, to me, is that the book doesn't mention the Isaac Newton of Information Theory or his world-shattering discoveries about CSI and the EF anywhere.  

Perhaps that's because Behe and Minnich had the balls to testify at Dover, and Dembski didn't.
Posted by: someotherguy on Aug. 05 2007,12:06

Is anybody else noticing that, apart from the actual content of the book, the writing itself seems really quite bad?  They say the book is aimed at college or AP bio students, but it sounds like they're talking to twelve-year-olds.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 05 2007,12:19

Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 05 2007,12:06)
Is anybody else noticing that, apart from the actual content of the book, the writing itself seems really quite bad?  They say the book is aimed at college or AP bio students, but it sounds like they're talking to twelve-year-olds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  I think it's deliberate on their part ---- they are telling us that it's aimed at college students, because colleges are private institutions and are not covered under the separation of church and state.  But talking to students who already know about evolution (and who already know that creationism is crap) doesn't help them.  Their real target, as with "Pandas", is elementary public schools.  

So they ARE talking to twelve-year olds.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 05 2007,12:28

they have to get it in K-12 education. Damn few university biology experts would confuse this dishonest little book for scholarship.


Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 06 2007,07:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Their real target, as with "Pandas", is elementary public schools.  

So they ARE talking to twelve-year olds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, actually, I think it's targetted at fundie xtians parents who homeschool their twelve-year olds.

This explains the low standard of writing quite easily, no? :)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 06 2007,07:37

Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 06 2007,07:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Their real target, as with "Pandas", is elementary public schools.  

So they ARE talking to twelve-year olds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, actually, I think it's targetted at fundie xtians parents who homeschool their twelve-year olds.

This explains the low standard of writing quite easily, no? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to tell if they even HAVE a strategy. The recent Biola event seems to have been primarily targeted to Xtians and home schoolers. And as a college biology instructor, I certainly haven't heard about this book from the regular channels (publisher's reps). But they probably don't have a lot of reps, because they don't publish much except for press releases... And there was the pre-symposium "consultation" at the Biola shindig, aimed at college instructors. Finally, if they want to break into the Xtian home-schooling market, they will have to displace the two-volume tomes from Bob Jones University, which are blatantly Biblical. I don't think a lot of Xtian home-schooling parents are going to spring for an expensive, slim, and non-Biblical specialty textbook on evolution alone. Maybe I'm wrong, and i certainly am not privy to the advertising in that market, but it seems unlikely to me.

Perhaps the market is small Xtian colleges, where the BJU books are not useful, and all of the main-stream textbooks are full of that materialist stuff that needs to be rebutted. Again, i am not privy to the marketing material for that market either, but it would seem to be a niche that they can exploit.

Perhaps they don't really have a coherent marketing strategy for this thing, but that would be surprising, since marketing is definitely their strong suit.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 07 2007,12:10

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,11:32)
Thus endeth my look at "Explore Evolution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Outstanding sacrifice of time and neurons to the cause, Lenny.

So how long did you have to shower to get rid of the smell of old garbage?
Posted by: PennyBright on Aug. 07 2007,12:32

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 06 2007,07:37)
 I don't think a lot of Xtian home-schooling parents are going to spring for an expensive, slim, and non-Biblical specialty textbook on evolution alone. Maybe I'm wrong, and i certainly am not privy to the advertising in that market, but it seems unlikely to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are exactly on mark here, Albatrossity - the Xtian homeschoolers won't touch it with a ten foot pole if it doesn't talk explicitly about God and the bible.   We're talking about people who refuse to participate in the Girl Scouts because it's not biblically based.    

I'm betting they're aiming for Xtian k-12 schools.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 07 2007,13:01



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

I'm betting they're aiming for Xtian k-12 schools.

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



Seems doubtful to me. If they were, they could mention "God", "Bible", "creationism", and "intelligent design" without worry, and would improve their market penetration by doing so. There is just one place that EE is "designed" to enter, and that is public K-12 science classrooms.

Anything else is a happy coincidence.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,17:12

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 07 2007,12:10)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,11:32)
Thus endeth my look at "Explore Evolution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Outstanding sacrifice of time and neurons to the cause, Lenny.

So how long did you have to shower to get rid of the smell of old garbage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still wet as I type this.


:)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,17:15

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 06 2007,07:37)
Perhaps they don't really have a coherent marketing strategy for this thing, but that would be surprising, since marketing is definitely their strong suit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still sticking with the hypothesis that this thing was designed (pardon the pun) to serve as their textbook for "teach the controversy", and was written BEFORE "teach the controversy" died a gruesome death in Kansas and Ohio and Georgia.

Now that they are stuck with a "textbook" that they can't teach, they're just trying to sell it to somebody, anybody, to recoup the losses.


After the way they left the Dover Dolts twisting in the wind, even the halfwits at Discovery Institute must realize that no sane school board will ever trust them again.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,17:16

Hey Paul, are you back from Rome yet?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 07 2007,18:01

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,17:16)
Hey Paul, are you back from Rome yet?

(snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe those local savages tied him up, what with Italy being such a wild place with no internet capabilities....
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,18:13

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,18:01)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,17:16)
Hey Paul, are you back from Rome yet?

(snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe those local savages tied him up
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I bet they're CATHOLICS !!!!!!!!!!!!

;)
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 07 2007,19:06

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,17:15)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 06 2007,07:37)
Perhaps they don't really have a coherent marketing strategy for this thing, but that would be surprising, since marketing is definitely their strong suit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still sticking with the hypothesis that this thing was designed (pardon the pun) to serve as their textbook for "teach the controversy", and was written BEFORE "teach the controversy" died a gruesome death in Kansas and Ohio and Georgia.

Now that they are stuck with a "textbook" that they can't teach, they're just trying to sell it to somebody, anybody, to recoup the losses.


After the way they left the Dover Dolts twisting in the wind, even the halfwits at Discovery Institute must realize that no sane school board will ever trust them again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I was more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that nothing causes contribution checks to be written faster than another court defeat at the hands of a pinko judge (like, ahem, Bush-appointee Jones).  And as the book was ready to roll anyway, and there's bound to be some school district somewhere which is dumb enough to use it...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and this scenario assumes the IDiots and iDIots know what they're doing, but still...
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 07 2007,19:51

If Ahmanson's still funding these incompetents, he's a little slow on the uptake.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Aug. 07 2007,21:05

Some of us think that EE was written with the intent of fitting closely with the Kansas science standards of 2004.  The strategy in Kansas was to teach more evolution, the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, etc., and the standards mentioned many of the points being covered in EE.  If the creationists had kept control of the state BOE and the 2004 creationist standards had stayed in place, I am confident that the DI would be hawking EE to Kansas school districts and science teachers as we speak.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,21:08

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,19:51)
If Ahmanson's still funding these incompetents, he's a little slow on the uptake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he is.

Slow on the uptake, I mean.

I assume that he's still writing checks, though -- he accounts, all by himself, for around 25-33% of DI's previous budgets.  If he closed his checkbook, I'm sure we'd have heard all about it by now.

I assume he's still writing checks for the whole anti-gay-marriage thingie, too --- and that whole project is just as dead and buried as ID "theory" is.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 08 2007,04:31

I'm no sure if a round of applause for Lenny is appropriate, so I thought this would do instead:
(shrug)
(shrug)
(shrug)
(shrug)
(shrug)
(shrug)
(shrug)

Bob
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 10 2007,10:32

OMG - There has been another Paul Nelson sighting on this board just now.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
19 guests, 12 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >VMartin >Louis >IanBrown_101 >k.e >Paul Nelson >heddle >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Bob O'H >Shirley Knott >Raevmo >ppb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope he weighs in soon and lets us know the names of the reviewers for EE!
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 10 2007,10:40

Yay, Paul managed to get out of that backwater hellhole of....Rome.

Maybe he'd like to talk to us about the issues raised?

[EDIT] D'oh, Paul Nelson done run away with his tail between his legs left again.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 11 2007,03:00

Bugger, there goes my theory that Paul Nelson and k.e. are actually the same person.

Bob
Posted by: silverspoon on Aug. 13 2007,17:39

One month and counting and still no Q & A discussion on the Explore Evolution web site.

It looks like the “scientific discussion” promised on their site is as fruitful as their super secret ID lab experiments.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Aug. 14 2007,15:14

Brave, brave Sir Paul!

Still doing as the Roamins, do I guess: roam on, dude!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2007,21:03

Earlier in the thread Paul and I were discussing fossils relevant to the reptile/mammal transition:

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Later Paul says:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is what the footnote I asked Paul to supply says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some authors do include the scaling ratios they use, leaving it up to the audience’s mathematical skills to calculate actual comparative size. Other authors use a scale legend line, and it’s up to the reader to notice that the same length line that represented 2 cm in Picture A represents 10 cm in Picture B. Still other authors simply put “Skulls not to scale,” somewhere in the caption. Unless students read the fine print and do the calculations, they are often left with a very misleading impression of the similarity of the animals in these alleged sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So, Exploring Evolution contradicts Paul on both of the claims he made. Which is what I call ironic...
Posted by: Dr.GH on Aug. 14 2007,22:56

Jo que, I have been given access to the topic text.  I have not read much yet, nor have I had time to read all the comments.  But I will do so I promise.

Soon, very soon.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 16 2007,14:42

< Meyer in the Boston Globe >



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

Nothing 'pseudo' about text's scienceAugust 16, 2007
THE AUTHORS and I are puzzled by Sally Lehrman's characterization of the Discovery Institute's biology textbook "Explore Evolution" as "pseudoscience" in her Aug. 9 op-ed "Understanding evolution is crucial to debate." After all, we describe the main evolutionary mechanism much as Lehrman herself does as "natural selection acting on random mutations." We also explain evidence and arguments for the creative power of this mechanism, basing our treatment on current and classical sources in evolutionary biology. How is that pseudoscience? Perhaps Lehrman judges our book pseudoscience because we also describe current scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory. Perhaps she is unaware that skepticism about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation is common in peer-reviewed scientific literature and in the scientific community. No less an authority than the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published a recent paper stating: "Natural selection based solely on mutation is probably not an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity." "Explore Evolution" not only tells students about such skepticism, but offers the evidential basis for it. But it does so alongside a thorough discussion of the strengths of evolutionary theory. That isn't pseudoscience, that's good science education.

STEPHEN C. MEYER
Senior research fellow
Discovery InstituteSeattle

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


Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 17 2007,16:56

Wow, that is one weasily dishonest statement by Meyer.  Not a hint that the "controversy" within science has nothing to do with the "controversy" creationists conjure up.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 17 2007,20:00

This whole Exploring Evolution project is depressingly dishonest. These guys won't stop lying. They have to get creationism into public schools and they will tell any lie it takes to accomplish this.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 20 2007,16:19

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 16 2007,14:42)
< Meyer in the Boston Globe >

 

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

Nothing 'pseudo' about text's scienceAugust 16, 2007
THE AUTHORS and I are puzzled by Sally Lehrman's characterization of the Discovery Institute's biology textbook "Explore Evolution" as "pseudoscience" in her Aug. 9 op-ed "Understanding evolution is crucial to debate." After all, we describe the main evolutionary mechanism much as Lehrman herself does as "natural selection acting on random mutations." We also explain evidence and arguments for the creative power of this mechanism, basing our treatment on current and classical sources in evolutionary biology. How is that pseudoscience? Perhaps Lehrman judges our book pseudoscience because we also describe current scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory. Perhaps she is unaware that skepticism about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation is common in peer-reviewed scientific literature and in the scientific community. No less an authority than the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published a recent paper stating: "Natural selection based solely on mutation is probably not an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity." "Explore Evolution" not only tells students about such skepticism, but offers the evidential basis for it. But it does so alongside a thorough discussion of the strengths of evolutionary theory. That isn't pseudoscience, that's good science education.

STEPHEN C. MEYER
Senior research fellow
Discovery InstituteSeattle

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


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


Well heck, let's invite Meyer in here to discuss the matter.

Since, it appears,  *Nelson*  doesn't have the ping-pongs for it . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Aug. 21 2007,05:03

< Huh. >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 21 2007,05:37

They don't seem to realize that talking up "debate" while maintaining an empty page supposedly for the purpose of showing off "debate" just makes the whole thing look that much phonier.
Posted by: Bing on Aug. 21 2007,12:50

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2007,05:37)
They don't seem to realize that talking up "debate" while maintaining an empty page supposedly for the purpose of showing off "debate" just makes the whole thing look that much phonier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well that and asking participants to email in comments.  With all the forum software available they're asking participants to email comments??



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We will review them and address them on these pages."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So much for the lightly-moderated non-edited version that we all hoped Nelson and the Disco boys might provide.  I know that was a stretch but today I'm an optimist.

Anyone care to bet on where all the email to that address goes?  I'm saying straight to "deleted items" and purged on the close of Outlook.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 21 2007,13:42

Well, I think the general expectation among those of us who have been watching the DI CRSC antics for many years now is that incoming email will be scrutinized and those items that match well with their "paradigm" will be passed, and those items from the screaming opposite end of the spectrum. Comments that bring up the (rather glaring) deficiencies in coverage of topic will silently disappear.

I'd love to be surprised, though.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Aug. 21 2007,15:38

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 20 2007,14:19)
Well heck, let's invite Meyer in here to discuss the matter.

Since, it appears,  *Nelson*  doesn't have the ping-pongs for it . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like marbles, or BBs
Posted by: hooligans on Aug. 22 2007,15:40

Latest Paul Nelson sighting:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21 guests, 9 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Richardthughes >Erasmus, FCD >Arden Chatfield >Leftfield >Stephen Elliott >Hermagoras >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



are you ready to discuss anything Paul?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 22 2007,17:48

Quote (hooligans @ Aug. 22 2007,15:40)
Latest Paul Nelson sighting:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21 guests, 9 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Richardthughes >Erasmus, FCD >Arden Chatfield >Leftfield >Stephen Elliott >Hermagoras >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



are you ready to discuss anything Paul?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Paul . . . .?

(sound of crickets chirping)



Just as I thought --- all mouth, no balls.  (shrug)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 23 2007,08:24

He's baaaaaack.....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15 guests, 10 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Erasmus, FCD >Reciprocating Bill >Crimifata >Paul Nelson >ppb >JAM >eTourist >Albatrossity2 >Louis >stevestory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Steviepinhead on Aug. 23 2007,16:07

"They seek him here, they seek him there,
They do not find him anywhere.
Is he in heaven? Is he in hell?* ?
That demmed elusive Pimpernel!"

_
*In the movie of The Scarlet Pimpernel (one of several film and TV versions), from which I draw this ditty, the word "hell" was apparently deemed too racy to actually utter: the actor paused and pointed downward instead. ?Kind of like the IDists' reluctance to actually identify their designer.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 05 2007,11:48

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the < "Debate" page on the EE website > is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 06 2007,14:23

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 05 2007,11:48)
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the < "Debate" page on the EE website > is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


REG:
? ?We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
MATTHIAS:
? ?Cut her head off?
FRANCIS:
? ?Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.
REG:
? ?And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!
COMMANDOS:
? ?No blackmail!
REG:
? ?They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA:
? ?And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG:
? ?Yeah.
LORETTA:
? ?And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG:
? ?Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES:
? ?The Series of Tubes?
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 06 2007,18:47

What was it that the Explore Evolution debate page says again? Oh yeah, here it is:



---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But still they haven?t debated anyone. By their own standards they must not be normal.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 07 2007,11:45

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,16:47)
What was it that the Explore Evolution debate page says again? Oh yeah, here it is:

 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But still they haven?t debated anyone. By their own standards they must not be normal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or not scientists.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 27 2007,11:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 05 2007,11:48)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the < "Debate" page on the EE website > is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "Further Debate" page is still empty.  They've been awfully quiet about EE of late. Paul Nelson must be very busy in the lab.
Posted by: ck1 on Oct. 05 2007,15:48

Whatever happened to this book?  Is it still being actively promoted?  Are sales brisk?  Or has it already sunk into oblivion?
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 05 2007,17:55

Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 05 2007,15:48)
Whatever happened to this book?  Is it still being actively promoted?  Are sales brisk?  Or has it already sunk into oblivion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's really quite simple, ck1: We have always been at war with Eastasia...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 11 2007,07:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>oldmanintheskydidntdoit >mitschlag >lkeithlu >Altabin >celdd >Louis >Paul Nelson >Zachriel >Occam's Toothbrush >ERV >Reciprocating Bill >Tom
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul, where can I join the "official" discussion for EE?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2007,13:15

Paul Nelson sighting!!!

Paul Nelson Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes... Nov. 08 2007,13:00

Hey paul, where'd you go?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 09 2007,10:09

And another sighting today! Maybe soon Paul will figure out how the keyboard works and answer some questions here...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
34 guests, 14 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >carlsonjok >mitschlag >Paul Nelson >stevestory >argystokes >Arden Chatfield >BWE >Assassinator >Doc Bill >Lou FCD >theloneliestmonk >SpeedDemon >Occam's Toothbrush
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 16 2007,20:18

And another a few minutes ago!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
25 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Zachriel >Lou FCD >hooligans >jeffox >Ra-Úl >Mr_Christopher >stevestory >blipey >Paul Nelson >Ptaylor >tsig

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


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2007,09:37

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 16 2007,20:18)
And another a few minutes ago!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
25 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Zachriel >Lou FCD >hooligans >jeffox >Ra-Úl >Mr_Christopher >stevestory >blipey >Paul Nelson >Ptaylor >tsig

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


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


I think this thread might have given Nelson et al a little to think about.  It seems more than coincidental that the hoopla over Exploring Evolution died after all of the obvious ties to creationist canards were pointed out.  If this is the case, it makes you wonder about how stupid those people really are.  And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Nov. 17 2007,18:12

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2007,09:37)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 16 2007,20:18)
And another a few minutes ago!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
25 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Zachriel >Lou FCD >hooligans >jeffox >Ra-Úl >Mr_Christopher >stevestory >blipey >Paul Nelson >Ptaylor >tsig

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


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


I think this thread might have given Nelson et al a little to think about.  It seems more than coincidental that the hoopla over Exploring Evolution died after all of the obvious ties to creationist canards were pointed out.  If this is the case, it makes you wonder about how stupid those people really are.  And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we can officially declare that brave Sir Nelson has run away...  :angry:
Posted by: hooligans on Nov. 17 2007,19:24

Yet Again . . .



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15 guests, 8 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >Nomad >Annyday >stevestory >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >jupiter >Paul Nelson >Erasmus, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 17 2007,22:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2007,10:37)
If this is the case, it makes you wonder about how stupid those people really are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're never far away from this question.



"It's the question that drives us, Neo. It's the question that brought you here.
You know the question, just as I did. "
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 18 2007,04:59




"Where's the beef?"
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 18 2007,19:44



"You're a huge jerk, Lou."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 19 2007,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That part is, as one of my hillbilly buddies says, Mind-Bottling

what kind of dumbass doesn't realize that he is logged in after 25 sightings?

One who just doesn't care that we are laughing about this?  I was really looking forward to some discussion about EE.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2007,18:49



You both owe me.

- Joe Cool
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2007,00:35

Discussion with us about EE is not in Paul's best interest.

Well, I mean, in the narrow sense of 'best interest'. Obviously, if he would listen to people who weren't religious zealots, he would realize that this creationism stuff is a waste of time, and that would really benefit him in the future. But in the narrow sense of his best interest being to promote this dishonest nonsense, why should he talk to us? He's better off talking to fundamentalist ministers and high school dropouts and recovering homeless alcoholics like BornAgain77.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2007,00:57

In my darker moments I can understand frauds and con men. If I had a trustworthy face* I would be very tempted to be a televangelist. I mean, a little bible shuck-and-jive for million dollar paychecks? Who could resist? But Paul's not selling out for big paychecks. He's promoting nonsense for pennies on the dollar. What a waste. He has some brains, he could actually do something interesting, but he's just going to throw away his best years writing really horrible arguments defending really worthless ideas.

*We're very superficial creatures, and we mistakenly read personality traits from facial features. Tom Hanks always looks sincere and friendly, for instance,

while Lance Henrikson always looks gloomy and morbid


but we really have no business inferring those things. Their faces are circumstances of development and genetics, and shouldn't be correlated to their mental states.

While some people might have trustworthy faces, I have always appeared to be the clever guy who is trying to pull a fast one despite having a massive hangover. The fact that this is sometimes true should not detract from my larger point that it shouldn't be inferred.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2007,23:08

John Lynch says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and when’s the last time there was any science coming from these guys? Instead we have yet another version of Pandas from Dembski and Wells, a popular book from Behe (one which appeared still-born), and nothing from Paul Nelson. Remember two and a half years ago when he stated


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill Dembski and I have been working on a shorter article, with some of the monograph’s main points [against common descent], which we plan to submit to the best peer-reviewed biology journal we can find.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and three and a half years when Nelson promised to outline his idea of "ontogenetic depth". It all seems so long ago. For a young philosopher of biology, Nelson’s output is laughable.

Hell, they’re reduced to whining about a documentary that they refused to take part in.

Stick a fork in ’em. They’re done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nelson's output here is just as bad.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2007,23:09

link for the above:

< http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/11/questions.php >
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 16 2007,13:02

Way back in July, Paul Nelson said in this thread,
 

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

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We know that Nelson has been here several times since then without posting or answering any questions, and we also know that the EE < Discussion page > is still as empty as a creationist's cranium, or the < ISCID journal >.

Is it safe to call Nelson a liar now?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 16 2007,14:39

He might have meant to do that, back in July. But in the intervening months he's seen us expose his dishonest little book. Would you want the task of defending it, at this point?

Or he still intends to do it, and like his late paper with Dembski on common descent, and his very late 'ontogenetic depth' monograph, it's just one more check his mouth wrote but his brain can't cash.
Posted by: hooligans on Dec. 28 2007,18:53

Is the fossil record complete? Do we have Paul Nelson sightings recorded each time he visits, or is it possible that some of his visits go unrecorded in the fossil record? I don't know . . .  ask DaveScot



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29 guests, 13 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >Reciprocating Bill >UnMark >rhmc >Mr_Christopher >dheddle >Maya >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Raevmo >Jbird >clamboy >Annyday >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: hooligans on Dec. 28 2007,19:01

Paul Nelson,

If your able to post becasue your not in Italy where they have no internet could you give us an update about the debate page on the Explore Evolution website. So far there is nothing. How is that public school teacher from Tacoma doing using the new textbook? Could you give us an update?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 12 2008,08:24

In the most recent sign of the Waderloo, a google search for "explore evolution" brings up a legitimate site from < the museum at the University of Nebraska. > The steaming pile of dishonesty from the Dishonesty Institute is not your first choice on the menu of links for this search.

And nobody had to game the system to get this pleasing result...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 12 2008,10:09

I tried to interest the "Explore Evolution" museum exhibit folks in taking some action back when the DI announced the title for their forthcoming textbook. Either they didn't bother or the DI ignored them.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 22 2008,08:33

My work network blocks access to image hosting sites, so I can't post the evidence, but our ol' buddy Paul was here again this morning. And the < Explore Evolution debate page > is still empty.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2008,20:10

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 22 2008,09:33)
My work network blocks access to image hosting sites, so I can't post the evidence, but our ol' buddy Paul was here again this morning. And the < Explore Evolution debate page > is still empty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't get much time to check in here anymore. I show up, take a few shots, and I'm out the door. But I do click on the link to the main page and see who's visiting. Haven't seen Paul yet. It's a trophy I have missed.

It's kind of sad. Paul knows we've got his number, can't think of anything to say, but also can't give up the stupid beliefs that got him in this situation to begin with. Poor guy. Too bad we can't give him a backbone transplant, so he has the resilience to deal with reality.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 31 2008,10:40

Woot!!!!eleventyleven1111

Paul Nelson sighting!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36 guests, 8 Public Members and 3 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >JAM >J-Dog >creeky belly >Paul Nelson >Jake >Richardthughes >olegt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 31 2008,14:50

Some time ago, Paul suggested that there be a competition to try out "design detection" procedures. He talked about setting up strings of various sorts that would either be designed or random.

Ian Musgrave has something < of the sort > going now.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2008,20:25

a few years ago i think i suggested a challenge to the IDers. I'd supply 10 strings of 10 digits, and Salvador could tell me which ones were designed and which were random. It would be great because they would fail utterly, but they'd excuse themselves by saying that by selecting the strings I'd designed them all, and they only said some weren't designed because they got false negatives of the kind they've admitted to before.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Feb. 01 2008,08:12

I sent the design detection experiment proposal to Jeff Shallit, and he said it wasn't worth doing.  I think I also sent the proposal to Wesley.  The idea was to have a large archive of bitstrings, of varying lengths, identified only by curation tags, and to ask people to pick out which strings were intelligently caused, and how they discovered that.  (I'd be happy to send the original proposal, as a pdf, to anyone who's interested: contact me at [EMAIL=nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu.]nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu.[/EMAIL])  Jeff's reasons for debunking the idea struck me as pretty good, although right now I can't remember which was the most compelling.

Since then, some friends have come up with a much better design detection experiment idea -- one that might actually teach us something.  One of Jeff's objections to the bitstring proposal was that the experiment would do little to move the ID debate along.  We're refining the new proposal, and then I'll send it along to Jeff for critique.

Since this is the Explore Evolution (EE) thread, here's an update.  I got no nibbles at Discovery for my suggestion, late last summer, of a moderation-free, or moderation-light, forum to discuss EE.  I've been stopping in here periodically to see if new critiques of EE have been posted, but mostly, the thread is comments about me stopping by, which -- although providing entertainment for ATBC readers -- doesn't help me much as an EE author.  But, after a very busy fall 2007 travel & lecture schedule, I've got some time in my Chicago office, so [ta da] am starting my own webpage and blog.

Yes, I know -- just what the world needs, another blog.  I'll have a sub-page there for EE discussion.  The second edition of EE should be out fairly soon, with corrections, revisions, etc.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 01 2008,09:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've been stopping in here periodically to see if new critiques of EE have been posted, but mostly, the thread is comments about me stopping by, which -- although providing entertainment for ATBC readers -- doesn't help me much as an EE author.  But, after a very busy fall 2007 travel & lecture schedule, I've got some time in my Chicago office, so [ta da] am starting my own webpage and blog.

Yes, I know -- just what the world needs, another blog.  I'll have a sub-page there for EE discussion.  The second edition of EE should be out fairly soon, with corrections, revisions, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

Sorry to hear that you were disappointed in the quality of the questions on this thread, and that they were not helpful to you as an author.  However, it is likely that the dearth of new topics/questions here was due to the fact that you hadn't yet managed to reply to the backlog of old topics/questions here. If you had managed to do that during your stops here, it would have been appreciated (and maybe even helpful).

So < here >is an older question. Can you tell us if the misleading characterization of toxicologist Paul Chien as a "marine paleobiologist" has been corrected in the second edition?

thanks
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 01 2008,10:41

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 01 2008,08:12)
I sent the design detection experiment proposal to Jeff Shallit, and he said it wasn't worth doing.  I think I also sent the proposal to Wesley.  The idea was to have a large archive of bitstrings, of varying lengths, identified only by curation tags, and to ask people to pick out which strings were intelligently caused, and how they discovered that.  (I'd be happy to send the original proposal, as a pdf, to anyone who's interested: contact me at [EMAIL=nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu.]nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu.[/EMAIL])  Jeff's reasons for debunking the idea struck me as pretty good, although right now I can't remember which was the most compelling.

Since then, some friends have come up with a much better design detection experiment idea -- one that might actually teach us something.  One of Jeff's objections to the bitstring proposal was that the experiment would do little to move the ID debate along.  We're refining the new proposal, and then I'll send it along to Jeff for critique.

Since this is the Explore Evolution (EE) thread, here's an update.  I got no nibbles at Discovery for my suggestion, late last summer, of a moderation-free, or moderation-light, forum to discuss EE.  I've been stopping in here periodically to see if new critiques of EE have been posted, but mostly, the thread is comments about me stopping by, which -- although providing entertainment for ATBC readers -- doesn't help me much as an EE author.  But, after a very busy fall 2007 travel & lecture schedule, I've got some time in my Chicago office, so [ta da] am starting my own webpage and blog.

Yes, I know -- just what the world needs, another blog.  I'll have a sub-page there for EE discussion.  The second edition of EE should be out fairly soon, with corrections, revisions, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Paul, I suppose while you were stopping in here periodically and checking for critiques you didn't notice that Lenny Flank tore the EE rag apart just a few pages ago.  You have yet to respond to any of that criticism.  

You can't just start over.  Lenny isn't around here anymore, or at least quit posting, but does that exonerate your inability to meet that criticism?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 01 2008,10:47

The second edition should be simple to produce. Picking the right font and size for, "Never mind", would be about the extent of it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 01 2008,11:56

Well, despite Paul's good intentions, somehow he managed to lurk here again for 15-20 minutes this morning without leaving a single comment or answering a simple question.

Maybe he will answer them on his new blog. I wonder if it will be "moderation-free", or if it will conform to the standard DI model of bannination and thread removal.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 01 2008,12:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since this is the Explore Evolution (EE) thread, here's an update.  I got no nibbles at Discovery for my suggestion, late last summer, of a moderation-free, or moderation-light, forum to discuss EE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I for one am deeply shocked and surprised by this.
Posted by: hooligans on Feb. 01 2008,21:15

Paul,

How come there is no discussion of EE at the webpage? I thought the whole point was for the book to foster debate. How is that teacher from Tacoma doing using the new text? How come his students are not posting questions and debating on the website? Are any other public schools using the text? Why is the second edition already in the works?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Feb. 04 2008,08:43

Hi Alb, and others,

Chien's description has been changed to "biologist."

The second edition corrects errors in the first, updates the bibliography, etc.  Every book contains mistakes, and EE is no exception (I hear you tittering back there).
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 04 2008,08:54

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 04 2008,08:43)
Hi Alb, and others,

Chien's description has been changed to "biologist."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

Since the original statement in EE read thusly    

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and since Paul Chien has NO credentials in paleontology, how is this new wording any less misleading?

Why didn't you change it to "Paul Chien, a toxicologist..."?

Or does Paul suddenly have a bunch of peer-reviewed publications in the field of paleontology? I looked in the web of science, and I didn't find any. Perhaps you can point me to those.

thanks
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,14:15

Even though Paul has appeared here at least a couple of times since I posted my last question about the peer-reviewed paleontology papers of  Paul Chien, toxicologist and DI Fellow, he appears to be unable to generate an answer. So perhaps it is time to remind him of < a few more questions > about EE, in the hopes that he can address them soon.

Here are a few favorites from Steviepinhead's list, dated July 20, 2007, just before Nelson went to Rome and dropped off the radar screen here. Click on the link above to see lots more.

stevestory:  

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


Lenny:    

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


Wesley R. Elsberry:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's ask the Wikipedia question: is Moneymaker's status as an author of science curricula verifiable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you could start with those, Paul, it would be greatly appreciated. Or you can talk about Chien's credentials as an expert in pre-Cambrian fossils...

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2008,00:41

Ahhh! I didn't get the Paul Nelson sighting. I'm so pissed off! I've been drinking green tea all goddam day....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 06 2008,08:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Shirley Knott >keiths >Tracy P. Hamilton >Mister DNA >Paul Nelson >Jkrebs >Richard Simons >olegt >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >MillstoneCam >Nuackance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Feb. 07 2008,07:20

< Paul Nelson > sighting! on the Panda's Thumb, with added irony!



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

Dan Brooks wrote, about my talk:



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

   Nelson replied that you ‘cannot presuppose Mom’ in order to provide an evolutionary explanation for ontogeny.

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



Which is true. Brooks explains how the maternal environment (MOM) establishes the conditions necessary for normal development in C. elegans – but that was exactly my point at the Boston meeting. An adult nematode is required to specify a nematode embryo. So whence the adult nematode?

Another nematode, via development. Eventually, in evolutionary (phylogenetic) time, the ontogeny that specifies the form of C. elegans, or any other metazoan, must be constructed de novo. Natural selection cannot do that, for reasons having to do with the logic of selection itself.

I hope Dan Brooks will respond.

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



my emphasis.

EDIT: to add URL
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 07 2008,18:19

Quote (afarensis @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am still waiting for Paul to answer the question above. I'm hoping the answer will be more meaningful than:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An adult nematode is required to specify a nematode embryo. So whence the adult nematode?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 :angry:
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 09 2008,13:33

Paul was slumming here again today.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26 guests, 11 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >MillstoneCam >Louis >Richardthughes >Mister DNA >J-Dog >Paul Nelson >JAM >Daniel Smith >Doc Bill >Jkrebs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: slpage on Feb. 10 2008,14:47

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2008,08:54)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 04 2008,08:43)
Hi Alb, and others,

Chien's description has been changed to "biologist."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

Since the original statement in EE read thusly    

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and since Paul Chien has NO credentials in paleontology, how is this new wording any less misleading?

Why didn't you change it to "Paul Chien, a toxicologist..."?

Or does Paul suddenly have a bunch of peer-reviewed publications in the field of paleontology? I looked in the web of science, and I didn't find any. Perhaps you can point me to those.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems sort of like referring to Wells as either an 'embryologist' or a 'molecular biologist' depending on which one will get more traction, while neither ir really all that accurate.

Creationists of all stripes have a long and sordid history of embellishing their credentials to make their commentary seem more relevant.

