The Bathroom Wall

JAD, your post 16114, full of over-the-top invective and plain assertions and so little else, is in fact discussed here. Come on, there are even a couple of scientifically relevant questions there for you (and the rest of us!).

Creationist Timmy

Please descend to The Bathroom Wall. It is lonely down there where I have to deal with the Darwimps all by myself. I need someone to back me up.

Thanks for the complements. But you type to much for my tastes. I'm so busy fightin the atheist scientists I don't have time to read much. I like to back up Charlie Wagner instead. Years ago he came up with an argument that should win the Noble Prize because it obliterates evolution, and he's been saying it ever since but the atheists put their hands over their ears and say "I'm not listening BLAH BLAH BLAH".

Creationists suck.

Damn you steve! Next time ...

Timy, We scientists are not all atheists.

From MC Hawking

Fuck The Creationists

Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

Grand Moff, do you think anyone is impressed by those childish lyrics?

I mean, besides me, of course. ;)

Great White: I thought they handled the subject with all the respect it deserves, which makes them an admirable exercise in restraint.

And, lest anyone accuse me of being negative and offering no alternative to ignorant, bone-in-the-nose creationists who want to infect my children with their ignorance, I also offering the following solution from the very same MC:

What We Need More Of Is Science
Verse 1
I'm a disciple of science
I know the universe is compliance with natural laws,
but many place reliance on the psuedo-science of quacks and
morons and fools because,
their educations deficient,
they put faith in omniscient,
make believe beings who control their fate,
but the Hawk aint with it, dig it,
their Holy writ aint the least bit legit,
its a bunch of bullshit.

They need to read a book that ain't so damn old old,
let reason take hold,
though truth to be told,
they're probably already too far gone,
withdrawn, the conclusion foregone.
But maybe there is still hope for the young,
if they reject the dung being slung from the tongues,
of the ignorant fools who call themselves preachers,
and listen instead to their science teachers.

Chorus
Upon blind faith they place reliance,
what we need more of is science!

Trash Talk
Uh yeah, that's right!
Fundamentalist assholes!
Screw the whole lot of them.

Verse 2
Look, I ain't thomas Dolby,
science doesn't blind me,
think you're smart? Form a line behind me,
you won't find me, truth to tell,
to be a man who suffers fools very well.
Quite the opposite in fact,
I aint got time to interact,
with crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack.
New age motherfuckers? Don't get me started,
I made more sense than them, last time I farted.

Not to put too fine a point upon it,
but the whole new age movement is full of shit.
Please allow me to elaborate,
explicate, expatiate.
from astral projection to zygomancy its a,
mish mash of idiocy.
Instead of the archaic worship of seasons,
they should explore logic and reason.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Fucking new-agers!
Is there any amount of bullshit they won't swallow?
It's two-thousand-aught-five goddammit!
When are these morons gonna join us in the 21st century?

p.s., the tracks themselves are a hoot, if you haven't already heard them (and I suspect many here have).

If you don't feel like buying the whole CD, email me and, if you've got the bandwidth I'll send you the track of your choice.

-GMT

I propose we pay those guys $1000 plus any bail money and legal costs to set up in the parking lot of the Cobb County school of their choice and lay that shit down at top volume during lunch hour.

Actually, I know an anti-racist skinhead (don't ask) rapper who is also the two-time amateur bantam weight boxing champion in Texas.

Let him lay it down outside of whatever fortress of droolitude you choose. I'll make the muthahfuckin' popcorn.

Pardon me that should be Timmy.

I've been trying to decide whether or not all this back-and-forth invective is a Good Thing.

On the one hand, it must be gratifying to insult an opponent such as JAD, and he apparently relishes it, as well. So it would seem to be a win-win situation. Perhaps he has an "insult collection", and trolling here is how he harvests new specimens.

And the exchanges do make for fun reading for a layperson such as myself.

But what if JAD's purpose in provoking the Good Guys into to hurling insults is to get them USED to it? Is he conditioning them away from reasoned argument, getting them used to the Creationist model of engagement? And in this way, weakening their defenses, if only a little, for the day when they are called before a school board to defend Science?

While I wouldn't begrudge the Good Guys some cathartic fun, I'd hate to see "my team" get even a little soft. Guess I'll assume that your actual work is keeping you all sufficiently sharp.

Despite some similarities with modern-day crocodiles, Uberabasuchus became extinct when the other great dinosaurs died out, and it has no relation to today's crocodiles, Carvalho said.

If you think evolution is real, then I got news for you.
It is actually possible to prove it just isn't true.
The proof is quite simple don't you see?
Where did the DNA instructions come from to make up you and me?
Why they came from Mom and Dad and that's a simple fact.
Therefore, the code was already there, going a generation back.
If the code was already there then there is really nothing new.
No new coding for evolution to work on, nothing for it to do.
But, people won't accept it, they just wish
that somehow, somewhere, they came from a fish!

Let's go through it row by row and see what we will get,
If we will just all agree with you that we've been had.
Through variation in our time should clearly stay a low,
The deep time rules the evolution, the fact that causes frown.
Your grandfather from thousand years back might indeed be like you,
But where you get the notion that this ALWAYS must be true?
Our parents made us and theirs have made them, and this of course still holds,
But why, in time that defies thinking, we couldn't come from molds?
Try looking through the millions of years, try counting them by one,
Your whole lifetime, my mistaken friend, slips out before you're done.
The world is change, that's what we're saying, it's not frozen in time,
Like picture in a caleidoscope... oh, now I lost a rhyme! :-(
Probably it's pointless to tell you this but I think you are wrong,
Perhaps the next time, instead of poem, you should sing us a song!

To strike a note more serious, though, you still say nothing new,
But what it boils down to is simply "Don't know, therefore can't you."
When you're not well, you seek a doctor - you accept what he says,
Since he has special education (for which he deserves praise).
You can't think that you know the physics if you don't know the books,
You can't understand anything unless you take good looks,
In the end you shall know something, but you won't something else,
And you have to take as true something that somebody else tells.
Ah! but evolution is exception, at least as now it stands,
Since it is one things EVERYONE thinks he understands!
You wouldn't tell your doctor how to operate your knee,
So why is it you come here and "prove" us wrong with glee?
The most of arguments your kind is making is just hopelessly wrong.
(I shouldn't use "song" here again, so I smartly rhyme with "gong"!)
But where's the learning curve? Why do you still repeat the same?
Would admitting a refute be such unbearable shame?
Rhymes make no difference here, this argument has passed,
As we now KNOW that changes happen: we have made that test.
If you still have to protest, please do your homework first,
Read YOURSELF what we have to offer, as we just quench the thirst.
Since all we want is KNOWING, and everything bows to that.
We won't stop because someone tells us "You can't know that."
If theory is wrong, we'll abandon it in time,
What, do you think we're morons? Or that we do a crime?
I'm here and you're there, the opposite sides of science fence,
But please tell me - what about all this damned evidence?
If we are wrong so terribly that everyone can see,
Why do the puzzle pieces fit, why we're on winning spree?
Why are we making predictions and seeing them come true,
When we should just sit cowering knowing that we are due?
You might cover ears from blasphemy and refuse to follow through,
But this, my friend, I'm telling you, is something MONKEY'd do!

I knew the way JAD acts sounded familiar.

He displays multiple core deficits of autistic disorder and paranoid schizophrenia

Poor social interaction.
Poor communication skills, has difficulty listening to others
Constant us of repetitive use of favourite phrases.
Often talks about one self in third person.
Repetitive patterns of behaviour
Frequent emotional outburst.
Unusual amount of anger.
Indifference to the opinions of others
A tendency to argue
A conviction that you are better than others
A conviction that people are out to get you

JAD do you find yourself a tactile defensive?
Do you find yourself hypersensitive?

As for contacting my boss go straight ahead. My alias of Wayne Francis is ....woops my real name.
Let me give you a little more info about me so you can track me down.
I was born in South Weymouth MA
I grew up in Stoughton MA
I joined the USMC in 1988 and was assigned to the JCS until 1991 where I was transferred to Camp Smith Hawaii FMFPAC for my last 3 years
I moved to Australia in June of 1995.
For the past year I've been working for the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Feel free to contact the Minister of Health here in Australia and explain how I'm a believer of evolution and should be fired. Feel free to go on one of your emotional outburst.

That said I'm happy to say I now have JAD's post filtered so I'm no longer reading them.

Oh JAD ... How did your run for Governor? I'm sure others here would love to hear about your run for political office.

In two weeks, we will remove the ban on his IP address and hope that in the intervening period, he will rethink his approach to posting here.

Could we dump this cretin into the hole and bury him instead? The world will lose far less of value.

SHUT UP YOU IGNORANT JACKASS.

Have you found us yet, Salty?