I wasn't aware of Chien's mischaracterization.  Must have just been a little editorial mistake - like Paul Nelson said, all texts have them.  But it is odd that this editorial mistake in a text has been used in several other venues.  Hmmmm....
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 11 2008,12:52

Another drive-by without an answer.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
27 guests, 17 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >Henry J >JAM >Mister DNA >keiths >Erasmus, FCD >SpeedDemon >bfish >ppb >Paul Nelson >Raevmo >PTET >Mr_Christopher >Richardthughes >mitschlag >MillstoneCam >Paul Flocken
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: hooligans on Feb. 16 2008,17:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
27 guests, 9 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >keiths >Advocatus Diaboli >Lou FCD >Paul Nelson >olegt >Henry J >kbck >oldmanintheskydidntdoit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jasper on Feb. 16 2008,18:36

Some advice for Paul:

< >
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2008,11:37

I'm not sure that "log out" would take one's name off the list of those who've been active in the last 15 minutes. ;)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 23 2008,08:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26 guests, 8 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >rhmc >fusilier >Paul Nelson >Maya >Louis >mikedr >oldmanintheskydidntdoit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, this is getting boring. If you are here, why don't you answer questions?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 27 2008,03:13

Paul, since you're reading this, we kind of want to know, why haven't there been mass firings at the Discovery Institute? You'd think at some point, whoever is signing the checks over there would realize he's throwing good money after bad. Will 2008 be the year? I mean, I wouldn't say the wheels have come off the ID wagon...I'd say the wheels came off, then the wagon caught on fire, and the horse fell down the Grand Canyon. Time to get rid of the deadwood and get some better fake scientists in there.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 27 2008,08:05

Another drive-by, about 7 this morning.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
83 guests, 13 Public Members and 3 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >olegt >JonF >Louis >hereoisreal >lkeithlu >Richard Simons >Paul Nelson >ERV >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Lou FCD >Reciprocating Bill >snorkild
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'know, Paul, if you'd just take on one question each time you visited, you might at least start to whittle down that pile of questions. If you keep up this uncommunicative pattern, pretty soon the pile might seem insurmountable...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2008,17:27

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 27 2008,09:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
83 guests, 13 Public Members and 3 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >olegt >JonF >Louis >hereoisreal >lkeithlu >Richard Simons >Paul Nelson ? ERV >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Lou FCD >Reciprocating Bill >snorkild
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Abbie will be so flattered.

ETA:  HEY!  That was a heart character!!!!  It even showed up in the preview!!!


Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 28 2008,21:19

< Courtesy of Paul Flocken >:


Posted by: fusilier on Feb. 29 2008,07:08

WRt Paul Nelson logging in and not posting any answers to that humongous list of questions....

I don't log in three-quarters of the time, but just lurk.  I'll bet that's also the case for most readers.  So the question pretty much asks itself:

Why Bother To Log In?

Is it some sort of exhibitionist fetish?  Or are there extensive Private Message exchanges going on?  Didn't anyone tell him that Janie and Corporal Kate are only "spiritually literal,"  not "literally literal?"

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 29 2008,09:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why Bother To Log In?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't know about him, but in my case logging in is automatic; I'd have to do something extra to lurk without logging in.

Henry
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 29 2008,10:23

He's back. Hi, Paul! Any replies to the questions?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
51 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
33 guests, 18 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Turncoat >Trogdor >Henry J >Steverino >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >J-Dog >Doc Bill >Paul Nelson >Thought Provoker >ppb >Richardthughes >Gunthernacus >MarkVarley >Arden Chatfield >huwp >Erasmus, FCD >Louis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No members are celebrating a birthday today   [ View Calendar ]

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


Posted by: Paul Nelson on Feb. 29 2008,10:44

Another periodic update.  Has any participant in this thread compiled a list of specific errors (in EE) he or she wishes to discuss?  Let me know, either here or via email (nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu).

Alb, I'm not quite sure what your additional questions about Paul Chien concern.  We've changed his description to "biologist," which is accurate (he's the former chairman of the Dept. of Biology at University of San Francisco, etc.).  Do you disagree with Chien's argument that, if the conditions were right for fossilizing metazoan embryos, macroscopic body fossils could also have been preserved?  I'd welcome details, or literature citations, challenging that point.

My survey of the other questions above shows mostly "when did you stop beating your wife"-type questions -- e.g., Steve Story's [Steve, have you actually read EE?] or Lenny's -- or topics where I've already given my last word (e.g., the mammal-like reptiles illustration discussion, with Afarensis).   

I'm still interested, however, in learning about specific errors in EE.  In fact, I'll provide a free review copy of the book to anyone who promises actually to read it, and to notify me of any mistakes they may find.  Please email me with your name and regular mailing address if you'd like a copy of the book.

I'll continue to stop by here daily to see what mistakes readers have found in the first edition of EE.  

Thanks.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 29 2008,11:06

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 29 2008,10:44)
Another periodic update.  Has any participant in this thread compiled a list of specific errors (in EE) he or she wishes to discuss?  Let me know, either here or via email (nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu).

Alb, I'm not quite sure what your additional questions about Paul Chien concern.  We've changed his description to "biologist," which is accurate (he's the former chairman of the Dept. of Biology at University of San Francisco, etc.).  Do you disagree with Chien's argument that, if the conditions were right for fossilizing metazoan embryos, macroscopic body fossils could also have been preserved?  I'd welcome details, or literature citations, challenging that point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

Welcome back.

Yes, Chien is a "biologist". But his credentials to make suggestions about Precambrian fossilization and its potential are the same as mine. Zero, zip, nada, nil. He's a toxicologist. I'm a cell biologist/biochemist. He has no peer-reviewed publications in the field of precambrian paleontology. I also have none. "I'd welcome details, or literature citations" supporting his point, which is the appropriate thing to do when you write a textbook. Where's the burden of proof for statements in a textbook? Not with the critics, but with the authors. That would be you.

If you are going to quote non-experts in your book and pretend that they are experts, then you can quote me.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The lack of fossils documenting the development of organisms in the Precambrian period is not a problem, but probably merely reflects the difficulty in finding soft-bodied fossils in rocks which are very very old." - David A. Rintoul, Ph.D. Biologist (Stanford 1977) and Associate Director of the Division of Biology, Kansas State University.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll look forward to your next printing...

Or maybe you can find a real paleontologist and see if he/she agrees with Chien's maunderings on page 31, which are (hysterically) in a section labeled "further debate". That is what real textbook authors do. They don't take the word of non-experts who just happen to be DI Fellows; they research the topic a bit more thoroughly than that.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Feb. 29 2008,11:45

Hi Alb (David),

I've seen personally Paul Chien's SEMs of fossil embryos from Chengjiang, where for several years he did fieldwork under the supervision of paleontologist J.Y. Chen.  The degree of preservation of these embryos is astonishing (for instance, cellular structures and yolk granules are unmistakable).  Chien is qualified to express an opinion in this area.

But I agree with you that additional documentation is needed for the general point on p. 31; here's a recent paper:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We conclude that a careful interpretation of all available evidence, particularly paleontological data, presents strong evidence that most major animal lineages originated in a relatively short period of time and therefore that the Cambrian radiation represents a real and significant event in the history of life, and not some artifact of taphonomy or of a poor fossil record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paulyn Cartwright and Allen Collins, "Fossils and phylogenies: integrating multiple lines of evidence to investigate the origin of early major metazoan lineages," Integrative and Comparative Biology 47 (2007):744-751; p. 749, emphasis added.

We'll provide additional support from the literature for Chien's position.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Feb. 29 2008,11:48

I just noticed that Paulyn Cartwright is in the EEB program at the U of Kansas, Lawrence.  Your neighborhood.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 29 2008,13:27

Another one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
40 guests, 22 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richardthughes >JAM >jeannot >MillstoneCam >Venus Mousetrap >sparc >Turncoat >improvius >BenPronnaBash >jupiter >Delimitation >hereoisreal >Steverino >Paul Nelson >Albatrossity2 >Annyday >SuellurcE >Shirley Knott >Henry J >Tracy P. Hamilton >Silesype >Leonides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 29 2008,13:34

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 29 2008,11:45)
Chien is qualified to express an opinion in this area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your definition of "qualified" differs from mine. If I wrote a textbook and wanted to define "qualified", I would start with the requirement for peer-reviewed publications in the area of interest. Toxicologists who spend time with paleontologists do not become paleontologists by association, and their opinions about paleontology are not any better than mine.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I agree with you that additional documentation is needed for the general point on p. 31; here's a recent paper:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We conclude that a careful interpretation of all available evidence, particularly paleontological data, presents strong evidence that most major animal lineages originated in a relatively short period of time and therefore that the Cambrian radiation represents a real and significant event in the history of life, and not some artifact of taphonomy or of a poor fossil record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Interesting goal-post move. The discussion on p. 31 centers on the lack of Precambrian fossils, or fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian fauna. From p. 31 of EE - "If the Precambrian rocks can preserve microscopic soft-bodied organisms, why don't they contain the ancestors to the Cambrian animals?". Your citation of Cartwright and Collins, regarding the Cambrian fossil record,  seems irrelevant to me. I might also point out that these authors do not cite Paul Chien, your "expert". Maybe that means that they are unaware of his contributions to their field, so it might be a good thing to let them know about his opinions (since he doesn't seem to have any peer-reviewed publications in the field).

But I could be wrong, and, as pointed out before, my opinion is not relevant here either. We are discussing how to write a textbook, and soliciting opinions from non-experts is not a preferred strategy. How about this? Why don't you contact Paulyn Cartwright (pcart@ku.edu) and Allen Collins (collinsa@si.edu), send them a PDF of pp 15-38 of EE, highlight Chien's amateur opinion on p. 31, and ask them for their expert opinion? I'd be happy to do that if you don't have the time, but since you are the author of this book, it seems to me that is really your responsibility.

And do let us know their response, please.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 29 2008,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
41 guests, 18 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Lou FCD >Henry J >tsig >sparc >ERV >Immubritub >Shirley Knott >improvius >JohnW >Albatrossity2 >ppb >Turncoat >Leonides >skeptic >Paul Nelson >Noxyaffifialp >Erasmus, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 29 2008,16:24

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Yowzer!

If it's taken 7 months and Nelson still doesn't have the toxicologist/biologist story straight, having started with "marine paleobiologist" then getting an actual substantial change to the text is going to be harder than pulling hen's teeth!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 29 2008,20:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
31 guests, 18 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >hooligans >carlsonjok >HelpingHand >digitus impudicus >Nomad >Ideaforager >mikedr >Reed >Doc Bill >Henry J >The Wayward Hammer >Venus Mousetrap >hereoisreal >Zarquon >skeptic >Daniel Smith >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Almost missed that one.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 29 2008,23:12

Lookie, lookie!

Me and Paul signed on at the same frickin' time!

What are the odds of that?  Got to be something like ten to the hundredth or something.  

What do you think, Paul?  Isn't it dangerous for us to be signed on at the SAME TIME?

Think about it:  smart and anti-smart.

I provide evidence, you provide equivocation.
I provide questions, you provide quibbles.
I excuse myself for verbosity, you verbalize excuses.

Too bad you didn't have enough time in your dilettante schedule to chat, but you coy little devil, always talking about chatting but never quite getting around to it.  Busy schedule and all, Italy and intertubes, etc.

We understand, Paul.  We really do.
Posted by: fusilier on Mar. 01 2008,07:21

OK, Dr. Nelson, you are on.

I am PM'ing you my snail-mail address and expect a desk-copy in the near future.  Just FYI, I tried to obtain onewhen the book first came out - having suggested to the administration that a course using this as one text might be suitable for a GenEd science requirement.

I received no answer.

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 01 2008,10:10

Replies to various:

Fusilier, you requested Edge of Evolution in your PM.  I assume you want Explore Evolution?  Let me know.

Alb, I think I will contact Cartwright and Collins.  The phosphorite beds at Chengjiang that yield fossil embryos lie directly beneath the "Cambrian Explosion" (macroscopic body fossil) strata.  When I was there in 1999, I heard debate about whether those lower strata were early Cambrian or preCambrian.

Doc Bill -- I'm sorry, I missed your question about an error in EE.  Do you mind posting it again?  Thanks.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 01 2008,10:13

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 29 2008,11:45)
But I agree with you that additional documentation is needed for the general point on p. 31; here's a recent paper:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We conclude that a careful interpretation of all available evidence, particularly paleontological data, presents strong evidence that most major animal lineages originated in a relatively short period of time and therefore that the Cambrian radiation represents a real and significant event in the history of life, and not some artifact of taphonomy or of a poor fossil record.

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



Paulyn Cartwright and Allen Collins, "Fossils and phylogenies: integrating multiple lines of evidence to investigate the origin of early major metazoan lineages," Integrative and Comparative Biology 47 (2007):744-751; p. 749, emphasis added.

We'll provide additional support from the literature for Chien's position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul - I have helped you out and highlighted the words that are important to your position.  

Perhaps this could lead to the book being retitled "The Book of Extraordinary Vageness".

Or perhaps " Disengenousness For Fun and Profit".

You be The Decider.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 01 2008,11:07

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 01 2008,10:10)
Alb, I think I will contact Cartwright and Collins.  The phosphorite beds at Chengjiang that yield fossil embryos lie directly beneath the "Cambrian Explosion" (macroscopic body fossil) strata.  When I was there in 1999, I heard debate about whether those lower strata were early Cambrian or preCambrian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's amusing as well. The argument was NOT whether those fossil beds are Cambrian or Precambrian, but whether the discussion in Cartwright and Collins' paper about Cambrian fossilization was relevant to your argument in EE ("If the Precambrian rocks can preserve microscopic soft-bodied organisms, why don't they contain the ancestors to the Cambrian animals?"). If the Chengjiang strata are Precambrian, your quoting of that paper is irrelevant. If the strata are Cambrian, Chien's argument about the lack of evidence for Precambrian ancestors is bogus.  That's an interesting choice you've set up for yourself; I'll be waiting to see how you resolve it.

Furthermore, if you do contact Cartwright and Collins, it might be good if you read their entire paper first. Particularly this section from p 749      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These data support the idea that the metazoan ancestor was equipped with the molecular tools necessary for the specification of complex body plans. Thus, currently available genomic data supports the origin of a complex genome predating the Cambrian radiation, with the ancestral genome possessing the molecular toolkit necessary for an ‘‘explosion’’ of body plans and complex traits. While the availability of genomes from other early-diverging lineages will allow for a more precise reconstruction of the genetic makeup in the lineages leading to the first modern metazoans, the trigger for the Cambrian radiation likely lies in the changing ecological circumstances resulting from the origin of the body plans associated with the early metazoan lineages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, genomic data, even in the absence of fossil data for some of the important nodes, provide evidence that will help us understand the Cambrian explosion. These data, along with fossil data (present and as-yet-undiscovered) represent an infinite increase over the complete lack of data for your preferred explanation ("God did it"). The strawman "artifact hypothesis", < coined by creationists > and attacked by you using Chien's amateur opinion, is not the sole underpinning of evolutionary thinking re the Cambrian explosion.

Finally, it is important to point out that this argument, like ALL arguments in EE, is essentially born-again creationism, a creationist argument sanitized for constitutional protection. EE is not a modern textbook; it does not take into account much of modern biological research (including the genomic data used by Cartwright and Collins). It merely recycles ancient creationist canards, as pointed out by Cartwright and Collins in the sentence preceding the single one that you quoted.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The biological significance of the Cambrian radiation has been debated ever since the publication of ‘‘The Origin of Species’’ (Darwin 1872) and was in fact the subject of some concern to Darwin (Lieberman 1999), causing him to claim that there must be a long-hidden history of animals; others have argued that there was a real explosion of animals during the late Neoproterozoic/early Cambrian transition (Valentine 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using modern creationists such as Chien to generate bogus statements of authority does not make those ancient hand-wavings any more valid. That validity awaits the day that creationists generate some hypotheses, perform some experiments that support those hypotheses, and publish them in peer-reviewed journals for the rest of the scientific community to see and to criticize if needed.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 01 2008,11:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 01 2008,11:07)
That validity awaits the day that creationists generate some hypotheses, perform some experiments that support those hypotheses,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, they could make new observations, too, like predicting in which stratum particular fossils will be found, and then finding them for themselves.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... and publish them in peer-reviewed journals for the rest of the scientific community to see and to criticize if needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree; we can lower the bar in this matter.

They could publish their new data on their personal Myspace or Facebook pages for all I care, but the bottom line is that Paul Nelson and his comrades have absolutely zero faith that their own hypotheses will hold up to any observational or experimental testing of their predictions.

They have a profoundly lazy and faithless approach to what they falsely present as science to the lay public.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Mar. 01 2008,18:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36 guests, 16 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Paul Flocken >olegt >MillstoneCam >khan >celdd >Drysnyaty >creeky belly >Albatrossity2 >Reed >Lou FCD >blipey >simmi >Maya >Paul Nelson >rhmc >jeannot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 01 2008,19:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doc Bill -- I'm sorry, I missed your question about an error in EE.  Do you mind posting it again?  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How could I point out an error in a work of fiction, Paul?
Posted by: Frank J on Mar. 02 2008,08:31

Can someone please save me the trouble of searching old posts and tell me if everyone (particularly Paul N and Paul C) agrees with Michael Behe as to approximately when the Precambrian began and ended?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 02 2008,09:20

In typical creationist fashion, Paul says he'll drop in from time to time to see if we've identified any errors in his book, but also says tacitly that he'll either ignore them or create new lies.

By the way, Paul, why is the < Debate page > on the Explore Evolution still empty?
Posted by: fusilier on Mar. 02 2008,12:23

My apologies to Dr. Nelson.

I had confused Edge of Evolution with Explore Evolution.  Dr. Nelson has kindly offered to send me a desk copy of his book in any event.

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 03 2008,10:16

So many questions, so little time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 03 2008,08:53
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 03 2008,17:33

And yet again.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing Board index   Mar. 03 2008,17:02
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 04 2008,15:12

Yawn.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 04 2008,14:34
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, Paul. What is the point of visiting here so frequently and not participating in the discussions?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 05 2008,10:48

Hi Alb,

I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution.  But this thread has a tendency to wind along in tendentious directions, subject to the vagaries of those posting here. For instance:

You originally raised a concern about the description of Paul Chien, which I answered: in the second edition of EE, he will be described as a "biologist."  You then said that the real issue, actually, was relying on Chien as an authority about fossilization potential, whatever his description, and that independent support for his point about pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils was lacking.

However, many paleontologists reject the view (which you apparently support) that the lack of fossil evidence for the common ancestors of the "Cambrian Explosion" phyla is due to poor or incomplete sampling.  Chien argues that if fossil embryos could be preserved, in phosphorite beds lying directly below the Cambrian Explosion strata at Chengjiang -- I've seen these formations first-hand, along with Chien -- then body fossils should also be found, if they indeed existed.  This is in support of EE's general point that the missing fossils are not missing for lack of sampling.  (I'm going to contact Cartwright and Collins about this, too.)

Many leading paleontologists, with no ID position to speak of, agree:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rates of evolution have varied significantly among and within branches throughout life's history, and many of the branches, large as well as small, are cryptogenetic (cannot be traced into ancestors).  Some of these gaps are surely caused by the incompleteness of the fossil record (chap. 5), but that cannot be the sole explanation for the cryptogenetic nature of some families, many invertebrate orders, all invertebrate classes, and all metazoan phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.

Does Valentine think the animal phyla share common ancestry?  Yes.  Does he think that their common ancestry is documented by fossils?  No.

Which is what Chien is saying.

I've already agreed to strengthen the literature support for this point in the second edition of EE.

One person, fusilier, took me up on my offer of a free review copy of EE.  Anyone else?

Now, if you want to argue about what you perceive as the real motivations for writing EE (Alb), or about unspecified ID fiction-writing (Doc Bill), or other such "when did you stop beating your wife" topics, sorry -- not interested.

Anyone who points out specific factual errors in EE, however, will have my full attention.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 05 2008,11:18

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 05 2008,11:48)
Now, if you want to argue about what you perceive as the real motivations for writing EE...sorry -- not interested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not much to discuss there. It's poorly-disguised creationist book. You wrote it to promote your creationism. Duh.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 05 2008,11:23

Face it Paul, the Discovery Institute isn't paying you to Not promote creationism.

(They're paying you to not write your Ontogenetic Depth 'theory'. (I need a rimshot sound effect))
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 05 2008,12:00

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 05 2008,10:48)
Hi Alb,

I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution.  But this thread has a tendency to wind along in tendentious directions, subject to the vagaries of those posting here. For instance:

You originally raised a concern about the description of Paul Chien, which I answered: in the second edition of EE, he will be described as a "biologist."  You then said that the real issue, actually, was relying on Chien as an authority about fossilization potential, whatever his description, and that independent support for his point about pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils was lacking.

However, many paleontologists reject the view (which you apparently support) that the lack of fossil evidence for the common ancestors of the "Cambrian Explosion" phyla is due to poor or incomplete sampling.  Chien argues that if fossil embryos could be preserved, in phosphorite beds lying directly below the Cambrian Explosion strata at Chengjiang

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


Paul

Two quick points

1) In my < original post re Chien >, I pointed out his lack of qualifications. That is the problem, and it is, as far as I am concerned, as yet unaddressed. As far as I know, he still has no qualifications (peer-reviewed publications in paleontology), and yet you still cite him in the book. Furthermore, when you say that I espouse a view which many paleontologists "reject", you are again missing the point. I wrote a bald-faced statement espousing a view based on my own ignorance, and pointed out the ludicrousness of using statements from unqualified individuals. So MY position is also irrelevant; I won't argue with you about paleontology, it would be stupid. The point of that exchange was to highlight how you are using unqualified individuals to support your born-again creationist notions in EE. So pay attention to that (lack of credentials for your experts) and quit trying to draw me into a debate about what I know about paleontology.

you then wrote      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who points out specific factual errors in EE, however, will have my full attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2) Then go back to the earlier pages of this thread and start addressing those. You can start < here >, where I ask about the names of the folks involved in peer-review and pilot testing of the book. As pointed out in that post, typical biology textbooks thank those folks by name. What are their names, and why are they not named in the front matter of the book?

Then you can tackle < this one, > and the accusation that NONE of the arguments in EE are new, but merely represent long-ago-debunked arguments that arose in the creationist literature. Lenny had some posts that dealt with that, including < here, > and < here, >and < here. >

I'll look forward to seeing how you address the error outlined in my linked post above, and the general argument that this book is nothing more than creationism sanitized for constitutional immunity.

Thanks
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 05 2008,12:59

Steve, you are an animal.  < This Bud's > for you.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 05 2008,13:02

Yo, Pauly baby!  You should really submit EE for a Hugo Award.  You could be a contendah.  

Factual errors?  How about every word in your book?

Looky here, Pauly baby, I've got a copy of Phyla in which Valentine discusses the fossil record in chapter 5.

Now, what you say in your fictional account of science is that the fossil record is incomplete not because the fossils haven't been found, but because they don't exist, and, furthermore, you say the fossils don't exist because the animals who would have made them didn't exist, either.  (cue mystery music - dum dum DUMMMMMMMMMMB)

Do I read that right?  Not because of incomplete sampling.

You also say that many paleontologists agree with you which is simply false.  You know it's false, thus it is a deliberate lie.  

Yes, Mr. Obvious, the fossil record is incomplete.  So what?

On page 174 of Phyla Valentine writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record has now yielded a sequence of faunas stretching back over 40 million years before the advent of the trilobites that Darwin knew about, permitting us to infer some of the broad outlines of early metazoan history.  Despite this improved record, the early ancestors of Darwin's trilobites remain unknown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remain unknown.

Not "didn't exist."

It's very disturbing that you try to use Valentine to support creationism.  If that were the case then Valentine would be a co-author of EE, not a toxicologist/amateur rock hound.

Really, Pauly baby, I don't know why you dog around this discussion forum where teh smartz peoples hang out and try to ply this snake oil of yours.  You should spend your time writing a book on Thetan Biology or something like that.  At least you'd have an audience.

And if you get the hint that perhaps I don't have very much respect for you, sorry, my error, any respect for you, then you have at least learned something.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,01:04

It's been over two years since the IDers even tried to publish < their fake journal >. Since they lost Dover they've written some blog posts, had a 'research symposium' they're too ashamed to let anyone talk about, written a bad crypto-creationist textbook, put out a stupid propaganda movie, and...that's about it.

If Ahmanson wakes up at some point he's going to fire the lot of them and get some better fake scientists in there.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 06 2008,06:08

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,01:04)
It's been over two years since the IDers even tried to publish < their fake journal >. Since they lost Dover they've written some blog posts, had a 'research symposium' they're too ashamed to let anyone talk about, written a bad crypto-creationist textbook, put out a stupid propaganda movie, and...that's about it.

If Ahmanson wakes up at some point he's going to fire the lot of them and get some better fake scientists in there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be fair, they have written TWO crypto-creationist textbooks (Explore Evolution and Dembski and Wells' The Design of Life).

Gotta give credit where credit is due!
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,09:21

Hi Alb and others,

There's not much more to say on the Chien business.  You think he's not qualified; we do.  In any case, many paleontologists agree that the absence of fossil ancestors for the Cambrian phyla is not due to poor sampling, or to the wrong conditions for fossilization, and we'll be adding significant literature support from them to the next edition.

Doc Bill -- you'll notice that I said Valentine thinks the Cambrian phyla share a common ancestor. Thus, by implication, he thinks the transitional taxa existed.  The transitions are not documented, however, in the fossil record.  "Remains unknown" -- the language you cite from chapter 5 -- is entirely consistent with the discussion in EE.

Valentine does argue, however, that the missing fossils say something about the mode of evolution at the origin of bodyplans.  That is, he regards their absence not as strictly negative evidence, but as carrying an historical signal:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The paucity of ancestors may well be an important bit of evidence as to the mode of evolution of body plans (Valentine and Erwin 1987).  What sort of evolutionary conditions would be least likely to produce a recognizable fossil record during the origin of a major morphological innovation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



J. Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla (Chicago, 2004), p. 188.

His answer? Soft-bodied ancestors, which entails that "each phylum that is durably skeletonized evolved its hard parts independently," although "it is not possible to dismiss the sudden appearance of novel bodyplans as resulting entirely from soft-bodied ancestral histories" (p. 188).  Bottom line: "If the Cambrian explosion is not a taphonomic artifact [our point in EE; note the noun], it must reflect some very special circumstances in life's history" (p. 189).

BTW, Doc Bill, have you read, or seen, EE?

Back to Alb.  The list of reviewers will be added to the second edition.  I'll post the names here later today (don't have the file handy at the moment).

I can't make out what you see as an error in EE's discussion of embryology.  Before we get started on that, however, may I know if you consider yourself competent to wade into the details?  I wouldn't want to begin, only to find you bailing out at some point, as you just did with paleontology, because it's not your area of interest or knowledge.

About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position.

Here's an example to help you get started.  My grandfather, Byron Nelson (1893-1972), included illustrations and discussion in his creationist book After Its Kind, first published in 1927 -- reissued in 1995 by Ron Numbers of the Univ. of Wisconsin, in a Garland Press series -- showing fossil stasis.  Almost fifty years later -- roughly, in the mid-70s -- Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, and other evolutionary theorists began to argue that "[fossil] stasis is data," meaning that the stability through time of fossil forms is evidentially significant.

So, can teachers and students talk about fossil stasis?
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 06 2008,10:59

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21)
About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position.

Here's an example to help you get started.  My grandfather, Byron Nelson (1893-1972), included illustrations and discussion in his creationist book After Its Kind, first published in 1927 -- reissued in 1995 by Ron Numbers of the Univ. of Wisconsin, in a Garland Press series -- showing fossil stasis.  Almost fifty years later -- roughly, in the mid-70s -- Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, and other evolutionary theorists began to argue that "[fossil] stasis is data," meaning that the stability through time of fossil forms is evidentially significant.

So, can teachers and students talk about fossil stasis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me give you an equivalent example from science fiction. An episode of Deep Space Nine, in fact.

A fleet of enemy ships is on its way to the planet Cardassia (I forget whose) to blow stuff up. The good Captain Sisko wants to warn them, but a treaty prohibits them from sending a message.

What does he do? He calls the station's resident tailor (and former Cardassian spy) Garak, to come and alter his uniform. Immediately. In the middle of the briefing where all this is being discussed. That way, he hasn't actually told Garak anything, and yet the spy now is able to warn Cardassia.

Find that acceptable? It seems to me you're doing the same. You can't teach creationism, so you're going to piggyback on the science that coincides with it. Of course, we all know this, and have done for a long time (even before the Wedge Document put it in writing), but it's interesting to see you practically admit it.

It's even more laughable when your WHOLE BOOK is nothing but 'science that overlaps with creationism'. As Dembski might say, that's so unlikely that it could only have come about by design.

In short, you're not fooling us, and we'd like to stop you fooling people less experienced with the scam.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 06 2008,11:06

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21)
Hi Alb and others,

There's not much more to say on the Chien business.  You think he's not qualified; we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

I think that most objective observers would think, as I do, that someone with no peer-reviewed publications in a field is unqualified to be quoted as the sole source for a dubious argument in a textbook. I think that most objective observers would understand, as I do, that statements in textbooks are often supported by multiple peer-reviewed publications, from multiple labs, and represent the consensus opinion of the experts in the field. The fact that you are satisfied with substantially less than that in your textbook is quite informative, and speaks volumes about the level of science throughout the book.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't make out what you see as an error in EE's discussion of embryology.  Before we get started on that, however, may I know if you consider yourself competent to wade into the details?  I wouldn't want to begin, only to find you bailing out at some point, as you just did with paleontology, because it's not your area of interest or knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone who didn't show up here for seven months, except to lurk, has no business accusing someone else of "bailing out". In addition, as noted before, I specifically noted in that message that I was merely as qualified as Chien in this area, i.e., completely unqualified. Unlike Chien, I NEVER claimed to be an expert.

As for being unable to "make out" my issue with your embryological issues, I don't think it takes specific expertise in embryology, it just takes honesty. Here's < the link to my post >. In a nutshell, your book drags up the strawman of Haeckel's embryos, and states "This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks." I point out that this statement is quantitatively untrue; only three of the 21 college biology textbooks I had on hand even mentioned Haeckel, and none of them propagated his error. Additional posts in that sequence, which you ignored, expounded on the fact that modern biology textbooks (including the two that you cite in EE), contrary to the statement in your book, do not propagate the error.

No embryology necessary here. You just need to be able to count, and read with comprehension.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One problem with that perspective is that the arguments have been scientifically debunked, for the most part. A second problem with that perspective is that the arguments ignore modern scientific advances; you are essentially lying by omission. In a book that is allegedly dedicated to "inquiry-based" learning, the omission of relevant factual evidence (i.e. the real number of modern biology textbooks that err re Haeckel) that leads to a different answer than you want, is genuinely dishonest. If creationists have generated new DATA, let's see it. If they haven't, then relying on arguments that were debunked long ago is shameful.

Can you quote even ONE argument in EE that is not derived from (or in most cases, identical to) ancient creationist canards?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 06 2008,12:09

Oh, and by the way, Paul, while we are on the topic of "bailing out", can you tell us how many more interglacial periods will elapse before the < "debate" page for EE > will be operational?

Thanks in advance
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 06 2008,13:12

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21)
About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems that I recall, way back in the beginning of this thread, that you were asked (by Lenny, I think) if there would be anything new and exciting in this book, or if it would just be the same moldy creationist canards.  You said it wouldn't be the same moldy creationist canards.  Then lots of examples were provided, which clearly showed that it EE is indeed moldy.  Now you seem to be conceding that the creationist arguments are indeed present, but that they "overlap" (whatever that means) with actual science.

So: were you being dishonest in the beginning, or are you actually so stupid that you didn't realize that your book was full of creationist junk?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 06 2008,17:23

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21)
The list of reviewers will be added to the second edition.  I'll post the names here later today (don't have the file handy at the moment).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and then
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 06 2008,16:52
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and then








[chirp chirp]

ETA

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 06 2008,19:33
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,20:23

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 06 2008,14:12)
So: were you being dishonest in the beginning, or are you actually so stupid that you didn't realize that your book was full of creationist junk?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to understand what Paul's doing here. To begin with, he knows his book is just creationist junk with terms like 'creationism' deleted, because it was his finger on the delete key. Further, we got some copies and showed explicitly on this thread that it's just old creationist junk, so everybody watching knows it too.

All this ID tactic seems to be doing is making creationists behave dishonestly. < It certainly isn't getting any science done. >

I remain optimistic that whoever's signing the checks at the Discovery Institute will realize he's throwing good money after bad. Wouldn't you hate to be the guy who gives the funders the progress reports these days?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,20:27

Several PT/AtBC people held out hope that Paul was one of the better IDers, honestly trying to turn ID into a scientific enterprise. This 'textbook' has changed some minds. It's just dishonest.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,20:44

Here's the list of reviewers for EE (this file was on an old computer; apologies for the delay in posting).  This information will be included in the second edition; it was omitted from the first because of a production error.

Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution

E.C. Ashby, Ph.D.
Regents’ Professor and
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Ely, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

Bruce Evans, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Huntington University
Huntington, Indiana

W. Michael Gray
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
Bob Jones University

David Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, California

Scott Kinnes, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Biology & Chemistry
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD.,
D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc.
R.C.V.S.
Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol
United Kingdom

Pattle Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio

Robert Waltzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi

William Wise, MSEd
Science Department Head & Biology Instructor
Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,20:50

Steve and Jim -- same question I asked Doc Bill:

Have you actually seen, or read, Explore Evolution?

If not, I'll be happy to send you review copies, gratis.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,20:56

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:50)
Steve and Jim -- same question I asked Doc Bill:

Have you actually seen, or read, Explore Evolution?

If not, I'll be happy to send you review copies, gratis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding me? Go back and read this thread. We'll wait.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:07

As anybody can see on about page 9 of this thread, we got a few copies around early August, and Paul suddenly had somewhere to be for the next 6 months.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,21:09

Actually, Jim -- I could deliver your copy of EE personally.  I'll be lecturing (with Angus Menuge) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, on April 1, 2008.  Kenosha isn't that far away...

Alb, if you have a copy of Donald Prothero's new textbook from Columbia Univ. Press, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007), take a look at p. 110.  I'll post more about the use of Haeckel's embryos in biology textbooks tomorrow.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,21:13

Steve,

Have you personally read the book?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:16

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:44)
Here's the list of reviewers for EE (this file was on an old computer; apologies for the delay in posting).  This information will be included in the second edition; it was omitted from the first because of a production error.

Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution

E.C. Ashby, Ph.D.
Regents’ Professor and
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Ely, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

Bruce Evans, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Huntington University
Huntington, Indiana

W. Michael Gray
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
Bob Jones University

David Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, California

Scott Kinnes, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Biology & Chemistry
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD.,
D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc.
R.C.V.S.
Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol
United Kingdom

Pattle Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio

Robert Waltzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi

William Wise, MSEd
Science Department Head & Biology Instructor
Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many of those reviewers signed the
< "Dissent from Darwin" list >? Let me bold them for you.

E.C. Ashby, Ph.D.
Regents’ Professor and
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Ely, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

Bruce Evans, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Huntington University
Huntington, Indiana

W. Michael Gray
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
Bob Jones University

David Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, California

Scott Kinnes, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Biology & Chemistry
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD.,
D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc.
R.C.V.S.
Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol
United Kingdom

Pattle Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio

Robert Waltzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi

William Wise, MSEd
Science Department Head & Biology Instructor
Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:19

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,22:13)
Steve,

Have you personally read the book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the thread. Yes I've read the book. And so has Lenny. And Gary. And Alba. And several others here. Showing that it was nothing but creationist junk was roughly pages 9-13 of this thread.

edit: more like pages 9 through 11.


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:27

Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University.

I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,21:37

Steve,

I scrolled through the thread, and I can't find any discussion of the actual contents of EE from you.  Lots of stuff from Lenny, Alb, and others.

But nothing from you.  Can you point me to the questions you raised, based on your own reading of EE?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:46

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,20:25)
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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


recognize that diagram Paul?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,21:48

There's some discussion of the contents. That was from EE parts posted on the internet before I got my copy. By the time I got mine, I'd already helped get one to Lenny, so I let him do the bulk of showing where your dishonest creationist textbook came from.


Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 06 2008,21:58

So you'd stand by Lenny's specific critiques -- i.e., endorse them as representing your own position, since you've read the book and agree with Lenny's assessment of the contents?

I ask because I'll be referring to particular discussions in EE over the next few days, and am interested in your view, given that Lenny is no longer participating in the thread.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 06 2008,22:02

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,21:27)
Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University.

I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's very nice that the EE authors reached out to the Bob Jones University faculty. Plenty of life sciences heavyweights there. Besides, didn't Lou go there briefly?  :p

(*Lou: apologies if it was really Liberty. I can't remember.)
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:03

Since you disappeared for the better part of 6 months, and I didn't, I think it's your turn to answer questions. Why don't you answer some of the outstanding questions already here. Such as "Is there a single argument in your book which can't be traced back to creationists?"
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2008,22:05

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,19:13)
Steve,

Have you personally read the book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As an educator with over 37 years experience (second grade through post doctoral students) I would love to review EE.

I'll pay shipping.

Gary Hurd
33902 Silver Lantern
Dana Point, Ca 92629
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:09

I actually thought I sent my copy to you Gary. I'll get you a copy in 2-3 days.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:10

Wish I knew who I sent mine too. Those PM's were deleted around Sept.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 06 2008,22:12

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 29 2008,10:44)
My survey of the other questions above shows mostly "when did you stop beating your wife"-type questions -- e.g., Steve Story's [Steve, have you actually read EE?] or Lenny's -- or topics where I've already given my last word (e.g., the mammal-like reptiles illustration discussion, with Afarensis).   

I'm still interested, however, in learning about specific errors in EE.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's wrong with my question, Paul?

 
Quote (JAM @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?

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


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:15

On the contrary, 'when did you stop beating your wife?' is a perfectly valid question to ask a guy with a history of wife-beating.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 06 2008,22:17

Quote (JAM @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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]."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

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


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


Hey, Paul! Maybe you could address this instance of not merely taking quotes out of context, but adding false context...
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 06 2008,22:19

How about these questions?
Quote (JAM @ 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2008,22:20

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,20:09)
I actually thought I sent my copy to you Gary. I'll get you a copy in 2-3 days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be very nice of you, and I will take it as a responsibility to respond.  But Paul has claimed here that, "I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution."

I think he should provide me a review copy as 1) I am clearly qualified both as a scientist, and educator, and 2) I have read nearly as much creationist literature as he has.  So, I propose that I will consider "Exploring Evolution" scientifically, pedagogically and even in accordance with creationist dogma.  After all, the DI should be pleased if their intelligent design theory might be shown as independent of the garden varity creationism (Garden of Eden, that is).


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:24

this is from the EE website.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This book is one of the first textbooks ever to use the inquiry-based approach to teach modern evolutionary theory. It does so by examining the current evidence and arguments for and against the key ideas of modern Darwinian theory. We hope examining the evidence and arguments in this book will give you a deeper understanding of the theory and help you to evaluate its current status.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul, care to explain how such an evenhanded-sounding textbook has only Darwin-dissenters for its authors, funders, and reviewers?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dis·hon·est (d?s-?n'?st) pronunciation
adj.

  1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
  2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2008,22:27

I'll tell you what, Paul.  I am about 2/3 through a manuscript on science and creation. The working title is "Science and Creation."

In it I show that 19th and 20th century creationism is a violation of science and scripture, and I outline a biblically coherent alternative.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine?


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:42

I'm out. It's a very bad day here at UNC and it's going to be a horrible week. Don't know when I'll be back. In the meantime, I have only one question I want Paul to answer.

Is there a single argument in your book which can't be traced back to creationists?

We found recycled creationist crap on every page, but nothing else. Is there anything in there creationists haven't already said, and if not, do you understand why taking a pile of creationist claims, deleting the overt references to creationism and trying to package it as a neutral textbook is misleading and dishonest? You refuse to admit the dishonesty even though its obvious.

Return to honesty. Go back to calling yourselves creationists, and calling your claims creationism, and give up the facade.

Or get some brains and do something else. < Your pseudoscience isn't going anywhere >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,06:26

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,20:44)
Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution

E.C. Ashby, Ph.D.
Regents’ Professor and
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Ely, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

Bruce Evans, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Huntington University
Huntington, Indiana

W. Michael Gray
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
Bob Jones University

David Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, California

Scott Kinnes, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Biology & Chemistry
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD.,
D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc.
R.C.V.S.
Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol
United Kingdom

Pattle Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio

Robert Waltzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi

William Wise, MSEd
Science Department Head & Biology Instructor
Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the list, Paul.

I do recognize some of these names, and note that it includes microbiologists, chemists and biochemists who probably NEVER taught an intro biology course. I also note that it is a short list; a typical biology textbook (especially the first edition) has literally dozens of reviewers. I also recall that the front matter of the book thanks those who participated in pilot projects; these are not named here. Are they the same people?

I may spend the next day or two seeing what else I can find out about the names I don't recognize on this list. But so far, given the preponderance of folks from conservative Christian creationist colleges, this list is just further evidence that EE is Pandas redux, sanitized for constitutional protection.

It appears that others have given you plenty to think about here, but I'd still appreciate your attention to the points originally raised < here > back in August, and recently clarified < here. >

As well as some idea when the EE "debate" page will be operational.

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 07 2008,06:48

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 06 2008,23:02)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,21:27)
Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University.

I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's very nice that the EE authors reached out to the Bob Jones University faculty. Plenty of life sciences heavyweights there. Besides, didn't Lou go there briefly?  :p

(*Lou: apologies if it was really Liberty. I can't remember.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, you got it.  I went to Blow Job Bob Jones U.

Kay recently got an acceptance letter from Liberty.  (She finds that hysterical.)

I did not however, review EE.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,06:58

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 07 2008,06:48)
Kay recently got an acceptance letter from Liberty.  (She finds that hysterical.)

I did not however, review EE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is, I assure you, equally hysterical.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 07 2008,08:13

I began reading through this thread again, and an interesting parallel came to mind regarding the argument over whether EE is just warmed-over creationism disguised (again) to look like science.

     
Quote (Luke 22: 33-34 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening previous to the events at Gethsemane)
33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



       
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,14:30)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 15 2007,14:32)
Given that two of the three quotations examined so far contribute to that tally, who do you expect to take that bet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,17:21)
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).   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (Luke 22:54-57 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
54Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

55And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

56But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.

57And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




       
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,19:03)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

 
Quote (Luke 22:58 @ , ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




       
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,18:36)
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 . . . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,18:20)
Can I get the same bet as Lenny proposed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,15:57)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Quote (Luke 22:59-60 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
59And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

60And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2008,09:45

ROFLMAO.

Paul you blew it dude.  Just because you are such a congenial dude (I think we foolishly believed that this was a result of the fact that you know, deep down, that you deserve some flak for your involvement in pushing creationism ReDux and you have seemed willing to take it) everyone has given you the benefit of the doubt.  

But the scales have been lifted my friend.  You are a fraud.  Not even the nice guy you pretend to be, you are a Liar For Jesus.  I can't wait to see the mess your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book gets a bunch of local school boards into.  I hope that gives you fulfillment, because clearly doing science is < getting your creationism NOWHERE >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,10:56

More grist for the mill. Many of the reviewers for EE are at Christian colleges. Here are some additional data re the stances of those places vis-a-vis creationism and evolution.

Huntington University < – “The faculty of Huntington University subscribe to the following statement of faith. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” >

Bob Jones University < – “I believe in the creation of man by the direct act of God. God's Word was not given to us to teach us science. But the same God Who wrote the book made the laws that govern science; and He would not cause to be set down in His Word anything that would be contrary to His own laws. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27 - The theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile Genesis to evolution. But it cannot be done; the two are irreconcilable. >

Grove City College < – “Grove City College remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.” >

Azusa Pacific University < – “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God.” >

Wheaton College < – “WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.” >

Cedarville University < – “The Bible, God's Word, is truth — inspired, infallible, and inerrant.” > Also in the course catalog < – “Creation Science is one way Cedarville faculty help students develop a biblical world-life view. >

Belhaven College < – “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, and only infallible, authoritative Word of God, which exercises ultimate authority over the individual, the Church, and human reason.” >

In addition, < this site > ranks Christian Colleges according to various criteria, including this question –“ Is Theistic Evolution permitted to be taught as a viable option in the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1?”  Azusa Pacific (“Allowed”), Belhaven College (“Does not Teach Evolution as a viable option”), Bob Jones University (“Creationistic”), Cedarville University (“Creationistic”), Wheaton College (“It teaches that Adam and Eve were directly created by God, but it does not have definite beliefs on creation as direct or evolutionary.”).
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,12:23

As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 07 2008,12:31

And thus ends the parallel.

 
Quote (Luke 22:61-62 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
61And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

62And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Peter, it would appear, was ashamed of himself.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,12:38

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:23)
As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

No. The difference between "discussed" and "thoroughly rebutted" is significant. We're not talking about automatic disqualification simply because a topic has been "discussed" in the creationist literature. But if the argument has been rebutted, and unless the creationist science community has come up with new data (not just the same argument repackaged as if it was new), it has no place in a modern biology textbook. Thoroughly rebutted arguments definitely deserve very little treatment, other than historical, in a public high school science textbook.

For some context, outside the limited scope of the evolution discussion, phlogiston has been thoroughly rebutted as a scientific explanation. Discussion of phlogiston theory should not be given much space, outside of a brief discussion of the history of oxidation-reduction chemistry, in a high school chemistry textbook. Does that make the distinction more clear for you?
Posted by: Leftfield on Mar. 07 2008,12:44

Paul-

I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.

I think that is the point of Lenny's long ago offer to pay up $100 for any argument in EE that had appeared in the peer reviewed literature in the last 50 years.

Edited: To say Alb beat me to it, and because I wanted to make sure my edit button worked.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 07 2008,12:49

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:23)
As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe you are playing this childish game, Paul. You've gone from Young Earth Creationist to Used Car Salesman.

How about this, Paul?

1. You make a lovely flowerbed, and put up notice saying 'DO NOT WALK ON THE FLOWERBED'.
2. I tie newspapers to my feet, and trample your flowers.
3. When asked, I tell you that I was actually walking on newspapers, not your flowerbed.

Do you honestly believe we can't see you're playing the same game? You disgust me.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,12:52

Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,12:57

Leftfield wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's where RC becomes problematic, as I think Alb and the other professional biologists reading this thread know.

I appreciate the amplification.  We'll come to to the peer-reviewed business further on, I expect.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 07 2008,13:06

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:52)
Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, I suspect you know fully well that there is nothing logically or legally 'wrong' with what you're doing. That's the whole point of 'critical analysis' of evolution - it's a cheap, twisted way to game the system. You have taken a bunch of creationist arguments and renamed them 'critical analysis'. Your whole book comprises this.

It isn't illegal, but it is morally wrong to deceive people in this way. You know, morals? I think Jesus mentioned them once or twice?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,13:33

Venus,

Is it morally wrong to evaluate current theories of evolution, in the light of the available evidence?

Before you answer, try this experiment, without using Google or other search engines to identify the source and author. Read the following passage, and ask yourself whether you'd allow this material in a public school science classroom, strictly in terms of its content.  Lay aside for the moment the identity of the author, his/her theoretical commitments, and the publication venue:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,14:00

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:52)
Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

Stasis of forms has been refuted as an argument against evolution. Evolutionary theory is perfectly capable of accommodating the observations. So to pretend that stasis is STILL an argument against evolutionary theory is disingenuous.

Secondly, I'll substitute the term "refuted creationism" for your RC acronym. Then if we modify your paradigm thusly (my additions in bold):

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.
 Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

we now have something that I hope we can all agree to.

I also hope this helps you understand why refuted creationism (RC) is attracting so much attention here.

I also hope that you can provide some answers to the previously posted questions as well. What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2008,14:19

Paul, why are there moths at all?  Does your critical analysis derive a theory that explains this burning question?  Do the tools provided by your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book give anyone the necessary concepts and methods for answering this burning question?

Intelligent Design Creationism is in flames.  I am glad that you are going to give scientists and lawyers the opportunity to unzip and do the right thing.  You are a fraud.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 07 2008,14:25

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,13:33)
Venus,

Is it morally wrong to evaluate current theories of evolution, in the light of the available evidence?

Before you answer, try this experiment, without using Google or other search engines to identify the source and author. Read the following passage, and ask yourself whether you'd allow this material in a public school science classroom, strictly in terms of its content.  Lay aside for the moment the identity of the author, his/her theoretical commitments, and the publication venue:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Paul: no, it isn't morally wrong to evaluate evolution, and that wasn't what I was accusing you of. I was accusing you of deliberately deceiving people by taking creationist arguments, and renaming and changing them to critical analysis (one wonders if we'll see the phrase 'ccritical analysisists' anywhere?)

And once again, I've already said what you're doing is not technically wrong, just like me trampling your flowers. Therefore, your quote probably is acceptable (although I wouldn't bet on it, I'll let people with more knowledge analyse the claims therein.) It's as acceptable as forcing schools to put disclaimer stickers in their textbooks - no reason why you CAN'T, but it clearly shows a lack of care. You don't want to teach kids. You want to stop them from doubting the Bible. Otherwise, I'd expect to see quotes like:

Newton's theory of gravity, while often used in real life, is actually false.

Gravitation theory has no explanation for why gravity occurs, or how the universe was formed. There is no experimental confirmation of gravitons, despite massive detectors having been run for years to detect them.

Intelligent Design does not explain who the designer is, whether it still exists, how many designers there are, what its intent is, where the designer came from, how it designed, or when it designed, nor indeed if design even requires intelligence.

It is not known if Einstein's spacetime is a fully accurate model of gravity.

Thermodynamics is forced to use statistical formulae to model large systems of particles, which cannot give accurate results about single particles.


All of the above are true, Paul, and some are even mentioned in textbooks (it's often important to know the range of validity of a model). My annoyance is at you twisting truths into propaganda at the cost of the education of children. There are a whole bunch of things that evolution does not explain. Some it hasn't explained yet, and some it wasn't ever meant to (it's quite common in the creationist lit for people to confuse the two, which is why Expelled! presents evolution as being abiogenesis).

In short: I'm not objecting to whether what you say is true or legal or not. I'm accusing you of using cheap tricks and loopholes to get what you want, at the cost of anyone who gets in your way - which will probably be children.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,14:45

Alb asked,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

< http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 >

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 07 2008,14:52

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:45)
Alb asked,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

< http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 >

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BZZZ- No, I'm sorry Paul, that's not correct.

Haekel's drawings = grasping at straw-men.

Old, tired, and long discounted Paul.

Can anyone else in the class help out poor Paul?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 07 2008,14:56

Alb,

Thanks for this formulation:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.

Venus, the author of that passage was evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, from his long paper "Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism," Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 15 (1993):7-41.  The cited material comprises the first five sentences of the paper's abstract.

I'll be out for the remainder of the day, but will try to return to the discussion tomorrow morning.  Thanks to all involved for the exchange.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 07 2008,15:01

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:45)
Alb asked,

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

< http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 >

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

What would be more interesting than your list would be a factual accounting for HOW MANY books were examined before Casey could find these 10, 3 of which are actually multiple editions of the same book. As I indicated in my previous post. I took 21 books that I had in my office; three of them had the figure, and NONE of them indicated that Haeckel was correct. The data do not favor your interpretation.

Secondly, as documented previously < on this very thread >, the Futuyama book that you and Casey cite does not indicate that your interpretation is accurate. Again, the data do not favor your interpretation.

ETA - See < this link > for a detailed refutation of the Haeckel strawman, performed by a card-carrying developmental biologist.
Posted by: Leftfield on Mar. 07 2008,15:04

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:57)
Leftfield wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's where RC becomes problematic, as I think Alb and the other professional biologists reading this thread know.

I appreciate the amplification.  We'll come to to the peer-reviewed business further on, I expect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, right the onspiracy-cay. Say no more.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 07 2008,15:09

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,13:33)
Is it morally wrong to evaluate current theories of evolution, in the light of the available evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, if you actually did that, it would not be morally wrong, but you're not doing so in light of the available evidence. You're avoiding evidence in favor of the most dishonest sort of quote mining.

In fact, my question that you have yet to answer is about the available evidence:

Quote (JAM @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?

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



Note that I supplied evidence and requested for evidence, and you run away from it, showing that you have zero interest in evaluating anything in light of available evidence.

If you're about evidence, why would you rely on quotations?
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 07 2008,15:17

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:56)
Venus, the author of that passage was evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, from his long paper "Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism," Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 15 (1993):7-41.  The cited material comprises the first five sentences of the paper's abstract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My points still stand, Paul, if you'd just read them. I don't believe you've actually directly responded to a single one I've made, or you'd realise that my problem is not with you presenting truth, but presenting propaganda. As someone else pointed out, you aren't equipping children with the ability to critically analyse; you're just making them do it, to what happens to be the one subject which creationists don't want their kids to learn.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2008,20:11

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:56)
Alb,

Thanks for this formulation:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.

Venus, the author of that passage was evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, from his long paper "Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism," Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 15 (1993):7-41.  The cited material comprises the first five sentences of the paper's abstract.

I'll be out for the remainder of the day, but will try to return to the discussion tomorrow morning.  Thanks to all involved for the exchange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Paul

Does George Miklos have a theory of why there should be moths?  Is this something we can expect to see the new generation of Fundie Homeschoolers students using your text book?  Is one of these socially awkward young crusaders finally going to answer the question of why there are goldfish?
Posted by: raguel on Mar. 07 2008,20:15

Somewhat OT, but speaking of embryology, and Haeckel:

In my lifetime, I've been a vocal supporter for both YEC and evolution, but only recently (around the time of the Dover trial) have I made an earnest, intellectual attempt to understanding "both sides of the debate".

Since my knowledge of biology was limited, I decided to use an analogy (ToE:ID::Lewis::MO) as a guide.

ID/creationism/'teachthecontroversy'/'academicfreedom' has failed utterly and completely the test. For example, take embryology: if I go to working scientists, science writers, and professors I get the following information:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....aki.php >
< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....yng.php >
< http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ >

When creationists comment at all about embryology they dwell nearly exclusively on Haeckel's drawings, as if the last century's worth of research didn't exist.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 07 2008,21:57

Paul Nelson, no, I haven't read EE nor will I.

Nor do I read pornography nor Barbara Cartland romance novels.  I haven't read Behe's books nor Dembski's nor will I.  For that matter, I haven't read much of Dickens, although I might.

I did flip through Icons of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box at Barnes and Noble, but both books were too stupid to either buy or read.

The point it, my dishonest creationist hack Paul, is why should I read your dreck?  It's crap from stem to stern.  In fact, I'd rather read Barbara Cartland because she's at least honest in writing bodice ripping yarns, unlike you.

I've read enough about EE to know it's pure crap and I find your twisting of Valentine's research intellectual slander.  Furthermore, your continued participation in this forum is only an indication of your abject stupidity.

So, dishonest and stupid, Paul.  No wonder you can't hold a day job.
Posted by: Art on Mar. 07 2008,23:07

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:45)
Alb asked,

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

< http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 >

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Patrick Frank's analysis > beats the DI's effort all to heck.  I wonder if he could stand being cited in EE.


Posted by: bfish on Mar. 08 2008,01:18

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:45)
Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As it happens, I have a copy of Prothero's book. Does he really "support the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny?"

Let's see here.......(flips through book)
Starting at the bottom of page 109, after explaining what the phrase means; i.e. embryonic development repeats evolutionary history:
"To the limited extent that von Baer had shown 40 years earlier, this is true. But embryos also have many unique features (yolk sac, allantois, amniotic membranes, umbilical cords) that have nothing to do with the evolutionary past and are adaptations to their developing environment. Thus it is dangerous to overextend the evolutionary implications of the stages in an embryo, but they are useful guides nonetheless."

Sounds bang on to me.

then on page 110, bringing up matters near and dear to us all:
"Creationists, such as Jonathan Wells (2000), in their eternal effort to mislead the uninitiated and miss the forest for the trees, will crow about how the biogenetic law has been discredited. But Haeckel's overenthusiasm does not negate the careful embryological work of von Baer that shows that many features of our past evolutionary stages are preserved in our embryos. Wells, in particular, nags about how some of Haeckel's original diagrams had errors and oversimplifications, but this does not change the overall fact that the sequence of all vertebrate embryos show the same patterns in the early stages, and all of them go through a 'fish-like' stage with pharyngeal pouches (which become the gill slits in fishes and amphibians) and a long fish-like tail, then some develop into fishes and amphibians and others lose these features and develop into reptiles, birds, and mammals. Wells' deceptive approach is nicely debunked by Gishlick (www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html).
  If you had any doubts that you once had ancestors with fish-like gills and a tail, Figure 4-11 shows what you looked like five weeks after fertilization. Why did you have pharyngeal pouches (predecessors of gills) and a tail if you had not descended from ancestors with those features?"

And then Prothero shows a picture - no doubt PhotoShopped - of an actual human embryo showing just those features described.

Sounds to me like Prothero carefully put everything into context.

Note: Any errors/typos be the fault of my own self.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 08 2008,08:50

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:56)
"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why isn't it < here >, Paul? Why is that page still empty? Why do you keep avoiding this question?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 08 2008,08:56

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:09)
Actually, Jim -- I could deliver your copy of EE personally.  I'll be lecturing (with Angus Menuge) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, on April 1, 2008.  Kenosha isn't that far away...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading yet another creationist tract thinly disguised as science. It's been demonstrated time and again that you're a compulsive liar. It's very convenient for you to say, "Ha! You haven't read the book so..." but the whole point here is that we've all read the book without seeing it.

Tell you what: you open the < "Debate" page > on the EE website to unrestricted comments (within reason, of course) and I'll read the book and comment there.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 08 2008,20:55

Hi, Paul

Coincidentally, Cedarville University, the home of one of your reviewers

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is the subject of an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. PZ has a < new post >about this, and links to the article. If you don't subscribe to the Chronicle, let me know, and I'll send you a copy. But the upshot is that two professors there were dismissed because of their disagreement over a theological detail that probably makes sense to you, but not to me. Fortunately, according to the Chronicle,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The statement then said that the university's "commitments to the inerrancy of Scripture, to its historic doctrinal position, and to its conservative theological heritage have not changed."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it make you just a little uneasy that this sort of institution seems to be the only place where your "inquiry-based textbook" has been vetted? Whatever happened to "teach the controversy", and academic freedom, and all that?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 08 2008,20:58

What Paul Nelson says about Prothero, verson what bfish shows us Prothero actually said, tells you all you need to know about Mr. Nelson.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 10 2008,10:46

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2008,20:58)
What Paul Nelson says about Prothero, verson what bfish shows us Prothero actually said, tells you all you need to know about Mr. Nelson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he tells us even more < on UD... >


Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 10 2008,10:50

Alb,

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 10 2008,10:57

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,10:50)
Alb,

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a copy of the book, so I'll refrain from commenting on things about which I am ignorant. I'd recommend it to you as well.

How about you answer the other questions that are building up here, rather than starting a new discussion?
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 10 2008,11:15

I'll be responding to JAM's objection about the genetics of body size next.

Jim Wynne and Alb asked about why the Debate page at the Explore Evolution website was inactive.  Short version: I wanted a discussion board there, like this one, with no (or only light -- e.g., no vulgarity) moderation.  Others disagreed, and there the issue has stalled.  Given however that the work of responding to critics would probably fall largely (or entirely) to me, as it has in this thread, I decided to continue participating here until my own webpage, www.bioadagio.com, is active.

Once www.bioadagio is up, there will be a separate page there for open, unmoderated discussion of Explore Evolution.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 10 2008,13:23

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,11:15)
I'll be responding to JAM's objection about the genetics of body size next.

Jim Wynne and Alb asked about why the Debate page at the Explore Evolution website was inactive.  Short version: I wanted a discussion board there, like this one, with no (or only light -- e.g., no vulgarity) moderation.  Others disagreed, and there the issue has stalled.  Given however that the work of responding to critics would probably fall largely (or entirely) to me, as it has in this thread, I decided to continue participating here until my own webpage, www.bioadagio.com, is active.

Once www.bioadagio is up, there will be a separate page there for open, unmoderated discussion of Explore Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in my mind you haven't yet satisfactorily answered the question about why EE says that "many" high-school and college-level biology textbooks include Haeckel's figure and imply that these textbooks are misleading about the interpretation and history of that figure. As < previously mentioned, > I checked all 21 of the intro biology textbooks in my possession last summer, and found that three of them mentioned Haeckel. Furthermore, all of them had the correct interpretation and history for his infamous figure.

I am now in the process of reviewing textbooks for next fall, since the edition that we are using is out of print. I have checked those as well. Here's more ammunition for my side, a list of textbooks and how they treat Haeckel and his embryos.

1) Starr, Evers & Starr, Biology: Concepts and Applications, 7/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced. The version of this textbook "without physiology" also has no mention of Haeckel..

2) Enger, Ross and Bailey - Concepts in Biology, 13/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.

3) Mader, Concepts of Biology, 1/e - This is an interesting case. Haeckel is mentioned in the index, where it indicates that you need to go to p. 710 to read more. Unfortunately, page 710 is in the ecology section; there is no mention of Haeckel on that page. He is not mentioned in either the embryology section or the evolutionary biology section. Another mark against your statement about how this misinformation is spread in "many" biology textbooks.

4) Hoefnagels, Biology: Concepts and Investigations, 1/e - Haeckel is mentioned on p. 318; the infamous figure is not shown. The text indicates that Haeckel fudged the figure in a couple of ways; in other words, it represents it accurately, contrary to the assertion in EE.

5) Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon and Dickey, Biology: Concepts and Connections, 6/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.

6) Krogh, Biology: A guide to the natural World, 4/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.

7) Presson & Jenner, Biology: Dimensions of Life, 1/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.

In all cases I looked in the index, and also in the embryology and evolutionary biology chapters.

So I can add 7 more textbooks to the 21 previously examined. In only one of these is Haeckel discussed in the "evidence for evolution" section, and in that case the author accurately reflects the state of understanding in the 21st (and 20th, and most of the 19th) century. Thus in the 4 (out of 28 total) books where Haeckel appears in the text, all of them accurately describe his work and the relevance of his work to modern evolutionary biology.

What more will it take to convince you that the use of "many" in EE is inaccurate? Can you stop beating that dead horse long enough to step out of the fine pink mist you are creating and see reality?

Please pass this along to your coauthors as well.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 10 2008,13:55

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,10:50)
Alb,

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not albatrossity, but I would say no.  There are much better figures out there.

Enough about the mote in Prothero's eye, though.

For example, you claim Prothero has confused von Baer's claim with Haeckel's.  It is clear he has not.

You claim the figure caption is wrong - it is not.  You fault it for what it doesn't say.  This is a book about fossils primarily, after all, not one on embryology
or developmental biology.

The first link doesn't support any argument that embryogenesis did not evolve by descent with modification.  I have no idea what you mean by "conservation of embryogenesis".

Keeping this on topic, is there a page in Exploring Evolution that deals with embryology?  :)

Edited to add smiley.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 10 2008,16:14

I'd say this discussion has left Paul feeling a bit < grumpy > vis Prothero, Haeckel, von Baer, etc.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 10 2008,19:47

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 10 2008,13:55)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,10:50)
Alb,

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not albatrossity, but I would say no.  There are much better figures out there.

Enough about the mote in Prothero's eye, though.

For example, you claim Prothero has confused von Baer's claim with Haeckel's.  It is clear he has not.

You claim the figure caption is wrong - it is not.  You fault it for what it doesn't say.  This is a book about fossils primarily, after all, not one on embryology
or developmental biology.

The first link doesn't support any argument that embryogenesis did not evolve by descent with modification.  I have no idea what you mean by "conservation of embryogenesis".

Keeping this on topic, is there a page in Exploring Evolution that deals with embryology?  :)

Edited to add smiley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, in point of fact there is. Leans heavily on Wells, misunderstands a paper by Sedgwick, mentions an interesting paper by Richardson et al (which I am trying to find a copy of), trots out the "most textbooks use Haeckel's drawings" (specifically mentioning Futuyma - which is BS) nonsense, among other things. All in all, it was even worse than the stuff on fossils...
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 10 2008,20:06

Alb,

If the evidence shows that only a small percentage of textbooks use Haeckel-derived figures, I'll urge that we change "many" to "a few."

Tracy, Prothero's term "well-developed gills" is a character found in adult fish (and some amphibians).  The term "fish-like," which Prothero repeatedly uses, refers to fish -- again, the morphological standard of comparison is an adult organism, not an embryo.  This is classical Haeckelian recapitulation, and not von Baer's view at all.

Prothero's caption reads:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer pointed out in the 1830s, long before Darwin published his ideas about evolution, all vertebrates start out with a very fish-like body plan in embryology, including the predecessors of gills and a long tail.  As they develop, many lose their fish-like features on their way to becoming reptiles, birds, and mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is wrong on multiple counts.  Von Baer did not think that embryos passed through stages that resembled (as "fish-like" implies) the adults of other species.  In fact, the fourth of his laws explicitly denies this; von Baer rejected the common ancestry of the animals.  And "starts out" is false: the stage (mis)represented in the Prothero figure is actually well into vertebrate development.  Egg sizes, cleavage patterns, and modes of gastrulation are profoundly different within the vertebrates.

The new edition of Explore Evolution will include significantly expanded bibliographic resources on the relationship of embryological evidence to theories of common ancestry.

More tomorrow, on JAM's genetics of body size question.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 10 2008,20:09

Afarensis,

I'll send you a pdf of that paper by Richardson, along with his more recent work, if you can give me an email address to use.
Posted by: raguel on Mar. 10 2008,20:30

How exactly does this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the limited extent that von Baer had shown 40 years earlier, this is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



contradict with this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But embryos also have many unique features (yolk sac, allantois, amniotic membranes, umbilical cords) that have nothing to do with the evolutionary past and are adaptations to their developmental environment. Thus it is dangerous to overextend the evolutionary implications of the stages in the embryo, but they are useful guides nonetheless. (p. 108)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also: are we to pretend that there's no difference between gills and gill slits, and that mammalian embryos don't have gill slits?
Posted by: raguel on Mar. 10 2008,20:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Useful guides to what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




How about this?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, the embryology of the whale, examined in detail, also provides evidence for its terrestrial ancestry. As embryos no less than as adult animals, whales are junkyards, as it were, of old, discarded features that are of no further use to them. Many whales, while still in the womb, begin to develop body hair. Yet no modern whales retain any body hair after birth, except for some snout hairs and hairs around their blowholes used as sensory bristles in a few species. The fact that whales possess the genes for producing body hair shows that their ancestors had body hair. In other words, their ancestors were ordinary mammals.

In many embryonic whales, external hind limb buds are visible for a time but thendisappear as the whale grows larger. Also visible in the embryo are rudimentary ear pinnae, which disappear before birth (except in those that carry them as rare atavisms). And, in some whales, the olfactory lobes of the brain exist only in the fetus. The whale embryo starts off with its nostrils in the usual place for mammals, at the tip of the snout. But during development, the nostrils migrate to their final place at the top of the head to form the blowhole (or blowholes)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 10 2008,20:36

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:09)
Afarensis,

I'll send you a pdf of that paper by Richardson, along with his more recent work, if you can give me an email address to use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul,
You can send it to:

afarensis@scienceblogs.com

Thanks much!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 10 2008,21:16

Paul while you are busy checking facts, can you let me know if Of Pandas and People Explore Evolution is going to provide a theory of why there might be moths, since you like to trumpet quotes that emphasize the fact that Darwinism (whatever that is) does not have any theory to explain this?

This would be a fine example of what ID can offer.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 11 2008,06:33

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:06)
Alb,

If the evidence shows that only a small percentage of textbooks use Haeckel-derived figures, I'll urge that we change "many" to "a few."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless you have data to the contrary that you haven't shared here, I don't think that there is any doubt what the evidence shows. That figure appears in a small minority of modern introductory biology textbooks.

In addition, I think that the evidence shows that NONE of these textbooks perpetuates the error that Haeckel made. So even if that figure or a facsimile appears in a modern textbook, the text in that textbook seems to also negate the arguments made in EE. Rather than change the wording, I suggest that you drop the argument as yet another example of "refuted creationism".

I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,10:15

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,06:33)
I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If, I repeat, If, this happens, I nominate Albatrossity for the Nobel Effin Peace Prize.*

Arabs and Jews, Obama and Clinton, Klingons and The Federation, Spitzer and Illegal Prostitution Rings, getting them together, just doesn't compare to actually getting a grudging concession from an ID Creationist on Haeckel's Effin Embryos ™.

*Sorry, Paul. I considered a dual nomination, ala Begin and Sadat, but Dave had to work so hard to get you to move an inch, that I just can't justify it.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 11 2008,10:26

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,10:15)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,06:33)
I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If, I repeat, If, this happens, I nominate Albatrossity for the Nobel Effin Peace Prize.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't count on it.  Remember that he only said he would urge the co-authors to make the change.  Classic good cop line: "Sure, I see your point, but I can't speak for my co-authors.  I mean, I agree, but, you know, that Stephen Meyer?  He is a loose cannon.  I can't control him and I just never know what he is going to do."

Think Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon."
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 11 2008,12:09

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:06)
Tracy, Prothero's term "well-developed gills" is a character found in adult fish (and some amphibians).  The term "fish-like," which Prothero repeatedly uses, refers to fish -- again, the morphological standard of comparison is an adult organism, not an embryo.


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



No, it doesn't.  Hence the term "fish-like" rather than fish.  The error is purely one of your imagination.