He displays multiple core deficits of autistic disorder and paranoid schizophrenia

GWW-

If you think it's hypocritical that I write caustic things somewhere else but won't let you do so here, I suggest you look up the word "context". There's nothing wrong with drinking a beer, but you still can't do it while driving a car or teaching school. There's nothing wrong with swearing and cursing, in my view, but I still wouldn't do it in front of my grandmother or in a professional paper. Most people understand that some types of behavior are appropriate in one setting but not in another. What I write on my personal blog, which can indeed be very caustic, is quite different from what I write here. The same is true of PZ Myers, for example, and a few others who also have personal blogs, and that is not the least bit hypocritical. It's merely understanding context.

As for the rest, there simply is no point in responding to any of it. It's just more of the same that got you banned in the first place. And the fact that you chose to evade that ban to get in that one last lick rather than being mature enough to accept that we do have the right to decide who gets to post here, in my view, tells us pretty much everything we need to know about the possibility that you will actually change your behavior. So perhaps we should just go ahead and make the ban permanent and save ourselves the trouble.

For your next trick, please ban John A. Davison. I'm tired of sifting through useless crap to read good comments.

I am still looking for what I have been looking for some time now. The posts immediately following 16023, including my post 16114 and the moronic responses that it evoked. It seems that Panda's Thumb chooses to bury that particular sequence. There is no need to ban me as as long as I keep receiving the sort of special treatment that Pim or someone keeps giving me. It is eerily reminiscent of "Boot Camp," that intellectual Leavenworth they constructed just for me over at good old EvC. I have lost none of my abilities to close down forums. One of my greatest achievements, with the help of a couple of other skeptics of Darwinian mysticism, Phillip Engle and Peter Borgher, was to permanently disable "brainstorms," from which it has never recovered as any fool can see should they visit that site. Pim van Meurs used to post there and ARN also. As near as I can tell this is his last stop, his Alamo as it were, or if you prefer "van Meurs last stand," gallantly defending the biggest hoax in written history. Now if it will make everybody happier to be rid of me, feel free to grant me the greatest gift of all, the most perfect demonstration of ideological bigotry and intellectual insecurity that any real scientist could ever want, lifetime irrevocable banishment. I have had about all I can absorb from this "groupthink" team of intellectual athletes know from this day forward as the "Panda's Thumb Sixty-Niners."

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c16114

John, you're a deluded as you are long winded. I hope you never breed.

At 76 I guess you won't have to worry about that. At least you admit that your problem is genetic too. You are beginning to understand the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. We are all victims of our genes just as Einstein realized long ago. Good luck with yours.

Dear Wayne Francis or whoever you really are in post 16749. If you ever get around to reading any of my papers (heaven forbid) you will discover that my language and attitude are quite different than what you observe concerning my demeanor here and at other internet snake pits. It can be explained with the age old saying:

WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS DO.

As I used to say over at good old EvC while I was incarcerated in "boot camp," - Who's next? Sockittome. I need all the publicity I can muster.

Properly named Enough who has apparently had enough of little old me as indicated in post # 16791. I agree that there is no point in reading my posts. My posts are obviously directed at those, like yourself, that refuse to read my papers. Did anyone ever tell you that is what journals are for? I'm doing my best to be a little more short winded.

I have already mentioned the Law of the Reversion to the Average discussed by Burbank. This would seem to be an anti-evolutionary law since it returns the variants to the original wild type. It is clearly demonstrated by the role natural selection plays when domesticated animals are returned to the wild. The aberrant selected forms rapidly disappear in favor of the more conservative types which come to resemble their more distant ancestors.

"Why do these attempts fail? Apparently they fail because they represent the selection for individual mutant genes, from which one can draw the formal conclusion that such alterations may have little or nothing to do with the evolutionary process. It should also be noted that dogs and goldfish reproduce only by sexual means."

"It is the discrete nature of species that allows an amateur bird-watcher like myself to identify every bird I see with a simple key or even a picture. It is obvious from the absence of intermediate forms that a primary role for natural selection is to prevent variation and accordingly to maintain the status quo, a conclusion reached by Punnett long ago as was indicated earlier."

"Can the notion of uniformitarianism be applied to living systems? The answer at every level is a resounding no. A muscle cell, having contracted, must relax before it can contract again. An amoeba grows and then it stops to divide before it recommences growth. Embryos undergo cellular differentiation, then stop when the definitive state is reached. Most creatures grow until they reach adult size and then stop. In other words, living systems practice autoregulation and self-limitation."

"It is of interest to compare the predictive value of the Darwinian and semi-meiotic models with respect to evolutionary rates. The Darwinian view predicts long periods of gradual change with many intermediate forms. The semi-meiotic concept is the very antithesis, with new life forms being produced instantly as a result of the cytological events which occur during the first meiotic division in oocytes bearing one or more chromosome rearrangements in heterozygous form. As I indicated earlier, one half of the products of oocytes bearing a single heterozygous rearrangement will be like the original type and one half will be a new chromosome structural homozygote and, possibly, a new and discrete species. As improbable as this may seem at first glance, it is nevertheless precisely what the semi-meiotic hypothesis predicts -- namely, instant speciation."

"She has balls that clanketh"

Scott,

Watch it with comments like this -"Saltation simply doesn't work..." . He really doesn't like to be called Salty, and things like this might set him off. I don't know if you've seen his dark side yet. It is quite amusing.

Hi David,
While your son may not have all the characteristics that can be associated with autistic disorder
has difficulty listening to others
Constant us of repetitive use of favourite phrases
Often talks about one self in third person

Can be associated with autism. I have a cousin that has 2 of 3 of these traits.
As for the other no's they are associated with paranoid schizophrenia.
The only reason I link the 2 is because I see traits of both coming from JAD.

In no way did I mean to imply that they normally go together.

You have to admit that JAD does seem to exhibit all of these traits.

Dear Wayne Francis or whoever you really are in post 16749.

— JAD

Re "The Darwinian view predicts long periods of gradual change with many intermediate forms. "

Actually, Darwin expected that evolution may very well occur mainly in isolated or fringe populations. IOW - punctuated equilibrium. :)

It was scientists after Darwin that put in that stuff about gradual over millions of years.

Henry

Mr. Scott Davidson, no relative of course, claims that I don't know anything about speciation. Of course he is correct. Nobody knows anything about speciation as it remains a total mystery just as does every other aspect of evolution. What I do know is that the Darwinian version of it is a total disaster, in conflict with everything we know from the laboratory and the fossil record.

Furhermore I have proposed a new hypothesis to explain it, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis or PEH for short. I note that no one even mentions that hypothesis. They are to busy informing the whole universe what an asshole I am. I am pleased as punch. Don't stop now as it is the best proof imaginable that you are all dead wrong.

John A. Davison, etc. etc. etc.

You're right, a bunch of people claiming you're an asshole is the best proof that we're all dead wrong.

You said it.

I am not banned, I am not GWW.

Please leave me out of your paranoid, destructive fantasies - you and Davescot and homer. You people seem to have convinved yourselves that you are cleverer than you really are.

Get over it.

I have never posted here as anyone else, and rarely post here at all.

I am sorry for the trouble I have may have caused. My computer has been acting up lately in several ways. In the meantime, let me make a brief statement about evolution.

No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new life form (evolution) because no one has ever observed that event. There is every reason to believe that it is no longer occurring and no compelling reason to think otherwise. All we have seen is the production of varieties through artificial selection and, in some instances only, the production of subspecies through observable means. Those can be explained as due to the accumulation of micromutations of the sort known as Mendelian alleles. All real evolution involved entirely different mechanisms in which the environment played virtually no role whatsoever beyond possibly acting as a simple trigger to release an inner potential.

That is why Avida, the subject of this and so many other threads, is a monumental joke. One cannot mimic a process not subject to exogenous influences. The entire Darwinian model is a myth, without a scintilla of validity.

I have attempted to present this perspective in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis only to have it received with contempt, denigration and ridicule. Not a single documented fact upon which it soundly rests has even been considered.

The entire Darwinian fable rests on Crick's central dogma as its foundation. I agree entirely with Pierre Grasse:

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its sole CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true." page 224, (his emphasis).

"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind..." ibid page 210

"At most, the environment plays only a similar role with respect to organisms; it can only provoke and set in motion some potential that is already present.. Schindewolf 1993, page 312.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that evolution WAS front loaded from its beginning or more likely several beginnings. The entire Darwinian scheme is a fairy tale, a farce, a scandal and a hoax not necessarily in that order. Why anyone can still accept it boggles my ancient mind.

John A.,Davison, unfair of course, unbalanced from trying to communicate with Darwinian atheist zealots and still unafraid to spread his heresies wherever he can.

I love this silence. It is so revealing. Thank you very much.

John A. Davison,

please explain the difference, if any, between these statements:

"No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new life form (evolution) because no one has ever observed that event."

"No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new star (astronomy) because no one has ever observed that event."

"No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new planet (geophysics) because no one has ever observed that event."

"No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new subatomic particle (quantum physics) because no one has ever observed that event."

"No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of AIDS (medicine/microbiology) because no one has ever observed that event."