And thus Paul Nelson's little house of cards, which I have deleted, collapses.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 11 2008,13:22

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2008,10:26)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,10:15)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,06:33)
I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If, I repeat, If, this happens, I nominate Albatrossity for the Nobel Effin Peace Prize.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't count on it.  Remember that he only said he would urge the co-authors to make the change.  Classic good cop line: "Sure, I see your point, but I can't speak for my co-authors.  I mean, I agree, but, you know, that Stephen Meyer?  He is a loose cannon.  I can't control him and I just never know what he is going to do."

Think Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree; I am not optimistic that any substantive changes will be visible in EE's second edition. They simply can't afford to do that; the entire "Embryology" chapter (pp. 65-71) consists of nothing more than an extended rant about Haeckel's embryos. If they had to point out that nobody teaches that stuff that way in modern times, they wouldn't have any argument at all.

Look for changes in the minimal-to-none range for this section of EE.

But if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to pick up the Peace Prize. Thanks for the nomination, J-Dog!
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,15:59

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,13:22)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2008,10:26)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,10:15)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,06:33)
I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If, I repeat, If, this happens, I nominate Albatrossity for the Nobel Effin Peace Prize.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't count on it.  Remember that he only said he would urge the co-authors to make the change.  Classic good cop line: "Sure, I see your point, but I can't speak for my co-authors.  I mean, I agree, but, you know, that Stephen Meyer?  He is a loose cannon.  I can't control him and I just never know what he is going to do."

Think Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree; I am not optimistic that any substantive changes will be visible in EE's second edition. They simply can't afford to do that; the entire "Embryology" chapter (pp. 65-71) consists of nothing more than an extended rant about Haeckel's embryos. If they had to point out that nobody teaches that stuff that way in modern times, they wouldn't have any argument at all.

Look for changes in the minimal-to-none range for this section of EE.

But if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to pick up the Peace Prize. Thanks for the nomination, J-Dog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your welcome!

Carlsonjock:    Unfortunately your analogy breaks down, because we are dealing with the DI and ID... what do you do it they are all "bad cops"?  

It's like 2 Mel Gibsons!  

Twice the Crazy - Twice the Anti-Antisemitism, 100% the dumb.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 11 2008,17:20

Since I'm not likely to read EE, I took the time to go to the EE website and read the blurb on turtles.

I quote from EE:



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

Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The
order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million
years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the
fossil record without intermediates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, my understanding of creationist jargon is that "sudden appearance" and "fully developed" mean they, turtles, were created or designed.

Is this correct, Paul, or not?  Is EE claiming that turtles were created?

Second, I have a question about the last sentence about intermediates.

To paraphrase, "turtles appear in the fossil record without intermediates."  Intermediates between what and what? Do turtles share common descent from earlier reptiles?

Tell me more about turtles, Paul.

Thanks.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 12 2008,01:48

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,11:15)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 11 2008,06:33)
I'll look forward to seeing some changes in the second edition.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If, I repeat, If, this happens, I nominate Albatrossity for the Nobel Effin Peace Prize.*

Arabs and Jews, Obama and Clinton, Klingons and The Federation, Spitzer and Illegal Prostitution Rings, getting them together, just doesn't compare to actually getting a grudging concession from an ID Creationist on Haeckel's Effin Embryos ™.

*Sorry, Paul. I considered a dual nomination, ala Begin and Sadat, but Dave had to work so hard to get you to move an inch, that I just can't justify it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Claim CB701.1:
The biogenetic law that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (that is, that the embryological stages of a developing organism follow the organism's evolutionary history) is false, yet embryological stages are still claimed as evidence for evolution.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974.  Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 76-77.


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



I haven't been able to follow this thread much. Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 12 2008,09:23

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2008,01:48)
Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HaHaHa!   As if...  Not in this multi-verse.

I would at least like to hear about the turtles!

Michelangelo, Donatello, and I forget the other two.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 12 2008,09:53

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 11 2008,17:20)
Since I'm not likely to read EE, I took the time to go to the EE website and read the blurb on turtles.

I quote from EE:



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

Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The
order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million
years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the
fossil record without intermediates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, my understanding of creationist jargon is that "sudden appearance" and "fully developed" mean they, turtles, were created or designed.

Is this correct, Paul, or not?  Is EE claiming that turtles were created?

Second, I have a question about the last sentence about intermediates.

To paraphrase, "turtles appear in the fossil record without intermediates."  Intermediates between what and what? Do turtles share common descent from earlier reptiles?

Tell me more about turtles, Paul.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And do you mention that Homo sapiens does not suddenly appear in your book?  Why or why not?   Let's explore this!
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 12 2008,09:55

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 12 2008,09:23)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2008,01:48)
Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HaHaHa!   As if...  Not in this multi-verse.

I would at least like to hear about the turtles!

Michelangelo, Donatello, and I forget the other two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Egad man! I do believe you have just disproven the entire modern evolutionary systhesis!

1. The teenage turtles are mutants
2. They do good by fighting crime, etc etc
3. Everyone knows that mutations are either neutral or harmful
4. Therefore they must have been divinely created during the Cambrian period.

Nobel prize fer shur. I might even get you a few tickets to Expelled. If you want.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 12 2008,11:53

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 12 2008,09:55)
Nobel prize fer shur. I might even get you a few tickets to Expelled. If you want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks...

Second Prize - Lots of tickets for Expelled.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 12 2008,12:03

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:06)
More tomorrow, on JAM's genetics of body size question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the day after. However, I'm glad you moved the goalposts back where they belong. My question is:

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

No opinions, no arguments, no quotes are relevant. Just data.

Can you handle that question, Paul? My hypothesis (about your motivation) predicts that you can't.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 12 2008,14:48

I'd be happy with an explanation of Yertle the Turtle who appeared suddenly in the literature in 1958 with no obvious intermediate transitional species.

As for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I believe they represent a veritable renaissance in turtleology.

I want Nelson to explain the purpose of the turtle panel.  What's the point?

Also, for extra credit, Nelson, did you run that quote by Scott Gilbert?  Does Dr. Gilbert support your point, should we ever learn from you what is the point?

Thanks!
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 12 2008,16:30

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 12 2008,08:23)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2008,01:48)
Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HaHaHa!   As if...  Not in this multi-verse.

I would at least like to hear about the turtles!

Michelangelo, Donatello, and I forget the other two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Leonardo, Raphael.

(But don't ask me which one wears which color of mask! :p )
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 12 2008,18:44

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 12 2008,09:53)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 11 2008,17:20)
Since I'm not likely to read EE, I took the time to go to the EE website and read the blurb on turtles.

I quote from EE:

 

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

Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The
order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million
years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the
fossil record without intermediates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, my understanding of creationist jargon is that "sudden appearance" and "fully developed" mean they, turtles, were created or designed.

Is this correct, Paul, or not?  Is EE claiming that turtles were created?

Second, I have a question about the last sentence about intermediates.

To paraphrase, "turtles appear in the fossil record without intermediates."  Intermediates between what and what? Do turtles share common descent from earlier reptiles?

Tell me more about turtles, Paul.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And do you mention that Homo sapiens does not suddenly appear in your book?  Why or why not?   Let's explore this!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless I missed it somehow, they didn't mention human evolution at all. A good thing, IMHO, because the only two articles I have read that give the "intelligent design" view of human evolution were, well, really, really bad.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 12 2008,21:08

Thanks.[/quote]
And do you mention that Homo sapiens does not suddenly appear in your book?  Why or why not?   Let's explore this![/quote]
Unless I missed it somehow, they didn't mention human evolution at all. A good thing, IMHO, because the only two articles I have read that give the "intelligent design" view of human evolution were, well, really, really bad.[/quote]
Yes, it is a good thing, becasue YOU, Afarensis, my little African Friend, they would probably classify as an ape, not a hominid.

However, I think you are at just the correct height to do a little nut-gathering or nut smashing with the larger, and more fleshy members of your IDC extended family... if you know what I mean, and I think you do...
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 12 2008,22:36

OK, Paul is apparently NOT going to provide me a review copy of EE.  EEEEEEhhEEEEhEeee

So, I won't buy a new copy, that would give the SOBs royalties.

You all have my email, home address, and I am in the phone book.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 12 2008,22:42

Ahhh gary what else is paul not going to do?

I'm still waiting for the theory that explains why there should be moths.

Paul Nelson is a liar.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 12 2008,22:54

And, Yertle the Turtle, remains a mystery.

Will Yertle discover his ancestors?

Will Dr. Gilbert be forever tainted with "supporting" creationism?

Will Paul Nelson spend an abbreviated lifetime in the Quote Mine only to succumb to Black Liar disease?

Oh, the humanity!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 13 2008,00:10

Yeah, well, I want my free stinking copy of the stinking book!

"Why Intelligent Design Fails" had sold well more than Rugters University Press had expected.  They had around 900 paperback copies in stock.  They had made their "projected" income, and stupidly ruled by a spread sheet program, the dicks had dumpt the notion of selling any more.

I had scheduled on my own time and initiative to make a set of lecture/book signings for WIDF, and I expected to move almost all they had left.  I requested 10 freebies for personal friends, and the local activists that were promoting the book signings.

The Rutgers prick editor refused, claiming they were "a non-profit publisher" that had to be careful about expenditures.  I did one Boarders Store and sold 20 copies.  I canceled the remaning 12 on the list.  RutPress ate at least the 240 other books I could have sold.

Lesson: Never publish with Rotgers University Smash, they are creeps.  Never expect journalism/communications/english majors working for a media company to actually care about science.  Never accept the minimal profit projected by spreadsheet using morons.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 13 2008,08:59

Replies to various,

Gary,

I apologize: I thought you were joking, given the "No, I don't wanna read yer stinkin' book!" reactions of some others here. Please send me a PM with your mailing address.

Seussical reaction to the offer of a free copy of EE:

"I will not read it in a bar,
I will not read it in a car,
I will not read it here or there,
I will not read it anywhere,
I do not want yer stinkin' book,
and as far as I'm concerned,
you're a complete idiot."

Sorry, couldn't rhyme that last bit. ;-)

The offer of a free copy of EE continues for anyone else, of course, including those who previously responded seussically.

JAM -- still collecting data on body size.  The issue has turned out to be far more interesting than I could have guessed.

Doc Bill -- why turtles?  Why not?  Turtles are cool.  Here's the bigger point (sorry, JAM, can't help myself), from a recent survey by Massimo Pigliucci:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is There Something Missing from the Modern Synthesis?

...

What, then, is the problem?  Without trivializing the great successes of evo-devo, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are making significant progress in understanding relatively circumscribed problems in the origin of form [he mentions butterfly eye-spots], and that advances are being made more at the interface between population genetics and developmental biology than in the broader field of evo-devo.  For instance, baffling evolutionary novelties like the turtle carapace remain almost unscathed mysteries, with some speculation concerning their origin, but little in the way of detailed scenarios and solid empirical evidence (Rieppel 2001; Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005).  In some sense, this is precisely the same sort of problem that bothered Goldschmidt so much during the shaping of the MS [Modern Synthesis], and although his proposed solutions (genomic mutations and hopeful monsters) are not tenable, the uneasy feeling that we are not yet tackling the big questions remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Massimo Pigliucci, "Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?" Evolution 61 (2007):2743-2749; p. 2745, emphasis added.

If it is possible that (a) turtles share common ancestry with other reptiles, then it is also possible that (b) they do not.  If one denies the possibility of (b), however, (a) becomes a necessary truth, and impossible to test (because it will be the case, come what may).  The proposition of evolutionary theory, "turtles evolved from unknown reptilian ancestors" would then no longer be empirical, i.e., subject to the testimony of evidence, because no data could count against it.

Erasmus, moths exist to provide employment for entomologists, naturally.  Also to flutter around candles and camping lanterns during the summer. :)
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 13 2008,09:14

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 13 2008,08:59)
Erasmus, moths exist to provide employment for entomologists, naturally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And whom were bacterial flagellum created to keep employed?  Shouldn't Dr. Behe be seeking out the Intelligent Designer in order to thank him for providing the opportunity that has been the cornerstone of his career?
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 13 2008,09:30

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 13 2008,09:14)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 13 2008,08:59)
Erasmus, moths exist to provide employment for entomologists, naturally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And whom were bacterial flagellum created to keep employed?  Shouldn't Dr. Behe be seeking out the Intelligent Designer in order to thank him for providing the opportunity that has been the cornerstone of his career?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think Dr. Behe is scheduled to spend much time in the future with The Intelligent Designer.  He is much more likely to spend a looooong time chatting up people like Jerry Falwell, Kent "Dr." Dino Hovind, Uncle Adolph, and George W Bush.   Taking a long-term view, Behe would be well advised to begin developing ways to turn those little flagellas into fans.  Cooling fans.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 13 2008,10:28

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 13 2008,08:59)
Replies to various,

Gary,

I apologize: I thought you were joking, given the "No, I don't wanna read yer stinkin' book!" reactions of some others here. Please send me a PM with your mailing address.

Seussical reaction to the offer of a free copy of EE:

"I will not read it in a bar,
I will not read it in a car,
I will not read it here or there,
I will not read it anywhere,
I do not want yer stinkin' book,
and as far as I'm concerned,
you're a complete idiot."

Sorry, couldn't rhyme that last bit. ;-)

The offer of a free copy of EE continues for anyone else, of course, including those who previously responded seussically.

JAM -- still collecting data on body size.  The issue has turned out to be far more interesting than I could have guessed.

Doc Bill -- why turtles?  Why not?  Turtles are cool.  Here's the bigger point (sorry, JAM, can't help myself), from a recent survey by Massimo Pigliucci:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is There Something Missing from the Modern Synthesis?

...

What, then, is the problem?  Without trivializing the great successes of evo-devo, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are making significant progress in understanding relatively circumscribed problems in the origin of form [he mentions butterfly eye-spots], and that advances are being made more at the interface between population genetics and developmental biology than in the broader field of evo-devo.  For instance, baffling evolutionary novelties like the turtle carapace remain almost unscathed mysteries, with some speculation concerning their origin, but little in the way of detailed scenarios and solid empirical evidence (Rieppel 2001; Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005).  In some sense, this is precisely the same sort of problem that bothered Goldschmidt so much during the shaping of the MS [Modern Synthesis], and although his proposed solutions (genomic mutations and hopeful monsters) are not tenable, the uneasy feeling that we are not yet tackling the big questions remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Massimo Pigliucci, "Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?" Evolution 61 (2007):2743-2749; p. 2745, emphasis added.

If it is possible that (a) turtles share common ancestry with other reptiles, then it is also possible that (b) they do not.  If one denies the possibility of (b), however, (a) becomes a necessary truth, and impossible to test (because it will be the case, come what may).  The proposition of evolutionary theory, "turtles evolved from unknown reptilian ancestors" would then no longer be empirical, i.e., subject to the testimony of evidence, because no data could count against it.

Erasmus, moths exist to provide employment for entomologists, naturally.  Also to flutter around candles and camping lanterns during the summer. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd still like to hear the answer to the Doc's earlier question: is EE attempting to imply that tortoises were created suddenly in some unknown manner?

Or are we to skip past the fact that EE expresses exactly what creationists want kids to hear, while wrapping it up in a neat 'scientific analysis' package?

I don't understand why you're here Paul, honestly. Half the time you spend not answering questions, and the other half you give answers that I wouldn't even have gotten away with in school (unless you really expect us to be convinced by 'it's not creationism! It's just that all the arguments are FROM creationism!')

(long refuted creationism, at that... sure, I really want my kids on stale arguments made up for religious purposes.)

(if I had kids.)
Posted by: hooligans on Mar. 13 2008,11:21

Mr. Nelson,

I was wondering what you have to say about this issue IN EE I posted back in August:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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,”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any thoughts?

Edited to fix quotes
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 13 2008,11:23

Well thanks Paul.  I was beginning to think i was invisible.

Anyway, I am fairly sure that moths exist to clutter up my light trap samples of otherwise interesting insects.

But if you will remember just < a little ways back > you were insinuating via ye olde quote as evidence game that this was one of the problems with evolutionary biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now I see that instead it is a problem with your panglossian view of the world.  Even with the intended humor.

Now, the burning question of course is, Does EE provide a theory that explains why there are moths at all?  Hmm?  god's will?  Inquiring minds wish to know.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 13 2008,11:27

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 13 2008,08:59)
JAM -- still collecting data on body size.  The issue has turned out to be far more interesting than I could have guessed.

Doc Bill -- why turtles?  Why not?  Turtles are cool.  Here's the bigger point (sorry, JAM, can't help myself), from a recent survey by Massimo Pigliucci:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is There Something Missing from the Modern Synthesis?

...

What, then, is the problem?  Without trivializing the great successes of evo-devo, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are making significant progress in understanding relatively circumscribed problems in the origin of form [he mentions butterfly eye-spots], and that advances are being made more at the interface between population genetics and developmental biology than in the broader field of evo-devo.  For instance, baffling evolutionary novelties like the turtle carapace remain almost unscathed mysteries, with some speculation concerning their origin, but little in the way of detailed scenarios and solid empirical evidence (Rieppel 2001; Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005).  In some sense, this is precisely the same sort of problem that bothered Goldschmidt so much during the shaping of the MS [Modern Synthesis], and although his proposed solutions (genomic mutations and hopeful monsters) are not tenable, the uneasy feeling that we are not yet tackling the big questions remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Massimo Pigliucci, "Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?" Evolution 61 (2007):2743-2749; p. 2745, emphasis added.

If it is possible that (a) turtles share common ancestry with other reptiles, then it is also possible that (b) they do not.  If one denies the possibility of (b), however, (a) becomes a necessary truth, and impossible to test (because it will be the case, come what may).  The proposition of evolutionary theory, "turtles evolved from unknown reptilian ancestors" would then no longer be empirical, i.e., subject to the testimony of evidence, because no data could count against it.

Erasmus, moths exist to provide employment for entomologists, naturally.  Also to flutter around candles and camping lanterns during the summer. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, Paul, you've already quote mined a paper that does provide solid empirical evidence for the mechanism underlying the evolution of the carapace:


Remember? You took this:

     

---------------------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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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

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



And dishonestly changed it to this:


---------------------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]."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's nothing resembling the context you added, and omitting the data and the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.

Why do you substitute quotes for data, Paul? The only reason I can see is that you are deliberately deceiving your audience because you know that the data don't support your position. If you had the slightest faith that your position is correct, you would offer data instead of deception by quote-mining.
Posted by: hooligans on Mar. 13 2008,11:48

Mr. Nelson,

Given the quote from EE mentioned above regarding the evolution of flowering plants, how will you incorporate new data rolling in related to this issue?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Developmental Evolution of the Sexual Process in Ancient Flowering Plant Lineages >
William E. Friedmana,1 and Joseph H. Williamsb
a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
b Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

. . . After a long period of empirical and intellectual stagnation, critical new reproductive data coupled with more robust phylogenetic hypotheses are radically altering the conceptual landscape. Many of the century-old paradigms about the origin and early evolution of flowering plant reproductive features are in the midst of being substantially overthrown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks

edited to add link
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 13 2008,13:09

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2008,02:48)
I haven't been able to follow this thread much. Did Paul ever provide a single example of any argument in his dishonest little book that isn't decades-old creationism with the word creationism strategically deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 13 2008,16:56

Thank you all, but I was eventually going to swing around and address the mangled Gilbert quote which is why I asked Nelson if he thought that Gilbert would approve that message.

The answer would be:
1.  No.
2.  Hell, no!

I pick Door number Two.

If the only page of EE I've read is fraught with so many errors, that does not bode well for the rest of the book.  Furthermore, I found exactly the same turtle argument over at AIG, only as Real Creationists they lay it out clearly that turtles were created on Day 5 or 6.  Thanks, AIG, for a much more precise answer than "around 200 million years ago."

EE reads more like a creationist blog than a textbook.  None of my textbooks offer quotations from scientists.  

"Mort Snerd of MIT confirmed that, indeed PV, does equal nRT."

But, it appears that EE stands on no data so I guess quotes are the only thing you've got.  

Paul, how do you guys do that levitation thing with EE?

My suggestion to Paul Nelson and Co. is to simply drop EE, a subject about which they have demonstrated they know nothing, and produce a work based on their strengths;  something they know a lot about.

I give you:  Explore Creationism

First, make it funny.  "A creationist and a penguin go into a bar..."

Second, parody, parody, parody.  Quote mine famous creationists to make it look like they support evolution.  A laff riot.

Third, myth busters!  Sternberg worked AT the Smithsonian not FOR the Smithsonian.  BUSTED!

Fourth, those wacky creationists.  No better than than Roy Comfort and the banana.  The best of Kent Hovind.  Blast from the past with Garner Ted Armstrong.

And, finally, with more facelifts than Joan Rivers, our favorite brand of creationism, Intelligent Design.  Take my mousetrap...please!

Seriously, Paul, I'm giving this idea to you for free.  You can thank me later.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 13 2008,17:24

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 13 2008,16:56)
First, make it funny.  "A creationist and a penguin go into a bar..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that a randomly mutated variant of < an evolutionist in a bar telling a joke about a penguin >?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 13 2008,17:52

How dare you suggest that any of my variants are mutated randomly!

They're all intelligently designed.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 13 2008,23:33

fellers Paul thinks he is mighty swuft on this'un.  Paul reckons that he and his Culture Renewal Warriors can claim just because creationists have used these < arguments >  < before >  < that >  < doesn't > < necessarily > < mean >< that >< you > < have > < to > < call > < it >< a >< creationist >< argument >< because >< it >< is >< still >< a >< free >< country >< even >< though >< it >< is >< clear >< Lenny >< hates >< freedom >< because >< he >< is >< commie. >

and that is pretty a much a greatest hits of this thread.  paul i thought you were interested in correcting the errors in your book, Of Pandas And PeopleExplore Evolution?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 15 2008,14:04

I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.)

But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth.

We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,14:49

I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,16:39

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49)
I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dang.  This seems like a fun game, now that Paul has abandoned us again.  But my copy of the book is at work, and I'm not. So I'll have to wait!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,18:13

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49)
I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I had to go in to the office to pick up some papers to grade (sigh), and got my copy of EE. The challenge to find the first error on page 94 of EE was too easy; there is an error in the first complete sentence on that page!

On page 93 we read

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The second problem is where the moths were placed. Peppered moths in the wild normally find resting places high up in the canopy of the trees—not on the tree trunks where the experimenters placed them. The upshot is that the experimenters released peppered moths that were sleepy and disoriented, placing them on tree

(continued on p. 94) - trunks by hand, where they became unnaturally easy targets for predatory birds. Clearly, this does not simulate what takes place in the wild.(footnote 14)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Footnote 14 refers to the appalling book by Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002).

So the first error is that first complete sentence - Michael Majerus, addressing all of the creationist criticisms of Kettlewell's work with peppered moths, demonstrated < differential predation of black and white peppered moths > in the wild, in their natural resting positions.

Incidentally, Majerus also discusses Hooper's book and the arrary of criticisms that have been leveled against it.

To be fair, Majerus' work was not known when EE was being written. I'm sure that Paul will pass this updated information along to his co-authors and remove this error from the second printing.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 15 2008,18:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,12:04)
I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.)

But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth.

We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, Wait...

I love the idea, but I havent' got the copy that Paul sent.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,18:50

Any others?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,18:51

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2008,18:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,12:04)
I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.)

But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth.

We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, Wait...

I love the idea, but I havent' got the copy that Paul sent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you can still participate by being the person that tosses out the random numbers?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,19:05

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,18:50)
Any others?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hopefully this one isn't as easy as the last one  :D

Using a web-based random number generator


I propose page 29 for the next assignment.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,19:21

Pardon me while I giggle hysterically. We are now back to my question to Paul. Namely. what the f$%k size has to do with the reptile mammal transition. Or we can go with the Henry Gee In Search of Deeptime quotemine:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Random number generator says page 40.

Oh, when I said any others I meant on page 94...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 15 2008,19:30

Darn, people are fast. I was about to note the size issue was first up given p.29 as a starting position.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,19:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:30)
Darn, people are fast. I was about to note the size issue was first up given p.29 as a starting position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aww, I didn't even have to look that one up. Just saw page 29 and started laughing at the serendipity of it :p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 15 2008,19:34

p.40, first sentence again:



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

You've seen that there is a spirited debate over what the fossil record actually tells us about the history of life.

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



Mischaracterization. EE wants to promote the notion of separate origin/creation, and none of the "spirited debate" goes in that direction.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,19:41

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:34)
p.40, first sentence again:

 

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

You've seen that there is a spirited debate over what the fossil record actually tells us about the history of life.

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



Mischaracterization. EE wants to promote the notion of separate origin/creation, and none of the "spirited debate" goes in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of my favorite WTF moments occurs on page 40 in the third paragraph where they say:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, pigs and humans did not inherit the bones themselves from their common ancestor. That would be ludicrous.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When you follow the asterisk you get:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Not to mention borderline disgusting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure if they were trying to make a joke that went badly astray or if they really think their audience is stupid enough to think that bones were actually passed along. Either way WTF? :O
Posted by: Reed on Mar. 15 2008,20:20

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,17:41)

I'm not sure if they were trying to make a joke that went badly astray or if they really think their audience is stupid enough to think that bones were actually passed along. Either way WTF? :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember the target audience believes that woman was < created (err, designed) from mans rib >. So this is an important clarification: Bones inherited from animals are ludicrous and borderline disgusting, woman from ribs is not!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 15 2008,21:12

Albatrossity, maybe we should aim to toss out another random page tomorrow morning.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,21:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,21:12)
Albatrossity, maybe we should aim to toss out another random page tomorrow morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Should we just do one per day, and see how many errors can be cited from one page? It might take a bunch of people a full day to completely mine just one page for errors.

Thank goodness it is a short book!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 15 2008,22:04

How do we keep the friendly competition aspect if we are completely scouring a page? Should we encourage people to submit errors as they find them, and rank folks on who submits the most errors for that page?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 15 2008,22:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,22:04)
How do we keep the friendly competition aspect if we are completely scouring a page? Should we encourage people to submit errors as they find them, and rank folks on who submits the most errors for that page?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds reasonable if we are going to scour each page for errors. I would also do one page a day to give folks like me (I work all day and don't have computer access during that time) a chance to participate.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 15 2008,22:23

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 15 2008,19:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2008,14:49)
I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I had to go in to the office to pick up some papers to grade (sigh), and got my copy of EE. The challenge to find the first error on page 94 of EE was too easy; there is an error in the first complete sentence on that page!

On page 93 we read  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The second problem is where the moths were placed. Peppered moths in the wild normally find resting places high up in the canopy of the trees—not on the tree trunks where the experimenters placed them. The upshot is that the experimenters released peppered moths that were sleepy and disoriented, placing them on tree

(continued on p. 94) - trunks by hand, where they became unnaturally easy targets for predatory birds. Clearly, this does not simulate what takes place in the wild.(footnote 14)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Footnote 14 refers to the appalling book by Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002).

So the first error is that first complete sentence - Michael Majerus, addressing all of the creationist criticisms of Kettlewell's work with peppered moths, demonstrated < differential predation of black and white peppered moths > in the wild, in their natural resting positions.

Incidentally, Majerus also discusses Hooper's book and the arrary of criticisms that have been leveled against it.

To be fair, Majerus' work was not known when EE was being written. I'm sure that Paul will pass this updated information along to his co-authors and remove this error from the second printing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's how jam-packed with creationist crap Paul's book is. You can just turn to any random page and find it.

< Index to Creationist Claims >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.

   * CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
   * CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
         o CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
         o CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
         o CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
         o CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
         o CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 15 2008,22:35



I propose 34.
Posted by: hooligans on Mar. 15 2008,22:53

Mr. Nelson,

Would you mind updating us on the following article from < Student News Daily >. It stated back in August that:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. "It's made my work a lot easier," Cowan said.

Explore Evolution encapsulates a "teach the controversy" paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hows that little experiment going?
Posted by: hooligans on Mar. 15 2008,22:54

Are you going to give him a new set of textbooks for free given all the mistakes in the first edition?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 16 2008,04:45

p.34, first complete sentence (again).

 

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

Species selection did not form an eye.

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



EE is trying to beat up on punctuated equilibria there, starting on p.33.

 

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

And that's the dilemma, say the critics. If the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is right about the rate of evolutionary change -- if it accurately describes how rapidly the branches of the Tree of Life split off -- then it has no mechanism that can produce new structures as rapidly as the fossil record shows them arising. As invertebrate zoologist Jeffrey Levinton argues, "[I]t is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution [[p.34]] of detailed morphological structures...Species selection did not form an eye."

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



So, for EE to be accurate here, Levinton must be talking about rates of origination of features in his full quote. Let's have a look.

 

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

Even without this argument, it is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution of complex morphological structures. The elaboration of some of these structures has of course taken more that the life of any one species; cladogenesis is coincidental to any major evolutionary trend, but it does not follow that it is a causal mechanism. If anything, cladogenesis may slow down the evolution of complex structures, simply because species are continually winding up in new and complex environments that might constrain the further improvement of a structure down a main evolutionary path. In contrast to the arguments of Stanley (1979), phyletic evolution is the likely source of complex adaptations, whereas species drift or selection is likely to bring about evolutionary trends such as changes in overall body size or degrees of ornamentation. Species selection did not form an eye or a secondary palate.

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



Funny how that whole rate of evolutionary change emphasis is absent from Levinton's discussion. The quote doesn't support the argument being advanced on rate of evolutionary change.

Funny, also, how the editorial brackets occur at the start, but not also at the end, which is prematurely terminated with an unmarked period where there actually was a further clause in the original.

The whole p.33 discussion of PE is full of the sorts of talk that Gould and Eldredge laid out as common errors in discussion in their 1977 paper on the topic.

Edit: I've updated the EE quotations page with this one.


Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 16 2008,09:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 16 2008,04:45)
p.34, first complete sentence (again).

 

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

Species selection did not form an eye.

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



EE is trying to beat up on punctuated equilibria there, starting on p.33.

 

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

And that's the dilemma, say the critics. If the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is right about the rate of evolutionary change -- if it accurately describes how rapidly the branches of the Tree of Life split off -- then it has no mechanism that can produce new structures as rapidly as the fossil record shows them arising. As invertebrate zoologist Jeffrey Levinton argues, "[I]t is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution [[p.34]] of detailed morphological structures...Species selection did not form an eye."

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



So, for EE to be accurate here, Levinton must be talking about rates of origination of features in his full quote. Let's have a look.

 

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

Even without this argument, it is inconceivable how selection among species can produce the evolution of complex morphological structures. The elaboration of some of these structures has of course taken more that the life of any one species; cladogenesis is coincidental to any major evolutionary trend, but it does not follow that it is a causal mechanism. If anything, cladogenesis may slow down the evolution of complex structures, simply because species are continually winding up in new and complex environments that might constrain the further improvement of a structure down a main evolutionary path. In contrast to the arguments of Stanley (1979), phyletic evolution is the likely source of complex adaptations, whereas species drift or selection is likely to bring about evolutionary trends such as changes in overall body size or degrees of ornamentation. Species selection did not form an eye or a secondary palate.

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



Funny how that whole rate of evolutionary change emphasis is absent from Levinton's discussion. The quote doesn't support the argument being advanced on rate of evolutionary change.

Funny, also, how the editorial brackets occur at the start, but not also at the end, which is prematurely terminated with an unmarked period where there actually was a further clause in the original.

The whole p.33 discussion of PE is full of the sorts of talk that Gould and Eldredge laid out as common errors in discussion in their 1977 paper on the topic.

Edit: I've updated the EE quotations page with this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Crapola !

So, in the "Second Edition", the "EE" will stand for Erstwhile Enema?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 16 2008,12:43

It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread?

Edit: Wohoo my 100th comment!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 16 2008,12:53

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 16 2008,12:43)
It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but I don't have a copy of that one. I got a review copy of EE, but the guardians at the gates for TDOL have ignored all of my requests for a review copy of that thing. I'll see if I can find a used one at Amazon.

Again, to give credit where it is due, Paul has provided copies and participated here. One simply cannot imagine that Dr. Dr. Dembski would do either one of those things...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 16 2008,13:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2008,12:53)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 16 2008,12:43)
It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but I don't have a copy of that one. I got a review copy of EE, but the guardians at the gates for TDOL have ignored all of my requests for a review copy of that thing. I'll see if I can find a used one at Amazon.

Again, to give credit where it is due, Paul has provided copies and participated here. One simply cannot imagine that Dr. Dr. Dembski would do either one of those things...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is true, I can't imagine Dembski participating in this discussion.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 18 2008,12:38

I guess Paul wasn't fishing for compliments here this morning...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing Board index   Mar. 18 2008,10:52
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Paul Nelson on Mar. 20 2008,09:23

Another update --

I have three weeks of travel coming up, starting tomorrow (South Carolina & then Brazil), but I'll try to check in here periodically. I'm continuing to work on JAM's question about body size, which has resolved itself into two sub-questions (a) how does one infer the genetic basis of traits for extinct taxa? and (b) what is the relevance of variation under domestication to possible ranges of variation for extinct or natural (i.e., not domesticated) groups?

Question for Wesley: what do you see as the canonical formulation (by Eldredge and Gould) of punctuated equilibria?  Do you see any contradictions, or simply changes of emphasis, between their 1972, 1977, and subsequent (e.g., 1993) papers?

Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu
Posted by: hooligans on Mar. 20 2008,09:39

Paul,

What about the evolution of flowering plants? I'm curious to find out what you think of the current state of research in that field.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 20 2008,09:45

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, I'd be happy to do most of that, but in most cases it will be impossible to give a "brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent". I'll tell you if a book misrepresents Haeckel or von Baer, but since embryology does provide extensive and ever-growing evidence for common descent (see PZ's recent blog post about < yolk sacs and human embryos >), that part of your request represents an substantial time commitment that I am not willing to make.

I have an NSF proposal to review, and papers to grade, but I should be able to send you this list within the week. I'll post it here as well. I just got another textbook today (Cain, Damman, Lue and Yoon, 2007). Unfortunately for your side, it fails to mention either Haeckel or von Baer, and fails to show the odious Haeckel figure or any facsimile.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 20 2008,10:25

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2008,09:45)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, I'd be happy to do most of that, but in most cases it will be impossible to give a "brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent". I'll tell you if a book misrepresents Haeckel or von Baer, but since embryology does provide extensive and ever-growing evidence for common descent (see PZ's recent blog post about < yolk sacs and human embryos >), that part of your request represents an substantial time commitment that I am not willing to make.

I have an NSF proposal to review, and papers to grade, but I should be able to send you this list within the week. I'll post it here as well. I just got another textbook today (Cain, Damman, Lue and Yoon, 2007). Unfortunately for your side, it fails to mention either Haeckel or von Baer, and fails to show the odious Haeckel figure or any facsimile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave - I suggest you hold out for some of teh DI millions.  

Paul - Come on!  Send a little rain Dave's way!  If the DI can fund hacks like Behe and Dembski, the least they can do is help out a real scientist like Dave, especially when you want him to do your work FOR you.

Ask yourself WWHD?  What Would Howard Do?

And what about Father Moonie?  I've heard he might have a little "green cheese" laying around, just collecting dust and interest...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 20 2008,10:44

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2008,10:25)
Dave - I suggest you hold out for some of teh DI millions.  

Paul - Come on!  Send a little rain Dave's way!  If the DI can fund hacks like Behe and Dembski, the least they can do is help out a real scientist like Dave, especially when you want him to do your work FOR you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naw, I figured I would help out as long as Paul promises NOT to use my name in his list of reviewers.   ;)
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 20 2008,18:21

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
I'm continuing to work on JAM's question about body size, which has resolved itself into two sub-questions (a) how does one infer the genetic basis of traits for extinct taxa? and (b) what is the relevance of variation under domestication to possible ranges of variation for extinct or natural (i.e., not domesticated) groups?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a crock. My question was simply whether you had any evidence to support your assumption that body size is not evolutionarily plastic.

I cited evidence that showed that it was.

It doesn't "resolve into two sub-questions," Paul. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no evidence at all?

If ID is so important scientifically, why aren't you doing actual science (i.e., producing new data) instead of traveling?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 20 2008,19:19

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 20 2008,19:21)
It doesn't "resolve into two sub-questions," Paul. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no evidence at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not be honest and call his book "Old Creationist Complaints Against Evolution, Written, Funded, and Reviewed by Creationists"? Because integrity would upset his goal of getting creationism into schools.



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

If ID is so important scientifically, why aren't you doing actual science (i.e., producing new data) instead of traveling?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one in ID does actual science< because ID is scientifically barren. See for yourself. > It doesn't lead to any science but it does fool some of the rubes, so people like Paul focus on propaganda like Expelled and EE.

Everyone should take some time and read about Barry Marshall, The Alvarezes, Stanley Prusiner, etc. Anyone who spends a few hours studying how real scientists work to get controversial ideas established can see that IDers aren't doing any of the necessary work, they're just doing PR.


Posted by: raguel on Mar. 21 2008,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?[/QUOTE]
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 21 2008,10:13

Quote (raguel @ Mar. 21 2008,09:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honest research makes it more difficult to lie, which is why creationists like Paul don't do it. Perhaps a better way to put it would be: if you're lying you don't need no stinkin' research.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 21 2008,14:14

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,07:23)
Another update --

I have three weeks of travel coming up, starting tomorrow (South Carolina & then Brazil), but I'll try to check in here periodically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, Did you mannage to mail the review copy of EE before your trip?

Thanks in advance,

GH
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 21 2008,22:50

In my experience textbooks sometimes come with a little slip of paper in them marked "errata," that is, errors discovered after publication.

For example, an errata might read "pg 223  x = 6 should read x = 3."  That sort of thing.

It occurred to me that if EE were to come with an errata, the errata could easily exceed the size of EE by a factor of two.

Therefore, my question to Paul would be, will EE be published as a three volume set to include EE and the two volumes of errata?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 23 2008,01:40

This is an open message to Paul to put down the crypto-creationist textbook business and focus on publishing his Ontogenetic Depth idea. And unlike you Discovery Institute folk, I won't hide my motivation. My motivation is simple. Explore Evolution is boring. It's all the old creationist crap with the words 'creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' taken out. The contents of the book were published years ago under honest titles like Scientific Creationism, and all the arguments are already documented at sites like < The Index of Creationist Claims >. We're beating a dead horse. It's not even a horse anymore. It's a pink area on the ground where a few old-timers remeber a horse being, back in the day. Whereas if you publish your new pretend science idea of Ontogenetic Depth, it will be a brand new embarrassingly bad idea, like IC or CSI, and we will get to laugh at it over thousands of comments.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 25 2008,22:27

Is 12 days too soon to wonder if Paul sent the book?  He said "Soon."  I guess I am spoiled by Amazon.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 26 2008,00:19

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 25 2008,23:27)
Is 12 days too soon to wonder if Paul sent the book?  He said "Soon."  I guess I am spoiled by Amazon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you have to send an SASE.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 01 2008,19:21

Nelson?  Nelson?


Anyone?


Nelson?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 02 2008,04:28

There was a comment Paul Nelson made at the Menuge and Nelson presentation about how ID is "doing the heavy lifting".

What exactly does that mean?
Posted by: Henry J on April 02 2008,14:58

Maybe that's the opposite of intelligent falling? :p
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on April 03 2008,08:31

Update:

49 guests, 9 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Advocatus Diaboli >J-Dog >Paul Nelson >Bob O'H >celdd >BirgitBenniean >mybroq >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >drew91

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 03 2008,20:43

Should we have another "random page error-check" day tomorrow for "Explore Evolution"? I'm thinking that we may need a little structure to make this work out for the most people. Like having a specified person for posting a random page number at an agreed-upon time, so everyone can be set to have a look when the "starting gun" goes off.
Posted by: stevestory on April 04 2008,21:57

(scene: Cocktail party, slightly alternate universe)

Jimmy: So, what do you do?
Professor Nelson: I'm a professor of Intelligent Car Design.
Jimmy: Oooo, what is that?
Nelson: I study how cars have, and are, being designed and built.
Jimmy: Oh, so you study Ferdinand Porsche and the EDGE design group and CAD and such?
Nelson: Of course not! I am not a Car Creatorist.
Jimmy: Uh what?
Nelson: Car Creatorist. They talk about Ferdinand and EDGE and CAD and Michigan etc etc etc. I have nothing to do with that.
Jimmy: But aren't you in fact a Car Creatorist? And didn't you write this essay about Car Creating? And aren't you currently, this minute, paid by a group that advocates Car Creatorism?
Nelson: I don't see how any of that is relevant. Here, look at this textbook I wrote.
Jimmy: This is a funny cover. It looks like it originally said "Introduction to Car Creatorism", and then that title has been defaced and underneath it you wrote in Sharpie "Intelligent Car Design" but then you tried to obliterate that too and you just wrote "Exploring Cars" but it's still basically the original book.
Jimmy: Yes. It's just about cars. I study how cars have, and are, being designed and built, but I refuse to say anything about the designers or builders or when or where the cars were designed and built, or the methods used.
Jimmy: Um...so what do you do.
Nelson. I mostly just sit around saying "Them cars sure look designed and built."
Jimmy: That doesn't sound like a very productive way to study car design. Do you and your fellow ICD scholars actually publish any papers?
Nelson: < not really. >


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 05 2008,08:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 03 2008,20:43)
Should we have another "random page error-check" day tomorrow for "Explore Evolution"? I'm thinking that we may need a little structure to make this work out for the most people. Like having a specified person for posting a random page number at an agreed-upon time, so everyone can be set to have a look when the "starting gun" goes off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sunday would be better for me. I agree, though, that we need a structured approach...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 05 2008,11:02

I have completed my survey of biology textbooks, testing the assertion in EE that "many" modern textbooks repeat Haeckel's error. The spreadsheet with complete data can be downloaded < here. >

Here are the highlights. I reviewed 36 books dating back to 1980 up through this year (26 college-level intro, 5 advanced college-level, 2 developmental biology textbooks, 2 high school level, and one that can be used in either high school or at the college intro level). 28 of these do NOT even mention Haeckel or the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" aphorism. Of the 8 that do mention him, 2 of these are creationist texts (Pandas and People, and the Bob Jones University "Biology for Christian Classrooms) and 2 are advanced college-level books. Only one (the BJU creationist text) reproduces the original Haeckel woodcuts. 23 of them have some figure showing comparative embryology; about half of these are photos and the other half are drawings.

Excluding creationist books, then, 6 out of the 36 mention Haeckel, and exactly none of them repeat his error.

Please pass this along to your coauthors, Paul. And please amend your book.
Posted by: snscience on April 05 2008,12:10

I teach high school biology. I went through all the textbooks (approximately 15) I considered during our last adoption year (4 years ago). Not one of them mentions Haeckel. Not one them includes Haeckel's drawings. Not one of them mention's "ontology recapitulates phylogony."

Tony
Posted by: stevestory on April 07 2008,15:40

Happy < Paul Nelson Day >, everyone!
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 07 2008,17:00

Yes, Happy Paul Nelson Day!

At least he shows up here from time to time, bless his Mendelvian-pea picking heart!

Pop quiz time.

Has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer to a question?

Anybody?  Bueler?  Anybody?

I can't recall.  I don't think he has, even to a simple question like "what's the age of the Earth?"

On Paul Nelson Day we should document the Best of Paul Nelson.  Anybody experience more than just BS with PN?
Posted by: stevestory on April 08 2008,00:03

Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on April 08 2008,07:20

Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Mr Anderson, why, WHY!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 08 2008,09:59

Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve, et al.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family. In grad school, when he finally was confronted face-to-face with evidence that could not be reconciled with the Fluud, it triggered a personal crisis that seems to still be going on years later. Words like "bitterness, rage and disappointment" can be found throughout the account; his relationships with his parents, wife, siblings etc. have all had to be renegotiated. Another ex-creationist, quoted in the article, discusses his conversation with his mother: "The day that I had to tell my mother I wasn't a YEC was the scariest day of my life".

I think sometimes we forget how those fact-free beliefs, installed in their heads when they were young, become incredibly intertwined with everything else in their lives. Giving up the fact-free beliefs would be easy if that is all that would be required. But in reality it involves giving up a lot more than that, and sometimes at great psychic cost.

It takes a lot of guts to make that break. The intellectual understanding is just the first, and probably the easiest, step. Paul might have the brains to do this, but it would be no surprise to learn that he doesn't (like lots of others) have the guts.

I'd be happy to send a PDF of that article to anyone who can't get past the subscription wall at Science. It is an excellent and informative read.

---ETA that I'm certain this attempt at empathy will be read in some quarters as more "nauseating arrogance". Too bad.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 08 2008,16:25

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2008,07:59)
If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His experience is published as a book written with his brother-in-law, a minister, who went through the same process of discovery and learning.

Stephen J. Godfrey, Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage" Toronto: Clements Publishing
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 08 2008,16:27

Quote (snscience @ April 05 2008,10:10)
I teach high school biology. I went through all the textbooks (approximately 15) I considered during our last adoption year (4 years ago). Not one of them mentions Haeckel. Not one them includes Haeckel's drawings. Not one of them mention's "ontology recapitulates phylogony."

Tony
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would it be possible to put together a bibliography of the HS textbooks you checked?  It might come in very handy when creationists parrot DI nonsense.
Posted by: snscience on April 09 2008,21:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would it be possible to put together a bibliography of the HS textbooks you checked?  It might come in very handy when creationists parrot DI nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will do. It might be a few days before I can get to it.

Tony
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 10 2008,08:56

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2008,09:59)
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve, et al.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family. In grad school, when he finally was confronted face-to-face with evidence that could not be reconciled with the Fluud, it triggered a personal crisis that seems to still be going on years later. Words like "bitterness, rage and disappointment" can be found throughout the account; his relationships with his parents, wife, siblings etc. have all had to be renegotiated. Another ex-creationist, quoted in the article, discusses his conversation with his mother: "The day that I had to tell my mother I wasn't a YEC was the scariest day of my life".

I think sometimes we forget how those fact-free beliefs, installed in their heads when they were young, become incredibly intertwined with everything else in their lives. Giving up the fact-free beliefs would be easy if that is all that would be required. But in reality it involves giving up a lot more than that, and sometimes at great psychic cost.

It takes a lot of guts to make that break. The intellectual understanding is just the first, and probably the easiest, step. Paul might have the brains to do this, but it would be no surprise to learn that he doesn't (like lots of others) have the guts.

I'd be happy to send a PDF of that article to anyone who can't get past the subscription wall at Science. It is an excellent and informative read.

---ETA that I'm certain this attempt at empathy will be read in some quarters as more "nauseating arrogance". Too bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would love a copy...


afarensis@scienceblogs.com
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 14 2008,12:08

Another drive-by, with no thanks at all for the work I've done compiling an annotated bibliography for Paul.  Sigh...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   April 14 2008,11:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On another note, I was able to get Barbara Forrest to autograph my new paperback copy of "Creationism's Trojan Horse" this weekend, and then started to re-read it (when I first read it, i had a copy from the library). I found that my comments here re the characterization of Paul Chien, DI fellow and toxicologist by training, as a "marine paleobiologist" were actually brought up in that book as well. So Paul probably already knew that this was problematic.

Sigh, again.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 15 2008,09:38

Paul has no words for us, apparently. Another drive-by.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   April 15 2008,09:01
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on April 15 2008,11:40

I haven't received my review copy, but I still look forward to it.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on April 16 2008,08:25

Hello all,

I'm back from Brazil, and catching up with stuff.  Thanks to Alb for his hard work on the textbooks and Haeckel business -- much appreciated.  I'm doing my own additional survey using the textbook collection at the Univ. of Chicago science library.  Gary, please let me know when your copy of EE arrives (it's being sent from Seattle), and I apologize for any delays in the shipping.

I have some media appearances to do here in Chicago for Expelled, but after the film opens on Friday, life should quiet down a bit and I can rejoin the EE festival here.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on April 16 2008,09:10

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 16 2008,08:25)
Hello all,

I'm back from Brazil, and catching up with stuff.  Thanks to Alb for his hard work on the textbooks and Haeckel business -- much appreciated.  I'm doing my own additional survey using the textbook collection at the Univ. of Chicago science library.  Gary, please let me know when your copy of EE arrives (it's being sent from Seattle), and I apologize for any delays in the shipping.

I have some media appearances to do here in Chicago for Expelled, but after the film opens on Friday, life should quiet down a bit and I can rejoin the EE festival here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome back Paul.

One does rather wonder why you wrote a textbook on the subject that inspired Hitler to kill millions of Jews. ;)
Posted by: Shirley Knott on April 16 2008,09:35

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ April 16 2008,09:10)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 16 2008,08:25)
Hello all,

I'm back from Brazil, and catching up with stuff.  Thanks to Alb for his hard work on the textbooks and Haeckel business -- much appreciated.  I'm doing my own additional survey using the textbook collection at the Univ. of Chicago science library.  Gary, please let me know when your copy of EE arrives (it's being sent from Seattle), and I apologize for any delays in the shipping.

I have some media appearances to do here in Chicago for Expelled, but after the film opens on Friday, life should quiet down a bit and I can rejoin the EE festival here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome back Paul.

One does rather wonder why you wrote a textbook on the subject that inspired Hitler to kill millions of Jews. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One rather suspects it is because there are some left.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 16 2008,10:52

I hope you had a good trip.  The Dengue Fever news from Brazil did not sound good.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 16 2008,18:34

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 16 2008,08:25)
Thanks to Alb for his hard work on the textbooks and Haeckel business -- much appreciated.  I'm doing my own additional survey using the textbook collection at the Univ. of Chicago science library.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul, I don't know how to say this exactly, but most of us do our research BEFORE we publish a book. Then we double and triple-check it for accuracy.

Is this post-publication fact-finding the standard mode of research for the rest of the book as well?
Posted by: JAM on April 17 2008,00:02

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 16 2008,08:25)
Hello all,
I'm back from Brazil, and catching up with stuff.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oi Paulo, eu não compreendo sua desculpa. Eu visitei Brasil muitas vezes e eu nunca tenho um problema com acesso do Internet, especialmente nas universidades.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have some media appearances to do here in Chicago for Expelled, but after the film opens on Friday, life should quiet down a bit and I can rejoin the EE festival here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vc considerou fazer alguma ciência real em vez de fingir ensinar a povos algo que vc obviamente não compreende?

Em suas aparências, vc vai ser honesto e admitir que vc concorda com Hitler, que a "descida comum" é errada?
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 17 2008,09:03

Paul!  How's work on the Errata coming along?  Started Volume 3 yet?
Posted by: hooligans on April 17 2008,09:48

Paul,

I know your busy, but I have a few questions for you related to EE that have yet to be addressed. Here they are:


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

Posted by hooligans: Mar. 15 2008,22:54
Mr. Nelson,

Would you mind updating us on the following article from Student News Daily. It stated back in August that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. "It's made my work a lot easier," Cowan said.
Explore Evolution encapsulates a "teach the controversy" paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Hows that little experiment going?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AND


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

Posted by hooligans: Mar. 15 2008,22:54  

Are you going to give him a new set of textbooks for free given all the mistakes in the first edition?  

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



AND

Mr. Nelson,

I was wondering what you have to say about this issue IN EE I posted back in July:
 

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

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,”  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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.  

Any thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks for looking into these questions. I'm real curios if you talk about the evolution of flowering plants. Apparently quite a bit of work has been accomplished recently that helps answer this tough question.
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2008,10:29

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 16 2008,17:34)
Paul, I don't know how to say this exactly, but most of us do our research BEFORE we publish a book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Picky picky! :p
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2008,10:31

Quote (JAM @ April 16 2008,23:02)
Oi Paulo, eu não compreendo sua desculpa. Eu visitei Brasil [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, what's with this mixing of Spanish with French?

Oops, wrong thread for that joke. Never mind.  :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 19 2008,08:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
56 guests, 14 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Reciprocating Bill >Maya >dnmlthr >Paul Nelson >MillstoneCam >Richard Simons >keiths >J-Dog >factician >mybroq >simmi >jacobeachrealtor >didymos
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 22 2008,11:09

I guess Paul is too busy with the < grand opening of the website >for the Biologic Institute (featuring the recently expectorated Sternberg and Marks and Gonzalez, but no research yet), and/or the opening of < Expelled > to answer our questions here. But at least he could say "Hi" when he visits, don't ya think?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   April 22 2008,10:37
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Paul Nelson on April 22 2008,11:25

Hi, Alb.

Question for JAM, if he's still reading this thread -- does he have (know) any data on size variation in wild canid populations?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 22 2008,11:34

selective hyperskepticism, sadly, evo-mat merits.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 22 2008,13:20

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 22 2008,11:25)
Hi, Alb.

Question for JAM, if he's still reading this thread -- does he have (know) any data on size variation in wild canid populations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have an awful lot of questions piled up here, Paul. Don't you think you could answer some of them, rather than just ask questions of your own and pretend that ours don't exist?

Just a thought...
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 22 2008,16:30

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 22 2008,11:25)
Hi, Alb.

Question for JAM, if he's still reading this thread -- does he have (know) any data on size variation in wild canid populations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wazza matter, Paul, don't have Google out there in Creationville?


How's the Errata coming along?  Started Volume 4 yet?
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 23 2008,09:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 guests, 18 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Jake >Annyday >curly >pzoot >Arden Chatfield >Albatrossity2 >Reciprocating Bill >dogdidit >ToSeek >olegt >mikedr >ERV >Falk Macara >Steverino >Paul Nelson >deejay >Maya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Hat Trick >, by mi.a
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Paul Nelson on April 23 2008,10:40

Alb said,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you think you could answer some of them, rather than just ask questions of your own and pretend that ours don't exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's a quick recap.  JAM cited a paper from Science in support of his question to me about the genetic basis of size differences.  The paper concerned variation in dogs.  I read it, thought about it, and wondered about a couple of things:

1.  How do we determine the genetics of size differences for extinct taxa?  The original context of JAM's question involved scaling illustrations of the mammal-like reptile transition.

2.  The variation in canids was in domesticated, not wild, populations.  Hence I wondered if JAM had additional data about size variation in natural populations, because I think there are important (evidentially relevant) differences between domesticated and wild populations, with respect to evolution.

So my question to JAM stems from trying to follow up his question to me.
Posted by: hooligans on April 23 2008,11:42

My questions, Paul, should only take a second to answer. Would you mind? I'm curious.

Just look up the board for full questions. To summarize:
1: How is Cowan doing with EE? Are you giving him a new set of texts, given the vast quantity of errors in the 1st edition?

2: Flowering plants. What's up witht the new research that appears to cast doubt on the wording you use in EE regarding their evolution? Will you incorporate some of these ideas? Why or why not?

Thanks
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 23 2008,12:03

Quote (hooligans @ April 23 2008,11:42)
My questions, Paul, should only take a second to answer. Would you mind? I'm curious.

Just look up the board for full questions. To summarize:
1: How is Cowan doing with EE? Are you giving him a new set of texts, given the vast quantity of errors in the 1st edition?

2: Flowering plants. What's up witht the new research that appears to cast doubt on the wording you use in EE regarding their evolution? Will you incorporate some of these ideas? Why or why not?

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, questions like hooligans'. Some of which date back to July...

Or you could even tell us who did the "research" that was used to document the statement in EE about the "many modern textbooks" that still parrot Haeckel, and how they managed to completely miss looking at many modern textbooks?

Or, since you were also researching this topic yourself recently, if any research at all was done prior to the writing and publication of the book?

Or why Chien was still listed in EE as a "marine paleobiologist" when his credentials in that area were shown to be slim-to-none by Forrest and Gross way back in 2004?

I'm sure you have answers to those questions, but I'm also pretty sure we will never see them here.
Posted by: raguel on April 23 2008,13:59

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 23 2008,10:40)
Alb said,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you think you could answer some of them, rather than just ask questions of your own and pretend that ours don't exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's a quick recap.  JAM cited a paper from Science in support of his question to me about the genetic basis of size differences.  The paper concerned variation in dogs.  I read it, thought about it, and wondered about a couple of things:

1.  How do we determine the genetics of size differences for extinct taxa?  The original context of JAM's question involved scaling illustrations of the mammal-like reptile transition.

2.  The variation in canids was in domesticated, not wild, populations.  Hence I wondered if JAM had additional data about size variation in natural populations, because I think there are important (evidentially relevant) differences between domesticated and wild populations, with respect to evolution.

So my question to JAM stems from trying to follow up his question to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that the sort of research that should have been done before the book was printed?  Before you accused scientists of being dishonest/misleading?
Posted by: raguel on April 23 2008,14:04

I forgot to add: is there any chance that EE also discussed about the embryological evidence for the evolution of the ear?
Posted by: bystander on April 24 2008,17:32

Having just escaped from being one, Paul reminds me of managers dealing with staff. An employee comes up to you with an idea. For what ever reason you don't want to pursue the idea and don't want to say no to the person. You just say for the guy to come up with a full proposal on their own time. When the guy does it say that you need some time to study the proposal or pick up some minor point and send them back for more research (on their own time).
With luck they will get bored.
I think that if anybody thinks that Paul is doing anything other than wasting your time are being scammed. Reading through these pages, he has never said that he would actually do anything with the data.
Behe when faced with reality say's "irrelevant". Paul says "Interesting, could you research it for me and I'll get back to you". Dembski of course calls the National Guard and publishes your kids school's on the web.
Posted by: Leftfield on April 24 2008,21:37

Quote (bystander @ April 24 2008,17:32)
Behe when faced with reality say's "irrelevant". Paul says "Interesting, could you research it for me and I'll get back to you". Dembski of course calls the National Guard and publishes your kids school's on the web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ID is a big tent!
Posted by: JAM on April 24 2008,23:56

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 23 2008,10:40)
Alb said,

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you think you could answer some of them, rather than just ask questions of your own and pretend that ours don't exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a quick recap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not even close. You are a profoundly dishonest man.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAM cited a paper from Science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The journal is not important in this context. The data are, but you can't deal with the data.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
in support of his question to me about the genetic basis of size differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. I challenged your dishonesty in YOUR BOOK:
 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I cited the data from the paper to support my claim that changes in size are no big deal evolutionarily. This is blindingly obvious from even a cursory understanding of growth-factor pathways, but that would be too subtle for someone as ignorant and dishonest as you clearly are. Therefore, I used the sledgehammer. Then, I asked a simple question and taunted you. You see, Paul, the hypothesis that you are a dishonest fraud makes very clear predictions about your evasive behavior:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My question was a simple one placing the evidentiary burden on you, as someone who made a claim in what he sells as a textbook. Clearly, your answer is 'no, I have no data,' but you lack the integrity to admit it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The paper concerned variation in dogs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Paul, but what were the data?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read it, thought about it, and wondered about a couple of things:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation: exposed as a dishonest fraud yet again, Paul, who never looked at evidence, tries to find a way to transfer the burden of proof.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  How do we determine the genetics of size differences for extinct taxa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to have an answer to that BEFORE complaining that disregarding size differences was deceptive, particularly given that size was not used as a characteristic in classification.

The answer is that since we know that the underlying molecular mechanisms are incredibly conserved, it's not a problem.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The original context of JAM's question involved scaling illustrations of the mammal-like reptile transition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More accurately, the context YOUR book's dishonest claim that using different scales was deceptive, a claim for which you clearly have no support.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  The variation in canids was in domesticated, not wild, populations.  Hence I wondered if JAM had additional data about size variation in natural populations,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you lack the integrity to answer my question.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
because I think there are important (evidentially relevant) differences between domesticated and wild populations, with respect to evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why didn't you answer my question "Yes," and cite the relevant evidence (not quotes)?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So my question to JAM stems from trying to follow up his question to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it stems from trying to evade answering it.
Posted by: BWE on April 25 2008,08:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36 guests, 15 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>BWE >Paul Nelson >Lou FCD >huwp >Nerull >SpeedDemon >JonF >Tracy P. Hamilton >bystander >mitschlag >Advocatus Diaboli >deejay >Zachriel >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >pzoot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Paul. So, are you available to take a question or two?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 25 2008,08:19

You don't even need a Nixplanatory Filter to see
that Paul is not gonna be BFF anymore with Jam...

BLASTED!  BIGGER THAN A DEMBSKI BLOW-UP!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 25 2008,08:22

Quote (BWE @ April 25 2008,08:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36 guests, 15 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>BWE >Paul Nelson >Lou FCD >huwp >Nerull >SpeedDemon >JonF >Tracy P. Hamilton >bystander >mitschlag >Advocatus Diaboli >deejay >Zachriel >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >pzoot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Paul. So, are you available to take a question or two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he's still around!!!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36 guests, 21 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Erasmus, FCD >Lou FCD >BWE >MillstoneCam >SpeedDemon >olegt >improvius >J-Dog >JAM >Tracy P. Hamilton >jimelyyes >rtgh6fgh79fghf >Zachriel >Reciprocating Bill >Albatrossity2 >celdd >mypharmalifex >Gunthernacus >deejay >Paul Nelson >curly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



paul you are disappointing.  Bad Bad Tard

ETA  < PWNZORGAsdhgwe8gh24.3kwersd,xvc924tbgwaes >
Posted by: Paul Nelson on April 25 2008,08:53

JAM wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer is that since we know that the underlying molecular mechanisms are incredibly conserved, it's not a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This assumes the point at issue.  To wit: We already know the mammal-like reptiles are related by descent with modification, via the natural selection of randomly-arising variation (or an array of unknown evolutionary mechanisms, if selection does not suffice).  Therefore their size differences are easy to explain.

What independent evidence do you have for the molecular mechanisms (regulating body size) at work in the extinct groups -- therapsids, etc. -- featured in the reptile-to-mammal sequence?

In what natural populations of canids, JAM, do we observe size differences on the scale seen in domesticated dogs?
Posted by: BWE on April 25 2008,08:58

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 25 2008,08:53)
JAM wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer is that since we know that the underlying molecular mechanisms are incredibly conserved, it's not a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This assumes the point at issue.  To wit: We already know the mammal-like reptiles are related by descent with modification, via the natural selection of randomly-arising variation (or an array of unknown evolutionary mechanisms, if selection does not suffice).  Therefore their size differences are easy to explain.

What independent evidence do you have for the molecular mechanisms (regulating body size) at work in the extinct groups -- therapsids, etc. -- featured in the reptile-to-mammal sequence?

In what natural populations of canids, JAM, do we observe size differences on the scale seen in domesticated dogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgive me paul but I am a novice at this. Isn't something that has been artificially selected like dogs actually showing the opposite thing?

I mean, humans selected the ones they wanted (selection regardless what kind) and they ended up with chihuawas and mastifs. Nature could only really make them efficient hunters since that is what is selected for but did make foxes and timberwolves.

That's like saying we don't see anything like domesticated corn varieties in the wild. right? Or am I way off?
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 25 2008,12:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
35 guests, 20 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Arden Chatfield >BopDiddy >VMartin >Richardthughes >Hermagoras >Reciprocating Bill >Richard Simons >JohnW >Ra-Úl >didymos >Raevmo >Leftfield >J-Dog >Quidam >Assassinator >Jasonstawnos >Paul Nelson >SpeedDemon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: raguel on April 25 2008,13:17

So from my PoV:

According to ToE, species evolve and have a common ancestor (or if you prefer, common ancestors). Evidence for this includes the evolution of the mammalian ear. There are, to my knowledge, two forms of evidence:

1. fossil record

2. homologies in embryos of extant species (reptiles and mammals)


IDists response to these are:

1. size matters (but they won't say why)

2. LOLHaeckel!!!1one!eleven!


Did I miss anything?
Posted by: JAM on April 25 2008,14:46

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 25 2008,08:53)
JAM wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer is that since we know that the underlying molecular mechanisms are incredibly conserved, it's not a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This assumes the point at issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   
Completely false. The fundamental molecular mechanisms are the same (i.e., conserved) whether these animals were designed or whether they evolved from a common ancestor. Era uma indicação simples do fato, Paulo.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the insipid ID claim that the conservation observed (which is a set of strict mathematical relationships, not mere similarity) is the result of a common designer.
Posted by: JAM on April 25 2008,15:03

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 25 2008,08:53)
What independent evidence do you have for the molecular mechanisms (regulating body size) at work in the extinct groups -- therapsids, etc. -- featured in the reptile-to-mammal sequence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact that they are present in extant reptiles and mammals, of course. What evidence do you have that the Designer did things differently in the extinct groups? Or are you hypothesizing that there was a different Designer for the extinct groups?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In what natural populations of canids, JAM, do we observe size differences on the scale seen in domesticated dogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm challenging YOUR BOOK'S claim that not showing differences in size was deceptive, remember?
 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where's YOUR evidence? The evidentiary burden is yours, not mine.

How can you be a Christian if you are so fundamentally dishonest, Paul?
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 27 2008,00:38

I used to think creationists were lazy, you know, too lazy to do research on their own.  All they do is criticize the work done by industrious scientists.

However, having seen bits and pieces of Evolution Expelled, I have realized the error of my ways.

Actually, it takes more creativity and more energy to Quote Mine than it takes to simply present and interpret data.

How could I have not seen that before?

So, really, if Paul Nelson is truly interested in strengthening EE with our help then he could just give us a list of quotes, as quote mined by him, and we will critique those.  I mean, the last thing Nelson wants is for EE to be panned by reviewers and I think we can help him out in that arena.

Plus, Paul, it would reduce your Errata volumes from four to maybe two.
Posted by: stevestory on April 27 2008,13:54

It's a shame Paul doesn't hang out and defend himself more. I'm sure he's busy doing ID experiments.


*mmmmmppphhhtttt*
Posted by: stevestory on April 27 2008,14:31

I kid, I kid. Paul is somewhere right now doing ID Science. For the uninitiated, ID Science looks at important questions, such as "How many plane tickets and comped meals can I get from these rubes?"
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 27 2008,15:52

Paul, Should you wander by, do you think that the review copy of EE that you promised has been mailed?  

Thanks
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 27 2008,15:57

Quote (snscience @ April 09 2008,19:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would it be possible to put together a bibliography of the HS textbooks you checked?  It might come in very handy when creationists parrot DI nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will do. It might be a few days before I can get to it.

Tony
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howdy Tony,

I don't want to be a nag, but did you find any time for that bibliography?

The Discovery Institute's Jon Wells is sure that there are lots of books with all sorts of evil lies about Haeckel, moths, and what not.  Casey said so too.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 27 2008,16:21

Haeckel, Haeckel!  It's always about friggin' Haeckel!

What about his twin brother < Jaeckel >?
Posted by: hooligans on April 29 2008,15:19

Mr. Nelson,

I am still curious about how well the EE textbook was recieved at Curtis Highschool in Tacoma. Did Doug Cowan give you favorable reviews and feedback for the next edition? He endorsed your book early on, but now that the school year is almost over, and given the huge quantity of errors in the 1st edition, will he be given a new set of texts?

Furthermore, I thought the whole point of the debate page on the EE website was to offer a forum to debate the ideas outlined in the text. Why is it that no students are using the forum to debate the topics outlined in the text? I would at least expect some homeschool groups to be using it.

Could you also get back to me about hte flowering plants?

Thanks,

Mike
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 02 2008,08:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
41 guests, 17 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >seshagell >BWE >Paul Nelson >drew91 >dogdidit >BCtheEra >Reciprocating Bill >KimvdLinde >Mc_Hitler >curly >tsig >SpeedDemon >Advocatus Diaboli >Bob O'H >OWKtree >improvius
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm going for the double hat trick.
Posted by: BWE on May 02 2008,08:22

beat me to it.

Hi Paul, I read some of your book. Do you have a few minutes?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 04 2008,22:54

Paul, I wonder if you could explain to us why it is you object to the way the reptile/mammal transition is portrayed, yet it seems to be acceptable for ID types to < use highly misleading pictures of bacterial flagella >? Or, to phrase it differently, if you object to scientist using anything remotely resembling Haeckel’s drawings, why don't you object to the use of doctored drawings of the bacterial flagella - such as those that appear on pages 116 and 117 of your book? I eagerly await your response.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,15:29

Paul, as I said on a different thread

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of that, it's hard to wrap one's mind around how intellectually bankrupt Intelligent Design has been, but here's one metric. Since the Kitzmiller decision 2.5 years ago, the YEC fake scientific journal Journal of Creation has published 7 issues, while the ID fake scientific journal PCID has published 0.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



how humiliating does the failure have to get, before you guys give it up and go back to calling yourselves creationists? At least then you can pretend to do research for your little pretend journal. With ID you can't even do that! How much longer are you guys going to stink up the joint before you regain either some integrity or some shame?


Posted by: Dr.GH on May 05 2008,16:49

May 5, 2008.

The postman just laughed at me when I told him that Paul had promised to mail me a review copy of EE.  He did! He Did!

Tomorrow will be the 2 month mark.  Maybe it will come.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 06 2008,09:11

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 05 2008,16:49)
May 5, 2008.

The postman just laughed at me when I told him that Paul had promised to mail me a review copy of EE.  He did! He Did!