Oh, since you're at it, you might want to also tell me why I should ignore the fact that going back a few thousands years there are no longer any modern day animals' skeletons to be found (fosilised or otherwise) (except a few anecdotal exceptions), but we do find fosile evidence of creatures that look similar to them - and the further back we go, the less like them they look, but do remain at every point similar to those before and after them. Take a look at the whale evolution fosile sequence, for example, and explain why I should follow your unsuported hypothesis instead of the perfectly reasonable evolution theory.

Also, I am going to challenge your statement anyway - speciation (defining as species "a population that will interbreed" and speciation as "from a set of beings belonging to one species, obtain two" has been observed in the wild more than a few times, and has been duplicated in labs even more times. Please explain how a saint bernard and a chihuahua can interbreed without human help or admit they are different species (I admit I'm not good at dogs - so if those are similar in size, pick the biggest dog and the smallest)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

I don't recall defining a species that way. Dobzhansky defined species as forms whose hybrid is parially or completely sterile. I think that is a good solid testable criterion. I already commented on dogs in an earlier post. They are all wolves, Wolf. No pun intended.

JAD,

Sorry, I've been at work all day. Let me follow my own instructions and see, so I can give you a specific answer to your question.

Ok, when I click on the url it takes me to PastorBentonit's post #16484 on the Bathroom Wall. When I click on the "here" link it takes me to the Bathroom Wall archive at post #16463. From that point I can scroll all the way back to #11589, and all the way forward to #16749.

Evidently that doesn't happen for you? I'm at a loss. For what it's worth, I use Internet Explorer.

Generally speaking, I hate computers. I suspect that they're sentient things which connect up at night while we're sleeping, and concoct new and more devilish ways to fuck with our heads. They made it so we depend on them, and now they're having their way with us.

JAD,

Sorry again - I was focused on answering your question about the links and missed your last request - "And please don't call me Salty. It makes me irritable."

I'll be more than happy to oblige, provided you agree to stop your own silly name games, which make me irritable. Generally speaking, you get what you give.

I notice that, at this point, if you click on The Basthroom Wall link on the main page it will also take you to PastorBentonit's post and the "here" link. You might try that also. Don't know if that'll have any better results.

New article in the NYT magazine called Unintelligent Design

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html

We view the proposed changes in Kansas Science Standards (the minority report which is likely to be adopted by the State Board of Education) with dismay and disbelief. The proposal introduces non-scientific ideas into the curriculum to promote the concept of "intelligent design" as a "scientific" alternative to the existing curriculum. Intelligent design is based on the belief that an intelligent being created and directs the universe. Proposed revisions to the biology curriculum have a thinly veiled goal of institutionalizing unverifiable interpretations of the natural world in our schools. It is inappropriate to introduce this non-scientific view in science classrooms.

Bob Maurus

One of my friends who knows a lot about computers has informed me that it is possible for posts to be deleted from the Panda's Thumb end for just my computer. It has something to do with cookies I guess. Naturally that would be something I would like to believe as I have had no difficulty at all with any other aspect of my internet forum communications. Just this one instance on the Bathroom Wall. You have to understand that I know very little about what is going on in the wonderful world of cyberspace. Thank you for the help in any event.

I see no evidence for any intervention going on but otherwise I have to pretty much agree with Grasse:

"Let us not invoke God in realities in which he no longer has to intervene. The single absolute act of creation was enough for him."
page 166.

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between 'either randomness or the supernatural,' a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living beings; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say."
ibid page 107.

My own bias is toward several separate creations, as huge gulfs exist that I can't imagine transitional states for. Leo Berg postulated "thousands of primary forms" without ever explaining why he thought so. The simple truth is that nobody knows anything at all about how or how many times life was created. Created it was, that is for sure and I don't think it was an accident.

John A. Davison

You're welcome, John,

As far as I know, you can set your computer to enable cookies or reject them. Most commercial sites - NY Times, retail outfits, etc - put a cookie on your computer when you visit the site. Some of them are, I think, capable of gathering information on product interests and the like, but they also allow that site to load faster the next time you go there.

I have a friend who takes care of computer operations for Southern Bell here in Atlanta; I'll ask him about the problem you're having.

Great White Wonder denies that he is Scott Page and I am inclined to agree. He shows much to much restraint. Someone produced this list of Page aliases, which does not include Great White Wonder:
SLP
SLPx
Pangloss
Pantag
IamNoOne
Random Mutt
Scott L. Page

Of course I can't vouch for its accuracy.

John A. Davison

Bob Maurus One of my friends who knows a lot about computers has informed me that it is possible for posts to be deleted from the Panda's Thumb end for just my computer. It has something to do with cookies I guess. Naturally that would be something I would like to believe as I have had no difficulty at all with any other aspect of my internet forum communications. ...

— John A. Davison

David,

We've got Windows XP, IE browser, broadband connection. No problems with the thread here.

Thank you. I already downloaded firefox and it didn't solve the problem. Now I can no longer post on the Avida thread. It shuts off prematurely also before reaching comments. Beats me.

John A. Davison, I see you have managed to ignore most of my post - and answer none of it. I did not ask those three questions (one per paragraph) just because. They should stablish, in my eyes, your exact position on several important issues - to whit, the possibility of scientific study, the evidence for evolution theory and the fact of evolution. And I never claimed that you define species that way - I don't give a nickel* about how you define species - only how biologists define them.

At any rate, there have been examples of groups of animals that have been separated into two groups that have after a while not been able to produce fertile offspring, both in labs and nature. Since you made me have to look it up, (as you can see from my infrequent posting, my free time is rather chaotic and infrequent), please use the examples found in both of these:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Oh, and if you even think of uttering "they are all fish" or "they are all plants" or even "they are all bacteria" (as DaveScot is known to do), you'll reveal yourself to be a pathetic uneducated wretch, which you have not so far. So I give you fair warning of it.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

* original word substituted to prevent website from being blocked

Grey Wolf
Since you don't regard me as a biologist, I am inclined to disregard you. Thank you very much.

Nice duck.

John A. Davison, you have not given me any reason to believe you are a biologist. The fact that you keep evading what come down to extremelly easy questions by a non-biologist on very basic stances on science reinforces my opinion of the fact. This is, however, irrelevant. Those aren't questions for a biologist, only to difference between a creationist troll (I would use a different set for other kinds of trolls) and someone worth debating with.

Indeed, I wonder why me thinking you a biologist or not would make any difference on the matter. I assume you're educated and willing to at least state your position on issues central to this website. I couldn't for the life of me say what degrees any of the main posters of this site hold, but I will listen to them.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

My positions are all over the place, in published papers, in online versions of those papers, in my home page, in the archives of "brainstorms", at Terry Trainor's in tne Documents section of Talk Origins forum. My position is that Darwinism in all its trappings is a monumental joke. There is absolutely nothing about it that is of any signifcance whatsoever. It is a hoax and a disgrace. What more can I or need I say? I thought I had made that fairly clear already. Apparently I failed. Incidentally, if it will make you happy, I am very definitely a creationist of the Einstein, Spinoza variety. If you think I am troll why don't you just ignore me? Why waste your valuable time on a moron like me?

John A. Davison

As I read this article about State of Fear, I was reminded that I'm happy the anti-science crowd usually consists of such nuts. It provides a lot of fun, and is easy to oppose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30BARCOTT.html?ex=1109048400&en=923d1930f1e388a4&ei=5070

So wait a sec.

You want to teach as fact that amino acids evolved into cells when you have no evidence for this except for a previous lack of cells before a point in time??

You have no, zero, nada, bupkiss support for this.

Evolution isn't science its religious belief.

As such it has no place in K-12 unless you stick to what you have factual support and outlaw teaching the parts that are religious belief on your part.

This is just a thank you for all the time & effort put into PT.
I majored in Anthro 25 years ago. I assummed the bad science i.e. ID, in schools debate was hopeless.
After Cobb County I surfed blogs for the first time. I've spent like 50 hours since in the evo/cre thing.
PT is awesome.

John A. Davison, I asked three times because I am not friend with making snap decissions. However, given that you have refused, three times, to answer *easy* and *basic* questions - the first and last of which are direct queries to your one unsupported assertion previously in this thread - I am going to brand you as a troll. A polite troll, so far, but a troll in the sense that you join a comunity with the intention of getting into a shouting match without any kind of support for your position.