Tomorrow will be the 2 month mark.  Maybe it will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Paul read your request during his latest comment-free drive-by.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   May 06 2008,08:43
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or maybe he's waiting for that second printing, so that you can see all the corrections he made, based on our comments here.

Or maybe he's a dishonest creationist...
Posted by: J-Dog on May 06 2008,12:48

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 06 2008,09:11)
Or maybe he's a dishonest creationist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believer the answer your looking for is "TRUE".

See this post at Ed Brayton's blog:

"To give you a hint - Troy Britain went to a Q & A session about Expelled that included prominent ID advocate Paul Nelson and wrote about it. He recounts the story of how, in 2006, he was at another event where he caught Nelson utterly distorting Keith Miller's position on a subject in a highly dishonest manner. Since he did not have a blog at the time, he passed on the transcript of what was said to me and I wrote about it here. That resulted in five different posts and it included Nelson leaving several comments attempting to defend himself and, frankly, not faring very well. The facts were fairly easy to sort out. We had a transcript of what Nelson said Miller said, we had the email from Miller that he was basing that on, and the difference between them was quite obvious to anyone reading them.

Here are links to those posts:

Paul Nelson's Outrageous Lie
Paul Nelson's Continued Lie
The Full Nelson-Miller Exchange
Nelson's Larger Misrepresentation
Paul Nelson's Sleight of Hand"


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 06 2008,15:19

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 06 2008,07:11)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 05 2008,16:49)
May 5, 2008.

The postman just laughed at me when I told him that Paul had promised to mail me a review copy of EE.  He did! He Did!

Tomorrow will be the 2 month mark.  Maybe it will come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Paul read your request during his latest comment-free drive-by.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   May 06 2008,08:43
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or maybe he's waiting for that second printing, so that you can see all the corrections he made, based on our comments here.

Or maybe he's a dishonest creationist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure he will send it. It is probably already in the mail.  He wouldn't lie.

ETA: I just checked the mail- it didn't come yet.


Posted by: stevestory on May 07 2008,14:52

Finally I get mine.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the Panda's Thumb  
After the Bar Closes...
A place to continue discussions once threads are closed on the Panda's Thumb.
Forum Led by: Lou FCD, stevestory
User(s) active in this forum : 107 1158 98952 May 07 2008,15:39
In: The Bathroom Wall
By: Wesley R. Elsberry
134 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
114 guests, 18 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>stevestory >Ptaylor >celdd >Lowell >Mr_Christopher >Nerull >Annyday >Albatrossity2 >Richardthughes >jimelyyes >JAM >Arden Chatfield >Paul Nelson >Henry J >awhite >cogzoid >pzoot >LawnBoy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on May 07 2008,15:49

Congratulations on not being a Paul Nelson virgin any longer, Steve.

Was it good for you too?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 07 2008,19:47

Um, Paul,
Your emailed response to my question was totally irrelevant. The pictures in your book and on Dembski's website are every bit as doctored and misleading as you claim Haeckel's pics are. I would say more so in fact, yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable for ID proponents to use misleading photos. There seems to be some intellectual inconsistency there. By the by, since I am asking this in the forum courtesy requires that you answer in the forum rather than by email...
Posted by: stevestory on May 07 2008,20:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2008,16:49)
Congratulations on not being a Paul Nelson virgin any longer, Steve.

Was it good for you too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't say anything related to Paul Nelson is good. He's a guy who could have made a contribution to something, but instead made a career of trying to convince people of beliefs so stupid I bet even he struggles to believe them.

EDIT: PS: it's not too late to do something productive with your life, Paul.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 08 2008,11:15

yeah it's kinda like beating off in the tree stand, you feel guilty about when the deer see you.  

paul you are a disgrace to Willie Nelson and Paul Williams.  Change your name to something more appropriate, like Pinocchio or Ted Bundy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2008,14:36

Paul Nelson sighted!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes >nikerud >drew91 >Seizure Salad >Albatrossity2 >Paul Nelson >dnmlthr >Ideaforager >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >1of63 >Arden Chatfield >Reginald Beasley >rebunopa >IanBrown_101 >Ristetear >Aardvark >SpeedDemon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2008,16:26

Dr. GH,

How's the mailbox lookin' today?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 09 2008,11:57

Ho hum...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing Board index   May 09 2008,11:32
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on May 09 2008,18:40

I went fishing today.  I just can't wait by the mail box all day every day.  When I got home the mail had arrived, but not a promised review copy of EE.
Posted by: stevestory on May 13 2008,21:52

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....ro.html >

Paul hasn't been talking to us, but he has been talking elsewhere, trying to convince people that his dishonest little 'textbook' isn't just that.
Posted by: raguel on May 13 2008,22:30

So I'm guessing the quote about homologous structures without homologous genes has to do with hox genes?
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 14 2008,14:39

Quick, gimme a feather to knock with me over!

The postman just delivered my very own copy of Explore Evolution streight from the Discovery Institute offices, postmarked May 8th. I tremble with antisipation.

Thank you, Paul.  As I promised, I'll do my best.

Gary
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 14 2008,14:51

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 14 2008,15:39)
Quick, gimme a feather to knock with me over!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ugh.  It's gone viral.

:D
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 14 2008,18:10

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 14 2008,12:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 14 2008,15:39)
Quick, gimme a feather to knock with me over!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ugh.  It's gone viral.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opps. That should read, "Quick, gimme a feather to knock  over me with!

All better.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 14 2008,19:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
77 guests, 8 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Shirakawasuna >didymos >EyeNoU >Reciprocating Bill >Mr_Christopher >MillstoneCam >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Damned near missed that one.  Off the crossbar and into the net, baby.


Posted by: Lou FCD on May 14 2008,19:19

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 14 2008,19:10)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 14 2008,12:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 14 2008,15:39)
Quick, gimme a feather to knock with me over!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ugh.  It's gone viral.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Opps. That should read, "Quick, gimme a feather to knock  over me with!

All better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few other ideas have I about which that feather you can do of at over with...

:D
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 15 2008,07:14

On a roll:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
91 guests, 8 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >olegt >vivasuh >MillstoneCam >PTET >Reciprocating Bill >Paul Nelson >Maya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on May 15 2008,07:26

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2008,07:14)
On a roll:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
91 guests, 8 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >olegt >vivasuh >MillstoneCam >PTET >Reciprocating Bill >Paul Nelson >Maya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


He is probably making sure he has all the latest information in order to correct the problems with "Explore Evolution" before < this symposium > for science teachers.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 15 2008,08:38

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 15 2008,07:26)
He is probably making sure he has all the latest information in order to correct the problems with "Explore Evolution" before < this symposium > for science teachers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to that link, the symposium at Biola will have parallel discussions on the physical sciences and the life sciences. Since none of the < named speakers > have any training in the life sciences, I wondered who would be leading those sessions. When you look at the schedule, it appears that the life science sessions will be led by Paul (a philosopher) and Mike Keas, who is described as having "earned a Ph.D. in the history of science from the University of Oklahoma." Personally I think that another Sooner, ERV, might have been a better choice. Even though she is still a graduate student, I'd wager that her understanding of biology far outstrips that of Nelson or Keas.

Or maybe expertise in the relevant discipline is not really important, since it seems that this symposium is really just an opportunity to < flog EE > as a science textbook. The title for Keas' two presentations is "Biology: Using the “Explore Evolution” Curriculum".

Paul, since the title of one of your presentations is "Recent Advances in Intelligent Design", perhaps you can tell us what some of those advances might be.

Thanks in advance
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 15 2008,09:00

"Recent Advances"

hahahahhahahahaha

I remember in grad school when it was seminar time and you didn't have anything to report you could always resort to a review topic:  Recent Advances, New Horizons, Emerging Technology, and so on.

Actually, I'm looking forward to Paul's treatment on this subject:  "Why the Supreme Court Decision Against Intelligent Design is Wrong."  

Selling advance tickets for this one, Paul?
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 15 2008,09:28

I thought this was pretty good:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Attention: Public School Teachers

Are you looking for ways to fulfill governmental educational mandates concerning controversial topics in the biology classroom?  The Biola Symposium will help you.  Educational standards in both the US and the UK, for example, clearly state that the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist and why such topics may generate controversy.

A US Supreme Court decision allows teachers to teach biology in a way that incorporates “a variety of scientific theories…with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”  The new supplemental textbook Explore Evolution, when coordinated with other materials, empowers teachers and students to better fulfill these public educational goals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shorter:

         

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

< Stop saying 'Creationism'!!!!!

>

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


Posted by: Lou FCD on May 15 2008,11:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
73 guests, 17 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Dr.GH >CeilingCat >Steverino >stevestory >J-Dog >Mr_Christopher >Henry J >Reciprocating Bill >Venus Mousetrap >Paul Nelson >Richardthughes >olegt >awhite >MillstoneCam >JohnW >RF Brady
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I'm about to hit the triple hat-trick.


Posted by: raguel on May 15 2008,13:24

Ouch that article (and sub to Nature) is pretty expensive. I sent an email to Wagner. Hopefully I can get a copy.  :)




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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it is quite remarkable that most biologists continue to interpret nearly every aspect of biodiversity as an outcome of adaptive processes. This blind acceptance of natural selection as the only force relevant to evolution has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Timmer calls Explore Evolution™s discussion of natural selection "hallucinatory"' on the contrary, if anything, the book soft-peddles the problems. Again, will students learn about these debates from their standard texts? Almost certainly not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd like to believe that EE actually discusses gene transfer and genetic drift and didn't just go for quote mines but based on prior evidence I don't hold out much hope. Paul, feel free to correct me.  :D
Posted by: stevestory on May 16 2008,01:18

BTW, whoever Kseniya is, who coined the phrase < Calendrical Depth >, deserves some kind of 'Putting up with Paul Nelson' award.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 16 2008,09:30

In case Paul is lurking...

< http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/inordinately-fo.html#more >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 19 2008,07:16

Hi, Paul.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing Board index   May 19 2008,06:59
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bye, Paul.
Posted by: JohnW on May 19 2008,12:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2008,07:28)
I thought this was pretty good:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Attention: Public School Teachers

Are you looking for ways to fulfill governmental educational mandates concerning controversial topics in the biology classroom?  The Biola Symposium will help you.  Educational standards in both the US and the UK, for example, clearly state that the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist and why such topics may generate controversy.

A US Supreme Court decision allows teachers to teach biology in a way that incorporates “a variety of scientific theories…with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”  The new supplemental textbook Explore Evolution, when coordinated with other materials, empowers teachers and students to better fulfill these public educational goals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


This is great news for the ID community.  All they need now is a scientific theory.
Posted by: stevestory on May 19 2008,20:17

Not much to talk about w/r/t Paul Nelson at the moment. He's running around, trying to promote creationism while pretending not to.

I'm just waiting for GH to calm down enough to write about Explore Evolution. He's been reading it for several days now, so presumably his blood pressure is in the 300/150 range.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 20 2008,07:18

Paul and I must be on the same schedule.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   May 20 2008,07:00
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on May 20 2008,17:30

I think Paul visits AtBC every morning.  I often see him logged in between 7 and 9 am CST.

I suspect he's looking for his ethics which he lost somewhere.
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 20 2008,22:39

Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2008,18:17)
I'm just waiting for GH to calm down enough to write about Explore Evolution. He's been reading it for several days now, so presumably his blood pressure is in the 300/150 range.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do have some money jobs still.  (OK, I have been fishing.  The season has really gone off!  A week ago Sunday I caught the 2nd and 3rd and 4th largest bonito that I have ever caught in my life.  And I lost the big fish of the day right at the gaff.  

This Sunday the kelp bass were very active just out of the harbor mouth (that would be ~ one mile from my door).  Monday I spent fishing off shore at Catalina Island.  Excellent!

Today I worked on the truck (1985 Toyota PU).  I'll be buried in it (Well not really, maybe they could drive my carcass to the medical school lab with it).  I have read bits of EE.  So far it is crap.  I am thankful that Paul had the DI send me a copy, but I did promise him I would do my best to refute it.

I have also been writing < reviews of creationst books at Amazon.com. >

It might not even take my best.  The bullshit started on page "v."
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 21 2008,08:57

I thought the bullshit started with the title.
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 21 2008,11:51

Quote (Doc Bill @ May 21 2008,06:57)
I thought the bullshit started with the title.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D'oh!
Posted by: fusilier on May 21 2008,13:16

My copy came today, May 21, also postmarked May 8.

To be fair - everything must go to our downtown mailroom, before being sent out here.

fusilier, in Indianapolis
James 2:24
Posted by: deejay on May 23 2008,09:04

For those interested:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
69 guests, 14 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>deejay >khan >Richardthughes >Reciprocating Bill >fusilier >olegt >ashwken >Amadan >MillstoneCam >Doc Bill >PTET >J-Dog >Paul Nelson >Moorit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



9:57 Eastern
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 24 2008,01:11





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don't drink the bath water >, by mugley
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on May 26 2008,09:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
63 guests, 6 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Doc Bill >BopDiddy >okboy >Paul Nelson >olegt >oldmanintheskydidntdoit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




9:20 CST

Right on schedule.

Hey, Paul, how are the errata volumes coming along?
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 27 2008,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 guests, 9 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >keiths >dogdidit >George >Paul Nelson >Jake >Boyara >Jazafcxp >EyeNoU
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8:47 Eastern

ETA:  I think that's a triple hat trick for me.  Is there a big silver cup or something for that?

Edited again for biggereration.


Posted by: Henry J on May 27 2008,13:54

"biggereration"?  :p
Posted by: raguel on May 27 2008,15:58

Since I've hinted at this, let me say it explicitly: the most compelling case for evolution imo is the consilience of the evidence of the evidence. In other words, IMO several oppurtunities for falsification, despite creationists objections to the contrary, and yet through using different disciplines and techniques the evidence converge on a single reality: evolution.

I have googled for any creationists attempt to explain away both fossil and evo-devo evidence wrt mammalian ears, and the best I got was from Stephen E. Jones:

< http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejone....ntrnstn >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8. Mammals
1. Reptile jawbone-mammal earbone transition
Evolution cannot explain why a line of reptiles, which can hear perfectly well, would start to
transform their entire jawbone-earbone structure for the benefit of a future line of mammals. Gould asks:
"Embryology and paleontology provide adequate documentation of the `how,' but we would also like more
insight into the `why.' In particular, why should such a transition occur-especially since the single-boned
stapedial ear seems to function quite adequately (and, at least in some birds, every bit as well as the three-
boned mammalian ear)? " (Gould, 1993, p.106)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm. Well, I suppose evilushinists would gladly grant that they don't know "why" if creationists would grant that they do know how, and thus by implication that it happened at all.  This btw, is a perfect example of what I think of when I think of the phrases "Christian Apologetics" or "can't see the forest for the trees".
Posted by: Henry J on May 29 2008,15:30

Yep, there's lots of places and ways in which contrary evidence should have already accumulated if the current theory wasn't reasonably accurate.

That (as I understand it) is pretty much the reason for acceptance of any scientific theory - lots of places that could have contradicted it, but didn't.

Henry
Posted by: hooligans on May 30 2008,14:58

I'm curious if anyone has bothered to check in with some of hte people who endorsed the 1st version of Explore Evolution. One was Doug Cowan from George R. Curtis Senior High School Biology near Tacoma, WA.

He said:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Explore Evolution is an excellent resource for those who wish to study the topic of neo-Darwinian evolution objectively. The standard pillars of the theory are examined from all sides objectively, but more importantly, civilly. The inquiry approach is excellent for students as they use critical thinking skills to "explore" cutting edge information in an evidence for and evidence against format, leaving room for further debate and questions. The students can follow the evidence wherever it leads and form their own conclusions, or as Charles Darwin said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His email is  dcowan AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu. The department chair of biology at his school is Peter Heussman. His email is pheussman AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu

I happen to know that they are doing a textbook adoption this year. I wonder, now that the year is over, if Explore Evolution was one of the texts piloted? I wonder what decision was made? I wonder what feedback Doug Cowan or Peter Heussman have for Paul Nelson. Perhaps someone should enquire? I'm rather shy.


Posted by: Lou FCD on May 30 2008,15:15

I'm going to break those email links to avoid having spambots follow them hooligans.

They should be easy to figure out.
Posted by: stevestory on May 30 2008,17:35

Quote (hooligans @ May 30 2008,15:58)
I'm curious if anyone has bothered to check in with some of hte people who endorsed the 1st version of Explore Evolution. One was Doug Cowan from George R. Curtis Senior High School Biology near Tacoma, WA.

He said:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Explore Evolution is an excellent resource for those who wish to study the topic of neo-Darwinian evolution objectively. The standard pillars of the theory are examined from all sides objectively, but more importantly, civilly. The inquiry approach is excellent for students as they use critical thinking skills to "explore" cutting edge information in an evidence for and evidence against format, leaving room for further debate and questions. The students can follow the evidence wherever it leads and form their own conclusions, or as Charles Darwin said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His email is  dcowan AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu. The department chair of biology at his school is Peter Heussman. His email is pheussman AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu

I happen to know that they are doing a textbook adoption this year. I wonder, now that the year is over, if Explore Evolution was one of the texts piloted? I wonder what decision was made? I wonder what feedback Doug Cowan or Peter Heussman have for Paul Nelson. Perhaps someone should enquire? I'm rather shy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What went wrong in Dover was that the yokel creationists weren't savvy about hiding their religious motivations and content. They made lots of belligerent "Don't you love Jesus?" type remarks before the Discovery Institute got there. Explore Evolution and this business in Tacoma is presumably the DI's attempt to get the locals saying the dishonest PR stuff from the very beginning, the better to survive a court challenge. I doubt there's any point in talking to Doug Cowan, as he's likely been covertly set up from the beginning to carefully use the right language. I don't think Cowan is stupid enough to believe a book funded by the DI and written by a bunch of Dissent from Darwin signers is 'objective', I think he's part of the next phase of the creationist strategy.

As I've said for years, I think eventually they could water it down enough to hide their true nature from the courts. As a friend said recently, "At first it was 'evolution sucks, therefore Jesus', then it became 'evolution sucks, therefore unnamed designer', and now it looks like 'evolution sucks'."

('course, there's always the possibility that Cowan is a raving nutter and that his nuttery can be located on the internet. I haven't looked)
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 30 2008,20:41

Back to Dover, what was the bulkhead?

Who stood fast and said, "No!"

Who said that teaching ID violated the ethics code they had agreed to?

The School Board?  No.

The Administrators?  No.

The Science Teachers?  Yes!

At Dover, ID was forced on the students because the Science Teachers ALL refused to teach it pointing to their ethical obligation to teach only what was true.

The DI conveniently avoids visiting this point.

Teachers are and always are on the front line.  Support your teachers.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 30 2008,21:40

Quote (Doc Bill @ May 30 2008,21:41)
Teachers are and always are on the front line.  Support your teachers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or become one.  That's my plan.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 02 2008,08:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
87 guests, 9 Public Members and 3 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Asistond >Lou FCD >EyeNoU >mitschlag >annoveenfox >Paul Nelson >JonF >ERV >nataliedestror
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



9:12 Eastern
Posted by: stevestory on June 04 2008,21:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the Discovery Institute is toast, and are going to be increasingly irrelevant. The Wedge document is dead and gone; their strategy of pretending to have a secular goal has failed; and everyone can see through their claim that "Intelligent Design" is something other than creationism.
...
Creationism is not dead, but is still a dangerous force for ignorance. And of course, the Discovery Institute is going to be trying hard to reinvent itself. We're looking at several new strategies already: there's the clamoring for "academic freedom" bills, and also the magic words of "strengths and weaknesses".
...
they intend to overlook the strengths of modern biology and focus on imaginary weaknesses invented by ignorant creationists.
...
Liars and con men just have to keep moving to keep their misdeeds from catching up with them, and the DI is going to have to scramble to redefine their intellectual swindle.

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



< It's almost like he's talking specifically about Paul. >
Posted by: fusilier on June 05 2008,08:26

I'm not Dr. GH, and I don't play him on TV -but I have started to read the book.

Overall, the first thing that strikes me is that it is damned small - only 159 pp including index, and excluding 3.5 pp of preface.  There's lots of "production value" in glossy, thick pages, so this is an expensive book to manufacture.  For comparison, the human ANP photo atlas I use as a supplement (van de Graaff & Crawley, from Morton Publishing) has slightly thinner pages.

Why am I thinking style over substance?

The preface pages are not numbered, but the lies start there. P i uses the term "origins debate."  Those two words alone tell us this is nothing but creationism.  NO scientist uses that concept.

P ii includes wording from the Santorum Amendment proposed for the No Child Left Behind act.  Further, it refers to that failed amendment as "authoritative."

Honest people, of course, know that Santorum's wording was explicitly rejected by the House, and was rejected during conference committee meetings, but the authors conspicuously imply otherwise.

I'm still in the process of reading the thing - but I am also trying to deal with an "upgrade" in the BlackBoard software I'm required to use for grading, so it will be a while before I can post more comments.

Oh, just an observation - while there are moderately extensive chapter endnotes referencing alleged controversies, they all seem to be bare citations, with no discussion of the actual content of the paper.

IOW, quote-mining.


<edited to fix minor punctuation errors.>
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 05 2008,10:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
49 guests, 6 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>carlsonjok >Lowell >stevestory >Richardthughes >Paul Nelson >k.e..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Paul!  'Sup, dude?

I thought I might mention that your associate, Dr. Dembski, has posted on his blog a link to a website < www.strengthsandweaknesses.org > that promulgates the Haeckel's embryos story.  Since Albatrossity has shared with you a < comprehensive review > of a majority of the currently available biology textbooks and has thoroughly debunked the idea that Haeckel's embryos are still being taught, should we expect that you will share Albie's thorough analysis with Dr. Dembski and the aptly named Texans for Better Science Education?  Of course, we should!   We wouldn't want folks who are trying to improve science to be spreading false information, now would we? Thanks in advance for helping to correct this oversight.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 05 2008,12:43

Quote (fusilier @ June 05 2008,06:26)
I'm not Dr. GH, and I don't play him on TV -but I have started to read the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made the mistake of starting at the beginning.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on June 07 2008,23:57

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 05 2008,12:43)
Quote (fusilier @ June 05 2008,06:26)
I'm not Dr. GH, and I don't play him on TV -but I have started to read the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made the mistake of starting at the beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, I made that mistake too. I expected it would get better, like most works of fiction, as I got further into it. Alas. I was wretchedly disappointed.   :angry:
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 08 2008,08:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
55 guests, 5 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >olegt >Zarquon >huizyu >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello Darlin'.
Nice to see you.
It's been a long time.
You're just as lovely,
As you used
to be.

/Conway Twitty

ETA:  Ain't you asposed to be in church or somethin'?


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 09 2008,08:15

Hey, Lou

You must have slept in this morning, so you missed this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 09 2008,07:58
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 09 2008,19:09

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 09 2008,09:15)
Hey, Lou

You must have slept in this morning, so you missed this.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 09 2008,07:58
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Heh, actually, I did.  I was up late writing smut.
Posted by: stevestory on June 09 2008,20:40

Given the frequency and pointlessness of Paul checking the board at 8-9am every day, I suspect he's not actually checking in. Might be something like he has a group of 20 bookmarks and when he gets to the office he hits 'Open All in Tabs' or something.
Posted by: Henry J on June 09 2008,22:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lou FCD
I was up late writing smut.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Isn't that a kind of fungus? :p

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,07:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
63 guests, 10 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >relovule >Leftfield >mitschlag >Venus Mousetrap >Zachriel >dogdidit >olegt >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Paul Nelson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was up on time today.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,08:00

Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2008,21:40)
Given the frequency and pointlessness of Paul checking the board at 8-9am every day, I suspect he's not actually checking in. Might be something like he has a group of 20 bookmarks and when he gets to the office he hits 'Open All in Tabs' or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's a pretty could hypothesis, Steve.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,08:03

Quote (Henry J @ June 09 2008,23:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lou FCD
I was up late writing smut.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Isn't that a kind of fungus? :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I'm sure there's a kink for everything (and a website to address it, probably), I think that one's outside my purview.

:p
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 10 2008,20:43

< coochie coochie coo >

Paul, have you gotten around to Lenny's criticisms yet?  kthnxbai
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,21:43

Well, now I'm all kinds of hot and bothered...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 13 2008,07:13

Hi, Paul



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 13 2008,07:10
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read any good books lately?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 16 2008,08:07

8 a.m.

Right on time.  Paul should be running the trains!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
53 guests, 10 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Doc Bill >utidjian >EyeNoU >Paul Nelson >Maya >celdd >JonF >DiEb >k.e.. >Richard Simons
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on June 16 2008,15:30

Well, my copy of "Only a Theory" just arrived.

EE will need to wait a few hours more.
Posted by: stevestory on June 16 2008,19:19

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 16 2008,09:07)
8 a.m.

Right on time.  Paul should be running the trains!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
53 guests, 10 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Doc Bill >utidjian >EyeNoU >Paul Nelson >Maya >celdd >JonF >DiEb >k.e.. >Richard Simons
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


If Paul were running the trains, he'd promise this revolutionary new train, which he'll unveil later today, no i mean tomorrow, no by Friday, sometime early next week, late August, before the year is out, next summer, before the Vancouver Olympics,...

then when you went to see what he was doing you find him spray painting the word 'Explore Automobiles' on the side of the trains he'd been given and asserting that they have nothing to do with these 'trains' you speak of.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 16 2008,20:34

Naw, Paul would promise you a train that would be on time, but the train would be late because

"Paul is a lying bastard."

Then, Paul would promise you that you could get dinner on the train, but there would be on dinner because

"Paul is a lying bastard."

Then Paul would tell you that your luggage would arrive with you but it wouldn't because

"Paul is a lying bastard."

Quote mining, the profession of a Lying Bastard.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 18 2008,13:56

Paul, sometimes the trains run you.

Skeezer.  Riding the trains for Jesus.  Gettin' rode like a train.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on June 23 2008,04:07

< EvolutionNews mentions EE >
"Oh yeah, they do use a graphic of Explore Evolution that they urgently demanded as well--with dismissive caption that doesn't even describe the book. Well, I guess at least we can describe Explore Evolution as "featured in Science.""
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 23 2008,06:42

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ June 23 2008,04:07)
< EvolutionNews mentions EE >
"Oh yeah, they do use a graphic of Explore Evolution that they urgently demanded as well--with dismissive caption that doesn't even describe the book. Well, I guess at least we can describe Explore Evolution as "featured in Science.""
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I also loved this sentence  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reporter interviewed CSC's John West for upwards of an hour seemingly trying to get the facts straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't imagine that a single straight fact was ever mentioned in that hour...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 23 2008,07:40

Paul dropped by yesterday after church, and he is a bit early this morning  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 23 2008,07:28
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he is trying to mix up his schedule for us. I guess we should hold off on using his appearances to synchronize our watches, or the trains.
Posted by: Goffr on June 24 2008,07:38

Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 25 2008,08:53)
JAM wrote:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer is that since we know that the underlying molecular mechanisms are incredibly conserved, it's not a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This assumes the point at issue.  To wit: We already know the mammal-like reptiles are related by descent with modification, via the natural selection of randomly-arising variation (or an array of unknown evolutionary mechanisms, if selection does not suffice).  Therefore their size differences are easy to explain.

What independent evidence do you have for the molecular mechanisms (regulating body size) at work in the extinct groups -- therapsids, etc. -- featured in the reptile-to-mammal sequence?

In what natural populations of canids, JAM, do we observe size differences on the scale seen in domesticated dogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe canines aren't the best example to use, considering that they have been living and have been bred by humans for millennia.

I'd recommend looking at a group of animals from a continent that hasn't had so much in the way of overpopulation of humans, Australia.

If you want to see some real diversity in size differences in a particular animal, check out the kangaroo (Macropodidae) family.

Fossils indicate the largest kangaroo, Procoptodon, was about 3 metres (10 feet) in height, and wighted an estimated 232 kg (507 pounds).

The largest living kangaroos at the moment, the red kangaroo, grows to 2 meters (6 ft 7 in) tall and weighs 90 kg (200 lb).

One of smallest of the Macropodidae family weigh in at somewhere around 2.5 to 5 kg and are only about 40 to 54 cm long.

The extended family makes it down to rat size, whilst maintaining very kangaroo orientated features.

Variation in size is quite huge in the family, they are mostly non-extinct and have been left alone by humans. Natural selection is the only force at work with these animals. The differences between the various species are piecemeal and it's quite obvious where its evolutionary roots lie - see the sub-order Macropodiformes for the extended family.

Also, one particular genus (Dendrolagus) learnt to climb trees! I don't see dogs climbing trees. ;)

Anyways, what's going on with the evisceration of Explore Evolution? I keep on checking this page to see some juicy lies being torn apart but its not happening. It makes me sad.  :(
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 24 2008,07:59

Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 25 2008,08:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
109 guests, 12 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Lou FCD >Jake >Louis >travhelp >J-Dog >Bob O'H >Zachriel >themartu >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Erasmus, FCD >Goffr >Shirley Knott
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's go, Paul.  I haven't got all frackin' day.  The blogoverse needs to be titillated and you're holdin' up the works here.
Posted by: slpage on June 25 2008,14:28

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 23 2008,07:40)
Paul dropped by yesterday after church, and he is a bit early this morning    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 23 2008,07:28
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he is trying to mix up his schedule for us. I guess we should hold off on using his appearances to synchronize our watches, or the trains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Paul - did you ever get someone to run the alignment and pnhylogenetic analysis on the sequences I sent you via Helen Fryman a few years ago to test your claim that investigator bias totally skews such analyses?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 30 2008,08:54

Paul must be in a different time zone today - he missed his regular 8 AM appointment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 30 2008,08:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 30 2008,13:10

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 30 2008,09:54)
Paul must be in a different time zone today - he missed his regular 8 AM appointment.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 30 2008,08:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


He does that on purpose to annoy me.
Posted by: lcd on July 01 2008,07:29

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 24 2008,07:59)
Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you disagree with this Paul person so therefore he's a child molester?

Wow, no wonder you shout out "God did it", which is of course the ultimate cause and we're now truly seeing how through science God's plans are unfolding, when you come across something you don't understand.

And I keep on hearing they say Creationists only do that.  What is this "projection thing" again?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 01 2008,07:50

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 24 2008,07:59)
Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you disagree with this Paul person so therefore he's a child molester?

Wow, no wonder you shout out "God did it", which is of course the ultimate cause and we're now truly seeing how through science God's plans are unfolding, when you come across something you don't understand.

And I keep on hearing they say Creationists only do that.  What is this "projection thing" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension, syntax, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: lcd on July 01 2008,07:58

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,07:50)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:29)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 24 2008,07:59)
Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you disagree with this Paul person so therefore he's a child molester?

Wow, no wonder you shout out "God did it", which is of course the ultimate cause and we're now truly seeing how through science God's plans are unfolding, when you come across something you don't understand.

And I keep on hearing they say Creationists only do that.  What is this "projection thing" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension, syntax, you're doing it wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I see.  To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.  That's a real neat trick you've got going.  See, I am educated.  See I'm an engineer.  While I can't spell my way out of a paper bag, I can design it for you.

Again though, you disagree with Paul so you'll slander him.  Is that a fair statement.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 01 2008,08:26

surely not an engineer!!!!

lcd, try reading the bulk of this thread and then tell us how we have misunderestimated Dr Paul and his promises, lies and hand waving obfuscations.

While you are at it, why don't you prove you are educated and tell us just what your little ol problem is, honey?  you can spell any which way you please sugar just get it out there and off of your chest.



Posted by: midwifetoad on July 01 2008,08:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just the ones we've met on the internet.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 01 2008,08:29



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

To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.

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



Religiously motivated antievolutionists are often sincere but deluded. Some are quite bright in some field of endeavor, usually far removed from the biological sciences.

There is, however, little room to excuse the writers of "Explore Evolution" from its many faults.
Posted by: lcd on July 01 2008,10:24

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2008,08:29)


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

To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.

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



Religiously motivated antievolutionists are often sincere but deluded. Some are quite bright in some field of endeavor, usually far removed from the biological sciences.

There is, however, little room to excuse the writers of "Explore Evolution" from its many faults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So some beliefs, like creation, is deluded while other beliefs, like evolution, is "from learning and studying"?  Who makes those determinations?

As for biology, I think engineering is very useful for ID and ID based biology.  As an Engineer, we understand the complexity of systems and can find the designs in the structures.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 01 2008,10:25

Paulie is late today (10:20 AM CDT):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
50 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Jim_Wynne >Louis >American Saddlebred >lcd >Gunthernacus >Paul Nelson >drew91 >Erasmus, FCD >Jake >Leftfield >Albatrossity2 >Reciprocating Bill
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 01 2008,10:54

The topic here is "Explore Evolution". Other stuff can be discussed on the Bathroom Wall thread.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 01 2008,18:49

Haven't seen Paul around the web lately.

Poor guy.  Must be long hours at the quote mine.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 03 2008,09:20

Hey, Paul

Re our past conversations about Haeckel, and the abundant distortions about him in your book, you might be interested to know that there is a < new biography of Haeckel > available. Here's part of the publisher's description.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Tragic Sense of Life examines the intellectual context as well as the intimate experiences and profound convictions that allowed Darwin’s message to become almost a religious calling for Haeckel. Far from shying away from the many controversies that marked Haeckel’s life and career, Richards engages Haeckel’s many challengers and dissenters, whose accusations against him range from the charge that he falsified some of his famous drawings to the supposedly proto-Nazi quality of his biological theories. Reappraising Haeckel’s accomplishments, artistic endeavors, many battles, personal relationships, and searing loves, Richards convincingly demonstrates the enormous impact Haeckel had on biology and larger scientific affairs during the last half of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I review books for < Choice >, the book review journal of the American Library Association, and I just got a notice that they will be sending me this book for review. When I get the review finished I'll send it to you if you are interested. Or maybe you can read it yourself, and come to your own idiosyncratic conclusions...
Posted by: Paul Nelson on July 03 2008,09:55

Hi Alb,

Bob Richards, the author of the Haeckel biography, served on my dissertation committee at the U of C.  I was a member of his graduate seminar on Haeckel, 1989-90, and more recently have exchanged correspondence with him about Haeckel's diagrams.

I didn't realize The Tragic Sense of Life was out, however.  (I've read some of the chapter drafts.)  Thanks for the tip -- I'll have to order a copy.  And I would be interested in seeing your review for Choice.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 03 2008,11:40

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 03 2008,09:55)
Hi Alb,

Bob Richards, the author of the Haeckel biography, served on my dissertation committee at the U of C.  I was a member of his graduate seminar on Haeckel, 1989-90, and more recently have exchanged correspondence with him about Haeckel's diagrams.