I am not interested in long treaties on biology - I would need a far more specialised education than I got on the topic to be able to follow them. However, to this day, I have not needed such education to tell between proper science and pseudoscience. The questions I asked are part of the way I can tell - if you give proper answer to them, then I might consider taking time I don't have to hunt down what you've said elsewhere. However, your claims - like the fact that we cannot know of something because we weren't there or that no speciation has ever happened - fly in the face of facts and evidence, so I think it is not far fetched of me to ask for explainations before branding you as a troll.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

I never said that speciation never happened. I said that it is not happening now. That is what the evidence actually indicates. If you had read any of my papers you would know what I believe and why I believe it. You would also realize that I am not alone in what I believe at all. If you choose to regard my work as pseudoscience, which is what you imply, there is nothing that I can do for you. I can assure you that you are not alone. I hope that makes you feel better. I have never been much impressed with majority opinions in scientific matters.
'
John A. Davison

John A. Davison, actually what I am implying is that I have not yet seen your work at all - all you have offered in this place is baseless and unsupported declarations, assumptions and hypothesis. Once more I point out that you have not yet answered any of the three basic and simple questions I posted for you. The rule of thumb used in engineering is that someone refusing to explain his or her methods after three promptings hasn't got a logic behind them. I am going to apply it to your case. I am sorry it came to this.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I never said that speciation never happened. I said that it is not happening now.

— JAD

random mutation + natural selection has never been observed to result in anything more than fine tuning of basic body plans. It has never been observed to create a novel new anatomical feature

— DaveScot

Wayne

I do not ignore people who insist that evolution is going on all around us. I expose them as living in a fantasy world. What are you picking on DaveScot for? I can tell you why. It is because he happens to agree with me. That is the only reason. You Darwinps are all alike wherever you are to be found. You are just a monumental groupthink, none of whom has a clue about the real world. If you have verified cases of controlled laboratory speciation you wouldn't be claiming it, you would be demonstrating it and publishing it, complete with the parental form, a materials and method section and a conclusion that would send you right off to Stockholm for the Nobel Prize That is nothing but a flaming lie and you know it. I am getting tired of all this wishful thinking on the part of a bunch of atheist lunatics. Get with the program, grow up and hear the birdies sing. Darwinism and all the natural or artiicial selection in the world has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution now as in the past. It is as, I keep repeating, a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a bunch of liberal sedentary morons with their butts glued to their chairs at Harvard, Oxford and Cornell, not a scientist in the lot.

John A. Davison

And with his latest comments, John A. Davison has revealed himself to be a common troll. I was wondering, for he had been too much of a polite person - but no longer. His true self is now revealed onto us. Oh, and I will ask you to take back those words. I am part of the conversation, and you have pluralised. I am not atheistic, and I'm pretty sure I'm not mad (my doctor agrees).

I also note that beyond his (once again) unsupported word, he has not managed to disclaim Wayne's example.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at "brainstorms," Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda's Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes you precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.

John A. Davison

Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at "brainstorms," Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda's Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes you precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.

John A. Davison

Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at "brainstorms," Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda's Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes your precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.

John A. Davison

What are you picking on DaveScot for? I can tell you why. It is because he happens to agree with me. That is the only reason.

— JAD

Nice duck.

— Enough

You are just a huge collection of unfulfilled sociopathic nobodies with nothing else in your empty lives but the autogratification you get from denigrating your intellectual superiors.

— JAD

John A. Davison, gleefully unfair, unbalanced by senile dementia and not only unafraid but enjoying his waning years immensely in the greatest thrill any scientist can ever experience, the destruction of a defective hypothesis and replacing it with one infinitely more sound.

— JAD

test for dbl post

For two people that are so clearly out of touch with reality, DaveScot and I sure are attracting a lot of mindless denigration. I just wonder why. Keep raving Wayne as it is music to my ancient ears. Who is next as I used to say over at EvC before they were forced out of complete frustration to ban me. You bore me Wayne. That goes for just about everybody else too.You won't know what to do when I finally flush this place. The only difference between this dump and EvC and Brainstorms and Fringe Sciences is that you people are just a little harder to really piss off.

Just when has anyone anywhere in the professional literature or on any internet forum ever pointed out anything that was wrong with my hypotheses? I have a couple of closely related ones you know. You don't find out what is wrong with hypotheses unless you are first willing to test them. Then if they fail that test one might be justified in making a comment. Otherwise one is just pissing up a rope. Everything now being disclosed by molecular biology and chromosome reorganizations favors a prescribed front loaded evolution in which there is virtually no room for chance, something Leo Berg recognized 83 years ago. Exactly the same can be said for ontogeny.

Darwinism is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science. Yet you morons here at Panda's Thumb just keep right on believing in it for what can only be ideological reasons. You clowns keep talking about "Darwinian theory" when no theory even exists. You are literally worshipping something that isn't even there. That is sick. You talk about my paranoid schizophrenia when that is precisely your own malaise. You won't find me talking about things that don't exist. I am a hard-headed old bench physiologist not a flaming mystic.

JAD,

For what it's worth, you're one offensive, unrestrained post away from being Salty again. You give no indication of wanting a dialogue, no indication of being anything but a contentious, self-congratulatory and egotistical blowhard. When you finally do flush this place we will all collectively deeply inhale the resultant fresh air and promptly dismiss you from our memory. So much for fleeting and self-proclaimed fame.

Grand Moff Texan #16607
Are New Age, Crystal believers etc. whatever, against teaching evo in schools, too?

Something I wonder about. Some rejectors of theory have referred to it as "amoebas to people" (or something to that effect), but did they invent that or is/was there an actual hypothesis of amoeba ancestors to the animal kingdom? I wouldn't have thought so offhand, since to my thinking the way amoebas move around doesn't look like it would lend itself to colony type living, which I'd think would be prerequisite to evolving into a multicelled whatever. But that's just a guess, so I'm left wondering if there are indications as to what sort of microbe might have been ancestral to the animal kingdom (and perhaps the fungi kingdom as well).

Henry

Now you miserably impaired clowns out there, you listen to me for a change.

I am now in the process of writing a paper entitled "There is No Evolutionary Theory," so I don't have a lot of time to mess with you all right now.

As for calling me Salty, let me remind you that salty is short for saltationist, an appelation properly applied to Leo S. Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt and of course yours truly, lttle old me. It is the only rational view of evolution imaginable and one that will be never reconciled with the gradualist accumulationist, mindless, pointless, random, mutation happy, natural selection intoxicated crock of intellectual garbage known far and wide as neoDarwinism. Call me salty. Vent your mindless spleens. Relieve yourselves, hopefully without removing your pants. I love it so.

John A. Davison

John, you're simply an asshole, whether or not we call you Salty. Why are you wasting your time here trying to impress your self-proclaimed brilliance on a bunch of alleged Phillistines who are demonstrably unwilling to acknowledge it? Have you nothing better to do? Are you so desperate for notice that you're willing to debase yourself to get a response, any response, regardless of how derisive it is? Are you really that pathetic? Has your rejection by your peers rendered you that petty? You have my sincere pity then.

Go spend your remaining time completing your paper, so that it too can be rejected or ignored by your peers. So far as we're concerned you're a momentary distraction who will not be missed.

You've been fun, Salty. I'll raise a margarita to your memory if I remember.

Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

bah didn't proof read ... last line should have read
" I'm still looking for my 454 in me . . . .I must be genetically deficient because my doctor can not find one in me."

stupid flue has my brain working at half power....still seem more mentally stable then JAD.

Your untested and unsupported hypothesis must be extremelly weak and baseless, if you need to resort to name calling and ignoring answers so early in the game, John A. Davison. It is trolls like you that give Internet such a bad name. I have been corteous at all times, politely enquiring your basic positions, and I have received nothing but insults, ducks and evading the questions instead of answerds to easy questions.

Please, once you finish that paper, post it here. I could do with a few laughs, and given your ability to express arguments demonstrated so far, I'm sure that an article full of declarations of your own magnificence while not answering even the most basic question will be fun to read.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, still waiting for Davison's basic civility to express itself and offer an apology for unwarranted insults. Not holding his breath, though

I don't recall proclaiming my brilliance. I do recall proclaiming the brilliance of my many sources all of whom saw through the Darwinian myth and demonstrated it in far more lucid fashion than I ever could. As a matter of fact I have been remarkably humble, comparing myself with the dwarf described by Robert Burton, a contemporary of Shakespeare:

"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."

You will find that on the first page of the Manifesto.

The simple truth is that on virtually every forum where I have introduced my publications, I have been greeted with instant deprecation and insult. It is only natural and fitting that I might respond in kind. Not a single matter of fact that I have ever published in papers spanning fifty years now has ever been challenged. What transpires on forums like this one and EvC and Fringe Sciences and Brainstorms and ARN is of no consequence whatsoever to the future of science. These forums are little more than devices for the gratification of unfulfilled egos and pseudoscientific nonsense.
I have found them very revealing in demonstrating how intractable the ruling paradigm remains. It is important to know ones enemy and I have come to know that enemy very well.

So well have I come to know the Darwinian myth that now I can laugh at it with impunity, knowing how utterly indefensible it really is. Since others cannot see what I see, my own private view is that constitutes a genetic condition which will never be remedied by objective facts. It is a manifestation of a conviction that not only is there no God now, but there never has been one. Well, I know better.

John A. Davison

Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Wayne or is it Bob Burgess?
You are just a fountain of evolutionary information. Where may I find your publications? I'll send you my paper when it is finished and after it has been accepted for publication. How does that grab you?

Speciation sucks and so do all those that think it is going on.