I didn't realize The Tragic Sense of Life was out, however.  (I've read some of the chapter drafts.)  Thanks for the tip -- I'll have to order a copy.  And I would be interested in seeing your review for Choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul

That's quite a disturbing admission. It appears that you have been exposed to a lot of scholarly erudition re Haeckel. Yet your book contains falsehoods about his current impact on biology textbooks, and you are associated with the DI, where another fellow has published another book with falsehoods about relationships between Darwin, Haeckel, and Hitler. Yet you go blithely on, as if none of this matters...

What powerful kool-aid you have drunk!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 03 2008,12:43

O Come, All Ye Photo-shoppers


Posted by: stevestory on July 03 2008,14:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's quite a disturbing admission. It appears that you have been exposed to a lot of scholarly erudition re Haeckel. Yet your book contains falsehoods about his current impact on biology textbooks, and you are associated with the DI, where another fellow has published another book with falsehoods about relationships between Darwin, Haeckel, and Hitler. Yet you go blithely on, as if none of this matters...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's the sad transition everyone goes through with Paul. He's superficially nice and pleasant so you give him the benefit of the doubt at first. Slowly you realize he has to know his claims are BS, yet he keeps doing it, and he's just as dishonest as the rest of them.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 03 2008,18:47

Yeah, that was a sad realization for me that it took quite a lot more energy   and understanding of the material to quote mine than to simply quote.

The pitiful, deluded creationists who simply reply to a question with a quote or a link are just the foot soldiers, carrying out orders.

But, the masterminds must spend time to put the ellipsis in just the right place.  It must be done del-i-cate-ly, as the Wicked Witch of the West said.  Thus, the expert quote miner, like Paul, for example, must understand the context of the text he is corrupting in order not to "spoil the spell."

However, as intellectually dishonest as I think Paul is, my curiosity is piqued to hear from Paul himself how he views his efforts to portray the "other side" of evolutionary theory.

Are you proud to be a creationist gangsta, Paul, or do you disagree with my assessment?  And why?  Feel free to use an extra Blue Book as necessary.
Posted by: Quack on July 04 2008,03:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the sad transition everyone goes through with Paul. He's superficially nice and pleasant so you give him the benefit of the doubt at first. Slowly you realize he has to know his claims are BS, yet he keeps doing it, and he's just as dishonest as the rest of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's one of the problems when dealing with people - it is very hard to see what is lurking behind the mask. Snake oil salesmen, politicians, wife-beaters - and IDers?
Posted by: keiths on July 04 2008,21:32

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2008,12:59)
That's the sad transition everyone goes through with Paul. He's superficially nice and pleasant so you give him the benefit of the doubt at first. Slowly you realize he has to know his claims are BS, yet he keeps doing it, and he's just as dishonest as the rest of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that Paul has made < the same Faustian bargain as Kurt Wise >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're convinced of a Higher Truth, and they think it's just a matter of time until science "catches up" and confirms what they already know.  In the meantime, they've taken a position that requires them to be very selective about the evidence they consider and the reasoning they apply to it -- a position that collapses otherwise. It's not so surprising when the selectivity and "creative" reasoning get applied to peripheral issues like Haeckel's embryos.  In the end, what's the big deal about a few white lies if they keep people pointed in the direction of Truth?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 05 2008,00:44

I have made several attempts at EE.  I have deployed many 'postit' notes and then gave up and am now writting in red ink all over the pages of this terrible book.

I really should start posting, becasue it will be too large a task by the time I finish reading EE. I have taken several breaks in which I read several other books- mostly written by creationists.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 05 2008,06:29

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 05 2008,00:44)
I have made several attempts at EE.  I have deployed many 'postit' notes and then gave up and am now writting in red ink all over the pages of this terrible book.

I really should start posting, becasue it will be too large a task by the time I finish reading EE. I have taken several breaks in which I read several other books- mostly written by creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the sad reality about EE and its ilk (Pandas, Design of Life) is that, compared to the books themselves, it takes a lot more pages to rebut the arguments. It is amazing how good they have become at compacting garbage to an incredibly high density...
Posted by: Quack on July 05 2008,08:10

This may me off topic and eligible for the BW, but with respect to Paul and Kurt Wise:

It is real, real sad - if Kurt Wise, and many with him had not been led astray by fundamentalism, they would have realized that true religion is not incompatible with science. These quotes from St. Augustine are well known but may deserve repetition:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

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

   

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

The thing itself that is now called the Christian religion was with the ancients, and it was with the human race from the beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: from then on the true religion that already existed began to be called Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make a long history short: God the creator of the universe is a myth. God is spirit - in our soul. Jesus, the dying-and-resurrection godman is a myth. And a powerful symbol - for a force in our soul, for spiritual rebirth. That is what death and resurrection is about, not the nonsense of the Gospels.

St. Paul knew, but his knowledge has been corrupted by skilfull editing.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 07 2008,08:07

Monday morning ritual  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   July 07 2008,07:56
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you can see why Paul didn't dawdle here; he was being chased by temptation!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
75 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >chaibiaacrogs >ppb >JonF >Assassinator >olegt >sex-porn-lesbian >Paul Nelson >Zachriel >drew91 >Jake >J-Dog
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on July 08 2008,01:55

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 07 2008,09:07)
Monday morning ritual  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   July 07 2008,07:56
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you can see why Paul didn't dawdle here; he was being chased by temptation!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
75 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Albatrossity2 >chaibiaacrogs >ppb >JonF >Assassinator >olegt >sex-porn-lesbian >Paul Nelson >Zachriel >drew91 >Jake >J-Dog
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I sympathize with Paul. Lesbians are hot.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2008,14:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>Richardthughes >midwifetoad >Assassinator >slpage >Gunthernacus >dnmlthr >SpeedDemon >lcd >Paul Nelson >American Saddlebred >argystokes >JAM >celdd >dheddle >Venus Mousetrap >Arden Chatfield >alsymnan >Leftfield
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's on your website, not answering your criticisms...
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 08 2008,14:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2008,14:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>Richardthughes >midwifetoad >Assassinator >slpage >Gunthernacus >dnmlthr >SpeedDemon >lcd >Paul Nelson >American Saddlebred >argystokes >JAM >celdd >dheddle >Venus Mousetrap >Arden Chatfield >alsymnan >Leftfield
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's on your website, not answering your criticisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on July 08 2008,15:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2008,14:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>Richardthughes >midwifetoad >Assassinator >slpage >Gunthernacus >dnmlthr >SpeedDemon >lcd >Paul Nelson >American Saddlebred >argystokes >JAM >celdd >dheddle >Venus Mousetrap >Arden Chatfield >alsymnan >Leftfield
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's on your website, not answering your criticisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey I'm on that list. do I get points for that?

I'm pondering buying a few of the wacky ID and creationism books from Amazon (some have gone really cheap and if I get enough I get free delivery). Then no one can say I haven't read Dumbski's books. :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2008,15:37

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 08 2008,15:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2008,14:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>Richardthughes >midwifetoad >Assassinator >slpage >Gunthernacus >dnmlthr >SpeedDemon >lcd >Paul Nelson >American Saddlebred >argystokes >JAM >celdd >dheddle >Venus Mousetrap >Arden Chatfield >alsymnan >Leftfield
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's on your website, not answering your criticisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey I'm on that list. do I get points for that?

I'm pondering buying a few of the wacky ID and creationism books from Amazon (some have gone really cheap and if I get enough I get free delivery). Then no one can say I haven't read Dumbski's books. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funding the fundies just validates there business model. Tacit complicity. Get one second hand, if you must. Don't feed the flames.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 08 2008,16:05

I buy all my fundy books used or remaindered.

I have stalled out reading Explor Evolution. I am on page 22.  I have underlined errors on every page of text starting at the preface.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 08 2008,17:19

Without Paul to kick around this thread is very boring!

Dr GH, give us an error to kick around.  How about a nice, juicy misquote?
Posted by: godsilove on July 08 2008,18:12

If for argument's sake, the entire universe is created by MagicMan, how does Paul Nelson propose to identify design when everything is "designed"?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 08 2008,18:21

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 08 2008,15:19)
Without Paul to kick around this thread is very boring!

Dr GH, give us an error to kick around.  How about a nice, juicy misquote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, toward the end of the preface, they wrote, "Whenever there is disagreement over a particular point, we have tried to give arguments from the "best" people we could find on both sides of the question, rounding up the most qualified proponents and critics that we could."

Oh yeah.  I believe that.

Quotes?  Page six has a footnote #3.  In that footnote (actually most substantive notes are collected at the end of the chapter) in very small print we may read, "In a famous passage from the end of the Origin, Darwin argued that, 'all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form.' This is called Universal Common Descent becasue it claims that every organism on Earth is connected to the same tree of life, rooted in the same common ancestor." They reference the First edition of The Origin.

Here is the quoted portion of the sentence presented in bold from the original first edition text:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So of course the creationists have lied. They changed the sentence punctuation to hide that they had redacted the sentence. It is interesting they have cut Darwin's reference to a Creator.

Nor have they presented Darwin's actual views. In the 6th edition he rephrased the same section to read,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences."

And he added, "No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G.H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Dr.GH on July 09 2008,10:52

Did we miss Paul this AM?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
64 guests, 24 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Dr.GH >lcd >J-Dog >Sol3a1 >dnmlthr >Paul Nelson >Nerull >midwifetoad >SpeedDemon >Ftk >Jim_Wynne >ERV >Freelurker >ppb >Ra-Úl >simmi >Arden Chatfield >JohnW >dheddle >jeannot >Assassinator >Zachriel >creeky belly >olegt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: carlsonjok on July 09 2008,12:52

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 09 2008,10:52)
Did we miss Paul this AM?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
64 guests, 24 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Dr.GH >lcd >J-Dog >Sol3a1 >dnmlthr >Paul Nelson >Nerull >midwifetoad >SpeedDemon >Ftk >Jim_Wynne >ERV >Freelurker >ppb >Ra-Úl >simmi >Arden Chatfield >JohnW >dheddle >jeannot >Assassinator >Zachriel >creeky belly >olegt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I've noticed that sex-porn-lesbian has been logging in around 8 AM CDT in the morning. I would imagine Paul has changed his drive-by time in order to not be led into temptation.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 09 2008,13:23

I wanted to see Nelson bite the hook and complain that EE was misrepresented because I left out that they eventually mention the rest of Darwin’s thought. In fact, EE mentions this in a manner to further obscure Darwin’s meaning.

At the end of the footnote following a discussion of the meaning of “universe,” and the bibliographic data for the edition and reprint version of The Origin they had misquoted, EE adds, “Elsewhere in the Origin, Darwin allowed for the possibility that life might have arisen from one or a few original life forms."

As we can see above, this notion of decent from “a few” forms is important to understanding Darwin’s thinking regarding a universal common ancestor, and how Darwin limits evolutionary theory to life, and not the origin of life. In fact, Darwin bracketed his cautious observation of a possible LCA with the notion of multiple original life forms. The final sentence in the first edition, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." was slightly modified in the Sixth edition to clearly indicate that the "Creator" was responsible for the origin of life. Some scholarly studies claim that Darwin regretted making this concession to his publishers.
Posted by: Paul Nelson on July 10 2008,00:39

Hi Gary,

Morse Peckham's variorum edition of the Origin shows "by the Creator" added by Darwin in two places (both in reference to the origin of life, after the verb "breathed").  This addition occurs, if I recall correctly -- don't have the book with me at the moment (I'm in Oxford at a conference) -- in the second, not the sixth, edition, and is retained by Darwin from the second ed. forward.  (He did grumble in private correspondence about making the addition, but never took it out.)

Alb, my copy of The Tragic Sense of Life arrived.  We'll be citing it in the new edition of Explore Evolution.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 10 2008,00:46

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 09 2008,22:39)
Hi Gary,

Morse Peckham's variorum edition of the Origin shows "by the Creator" added by Darwin in two places (both in reference to the origin of life, after the verb "breathed").  This addition occurs, if I recall correctly -- don't have the book with me at the moment (I'm in Oxford at a conference) -- in the second, not the sixth, edition, and is retained by Darwin from the second ed. forward.  (He did grumble in private correspondence about making the addition, but never took it out.)

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


Then I expect that you will correct the gross violation of Darwin's meaning even though it will deprive you of some slight rhetorical advantage.

No?


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 10 2008,14:50

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 10 2008,00:39)
Alb, my copy of The Tragic Sense of Life arrived.  We'll be citing it in the new edition of Explore Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul,

I can't wait to see the quote-mines you will do with that book.

I found it amusing to discover that many of your standard creationist arguments were leveled at Haeckel over 130 years ago (p. 323). Almost all of those are repeated in EE. You guys need to get some new material.  Maybe you can try doing some experiments, rather than going to conferences or quote-mining books dealing with 19th-century science?
Posted by: raguel on July 10 2008,21:51

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 10 2008,14:50)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 10 2008,00:39)
Alb, my copy of The Tragic Sense of Life arrived.  We'll be citing it in the new edition of Explore Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paul,

I can't wait to see the quote-mines you will do with that book.

I found it amusing to discover that many of your standard creationist arguments were leveled at Haeckel over 130 years ago (p. 323). Almost all of those are repeated in EE. You guys need to get some new material.  Maybe you can try doing some experiments, rather than going to conferences or quote-mining books dealing with 19th-century science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hah i was going to mention this the other day. In between visits from Paul, I caught a few minutes of a program on the Science channel, titled "Dinosaurs: Return to Life:

< http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....en.html >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hans Larsson, a palaeontologist at McGill University in Canada, conducted an experiment in November 2007 into the evolution from dinosaurs’ long tails into birds’ short tails more than 150 million years ago.

Looking at a two-day-old chicken embryo, he made an unexpected discovery.

Expecting to see between four and eight vertebrae present in the developing spine, his microscope instead picked out 16 vertebrae — effectively a reptilian tail.

As the embryo developed, the ‘tail’ became shorter and shorter, until the young bird hatched with only five vertebrae.

Larsson says of the significance of the find: ‘For about 150 million years, this kind of a tail has never existed in birds.

'But they have always carried it deep inside their embryology.’

So, the blueprint for a dinosaur remained locked inside the modern-day bird.

Larsson decided to move from theory to reality.

He wanted to see if he could make a chicken grow a dinosaur’s tail, turning the clock back millions of years.

Manipulating the genetic make-up, he was able to extend the tail by a further three vertebrae.

Larsson had pinpointed a method for turning on dormant dinosaur genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So on one side, I see a few scientists talking about their research/experiments and how it confirms ToE, and on the other side I get yet another discussion about some 19th century wood carvings. This is what the kids today refer to as "EPIC FAIL".
Posted by: Quack on July 11 2008,03:35

Another example is mentioned in “The First Chimpanzee” (John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, 2001):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the regulators that is known, or rather inferred, controls the development of the bones in a chicken's leg. The limbs of all vertebrates with a more recent evolutionary origin than the fishes are built on the same sort of plan, the pentadactyl limb, but with modifications. Horses, for example, have only one, enormously elongated, toe, instead of the usual five. And chickens, like other birds, have a very reduced fibula, the smaller bone alongside the shin bone, as you will know if you have ever paid attention to eating a drumstick. Along with the reduced fibula the chicken also has many of its ankle bones missing, though this wouldn't be so obvious to the casual chicken-leg eater. It turns out that, by a variety of surgical manipulations on the chicken foetus in the egg, one can persuade a developing chick to grow a much sturdier fibula and also develop some of the normally missing ankle bones. Chicken DNA contains the information to build the 'normal' limb; so why doesn't it? Probably as a result of a very slight change in a regulator gene. The mutants never grow an ankle without a fibula, but once the fibula contacts the ankle region the bones there develop. The interpretation of this is that the presence of the fibula somehow induces the ankle bones to form, and that at some stage in its past the structural genes for the chicken's leg came under the influence of a new regulator that controlled them in a different way. The effect was to reduce the growth of the fibula, which in turn modified the ankle. The structural genes themselves are still there, as the experimental birds show, and what happened in evolution was that they got switched off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is referenced as “Cited by Pere Alberch, S.J. Gould, G. F. Oster and David B. Wake, ‘Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny’, Palaebiology, 5: 296-317, 1979”

The text continues:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chromosomal mutations, then, can have a powerful effect, and what is more they crop up in the space of one generation. The major problem that they pose for the animal carrying them is that it will surely have a very hard time finding a mate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was 30 years ago!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 13 2008,11:10

Paul, et al.

My review of Robert J. Richards' A Tragic Sense of Life, a biography (and more) of Ernst Haeckel, is up at < Amazon.com >.

Creationists and other deniers of reality will not like this book, but to does offer plenty of opportunities for creative quote-mining. I have corresponded with Professor Richards, so he has been alerted to this inevitability.

However, you might want to pass along this quote to your fellow reality-denier, Richard Weikart. It's not a quote-mine; it sums up the book fairly well. From the very last page (my emphasis).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis. And while some of Haeckel's conceptions were recruited by a few Nazi biologists, he hardly differed in that respect from Christian writers, whose disdain for Jews gave considerably more support to those dark forces. One might thus recognize in Haeckel a causal source for a few lines deployed by National Socialists, but hardly any moral connection exists by which to indict him."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 13 2008,14:06

Good review. I have posted < a few on Amazon > as well.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2008,18:33

With the passage of the Louisiana Creationism Science Education Act, and the publication of Explore Creationism Intelligent Design Evolution (yeah...that's the ticket), it is only a matter of time before Paul and the gang work to get EE introduced into classrooms somewhere in Louisiana.

So how's that going, Paul? You guys been working the phones? Found anyone yet?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 15 2008,12:01

I've updated my survey of biology textbooks wherein I document the appearance (or not) of the infamous Haeckel's embryos woodcut. The < current list > (available as an Excel file) covers 40 textbooks, dating from 1980 to the present day. These include 5 advanced college textbooks, 28 college-level intro books, 2 developmental biology books, 4 high-school or high school supplements, and 1 targeted at high school or college intro classes. There are 4 creationist books (Pandas, Explore Evolution, The Design of Life, and the Bob Jones U "Biology for Christian Schools" books), and 36 mainstream books.

Haeckel's original figure (woodcut of various vertebrate embryos) appears in exactly three of these 40 books. Most interestingly, all three are creationist texts; it does not appear in Pandas. It does not appear in any of the 36 mainstream biology textbooks in my possession.

It would appear that Well's assertion in Icons of Evolution that this figure still persists in many modern textbooks, as well as the re-assertion of this statement in Explore Evolution, as well as the re-assertion in The Design of Life, is false. The offending figure only appears as a strawman in creationist tracts (EE and TDoL and the BJU textbooks).

I'll keep updating this spreadsheet as I encounter new books; right now I'm trying to read Dembski and Wells and avoid marking up every other sentence with a red pencil...
Posted by: J-Dog on July 15 2008,12:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,12:01)
I'll keep updating this spreadsheet as I encounter new books; right now I'm trying to read Dembski and Wells and avoid marking up every other sentence with a red pencil...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Red Pencil?  Your reading IDC Bible Tracts  "textbooks" and you're worried about the red pencil?

Shouldn't you be more concerned that your Full HazMat Suit has tight seals, so that none of the TerrificallyToxicTard™ doesn't leak?


Posted by: JohnW on July 16 2008,17:14

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,10:01)
I'll keep updating this spreadsheet as I encounter new books; right now I'm trying to read Dembski and Wells and avoid marking up every other sentence with a red pencil...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note to self: buy stock in Acme Red Pencil Company.
Posted by: stevestory on July 16 2008,20:20

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,13:01)
I've updated my survey of biology textbooks wherein I document the appearance (or not) of the infamous Haeckel's embryos woodcut. The < current list > (available as an Excel file) covers 40 textbooks, dating from 1980 to the present day. These include 5 advanced college textbooks, 28 college-level intro books, 2 developmental biology books, 4 high-school or high school supplements, and 1 targeted at high school or college intro classes. There are 4 creationist books (Pandas, Explore Evolution, The Design of Life, and the Bob Jones U "Biology for Christian Schools" books), and 36 mainstream books.

Haeckel's original figure (woodcut of various vertebrate embryos) appears in exactly three of these 40 books. Most interestingly, all three are creationist texts; it does not appear in Pandas. It does not appear in any of the 36 mainstream biology textbooks in my possession.

It would appear that Well's assertion in Icons of Evolution that this figure still persists in many modern textbooks, as well as the re-assertion of this statement in Explore Evolution, as well as the re-assertion in The Design of Life, is false. The offending figure only appears as a strawman in creationist tracts (EE and TDoL and the BJU textbooks).

I'll keep updating this spreadsheet as I encounter new books; right now I'm trying to read Dembski and Wells and avoid marking up every other sentence with a red pencil...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is really the best of AtBC. Anybody can point and say "Har har you dumb tard" (I do it all the time) but when something inspires us to actually do some research and produce an analysis, that's when we're contributing the most. Kudos, alba.
Posted by: stevestory on July 16 2008,20:27

Quote (raguel @ July 10 2008,22:51)
So on one side, I see a few scientists talking about their research/experiments and how it confirms ToE, and on the other side I get yet another discussion about some 19th century wood carvings. This is what the kids today refer to as "EPIC FAIL".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We need to preserve comments like these in special archives, so that in 30 years, when elderly Paul looks back an asks, "Dur...why was I a complete failure?" He can maybe reread some of this and have, way too late, a little insight.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 16 2008,21:14

Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2008,20:20)
This is really the best of AtBC. Anybody can point and say "Har har you dumb tard" (I do it all the time) but when something inspires us to actually do some research and produce an analysis, that's when we're contributing the most. Kudos, alba.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Steve.

But it always makes me wonder why Wells and Nelson and all those folks who put this in books (rather than on blogs or message boards) don't bother to do the research themselves.

This is pretty simple stuff, a couple of hours of looking through books in an office, and they can't be bothered to do the work. No wonder they never even attempt to do lab work or field work and write it up for publication; that actually does take some time and effort!
Posted by: raguel on July 16 2008,21:20

It took a few readings and about 2 months, but I think I figured out that Nature paper :)  (Apologies in advance for the long post)

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....ro.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More seriously, Timmer should know that a single symposium – even one as fascinating as the Rockefeller event – does not a science make. Consider the topic of anatomical homology, central to arguments about the common ancestry of the animals. Explore Evolution focuses on the revolution in evolutionary theory’s understanding of homology that has been brought about by discoveries in developmental biology and genetics within the past two decades. Many biologists unfamiliar with these findings still hold the standard textbook view that homologous anatomical structures are caused by homologous genes and developmental pathways.

But those textbooks need to be updated. As Günther Wagner (2007, 473) notes,

   Intuitively, one would expect that the historical continuity of morphological characters is underpinned by the continuity of the genes that govern the development of these characters. However, things are not that simple: one of the most important results of the past 15 years of molecular developmental genetics is the realization that homologous characters can have different genetic and developmental bases. This seems paradoxical, because the historical continuity of morphological characters implies continuity of the (genetic) information about the characters.

Are students likely to learn about these discoveries from their standard biology textbooks? No. Will they learn about them in Explore Evolution? Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So will this be in EE then?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
found in the fact that developmental
variation in homologous characters is not
randomly distributed, but affects some
aspects of development more than others.
For example, in D. melanogaster, segmentation
proceeds through three stages that are
controlled by particular genes: gap genes,
which determine larger body regions, the
pair-rule genes, which divide the embryo
into stripes of alternating half segments,
and the segment-polarity genes, which
activate the actual morphogenetic process of
segment formation. Surprisingly, the most
extensive interspecific variation has been
found in the higher levels of the segmentation
hierarchy, namely the gap genes and
the pair-rule genes. Examples are the
pair-rule genes ftz and eve, mentioned above,
and the gap gene bicoid (bcd), which exists
only in the higher Diptera, not even in the
dipteran mosquito Anopheles. By contrast,
the segment-polarity gene network, which
includes the interaction of engrailed (en)
and wingless (wg), seems to be invariant, at
least among insectsThis suggests that the
genetic regulatory network (GRN) that controls
the execution of the segment-specific
morphogenetic processes is less variable
than the upstream processes that activate it.

If the pattern that is suggested by the data
on insect segmentation can be generalized, it
seems that the most conservative parts
of the developmental process are the
GRNs that control the developmental
programme that specifies the identity of
the character; that is, the character identity
network (ChIN). For example, individual
cell types are determined by a characteristic
set of regulatory genes over vast evolutionary
distances. Another example is the genetic
network for the endomesoderm that starfish
and sea urchins share. By contrast, other
aspects of development, from early patterning
to the execution of the developmental
programme, are more variable.
Here I review evidence that shows
that these networks determine character
identity rather than character state, that
non-homologous morphological characters
are determined by non-homologous ChINs,
and that the genes participating in a ChIN
are co-adapted for their task; that is, they are
functionally non-equivalent to orthologues in
species that do not have the character, and
to paralogues that do not participate in the
development of that character.
The idea that the genes that control character
identity are distinct from the genes that
determine the special shape and state of
a character has been well documented in
the case of Ultrabithorax (Ubx) function
in insect wing development...

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





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Future directions

Consistent with modern views of homology
character identity is not tied
to particular manifest features, like structure,
composition and shape.
Instead,
homologues have a single historical origin,
form a lineage of descent with modification,
and can go extinct. From a developmental
point of view, character identity and thus
homology requires the ability to express
an evolutionarily variable developmental
programme that is different from those
in other parts of the body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: raguel on July 17 2008,14:07

meh, I think I cut off a paragraph or two, and somehow threw off the formatting.

Anyway, EE is supposed to be for high school students right? Even with a PZ article to help me, I found pair-rule genes to be a...challenging topic. It may be my ego talking, but I don't see how one can reasonably expect any high school student to grasp all this. I suppose if the author is only concerned about quote mining to further his apologetics as opposed to actually teaching biology (so no need to learn about those pesky genes or what the words orthologue and paralogue mean), then it's ok.  :)
Posted by: stevestory on July 24 2008,18:44

It's been 2 weeks since he said anything, so those of you who are jonesing for a Paul Nelson fix, check out this old post of PZ's, where he beats Paul like a rented mule.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/ontogenetic_depth.php >

BTW Paul, when's OCD coming out? Is it still (still still still) upcoming? Or did you give up?
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 24 2008,20:48

I think Paul Nelson is taking flouncing lessons from FtK.

Paul is like FtK but with a degree in a useless subject.

Oh, wait a minute...
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 24 2008,21:04

Well, I suffer from liberal guilt.  Paul did finally pony-up with a review copy of EE, and I promised to review it.

I have stalled at page 22.

I have read eight or so books in the mean time, but I just have a block about EE. Some of those 8 have been creationist BS, so that is not the whole problem.
Posted by: stevestory on July 24 2008,21:09

Do you have any thoughts about why you hit a wall with it?
Posted by: olegt on July 26 2008,08:08

I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out, but the book seems to be a smashing success.  From the < Amazon.com page >:


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

Explore Evolution (Paperback)
by stephen c. Meyer (Author), Scott Minnish (Author), Jonathan Moneymaker (Author), Paul A Nelson (Author), Ralph Seelke (Author)
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

Currently unavailable.
We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,385,858 in Books

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


Looks like you can only buy it through the < Disco store >.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on July 26 2008,11:04

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2008,21:04)
Well, I suffer from liberal guilt.  Paul did finally pony-up with a review copy of EE, and I promised to review it.

I have stalled at page 22.

I have read eight or so books in the mean time, but I just have a block about EE. Some of those 8 have been creationist BS, so that is not the whole problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have that same problem with The Design of Life ???
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 26 2008,14:19

Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2008,19:09)
Do you have any thoughts about why you hit a wall with it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting question.

From page 16 to 21 the "case for" fossils succession is supposedly presented. On page 22 they begin their case against. The "case for" was biased in its presentation, and their reply is simply 14 pages of lies. The rest of the book, based on spot checks, maintains this ratio of 4 biased "proscience" pages  to 14 pages of creationist lies supposedly presenting "... the most qualified proponents and critics that we could."

If Paul Nelson could have signed on to these lies (and he did), then there is no point what-so-ever to expect him to honest about anything.

It is depressing.
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Sep. 12 2008,21:52

It's obvious to this person, with an IQ somewhat east  of 151, that you are all deeply threatened by the inquisitive scientific attitude of cdevolution proskeptics.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 12 2008,23:30

Re "cdevolution proskeptics"

The who whatting how with huh? :)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 25 2008,07:53

Over a year later, and the DI's EE "< Discussion >" page is just a blog-like compendium of reactions to news about EE. No sign of an open forum there.

Maybe they should change their label to "Preach the Controversy".
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 25 2008,08:57

Some recent review of "explore evolution" (thanks oldman).

< http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1 >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 25 2008,10:21

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 25 2008,06:57)
Some recent review of "explore evolution" (thanks oldman).

< http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was an excellent piece of work.  Thanks for the link.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2008,23:25

< A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp >

via PZ

ETA: hmm...it appears other people peruse the internet as well. How unexpected.


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2008,23:53

Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 28 2008,08:54

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53)
Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be sure to follow the < link > to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 28 2008,09:34

The paper is published in "cell cycles", which seems a respectable journal. This is rather disturbing.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 28 2008,10:55

Cell Cycle?  < Rings a bell >.

The paper gets off to a bad start, this is the second sentence of the abstract:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In an effort to fit the past events to the prevailing theory of evolution, the natural phenomenon has become so convoluted and polemic-ridden that it has floated clear out of the roam of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The natural phenomenon?  Which one?  And "roam of science"?  Not a good way to start a paper.

I'm not going to read the whole paper - just skimming it is causing my brain cells to rebel.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 28 2008,12:52

Ok, so the editor of cell cycle has some sympathy with ID or what?
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 03 2008,11:20

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2008,11:55)
Cell Cycle?  < Rings a bell >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Sherman paper just reappeared in a quote mine comment on this < PT thread >.
#Already sent to the Bathroom Wall, apparently!

What was interesting to me was that the version of the paper linked to was hosted on a Jewish revival web site. Not sure what the connection is... its all about science, right?
Posted by: slpage on Oct. 03 2008,11:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 28 2008,08:54)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53)
Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be sure to follow the < link > to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of weird moon-man language was that written in?
Were NONE of his references checked by the reviewers?
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 25 2008,02:17

DI folks should have known better: Larry Moran debunked Schwabe's claims back in < 1992 >. Still, they continue to cite Schwabe, the latest example being WE Lönnig in his < Dollo's law paper >. The reason is obvious: They present Schwabe's "Genomic Potential Hypothesis" (GPH) as another "alternative" to evolution theory to corroborate their claim that there is more dissent than just ID and that there is something like a controversy. However, ID-creationists do not dare to discuss Schwabe's claims (who IIRC according to a news article I once read claims to be an atheist). Either they are not interested in doing this or they are afraid of running the risk to question their own claims when doing so. Thus, they can cite Schwabe in footnotes or subordinate clauses only. Calling this    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much Ado About A Footnote Citing Christian Schwabe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is just ridiculous.
BTW Paul Nelson has some problems with properly citing. He mentions Schwabes FASEB paper but doesn’t give the exact reference (Georges D and Schwabe C (1999): Porcine relaxin, a 500 million-year-old hormone? The tunicate Ciona intestinalis has porcine relaxin. FASEB J 13(10):1269-75). Is this just incompetence or did he do so by purpose?
Being cited as    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hafner and Korthof (2006) argue vigorously against Schwabe’s position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

doesn't really hit the point. Besides indeed discussing the absurdity of Schwabe's GPH Geert and myself have shown that at least Schwabe's Ciona data are completely flawed: Actually, there is no relaxin gene in C.  intestinalis.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 04 2008,21:44

P. Nelson:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, the point of my Schwabe reply wasn't to endorse all of Schwabe's arguments or claims, but to illustrate the existence of a genuine controversy about relaxin, which Timmer had denied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In contrast, according to an article by Daniel Conover which appeared in the < Charleston Post and Courier on March 29, 2004 > Schwabe doesn’t endorse Nelson’s arguments at all:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's the kind of argument that irritates mainstream scientists who say that regardless of whether intelligent design constitutes a meaningful critique of evolution, intelligent design is not science. Why?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Because you can't make predictions from (intelligent design),"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

said Schwabe, no fan of the movement himself. Despite his dismissal of I.D., descriptions of Schwabe's theory routinely show up on intelligent-design Web sites.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"And this just makes it more difficult, you see," Schwabe said. "They're desperate to get rid of Darwin, and they're misusing (the idea)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 08 2008,08:53

The topic here is the DI's "Explore Evolution" text, not generic IDC. I've sent some off-topic comments to the < Bathroom Wall >.


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 24 2009,18:35

The journal Evolution and Development has reviewed Explore Evolution. The review can be found < here >. Here is one of the better parts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This book is part of a strategy (Matzke 2006) that resembles not so much a Trojan horse as an email virus, or the introduction of sterile males into an insect population. Its effect in schools will be to teach students that the process of science consists of fatuous discussions using context-free quotes and no cogent treatment of any clear questions. Together with new state education bills allowing local groups to push this stuff into classrooms, it will help dilute and weaken the already thin preparation students receive for dealing with a world full of information they need to be able to think about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note: The Matzke cite is this paper: New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again). Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26 (6): 28–30. Available from < http://ncseweb.org/rncse/26/6/new-creationist-textbook-way-again >
Posted by: deejay on Jan. 25 2009,00:18

Thanks afarensis!  I love the quote you cite, or more accurately, I love its description of a terrible problem.  

Just earlier today,  I was dabbling in the blogs of some unabashed Christian apologists.  Writing comments, I was struggling to put into words how the creationists' response to Dover is even more cynical and nihilistic than the attempt to put ID on equal footing with evolutionary theory.  That response has been essentially that if we can't teach our view, we'll just teach the view that science is worthless anyway, so don't even bother.  The quote summed up the consequences of this response very nicely.  

It was nice to see Lenny show up in the references.

The period needs to be removed for the Matzke link to work.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 09 2009,16:16

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again.  I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August.  Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.

I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome.

P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did that turn out?  Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution?  I'm betting not.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 09 2009,16:49

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 09 2009,16:16)
How did that turn out?  Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution?  I'm betting not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the old days that bet would have won you a bottle of single-malt Scotch.