Actually, the only reason I am still here at Panda's Thumb is because you guys haven't banned me yet. I have already managed that at EvC, Fringe Sciences and "Brainstorms." ARN just pretends I do not exist which is really pathetic. For some reason I am still tolerated at Terry Trainor's Talk Origins Forum, probably because we share a mutual loathing of the Darwimps. It could also be because Trainor is a sincere Christian and is tolerant of those like myself that are not. I think it has something to do with the Golden Rule but, not being a Bible-Thumping Fundie, I can't be sure.

John A. Davison

I guess my question went unnoticed in all this commotion. Oh well.

Henry J

There is no compelling reason to ssume a single origin of life, and the great differences that exist in nature make it equally reasonable to assume several independent life origins. The simple truth is that nobody knows about such matters. Leo Berg postulated "thousands of primary forms" without explaining his reasons. The Cambrian explosion suggests several independent origins of vastly different body plans for which I have difficulty imagining intermediate or transitional states. Indeed these fundamentally different types are the basis for phyletic distinctions. The entire taxonomic system is possible because of the absence of intermediates from the phylum right down to the species. That is precisely what allowed Linnaeus to develop his binomial system of classification, a system which is in use to this very day. It is also my personal opinion, in agreement with Linnaeus and Cuvier among others, that contemporary species are immutable beyond the capacity of producing varieties or subspecies. Many species are not even capable of that. A primary error that the Darwinians have made is the assumption that evolution is a continuing process. There is absolutely no reason to assume that and plenty of reasons to reject it. These are of course just my ideas and I don't expect them to be accepted by the evolutionary (Darwinian) establishment. I hope they will serve as a partial answer to your question.

John A. Davison

Salty John (we're on a cusp here),

If all that's keeping you hanging around is the fact that the managers haven't yet banned you, I'd beg them to let you stay. I'd much prefer that you left on your own volition. You do provide a note of surreal levity.

Your personal criteria for success seems to be banning. I'm not at all sure what sort of real accomplishment that represents. I've personally been banned from two boards so far. The first was a collectibles board whose manager had a problem with my selling my own work, and the second was a YEC board - http://groups.msn.com/CreationBootCamp/_whatsnew.msnw - whose manager evidently had a problem with my asking him why all he had to offer were lies and distortions.

Speaking as an artist, I do agree with you that a single OoL event is not at all necessary or proven. Seems to me that multiple events utilizing the same original "soup" components would yield the same sort of dna, descent, and genomic information.

"Not a single matter of fact that I have ever published in papers spanning fifty years now has ever been challenged." I would hope not - matters of fact are matters of fact. I must conclude then that your conclusions, based on those matters of fact, have been challenged and dismissed.

Concerning species and current evolution - most of the canids are cross-fertile, as are most felids. Horse/donkey crosses (mules) are occasionally fertile, and can produce offspring. I'd view this particular case as evidence for current and continuing evolution.The proof for that would presumably be either a moment in time when those hybrids were no longer fertile, or when matings between the two were non-productive.

Sub-species/varieties exist in multiple species, an example being zebras. If these subspecies do not interbreed, isn't that another example of the first (or second, third, etc) step toward absolute speciation?

Salty John (we're on a cusp here),

If all that's keeping you hanging around is the fact that the managers haven't yet banned you, I'd beg them to let you stay. I'd much prefer that you left on your own volition. You do provide a note of surreal levity.

Your personal criteria for success seems to be banning. I'm not at all sure what sort of real accomplishment that represents. I've personally been banned from two boards so far. The first was a collectibles board whose manager had a problem with my selling my own work, and the second was a YEC board - http://groups.msn.com/CreationBootCamp/_whatsnew.msnw - whose manager evidently had a problem with my asking him why all he had to offer were lies and distortions.

Speaking as an artist, I do agree with you that a single OoL event is not at all necessary or proven. Seems to me that multiple events utilizing the same original "soup" components would yield the same sort of dna, descent, and genomic information.

"Not a single matter of fact that I have ever published in papers spanning fifty years now has ever been challenged." I would hope not - matters of fact are matters of fact. I must conclude then that your conclusions, based on those matters of fact, have been challenged and dismissed.

Concerning species and current evolution - most of the canids are cross-fertile, as are most felids. Horse/donkey crosses (mules) are occasionally fertile, and can produce offspring. I'd view this particular case as evidence for current and continuing evolution.The proof for that would presumably be either a moment in time when those hybrids were no longer fertile, or when matings between the two were non-productive.

Sub-species/varieties exist in multiple species, an example being zebras. If these subspecies do not interbreed, isn't that another example of the first (or second, third, etc) step toward absolute speciation?

Damn,

WE all do it on occasion. Would one of the managers do me the courtesy of deleting the duplicate?

Creationists are stupid.

I miss Great White Wonder.

That is all.

JAD once again shows how he thinks he is so superior to everyone else. Can't have someone that is not a biologist show him peer reviewed studies that show his hypothesis to be false. I imagine that if one of our respected biologists with many publications showed him the same data he's find some excuse to say he can ignore it. As long as he doesn't look at it he can pretend it isn't there.

BTW JAD you seem to be a bit thick in the head with common sense. My name is Wayne Francis and I'm still waiting for you to report me to the FBI. Please do ... they have a thick folder on me already. I don't recall them ever asking if I believed in evolution when they did my security clearance and non of the people that contacted me after being interviewed about me said anything about that either. But go for it .... see if you can get my security clearance revoked. You might want to contact the Australian Security Intelligence Organization also and get my permanent resident visa revoked. Might make the FBI's job of having me deported a bit easier. I'm sure its a no brainer for someone so intellectually superior then the rest of us.

Until they come knocking on my door I'll keep on posting here. I'll just ignore you because that is all you do to everyone else. You ask for examples that disprove what you've wrote, people provide the proof then you just say they are not good enough to show you said proof. No wonder those in the scientific community ignore you. Why should they spend time disproving your statements when they where disproved over 30 years ago.

I see nothing but the same old character assassination and denigration. Have none of you any tangible to offer? What has partial hybrid fertility got to do with evolution? Absolutely nothing.
No one has disproved anything that I have written because no one knows anything about a process that has never been observed.

Actually if anyone had taken the trouble to read my papers they would realize that I have taken a very reasonable position on the question of speciation. My primary position is that sexual reproduction is not competent to produce any evolutionary event beyond the production of varieties or subspecies. Subspecies are not incipient species. they are subspecies and that is all they ever will be. There is no evidence to the contrary.

If someone thinks my hypotheses have been disproved they are living in a fantasy world. Hypotheses are disproved after, not before, they are tested. My papers have been ignored for precisely the same reasons that the papers and books of those whom I cite have been ignored. I am only a more recent example of a long line of scientists that have discredited every single aspect of the Darwinian model.

The reactions I have evoked here are exactly the same as those I evoked at EvC and "brainstorms." They are knee-jerk responses to a challenge to a defective hypothesis that should have been abandoned at the moment of it inception. Actually it was by Mivart.

There is no question in my mind that the days of Darwinian mysticism are numbered. What we are witnessing has nothing to do with science. It has to do with the eternal battle concerning how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident as Gould and Dawkins so loudly proclaim, or is he the terminal result of a plan as Robert Broom maintained? I stand firmly with Broom, not because of any spiritual involvement, but, like Broom, because the facts indicate exactly that.

Organic evolution, like growth, differentiation and ontogeny generally has been a self-limiting phenomenon.There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe it is continuing beyond the level of the variety or subspecies.

One more thing that I think should be mentioned as it also characterized my experience at EvC and elsewhere. After everyone tells me that they are going to ignore me, they keep right on attacking me and my views. At EvC they kept right on even after they denied me the opportunity to respond. I have no respect for that tactic. At Fringe sciences I have even been denied the opportunity to view the site.

My conclusion is that I must be doing something right. If you all are really going to ignore me, there will be no reason for me to respond to you. But as long as you continue to denigrate me and my sources you can rest assured that I will respond. That choice is yours, not mine.

John A. Davison

You said speciation no longer occurs. That statement is proved to be false.

Speciation is part of evolution. Evolution is the process of life changing over time. Speciation is many of those changes leading to a point where a population no longer breeds with its parent population. Here it is even shown that there is enough genetic alteration to restrict breeding.

Now, like I said, if you want to be like DaveScot and claim that we should see novel new body plans poping up all the time I'm sorry a man of your superior intellects is disappointed. Please feel free to converse with your intellectual equal as DaveScot's IQ is 153 and he points out that things like a Ford F150 constitutes a "new body plan" in the human linage. You might point out to him that man made object don't count in "body plans" when we are talking biology.

Please also explain to your worshiper about tandom repeats in his beloved Amoeba dubia's genome. According to him Amoeba dubia is just ready to turn into a human when we get wiped out by a huge asteriod.

I miss Great White Wonder.

John,
Re "I hope they will serve as a partial answer to your question."
My question was what kind of microbe is the closest relative to the animal kingdom. Your comments didn't address that.

Re "vastly different body plans for which I have difficulty imagining intermediate or transitional states."
I don't think nature is obliged to limit itself to any one person's imagination. My guess is that totally different "body plans" arose from species that previously lived in colonies of mostly undifferentiated cells. So I too doubt that there wouldn't be transitions from one major body plan to another.

-----------

Bob,
Re "whose manager evidently had a problem with my asking him why all he had to offer were lies and distortions."
ROFL

Henry

Quick now many times has evolution from amino acid to cell been verified?

How many times has increase in complexity of genetic structures been verified?

Hom many times has change in the geomotry of DNA or RNA been verified from bacteria chromosome to human etc or even ape to human?

If you answered it has not been verified then you are CORRECT...

Evolution to be better than this ID that you speak of would have to make predictions that ID does not make.

I would like very much for the less religious of you to actually stop and think about what the strength and weakness of evolutions predictive strength is...

I am not really interested in listenting to the religious cultists out there who say Anti-Creationism, even the parts with no verification or ability to predict measured results is science.

I am talking about evolution the theory that if you discover a skeleton from a period in time it will tend to look like other skeletons of that era.

Not the Anti-Creation evolution that says that in the begining there were amino acids then Magic happened and there were uni cellular organisms then Magic happened and there were multi cellular organisms then Magic happened and these organisms began to rapidly increase in complexity .

Teaching Magic has no place in HS education.

And that magic forms the cornerstone of Modern Biology speaks for itself.

Henry J

In your own words "My guesss is etc. etc. Good for you. You said it all. Nobody knows anything about the origin of life except that it sure did happen and as far as we know only on this planet. The "organic soup" never even existed. That was just another Darwinian fantasy hatched up by George Wald. I heard him lecture about that nonsense back in the 50's when I was at Woods Hole. Just another Harvard mystic lecturing with what Grasse called "Olympian assurance."

As for Wayne Francis.

Produce a new a species along with its ancestry that you have observed appearing in recent times. Until you do you are wasting your time lecturing me. You are just reciting the standard Darwinian pablum. Even if it could be done, are you suggesting that we are going to soon have new genera, families, orders, classes and phyla? Get wkth the program folks. All significant evolution is a thing of the past.

Apparently DaveScot is a lot smarter than I am. My IQ was only 143 and that was when I was I8. I am sure it has dropped substantially due to the ravages of time, alcohol, and dealing with Darwinian atheist ideologues.

If you would stop insulting me, I wouldn't have to keep responding. Do you get it yet?

Thanks to whoever it was that readmitted me.

John A. Davison

DonkeyKong: why don't you take it up with Marburger? Apparently, for all the inescapable logic of your "argument", he disagrees.

By DonkeyKong: How many times has change in the geometry of DNA or RNA been verified from bacteria chromosome to human etc or even ape to human?

Hey donkeykong....

Tell me, what predictions does ID theory make with respect to the pattern of shared endogenous retroviruses seen in the genomes of humans and other great apes? How do the predictions made by ID theory differ from the predictions made by the theory of evolution?

Hmmmm "DonkeyKong" email addy is DMTAYLOR@EEE.ORG. I shoulda checked before firing off my reply. Guess I better spit out that hook and give it back to Deanne.

Quick now many times has evolution from amino acid to cell been verified?

How many times has increase in complexity of genetic structures been verified?

Hom many times has change in the geomotry of DNA or RNA been verified from bacteria chromosome to human etc or even ape to human?

If you answered it has not been verified then you are CORRECT . . .

Evolution to be better than this ID that you speak of would have to make predictions that ID does not make.

I am not really interested in listenting to the religious cultists out there who say Anti-Creationism, even the parts with no verification or ability to predict measured results is science.

Not the Anti-Creation evolution that says that in the begining there were amino acids then Magic happened and there were uni cellular organisms then Magic happened and there were multi cellular organisms then Magic happened and these organisms began to rapidly increase in complexity .

DMTAYLOR@EEE.ORG...Deanne.

I don't understand. Should I?

Only if you follow talk.origins at least semi-regularly. ;)

If you google up some talk.origins articles by someone who posts as "lilith" aka Deanne M. Taylor, you'll find material authored by one of the most scientifically accomplished participants there. I suspect that Dr. Taylor just popped in to have a quick bit of fun at our expense.

Either that or an incredibly dense creationist chose (by accident or design) to steal the name of one of t.o's brightest participants.

Deanne Taylor, aka Lillith gave Dembski a lesson in the mathematics of Scale Free Networks at ISCID. It was a pleasure to watch how Dianne made Dembski squirm. Her contributions invariably are detailed, well reasoned and well researched. A true role model I wish could even approximate.

See this thread where Dembski also makes his infamous 'pathetic comment' when asked for some details as to how ID explains a particular structure.

1 I am not that Dr. Taylor.

2 You have not verified increase in complexity in genetic material. You have verified a similiarity among species. Its a critical difference and one that Grey Wolf fails to understand. And I am not talking about a single bit of increased length I am talking about a movement toward a greater complexity that is verifiable.

3 I have no chip on my shoulder to prove ID. I am merely stating that evolution as taught in USA HS is generally not supported by evidence. There is a large body of evidence that doesn't contradict evolution but that is different than evidence the supports. For example...if Venus was the swingers planet of the universe and the alien immortal swingers came for the 10000 year orgy and left their pets on Earth with the intention of picking their descendants up when they were done then the support for evolution in the form of species changing slowely over time may just be a function of what custom designed pets were in vogue millions of years ago. NOTE: I am not proposing that this occured, rather that to assert that it DIDN'T occur requires proof not just hand waving.

Evolution bases the very core of its existance on very very weak science. It is currently weak science that things are apt to evolve towards higher complexity. Even if that were estabilished fact with a clear layout of how the calculus of evolution works then a rather massive task remains to show with any degree of certainty that it did already occur in this particular enviornment.

The failure to grasp this massive weakness should bring you to shame. You are making a laughing stock of the whole field of biology.

You joker... For a moment I took you seriously. Venus swingers... Classic

Grey Wolf

Lets start with some very basic statements.

1) Evolution as stated by Darwin is survival of the fittest.

2) Evolution can be falsified.

3) Evidence clearly shows that being at the bottom of the food chain is the place to be if you want to survive as a species.

Looks to me like survial of the fittest is incorrect. So to verify the theory in the negative is not good.

But no, fittest is re-interpreted to mean the winner no matter what the criteria of winning is. Hence it cannot be disproven.

Thus either we have disproven evolution or we have disproven that it can be falsified. Or we are about to embark on a discussion regarding wether those at the bottom of the food chain are the most fit.

There is your religious beliefs laid bare...Engage cognative dissidence....

Wow, I've got to give Lillith credit, this is good stuff. Very entertaining. I predict that her next post will have the word "trigonometry" in it somewhere.

1) Evolution as stated by Darwin is survival of the fittest.

2) Evolution can be falsified.

3) Evidence clearly shows that being at the bottom of the food chain is the place to be if you want to survive as a species.

You have not verified increase in complexity in genetic material

Actually, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, a philosopher contemporary with Darwin. Apparently, Spencer was something of a social Darwinist, advocating that "survival of the fittest" be applied to government policy. Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, prefered the phrase "survival of the fittest" to "natural selection," because he thought the later phrase might imply that someone (maybe the designer?) was doing the selecting. Darwin himself disliked "survival of the fittest."

Anyway, this is all irrelevant because evolution is more than a pithy quote. Evolution is the theory which underlies all of modern biology.

Oh, sorry, Randall. I admit that my knowledge of the origins of the bloody phrase was got from a science divulgatory book I don't even have close to hand, so I'm sorry I said it wrong. The advantage of the phrase is that makes everyone think they understand the theory of evolution, but the disadvantage is that makes everyone think they understand the theory of evolution*. In cases such as creationist trolls, the disadvantage far outweights the advantage.

GW

*taken from that same book

I should note that Darwin, albeit reluctantly, did use the phrase. I think he even added it in a much later edition of Origin. But as you said, it's a poor way to understand the idea of natural selection because it misleads more than it informs.

I would have to concur with DonkeyKong. The evolutionary configuration theorem states that the indexical properties of mating pairs involves a regression to the mean, which clearly demonstrates omitted variable bias. However, various latent poisson models have surmised that co-evolutionary progression dictates that indexical properties confirm the benchmark of zymotic bacilli in mating pairs not just the first one. This also confirms the dating of homologous gentrification to around 5,000 years BCE (before the common era) -- the physical evidence is overwhelming on this point. Logically, this entails the presence of both exogenous and endogenous RNA diffusion. I'm no expert here, but at least I know that the presence of RNA diffusion proves that zymotic bacilli improves the humoral fermentation process as Koch hypothesized.

I'm way out of my depth in genetics, but "humoral fermentation?" What sorta booze does that make, and must all creationists drink of it?

"I am not proposing that this occured, rather that to assert that it DIDN'T occur requires proof not just hand waving."