Today, you win the bet, but you get zilch for that effort
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 21 2009,09:31

Here is the debate page at Explore Evolution:
< http://exploreevolution.org/debate.php >
The "debate" consists of 5 anonymous editorials posted ca. November 2008.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Feb. 23 2009,12:27

Paul Nelson posts at UD:
< Don’t use the D word. It’s being eliminated. >
Thanks for being ahead of the curve, Paul, and not using the D word in "Explore Evolution".
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 16 2009,22:32

Paul Nelson sighting!

Paul posts an insightful observation at EN&V!

Here it is:  < Paul Nelson has a Dream >

Paul cites a paper given at the recent AAAS conference then dreams of, get this, high school students attending the conference.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Yeah, he has high school students attending the conference because, er, why?  Oh, I know, it's because Ben Stein taught High School!  Well, in a movie script, but that's like a dream, isn't it?  Made up.  Fiction.

A dreeeeeeeeaaaaaammmmmm.

Anyway, then Paul has a Vision!  (cue creepy SciFi music)  Paul sees DEAD PEOPLE!  Stanley Miller and Leslie Orgel!  Why????

BECAUSE THEY'RE DEAD AND DEAD MEN DON'T TALK!!

Remember last year or so when Casey Luskin, our favorite moronic attack gerbil, wrote that Orgel supported "irreducible complexity" and Luskin got so thoroughly trashed on the Intertubes that he doesn't venture out of the house TO THIS DAY without wearing his Nixon Halloween mask?

Well, Paul Nelson is out there doing the same thing.  Imagining what Stan and Les would do. Hey, Paul, do you wear WWSD and WWLD bracelets?  Nelson has been reduced to Imaginary Friends.  I wonder if you go to Nelson's house and sit on a chair that Paul admonishes you for "sitting on Leslie."

Srsly, Paul must be a freaking genius!  How else could a guy with the mind of a 4th grader get a PhD?

It certainly does explain Explore Evolution, though.  Total.  Fiction.
Posted by: studio on Jan. 13 2010,15:23

I've been viewing the comments and they are very deep!
Not sure if this should be posted here, but it really relates:

There is a weekly Streaming LIVE event: "Evolution Vs. Creation"
This is where you can ASK QUESTIONS live and GET ANSWERS Live, using the chat box on Ustream. It lasts for about an hour.
They WILL ask your questions LIVE.
This would be great to hear some of your comments/questions there as the comments you've written bring great interest.

Watch it Weekly on Wednesdays @ 7:10 PM (EST):
< http://bit.ly/8zmgiG >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 13 2010,15:29

Looks like Jesusspam.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 13 2010,15:41

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 13 2010,16:29)
Looks like Jesusspam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure do
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 13 2010,16:20

Maybe sombody from SW Seminary school (The Demon Designers) trying to pump up their grade for a Dr. Dr. Dembski taught class?  

I give them a D.  A D for Dembski, and another D for dumb.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 13 2010,17:13

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 13 2010,16:20)
Maybe sombody from SW Seminary school (The Demon Designers) trying to pump up their grade for a Dr. Dr. Dembski taught class?  

I give them a D.  A D for Dembski, and another D for dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now if they can just get a couple of "r"s they can teach classes at East Jesus CC.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 13 2010,18:43

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Feb. 23 2009,10:27)
Paul Nelson posts at UD:
< Don’t use the D word. It’s being eliminated. >
Thanks for being ahead of the curve, Paul, and not using the D word in "Explore Evolution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy cow. What a great bunch of god-dodging!  

"Well, the designer might be supernatural..."

Cowards.
Posted by: xpowderx on Jan. 18 2010,00:00

1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 18 2010,01:15

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bubba you trying out a new handle?

ETA No I realize now that it's some sort of Jesusian nominalist.
Posted by: xpowderx on Jan. 18 2010,04:15

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,01:15)
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bubba you trying out a new handle?

ETA No I realize now that it's some sort of Jesusian nominalist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, I am not christian nor am I a humanist!  You cannot say more on what I wrote? Other than trying a insult?
I would expect to see that from Dawkin  followers. You are not one of them are you? If you are, when do the aliens come to get you?

I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

Quote:What is often the TRUTH is usually replaced by that which is convenient!
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 18 2010,05:02

[quote=xpowderx,Jan. 18 2010,04:15][quote=Erasmus, FCD,Jan. 18 2010,01:15]              
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is nothing to ‘pick apart’ in your OP! If you have a better theory, now is the time to let the world know!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suggest you address some facts. Before that, my best advice it for you to learn – really do some effort at learning what evolutionary theory actually says. Claims from creationists or evolution deniers are regularly distortion and misrepresentation of facts. We are so used to that and know that there’s a very close to 100% certainty that the proponent doesn’t know what he is talking about, doesn’t want to learn, is not interested in learning anything; his sole purpose is to demonstrate how stupid and impolite evilutionists are.

While the fact is our patience has grown very thin, we don’t care to go beating around the bush.

But we’ll let you have the benefit of doubt – so be our guest, come back with a serious argument based on understanding what you are in disagreement about or have insufficient knowledge about, and you’ll get polite and pointed response(s).

I know it is hard to understand what I am saying but 50 years of exposure to critics of evolution – from university professors to insane Christaliban’s has taught me to expect nothing.

You might even want to study these threads to get a clue to what we have to suffer and deal with here:

< Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits >

< FL "Debate Thread" >
Posted by: xpowderx on Jan. 18 2010,07:01

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 18 2010,05:02)
[quote=xpowderx,Jan. 18 2010,04:15][quote=Erasmus, FCD,Jan. 18 2010,01:15]                
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is nothing to ‘pick apart’ in your OP! If you have a better theory, now is the time to let the world know!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suggest you address some facts. Before that, my best advice it for you to learn – really do some effort at learning what evolutionary theory actually says. Claims from creationists or evolution deniers are regularly distortion and misrepresentation of facts. We are so used to that and know that there’s a very close to 100% certainty that the proponent doesn’t know what he is talking about, doesn’t want to learn, is not interested in learning anything; his sole purpose is to demonstrate how stupid and impolite evilutionists are.

While the fact is our patience has grown very thin, we don’t care to go beating around the bush.

But we’ll let you have the benefit of doubt – so be our guest, come back with a serious argument based on understanding what you are in disagreement about or have insufficient knowledge about, and you’ll get polite and pointed response(s).

I know it is hard to understand what I am saying but 50 years of exposure to critics of evolution – from university professors to insane Christaliban’s has taught me to expect nothing.

You might even want to study these threads to get a clue to what we have to suffer and deal with here:

< Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits >

< FL "Debate Thread" >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not arguing anything. Do not have to . I just gave you why Evolutionary mutation is false. What I showed is bio-genetically valid and quite provable. Unlike the things evolutionist's have been throwing out lately. Conjecture!. My view is completely provable and already exists in current genetic research.
Posted by: xpowderx on Jan. 18 2010,07:05

Sorry was a bit pissed off. Do not like seeing a 100% provable theory pissed on. Ill be back a bit later to fully explain the theory. I am sorry for bashing evolution, but lately I have been the spark of frequent attacks by them.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 18 2010,07:46

xpowder - Please translate what you write into English before you post. Your O'Leary-like rambling is incomprehensible.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 18 2010,08:30

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm guessing that English is not your first language, so I'm going to try and add a little coherence to this to see if I get your point. It's a little bit difficult to parse as written, so please correct me if I misstate what you are trying to say:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen, mutation is a immediate response:

a. When current existing data is deleted

b. When any other existing data comes into contact with another set of existing data

c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So your hypothesis here is that if there is (a) a deletion of DNA, (b)if DNA touches any other DNA, or © if some other DNA supplants the original DNA, then a mutation occurs. Is that what you're saying?

If so, then

(a) is a well known source of mutation and is true almost by definition.
(b) ... I'm not sure that this is necessarily true, but I'm willing to go with it for the moment - have I missed what you're trying to say?
© is a well known source of mutation and is true almost by definition.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh? If you don't mind, please define "constant" as you are using it here. Constant in what way? Rate? If so, to what degree? While it's true that mutation rates are relatively constant over long periods of time and those rates can be used to estimate the amount of time since the most recent common ancestor of two species, I'd be rather surprised if the rate of mutation were perfectly consistent over short periods of time. I would be shocked, for instance, if I had exactly the same number of mutations in my DNA as my father.

Since you bring up cancer later on, I would also be shocked if a biopsy of cancerous tissue from my body in vitro had the same rate of mutation as a similar one taken from yours.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, yeah. Biology is sort of messy that way.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You need to define "spontaneously" here. As I take your implied meaning, this is simply not the case. Evolutionary Theory posits neither magic nor will as the cause of mutation, just very messy chemistry and physics with too many variables to be perfectly predictable.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you're saying that Evolutionary Theory can't perfectly predict what mutations will occur in any given recombination of large strings of DNA, I'm not sure you'll get an argument from anyone on this point. Again, biology is very very messy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you're saying that mutation happens slower or faster depending on the DNA and whatever happens to it? Are you next going to state that the sky is blue, water is wet, and women have secrets? Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, assuming that you are not positing that every cell is necessarily "its own individual" in the same sense that an entire multicellular organism is "its own individual", you're stating the obvious again. "This cell is not that cell" is hardly worth noting, and sure, it's due in part to each cell's unique history. So what?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assuming you're not messing with the arrow of time, I'll grant you this as yet another declaration of the mundane.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Different cells have different, unique histories. Again, so what? What the hell is your point here? You seem to be belaboring the point that "This cell is not that cell".

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dude, I'm about to whip out the ORLY? owl. Again, biology is just some seriously messy chemistry and physics. So what? I'd hardly call what you've forwarded "laws", though. More like "givens".

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, not really much of a set of laws, but rather "Given that biology is some really messy chemistry and physics..."

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now a final comment concerning Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wait, what? I'm not sure you've really made a first comment concerning evolution that's worth mentioning, let alone a final one. So far what you've said boils down to "Shit happens. It matters. Sometimes."

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the context of what you've said heretofore, I'd agree that mutation is not exactly "Random", just so damn messy that it might as well be random. I suppose that if we got down to the nitty gritty of the physics underlying the messy chemistry to the point where we look at the quantum mechanics of the substance of the universe, a physicist could expound better on the randomness of it all. Above that level, we're back to "Really really messy, with so many variables that it might as well be random and can be treated as such". Biology is messy. So what?

The only people invoking magic are creationists. If your assertion is that Evolutionary Theory posits magic, then you don't understand Evolutionary Theory even a little bit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution uses both as explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, well then... I guess that speaks for itself.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To be frank.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello, Frank. Frankly, Frank, I don't think you're being Frank at all.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Therefore (my particular) god."

Gotcha.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 18 2010,08:47

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,05:15)
Sorry, I am not christian nor am I a humanist!  You cannot say more on what I wrote? Other than trying a insult?
I would expect to see that from Dawkin  followers. You are not one of them are you? If you are, when do the aliens come to get you?

I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

Quote:What is often the TRUTH is usually replaced by that which is convenient!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Self-martyr much?

Would you mind coming down off your cross to say something noteworthy and coherent?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 18 2010,08:47

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,07:05)

Do not like seeing a 100% provable theory pissed on.

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



Where would we find that? Certainly not in the following quoted set of bafflegab:

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,00:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(1.) You aren't taking into account all that is already known about mutational processes. If you are going to propose an alternative universal theory of mutation, it has to explain all the existing data, and overall be an improvement over current explanations. You fail at the very first hurdle.

(1a.) This, at least, is one recognized way mutation happens: deletions. There are others, though.

(1b.) Recombination can make permanent changes in genetic material, but it is a process that is separate from mutation.

(1c.) Bafflegab. Actually theories are communicated such that other people aren't left guessing what was meant.

Then there is the repetition of markers for points of your presentation, meaning the same marker is used for multiple different points. This is not a sign of good communication practices.

(1.) "All mutation is constant." That looks oxymoronic. Mutation rates are measurable, but there is variation in those rates. Otherwise, mutations are defined as changes in the genetic makeup of an organism, which is rather the opposite of constancy.

(2.) Sorry, you don't know enough about biology or evolutionary science to effectively comment. Evolutionary biologists know that mutations differ in what effect they might have, ranging from neutral mutations that never have an effect to stuff that is immediately lethal to progeny. This is already known to evolutionary biologists; why did you think that you were telling us something that was at odds with what we already know?

(3.) Nope, wrong again. About 20% of single-nucleotide substitution transitions will result in codons that match the same amino acid product as was previously encoded, meaning it will never be "faster" or "slower", as it is completely neutral.

(4, 5, and 6.) Bafflegab. Has nothing to do with mutation, in any case.

Cancer treatment example: Cancer is somatic. The sort of mutation of interest to evolutionary biologists is in changes to the genetics passed down to progeny. Read a book.

Catching a cold: Epidemiology is again different from mutation. Read a book.

"Random": The specific meaning attached to that is "random with respect to potential benefit". No one has demonstrated otherwise so far.

"Magical": Sorry, you appear to be entirely ignorant of evolutionary science. You could prove me wrong easily enough by citation of someone in the primary literature invoking magic as a process in evolutionary science.

As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 18 2010,08:49

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,08:01)
I am not arguing anything. Do not have to . I just gave you why Evolutionary mutation is false. What I showed is bio-genetically valid and quite provable. Unlike the things evolutionist's have been throwing out lately. Conjecture!. My view is completely provable and already exists in current genetic research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what you did was ramble on about "This cell is not that cell" and "Biology is messy".

You haven't actually said anything worth saying yet, Frank.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 18 2010,09:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:47)
As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, I see we are using different Bafflegab-English translators1, but that's a nice summation either way.

1 Preston, Bill S., and Theodore Logan. Bill and Ted's Excellent Bafflegab Translator in Eleven Volumes. 2nd ed. San Dimas, CA: Carlin, Reeves, & Winter, 1991. Print.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 18 2010,09:52

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,09:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:47)
As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, I see we are using different Bafflegab-English translators1, but that's a nice summation either way.

1 Preston, Bill S., and Theodore Logan. Bill and Ted's Excellent Bafflegab Translator in Eleven Volumes. 2nd ed. San Dimas, CA: Carlin, Reeves, & Winter, 1991. Print.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the original book review I paraphrased went like this:

This book is novel and good. However, the parts that were good were not novel, and the parts that were novel were not good.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 18 2010,10:04

I guess the primary question to ask of "xpowderx" is whether his impressive(*) ability to speak out on evolutionary science was informed by reading the Discovery Institute's "Explore Evolution" book.

(*) I really like the word "impressive". Many people slide right by the fact that impressing can go positive or negative.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 18 2010,10:07

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,00:00)
1.All mutation is constant.

...snip

3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I particularly liked that internal inconsistency. What language do you think this was translated from?
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 18 2010,10:23

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:52)
I think the original book review I paraphrased went like this:

This book is novel and good. However, the parts that were good were not novel, and the parts that were novel were not good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is an apocryphal quote from Dr Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

rossum
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 19 2010,11:18

The Design Inference says: Another of Dr Dr D's Christian Credit Chasers.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 19 2010,14:37

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 19 2010,09:18)
The Design Inference says: Another of Dr Dr D's Christian Credit Chasers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very likely. My Mark II Explanatory Filter is clogged with YECrap.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 19 2010,14:41

i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 19 2010,17:17

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 19 2010,17:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2010,17:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU JUST VIOLATED THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 19 2010,21:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2010,15:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I was quite pleased with how you managed the situation. This recent twit was a little 'non-standard' so I doubt we will see the exact same stupid again.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2010,00:05

have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 20 2010,11:05

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2010,12:15

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 20 2010,12:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but he's not a christian nor a humanist!!!!!!11!
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 20 2010,12:33

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,10:15)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 20 2010,12:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but he's not a christian nor a humanist!!!!!!11!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No - he's a sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivelist.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 20 2010,14:27

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,00:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like equivocation to me.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 22 2010,13:51

Via "The Panda's Thumb"

< http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/explore-evolution >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 24 2010,10:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2010,13:51)
Via "The Panda's Thumb"

< http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/explore-evolution >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woohoo! As a participant in the NCSE-sponsored wiki-based critique of EE, I wondered when this was going to see the light of day. The PT page also links to a < pamphlet (pdf) >published by the British Center for Science Education. I looked at that, and my contribution (a takedown of the lie that this book uses the modern pedagogical approach known as inquiry-based learning) was used almost verbatim (p. 6 of the pamphlet). They do, of course, change the spelling to "enquiry". But they left in the bit about DaveTard; he's globally even more famous now..
Posted by: Evolution-FTW on Jan. 24 2010,12:29

In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 24 2010,12:41

That's because Scots are special, not common!

They were Pict by God.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 24 2010,14:29

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome!

Start here:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ >
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 25 2010,08:42

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be fair, they are working on devolution...

< Scottish Devolution >
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 26 2010,04:14

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When something can't be seen in and of itself, you have to look for less-direct evidence.
As an example, take black holes. By definition, you can't see a black hole, because the damn thing's gravity is so strong that not even light can escape its ferocious pull. So how can you tell whether or not black holes exist? By looking for indications of their gravity. One possibility: If you happen to see a bunch of stuff moving around as if all that stuff were orbiting a single massive body, but you can't see anything at all where that massive body ought to be, you might just be 'looking' at a black hole.
Another possibility: Say you can measure how fast an object is moving in its orbit, and you keep on measuring until you've got at least one complete orbit's worth of data. You can use that data to figure out (a) the radius of the object's orbit, and (b) the strength of the gravity field the object is orbiting within. Depending on how strong the gravity field is, compared to the radius of the object's orbit, you might be 'seeing' a black hole there, too.

Does that help you understand how you can learn about something by indirect means?

Now, what sort of indirect means could you use to learn something about a common ancestor you don't have access to? Well, by definition, a common ancestor has descendants, right? And descendants tend to inherit things from their ancestors. As well, descendants tend not to inherit stuff from living things that were not their ancestors. This means that a bunch of critters that are all descended from a common ancestor, should be more similar to each other than are a bunch of critters which aren't all descended from a common ancestor. So if you see a bunch of different species which are a lot more similar to each other than they really have any right to be, those species might all be descended from a common ancestor; if they are, it's a good bet that the traits which are most common to all of these species, are traits which they all inherited from their common ancestor.

Obviously, I haven't even pretended to get into the nitty-gritty details of How It's Actually Done In Practice. But does the above text at least give you a sense of how a person who was interested could learn about a common ancestor they don't have access to?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 26 2010,13:00

I'd like to point out that DNA testing is more reliable than marriage records for determining kinship.

Extrapolate the methods of paternity testing and you have one of the strongest lines of evidence for common descent.

Or, as they say at UD, common ancestry.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2010,21:22

For anyone who thinks phylogenetic analysis is worthless, they should < consider the $360 million settlement in the Larry Hillblom case >.



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

"The circumstantial evidence was lovely; that's what got them to the lawsuit in the first place," says Neufeld. "It was the scientific evidence that finally got them a settlement. They can say that until they were blue in the face, but if you can prove that it's 100,000 times more likely that he has those genes because he's the son of Larry Hillblom, that trumps everything else."

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


Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 27 2010,06:22

I have a friend who works for the forensic labs in Helsinki.  They had a shooting in a school last year, and the quickest identification of the bodies was done through the DNA work.  He was also involved in identification of victims of the Boxing Day tsunami.

Oh, and his PhD was on the phylogeography of seals.
Posted by: cdanner on Feb. 18 2010,10:21

I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 18 2010,10:24

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome.

Please define "molecular evolution" so that we can discuss it, and the evidence for and against it, from a common ground.

Please define "primitive lifeforms".

More precisely, what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see in "primitive lifeforms", and why would you expect to see it, based on your understanding of evolutionary theory?

thanks
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 18 2010,10:30

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome again!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The genetic code is almost universal. The same codons are assigned to the same amino acids and to the same START and STOP signals in the vast majority of genes in animals, plants, and microorganisms. However, some exceptions have been found. Most of these involve assigning one or two of the three STOP codons to an amino acid instead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nuclear genes
Violations of the universal code are far rarer for nuclear genes.

A few unicellular eukaryotes have been found that use one or two (of their three) STOP codons for amino acids instead.
Nonstandard Amino Acids

The vast majority of proteins are assembled from the 20 amino acids listed above even though some of these may be chemically altered, e.g. by phosphorylation, at a later time.
However, two cases have been found where an amino acid that is not one of the standard 20 is inserted by a tRNA into the growing polypeptide.

   * selenocysteine. This amino acid is encoded by UGA. UGA is still used as a chain terminator, but the translation machinery is able to discriminate when a UGA codon should be used for selenocysteine rather than STOP. This codon usage has been found in certain Archaea, eubacteria, and animals (humans synthesize 25 different proteins containing selenium).
   * pyrrolysine. In several species of Archaea and bacteria, this amino acid is encoded by UAG. How the translation machinery knows when it encounters UAG whether to insert a tRNA with pyrrolysine or to stop translation is not yet known.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html >
Does that help? Does that count as the kind of variance you mean?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 18 2010,10:30

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Part of the answer may be that there are no "lower primitive life forms" - even what we commonly call "lower" or "simpler" (such as bacteria) have evolved for the same length of time as fish, mammals, etc.  I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence of molecular evolution" though - what molecules do you have in mind?

If we started out with primitive forms of RNA, for example, it had to happen early for life to evolve at all, and as life evolved, more "advanced" forms of the RNA could arise through the various natural means.  The forms that were superior would, over time, replace the less fit forms, and they would disappear (except perhaps in extremophiles - at least this is one hypothesis I have heard, and some are looking into it).

We obviously can't look at fossil traces and determine the molecular make-up of organisms, and if the genes themselves have mutated beyond what they originally were, then we might not have evidence we can look at.  The only hope would be to find creatures that have conserved the more primitive forms.  

Anyone else?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 18 2010,10:45

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,08:21)
Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the most accessable relevant arguments are in two Carl Woese papers; “The universal ancestor” (1998 PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859), and “On the evolution of Cells” (2002 PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747).

Woese is the fellow who discovered that the "bacteria" were really two groups, with the Archaea being the more primitive. This split was prior to the origin of eukaryotes by endosymbiosis. These developments, by the way, correct your misunderstanding that we are unable to detect that micro-organisms underwent evolutionary differentiation.

The situation is that as the RNA to DNA transformation was happening, the exchange of genetic material and products was very promiscuous. There was a sort of homogenization caused by what we call "lateral transfer." This is how all life on Earth has nearly the same organization of DNA, and RNA. (For a review of the sequence of events in the evolution of DNA, and the sequential addition of amino acids available for peptide and protein building, see Edward N. Trifonov, 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles," Journal of Biomolecular Structure &
Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)


Posted by: raguel on Feb. 18 2010,13:07

Every time someone bumps this, I keep hoping to see a post by Paul Nelson saying they are creating a forum for EE. Oh well, maybe next time.
Posted by: cdanner on Feb. 18 2010,16:40

The problem that I am trying to describe is the lack of evidence in simple life, in which molecular biology has shown the design of a cell is the same for basically all living systems on earth. The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids are identical, as well. Wouldn't one see some kind of evolutionary sequence within any structure that might evidence evolution. I mean, there has been no change (and no proof) in genetic communication within a cell for over 2 billion years. Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 18 2010,16:49

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would you expect that evidence to look like?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 18 2010,16:52

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids are identical, as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few posts ago I put a few paragraphs up showing that is not true. If I'm understanding what you are asking anyway.

Did you see it? Does "identical" mean something different to you then me?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 18 2010,17:07

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
The problem that I am trying to describe is the lack of evidence in simple life, in which molecular biology has shown the design of a cell is the same for basically all living systems on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, as noted above, your "problem" would be easier to address if you can clarify it for us. So I'll repeat what I wrote above, just in case you missed it.

-----------------------
Please define "molecular evolution" so that we can discuss it, and the evidence for and against it, from a common ground.

Please define "primitive lifeforms".

More precisely, what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see in "primitive lifeforms", and why would you expect to see it, based on your understanding of evolutionary theory?
----------------------
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2010,18:15

I would expect that for species with common ancestry, the "roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids" would be very similar (even if not always entirely identical as somebody pointed out above), because changes at that level are apt to break something, more so than changes in proteins that aren't used in the basic machinery.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 18 2010,18:21

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 18 2010,18:53

I am no chemist, but I wonder if the coding for amino acids is not random, but related to the structure of the aa. Also, I would expect there to be little change in the coding because any change would disrupt virtually every protein produced by an organism and the chances of the organism being still viable would be extremely remote.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 18 2010,18:53

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2010,18:21)
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is what I found doing that search! >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 18 2010,22:26

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 18 2010,18:53)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2010,18:21)
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is what I found doing that search! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah. It's good to know that I haven't forgotten everything yet.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2010,22:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richard Simons, posted 2/18/10 5:53 PM
I am no chemist, but I wonder if the coding for amino acids is not random, but related to the structure of the aa. Also, I would expect there to be little change in the coding because any change would disrupt virtually every protein produced by an organism and the chances of the organism being still viable would be extremely remote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm no chemist either, but my guess is that the chemicals used in the assembly of proteins would pretty much have to be structured to grab the required amino acid and not any of the others. So my guess is that the coding can't be random.

Henry
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 19 2010,23:14

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay, this sentence is a bit of a red flag for those of us who have been around the Creationism-versus-evolution block a few times, because it just so happens that "I'm a good little scholar/truthseeker/Evolutionist, honest I am, but I just have some questions..." is an opening gambit which has been used by Creationists more than a few times. And even if it weren't, why bother with that "honest question" verbiage in the first place? Just ask the question without the extra justificationariness, and save a bit of wear and tear on your typing fingers!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Given the fact that there are a number of < alternative genetic codes >, it is not entirely clear that "all living creatures on Earth" do "essentially have the same molecular biological design". However, granting the premise of your question for the sake of argument, it seems to me that anything which which genuinely is shared by all living things on Earth, should be explicable as having been inherited from whatever ancestor(s) is (are?) shared by all lifeforms on Earth.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First: Show me a guy who has no idea what a zibbleblorf might be, and I'll show you a guy who wouldn't recognize a zibbleblorf if one was chewing on their face. So can you tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like? If you can't tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like, how the heck do you know that no such evidence exists? Does the existence of alternative genetic codes count as "evidence... of variance at this level"?
Second: On the assumption that "evidence of molecular evolution" refers to something we can learn about by examining DNA sequences, it's worth noting that it's trivially easy to study the DNA sequences of living critters. It is also worth noting that it's appreciably less easy to study the DNA sequences of critters what was alive a couple billion years ago... seeing as how, you know, we don't actually have any DNA sequences from critters what was alive a couple billion years ago. But if you're willing to accept the proposition that the present-day DNA sequences of present-day critters can display indications of whatever flavors of genetic change may have occured in past generations, the lack of actual gigayears-old DNA sequences isn't all that crippling an obstacle to scientific study.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 20 2010,08:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, this sentence is a bit of a red flag for those of us who have been around the Creationism-versus-evolution block a few times, because it just so happens that "I'm a good little scholar/truthseeker/Evolutionist, honest I am, but I just have some questions..." is an opening gambit which has been used by Creationists more than a few times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm beginning to think that this guy is one of Dr Dr D's students, aka "a troll for god". I asked for clarifying definitions minutes after its first post appeared, and so far I've heard nada from it. That probably means it is not serious about the question, but is serious about trolling.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,09:32

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2010,06:38)
I'm beginning to think that this guy is one of Dr Dr D's students, aka "a troll for god".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. It would be interesting to know if D^3 assigned his book as required reading. I recall a syllabus posted somewhere.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,09:53

Course Title: PHILO 4483; Christian Faith and Science

COURSE TEXTS
Required
[F-V] Antony Flew and Roy Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

[BW] Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002).

[JL] John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2007).

[FC] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).

[WmD] William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009).

[B-O] Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case of the Existence of the Soul (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

Assignments:
(4) 3,000-word record of interactions with contrary websites, totaling at least 10 posts and giving URLs for posts — 10 percent positive. Due by last class meeting. This is where you get to mix it up with people on the other side of the debate over faith and science. It will open your eyes.

I can see! I can SEE! I thought the Biblical Rx was mud and spit.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,11:02

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,14:40)
Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


cdanner, Have you examined the < The Genetic Codes > link provided by the excellent post by Cubist?

I also encourage you to consider the implications of the < Mitochondrial Genetic Code in Taxonomy Tree >, and the < Genetic Code in Taxonomy Tree >. Still a work in progress, they are none-the-less the genetic culmination of the project began by Linnaeus in 1735.


Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 20 2010,11:07

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 20 2010,09:53)
Course Title: PHILO 4483; Christian Faith and Science

COURSE TEXTS
Required
[F-V] Antony Flew and Roy Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

[BW] Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002).

[JL] John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2007).

[FC] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).

[WmD] William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009).

[B-O] Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case of the Existence of the Soul (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

Assignments:
(4) 3,000-word record of interactions with contrary websites, totaling at least 10 posts and giving URLs for posts — 10 percent positive. Due by last class meeting. This is where you get to mix it up with people on the other side of the debate over faith and science. It will open your eyes.

I can see! I can SEE! I thought the Biblical Rx was mud and spit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Carp!  Seriously - that awful book ghost-written and basically signed off by Flew, Collins, Dembski, and O'leary?  How can one mind contain such stupidity.  I'd expect the good Dr Dr's classroom to be painted with the exploded brains of his students.

Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,11:14

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 20 2010,09:07)
Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Order it used from < Albris. > They have copies for $5 US.

When you are feeling better after reading it, donate it to a library for the tax write-off.

ed: "right-off?" scheech. Even as political humor it sucked.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 20 2010,11:16

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 20 2010,11:07)
Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got a copy of the book for free and read it so that I could post a < review > on Amazon. Then I sent the book to Reciprocating Bill and he read it and posted a < review > on Amazon. His review is the top-rated 1-star review, and mine is #2.

Read those to see if you really need to waste time and neurons on her drivel.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 20 2010,12:52

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2010,08:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, this sentence is a bit of a red flag for those of us who have been around the Creationism-versus-evolution block a few times, because it just so happens that "I'm a good little scholar/truthseeker/Evolutionist, honest I am, but I just have some questions..." is an opening gambit which has been used by Creationists more than a few times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm beginning to think that this guy is one of Dr Dr D's students, aka "a troll for god". I asked for clarifying definitions minutes after its first post appeared, and so far I've heard nada from it. That probably means it is not serious about the question, but is serious about trolling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there is a Lesley Clarke Danner on the < Spring 2008 Dean's List > at The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where Dembski teaches.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,13:15

Maybe s/he will come back and tell us.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 20 2010,14:39

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 20 2010,13:15)
Maybe s/he will come back and tell us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He.  His < profile here at ATBC > shows that he lives up the road in Oklahoma City.  A little Google-fu shows that there is a Clarke Danner associated with the Putnam City Baptist Church and that a Clarke Danner started posting at freeratio.org on Feb 2.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 20 2010,15:21

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2010,14:39)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 20 2010,13:15)
Maybe s/he will come back and tell us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He.  His < profile here at ATBC > shows that he lives up the road in Oklahoma City.  A little Google-fu shows that there is a Clarke Danner associated with the Putnam City Baptist Church and that a Clarke Danner started posting at freeratio.org on Feb 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent Google-Fu Carlson-San!  I wonder if him getting outed so soon, means he only gets a B instead of an A in Dr. Dr. Dembski's class?
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 20 2010,15:24

And science is of course not among his interests.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 20 2010,15:43

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2010,15:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2010,14:39)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 20 2010,13:15)
Maybe s/he will come back and tell us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He.  His < profile here at ATBC > shows that he lives up the road in Oklahoma City.  A little Google-fu shows that there is a Clarke Danner associated with the Putnam City Baptist Church and that a Clarke Danner started posting at freeratio.org on Feb 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent Google-Fu Carlson-San!  I wonder if him getting outed so soon, means he only gets a B instead of an A in Dr. Dr. Dembski's class?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In all fairness, I need to point out that OKC is not within commuting distance from Fort Worth and we only know that he was at SWBTS a year and a half ago. So there is no evidence that he is anything other than an alum.  

Further, we cannot be sure that he really isn't just curious like he says.  Although, he appears to have trotted out the old "evolution is just as much a faith" canard over at freeratio.org, which doesn't bode well.  But, I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 20 2010,17:07

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2010,11:16)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 20 2010,11:07)
Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got a copy of the book for free and read it so that I could post a < review > on Amazon. Then I sent the book to Reciprocating Bill and he read it and posted a < review > on Amazon. His review is the top-rated 1-star review, and mine is #2.

Read those to see if you really need to waste time and neurons on her drivel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok - thanks to both you and Dr GH
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 20 2010,17:45

But remember, a neuron is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 20 2010,18:57

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2010,09:16)
I got a copy of the book for free and read it so that I could post a < review > on Amazon. Then I sent the book to Reciprocating Bill and he read it and posted a < review > on Amazon. His review is the top-rated 1-star review, and mine is #2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creationists vote against negative reviews of their crap books which keeps them off of the "front page" reviews. My review of Walt Brown's bull shit < "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" > is kept off the top page by just a few negative votes.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on July 14 2013,23:25

Call to ban creationism from Scottish schools:

< http://www.heraldscotland.com/news....=feedly >
Posted by: Cubist on Sep. 05 2013,17:35

Just checked Amazon.com for the market value of < Explore (a cherry-picked subset of the evidence for) Evolution >.
I found three new copies, whose asking prices are $139.99; $619.92; and $4,678.
I found 11 used copies, whose prices range from a low of $139.99 to a high of $424.87.
I have no idea what's going on here…
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 05 2013,17:36

Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 05 2013,17:35)
Just checked Amazon.com for the market value of < Explore (a cherry-picked subset of the evidence for) Evolution >.
I found three new copies, whose asking prices are $139.99; $619.92; and $4,678.
I found 11 used copies, whose prices range from a low of $139.99 to a high of $424.87.
I have no idea what's going on here…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an Amazon pricing algorithm.. that's all.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 05 2013,18:40

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 05 2013,17:36)
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 05 2013,17:35)
Just checked Amazon.com for the market value of < Explore (a cherry-picked subset of the evidence for) Evolution >.
I found three new copies, whose asking prices are $139.99; $619.92; and $4,678.
I found 11 used copies, whose prices range from a low of $139.99 to a high of $424.87.
I have no idea what's going on here…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an Amazon pricing algorithm.. that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife told me yesterday that she found a copy of the textbook she wrote being sold by one of the local college bookstores on Amazon.  It was marked up because it was "signed by the author".  Apparently it was her copy, stolen by a student, and only signed in the sense that she'd put her name in it.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.