Yadda yadda epistemology of science yadda yadda doesn't deal in proof yadda yadda Occam's Razor yadda yadda yadda.

One of the difficulties of "survival of the fittest" is that it is frequently distorted to mean "survival and advancement of the meanest and most brutal." I think Spencer was urging a type of meritocracy, where good people would rise to lead in those industries in which they had talents and practiced skills. In the wild, "fittest" generally means that an individual has some incremental advantage in gathering food for itself or its young.

But if one peruses the creationist literature, they think it means that one animal murders another, and their are direct claims from some creationists that the principle urges one human to murder another.

The shorthand misunderstanding is a serious problem.

Ed,

Have you even read the literature on biometric hermeneutics? Let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Without the presence of RNA diffusion, the dating of homologous gentrification would be restricted to a period between 317 and 834 CE (the common era), which would clearly suggest the absence of indexical properties among mating pairs including the last one. But this is not the case because zymotic bacilli are present in every form. Molecular dating techniques, developed by Malebranche in the 17th century, also show that this is NOT the case. If you had considered his work on infinitesimal calculus, you would have known that "humoral fermentation" is a complex interaction of spucatum and tauri which any self respecting Creationist pitches in large quantities. Where the hell do you get your information? In any event, you can find Malebranche's paper repreinted in the Journal of Posterior Medicine.

I'm confident that DonkeyKong would concur with this assessment.

Wow, Buridan, that's really deep -- really really deep!
hugs,
Shirley Knott

Question from Russell Durbin, Ohio State University: It's hard to take seriously any of the president's views on science since he confesses skepticism about evolution, one of the bedrock theories of modern science. If he is willing to bend his view of biology to accommodate his religious ideology, how can we be confident about his approach to pollution, global warming, etc? John H. Marburger III: Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology. Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history.

Exactly! This crowd of so-called "professional biologist's" claims that Behe's argument is not scientific. But if they would just read Behe's writings, they would see that he uses very elaborite scientific words. If that doesn't make it science, I don't know what does. They claim that Behe's terms are ill-defined, his arguments unprovable, and their structure illogical. But I'm sure they're wrong, because some IDers say he's on track. (I'm not counting traitors like Paul Nelson who is probably a Satanist)

Tauri which is latin for Bull (As in Taurus)
Spucatum which is latin for ejected matter. (As in Sputum)

Matter ejected from bulls is quite common on the internet...

Re: comment #17856:
That was me, incidentally, asking the question. The answer was a pretty slick evasion of the question - not exactly the unequivocal rejection of pseudoscience I'd hoped for. But at least that second sentence makes for a quotable quote for your local Republican- leaning school board that takes evolution bashing as the official party line: " President Bush's science advisor said, Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution."

Ed, Have you even read the literature on biometric hermeneutics? Let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Without the presence of RNA diffusion, the dating of homologous gentrification would be restricted to a period between 317 and 834 CE (the common era), which would clearly suggest the absence of indexical properties among mating pairs including the last one.

— buridan

Hey, buridan has posted the best chuckle-fodder in the whole thread.  Parodying the nonsense buzzwords of the IDers is icing on the cake.

Kudos.

And then to cap it off, he complains about the number of references his opponents have posted to the thread, calling it "literature bombing." And this to a post that contains a total of eight references! Dembski even considers the need to find a way of preventing such "literature bombing" on the ISCID website. So what he's saying is, let's *prevent* people from listing references to back up their arguments. Now that's a real scientist speaking there. That's "teaching the controversy" for you.

Ok evolution 101 with real life examples.

1) The theory of natural selection as stated in this thread is that incremental advantage leads species to evolve in a direction specified by habitat. Call it natural selection if you prefer but state it honestly.

2) This is demonstratably false. Evolution in fact often favors the least fit as human ancestors were for the majority of life time.

3) The current theory for the formation of modern man is that a smaller and weaker jaw was the first in a string of many mutations that made room for a larger brain. Having a weaker jaw is not an incremental advantage, it is an incremental disadvantage.

4) There are profound differences between a theory of evolution whereby all change is linear improvement towards the dictates of the environment and one that requires mutations that oppose the dictates of the current environment. Similiar to quantom tunneling where the electron is able to violate the third law of thermo-dynamics momentarily and overcome an activation energy even though it has no energy to do so. Opposing the short term dictates of the enviornment drastically drastically lowers the probability of occurance.

The theory of survival of the fittest as it is commonly called or natural selection if you prefer is false. In order to evolve species need to go against the local enviorenment, to do so violates Darwins hypothesis regarding HOW.

That the scientists are staring to say evolutoin is true regardless of mechanism is a hint....

Donkey Kong,

so many claims, so little substance.
Would you mind telling me in how far gathering and scavenging primates optimized for optical reconnaissance, energy conservation in hot climates, a wide variety of movement patterns, simple tool use and complex group structures are supposed to be the least fit beings in an open woodland in Africa? Why should they expend energy on massive jaws to chew all kinds of plants, if they where going for high energy food like fruit, insects and carrion? Either you have some pretty extraordinary and esoteric knowledge on the evolutionary ecology of primates, or you are a lot more clueless on the subject than I am (and I am no specialist by far), or you are telling us intentional nonsense - take your pick.
An once again - I am sure somebody already told you - in evolutionary theory there is no 'direction' of mutation, so it makes no sense to demand a 'linear improvement'. Selection can not make a mutation appear, it can just select the most usable one. This is exactly why there are so many optimal and sub-optimal morphological solutions existing side-by-side.
BTW I do not know about a 'third law of thermodynamics', it wasn't in the Thermo courses I took or mentored, but tunneling actually *appears* to violate basic energy conservation.

BTW I do not know about a 'third law of thermodynamics', it wasn't in the Thermo courses I took or mentored, but tunneling actually *appears* to violate basic energy conservation.

Similiar to quantom tunneling where the electron is able to violate the third law of thermo-dynamics momentarily and overcome an activation energy even though it has no energy to do so.

Russel

When you select a quote at someone infering that they made the quote and it isn't a quote that they made and expect them to respond to you as though you are making a valid correspondence don't be suprised if they ignore it.

If you want to be taken seriously there are rules to discourse please learn them.

bcpmoon

I am trying to outline the broad principles for my sophist evolutionary friends.

When introducing a concept that they would be likely to dismiss based on its novelty I attempt to also site a non controversial scientific theory so that they can read more about what I am saying from google from someone they trust.

When you turn against the flow either by violating energy conservation or by violating the dictates of the local enviornment regarding optomizing your probability will drastically shrink.

You would not want to mate exclusively with a woman with a partial third arm sticking out of her back even though the evolutionary advantage of having 3 arms may be very benificial one day.

In you chose to ignore my direction and stick to the origional stated theory of Darwin your probability is actually much much much lower because you now have to prove that the enviornment FAVORS women with a partial 3rd arm stump out the back of her back. Dispite the sound of it this is actually a much much much harder thing to do convincingly. The alternative that most chose is to drop the whole mechanism which was the majority of Darwins contribution as evolution is not a theory first credited to him.

Remember, A claim made by evolution that is untested is BS. Evoultion currently claims that the mechanism is local optomization to enviornment. This is contrary to the often quantom jumps in fossils.

Evolution and logic.
Any of your schooled in elementary logic should spot the flaw...

Undisputable proof says the followin

1) All known animals are genetically similiar with genetic similiarities between older and newer species that are otherwise similiar in appearance.

2) If all animals descended from a single ancestor or a very small set of common ancestors you would expect to see the evidence in 1.

So basically we have a very simple logical flaw occuring.

1) Accept Facts.
2) Accept that IF evolution THEN similiar Facts
3) Assert with no proof that IF AND ONLY IF evolution then facts.

When someone comes along and piggybacks on your theory with another theory that is not different in its predictions and meets all the same Facts in 1 the strength of the refuting of said theory lies in 3.

I did not use the word lies by chance...

Remember, A claim made by evolution that is untested is BS.

— DonkeyKong

When you select a quote at someone infering that they made the quote and it isn't a quote that they made and expect them to respond to you as though you are making a valid correspondence don't be suprised if they ignore it. If you want to be taken seriously there are rules to discourse please learn them.

— Donkey

Similiar to quantom tunneling where the electron is able to violate the third law of thermo-dynamics momentarily and overcome an activation energy even though it has no energy to do so.

— DonkeyKong

You would not want to mate exclusively with a woman with a partial third arm sticking out of her back even though the evolutionary advantage of having 3 arms may be very benificial one day. In you chose to ignore my direction and stick to the origional stated theory of Darwin your probability is actually much much much lower because you now have to prove that the enviornment FAVORS women with a partial 3rd arm stump out the back of her back. Dispite the sound of it this is actually a much much much harder thing to do convincingly.

— DonkeyKong

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."

Bertrand Russell

So much for Darwinism.

John A. Davison

'Hints of life on Mars are getting stronger' reports CNN. Yet another reason to be thankful you aren't a creationist. It's difficult enough to argue that the untestable religious claim "Life is too improbable without Go-uh...A Creator" is science. Harder still if life pops up all over the place.

Steve,

If the life on Mars (should it be confirmed) is from earth, then of course it does no harm to the ID arguments. So that will be interesting.

However, I wouldn't be jumping for joy if I were an evolutionist. If microbial life exists on Mars, then I would think you'd have to explain why it never evolved into something more complex--after all if the earth is not privileged...

However, I wouldn't be jumping for joy if I were an evolutionist. If microbial life exists on Mars, then I would think you'd have to explain why it never evolved into something more complex---after all if the earth is not privileged . . .

Not joking at all--if microbial life is on Mars, and if it has been there for billions of years, evolution should have a better answer than "[not] every venue is equally likely to develop something multicellular". That is just too easy. There should be a more substantive answer.

Of course, this is all speculation.

If the life on Mars (should it be confirmed) is from earth, then of course it does no harm to the ID arguments.

For those of you who don't know why I'll be nominating Dave for the Nobel Prize, it's for the revolutionary discovery known as Heddle's Law:

P(n)<=|n|

(The probability of getting an astrophysical result is less than or equal to the absolute value of the number in the mks system. )

Materialist Atheist Marxist critics claim the idea is idiotic, that it predicts probabilities >1. Oh they of little faith. I'm sure Intelligent Design Renormalization Theory will fix that soon.

I had to update my name. Times have changed. Spiffy, eh?

if microbial life is on Mars, and if it has been there for billions of years, evolution should have a better answer than "[not] every venue is equally likely to develop something multicellular". That is just too easy. There should be a more substantive answer.

David Heddle wrote: if microbial life is on Mars, and if it has been there for billions of years, evolution should have a better answer than "[not] every venue is equally likely to develop something multicellular". That is just too easy. There should be a more substantive answer.

Even if Mars were like Earth, there's no reason to assume that evolution has as its goal the development of intelligent erect bipeds. Of course, I happen to like intelligent erect bipeds myself, but that may be just my bias. Somebody who doesn't share that bias wouldn't worry if some other planet didn't produce erect bipeds.

Henry

Henry J wrote: Even if Mars were like Earth, there's no reason to assume that evolution has as its goal the development of intelligent erect bipeds. .

The discovery of DNA impressed people so much that they tended to forget that metabolism is just as basic to life as nucleic acids. Without energy flows, nada. If Mars never developed multicellular life, it might just have something to do with the much lower level of energy available on a small, cold planet.

One morning, after Aaron got back to campus, he bumped into Kranski in, of all places, the men's room. Kranski stood washing his hands at one of the sinks when Aaron entered. For physicists, there are no inappropriate places to talk science. "I have a question." "Well Mr. Dern, I hope I have the answer," Kranski said, shooting a basket with balled up paper towel. "What if they find life on Mars? Wouldn't that shoot holes in everything?" Kranski smiled. Obviously others had asked him the same thing. "I can answer that many ways. I expect the missions planned by NASA will find life on Mars, or at least fossilized remains. Probably of microbes. I'd be shocked if they didn't. Whenever something hits the earth it blasts debris in to space. Some of that ends up on Mars, and microbes could probably survive the trip. Microorganisms on Mars wouldn't be a problem for Intelligent Design, but for evolutionists. They would have to explain why, given free reign of the planet, the microbes didn't evolve into something more complex. After all, one of their mantras is that life always finds a way." "I never thought of like that," Aaron said. He wished this question had occurred to him before visiting Leila. "But what if someday we do encounter other advanced beings? Wouldn't that be a disaster?"

Evolution does not have goals anymore. They have already been realized with man the ultimate product.

If there is no life on Mars, and I am willing to bet serious money on that, it might just mean that life was not created on Mars or anyplace else for that matter except right here on earth where in all likelihood it was created independently several times.

John A. Davison

In my opinion, the correct question to pose is:
Did (past tense) evolution have goals?

In my opinion, the correct answer is:
Of course it did and they have been realized.

"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
Montaigne.

John A. Davison

Re "They have already been realized with man the ultimate product."

Ultimate product my tailbone. ;)

Henry

That's the spirit Henry J. Send me a preprint if you ever get around to publishing something.

John A. Davison

If human anatomy was "designed", somebody should sue the engineer(s) who did it for incompetence, malpractice, or negligence.

Henry

Henry J

I guess you aren't satisfied with your anatomy. What seems to be your problem or would you rather not talk about it? I used to teach Comparative Anatomy. Maybe I can be of some help.

John A. Davison

What's the "problem"?

Nerves on top of retina, blocking some of the incoming light.

Backbone made from stack of bones - suitable for horizontal support, not appropriate for vertical structure.

Tailbone - not needed for anything, but can be damaged in fall.

Appendix - no way to clean out mess if it gets infected.

Throat - blockage in food intake can also close off airpipe.

Teeth - wear out eventually, no internal mechanism to replace them.

Birth canal (doesn't apply to me specifically, but still) - has to be wide to let baby out, but is located between bones that have to be close together if the woman wants to walk upright.

No doubt a biologist could add items to that list.

But an engineer who made mistakes of that sort would be likely to be out looking for another job.

Henry

Can I bitch about the prostate design while we're at it?

Sure, go ahead. :)

And hair, what about hair? What's the point in having hair if you're only going to lose it? And what's with flat feet?

Come on guys, we were made in His image. He certainly wouldn't want to change the design.

You really think so, Enough? Man, if I heard all them believers calling me an Intelligent Designer I think I might want to go back in and do some retro-tooling and make them think I'd gotten it right the first time - wouldn't you?

Henry J
You are a genius. Write it up, publish it and become famous like Richard (The Blind Watchmaker) Dawkins.

John A. Davison

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

— Gal 3:26

Wayne,

Didn't you run afoul of the late Little Old Lady, or her orphaned son, with some of that post a few weeks ago? :^)

Yea, I'll surely goto hell for commenting on God's Penis.....I wonder how it evolved? It it realy like our penis? Hmmm I wonder how big God's genome is. Sinse no new genetic information can be created and God can create everything God's genome must be ∞ infinity. Thats got to be one HUGE sperm God has.

Evolution took place (past tense) by modifying what was present in the ancestor. That is what makes it possible to have a discipline known as Comparative Anatomy. When man became erect he had to do it by modifying a previously horizontal anatomy. Actually the effort was eminently successful. The biggest problem with backs is with fat hogs who overeat. In fact obesity is the number one health problem today in civilized society. You won't find primitive people with bad backs for a couple of very good reasons. First, they are all skinny. Second, if they have a bad back they probably won't be able to get around to reproducing. It is called Natural Selection and that is all it is good for now as in the past. It maintained the staus quo. That it all it ever did and all it does today.

The appendix is another example of an inherited condition from the past. Our ancestors were probably very herbivorous. The rabbit which is an obligatory herbivore has an appendix, longer than its intestine.

The comments about the eye betray a total lack of understanding of visual physiology so I won't dignify them with any further comment.

The most important point about all these meaningless arguements is the reality that evolution is finished and has been for a very long time. Until that is accepted, you Darwinians are just pissing up a rope.

"The period of great fecundity is over: present biological evolution appears as a weakened process. declining or or near its end."
Pierre Grasse, page 71

John A. Davison

Re "Evolution took place (past tense)"
What evidence is there that something is somehow preventing evolution from happening now? Why haven't anybody but you and a handful of others noticed its cessation? Why are medical researchers still using evolutionary principles to understand disease germs and viruses?

Re "The comments about the eye betray a total lack of understanding of visual physiology so I won't dignify them with any further comment."
And why should anybody take that as anything but an admission that you don't have a counterargument?

Re "Until that is accepted, you Darwinians are just pissing up a rope."
So, the tens of thousands (or however many) biologists who've been studying this subject over the last several decades have somehow repeatedly overlooked critical flaws in the theory that only you and a few others have noticed? But that you haven't bothered (or been able?) to describe on this blog aside from asserting their existence?

Henry

Henry J

Exactly as you said it in your penultimate sentence.
you get an A. As for the evidence, I refer you to my published papers and those that I cite. You obviously have either read none of that material and more likely was unable to comprehend it even if you had. You are just another pompous blowhard. I don't describe things on this blog. I publish it in refereed journals. Where may I find your work?

John A. Davison

John,
Re "You obviously have either read none of that material"
Of course not. Your commentary on here gives me very little motivation to do so. And requiring me to use a search engine to

Re "Where may I find your work?"
I'm not a biologist. That being the case, I get my info on that subject from biologists that haven't caused me to distrust their judgment, by doing such things as (1) rejecting several conclusions shared by the majority of biologists, without giving reasons for that with those assertions, or (2) arguing against something referred to as "Darwinism", when modern theory differs greatly from Darwin's statement of it, or (3) arguing that the combination of mutation and selection is by itself insufficient, when there are other factors presently known such as genetic drift and founder effect.

Henry