Brief Update on Kansas

Dr. Jonathan Wells is a frequent source for comments at the public hearings and his views are clearly reflected in the minority report. Dr. Wells has no academic credibility, has done no work in biology beyond a rather weak doctoral program, has very questionable motivation for pursing his education in biology, and, because of a felony conviction, would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas.

because of a felony conviction, [Jonathan Wells] would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas.

I agree, and I'm sorry that Steve put this in. I'll talk to him about retracting it in some way or another.

Thanks for the info - I agree that it is not relevant to the issue at hand. Just my curiosity getting the better of me :)

I found the following list of questions in the first KCFS update Jack listed to be most interesting:

1. To what extent is Intelligent Design used as a theoretical
foundation for research at the institution?
2. What courses is Intelligent Design taught at the institution?
3. Is antievolution or evidence against evolution teaching included in
the instructional program of your institution?
4. Is there any scientific research that looks for explanations beyond
the material world at your institution?
5. Is evolution taught as philosophy at your institution?

I have recently wondered if it would be useful to add to NCSE's Voices for Evolution a list of the universities and colleges that do not teach ID, or more appropriately, a list the miniscule number that do teach it (along with some statistic indicating just how small this number is), and to ask, it it appropriate to teach our high school students concepts that have almost no recognition in our colleges and universities, including many religiously based ones?

I'd especially appreciate comments about this from any of you NCSE folks. This seems so obvious that perhaps it has already been considered and rejected for some reason. Thanks.

I believe the "crime" was [Wells'] refusal to fight in the Vietnam debacle.

In the fourth KCFS Update listed by Jack, Steve Case mentions several documents that he feels offer sufficeint answers to the questions of the Kansas Board of Education subcommittee. He did not provide any links, and, unfortunately, he appears to have gotten the names of a couple of them wrong. Here are the documents I found that I believe Steve was referring to:

"National Science Education Standards"
"Benchmarks for Science Literacy"
"Science for all Americans" (not "Science of all Americans")
"Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" (not "Evolution and the Nature of Science")

Hope this helps.

Anybody have a spare pair of hip waders? The hubris is getting deep around here!

DaveScot: Anybody have a spare pair of hip waders? The hubris is getting deep around here!

Very good material at the KCFS board, linked by Jack at the top of this thread.

Suppose 1 percent of Kansans read it and all are convinced that science, not nonsense, should be taught in science class. Suppose further that nearly all hyperliterates [reading level at least 18 (scale: 12th grade = 12)]in KS agree.

Where does this leave you?

Here's a clue for you, Dave: When all the facts and observations support your theory, it is not hubris to say you're right, it is merely truth.

Prokaryotes get a lot larger than you might expect. Several times the human genome

Give me one example

For those who may be itnerested:

Evolution Fight Goes International:
International Internet Activists Donate Science Books to Anti-Evolution School District

An international email group that focuses on opposing the teaching of intelligent design creationism is donating over twenty science books to the Dover High School Library in Dover, Pennsylvania. Among the books being donated are "What Evolution Is" by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" by Robert Pennock, and "Finding Darwin's God" by biologist Kenneth R Miller.

Dover became the scene of a legal fight after supporters of "intelligent design theory" attempted to insert their viewpoint into science classes. Similar conflicts over "intelligent design theory" are taking place in Ohio, Kansas, Alabama, Arkansas, and elsewhere.

The cyber-activists from the DebunkCreation email list at Yahoogroups, from the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, Australia and Sweden, say they were motivated by reports that an "anonymous donor" gave sixty copies of the intelligent design textbook "Of Pandas and People" to the school district. "We wanted students in Dover to have access to accurate information about science, about evolutionary biology, and about the real agenda of the intelligent design movement," says list founder Lenny Flank, a freelance writer from St Petersburg, Florida.

Activists from the UK, Canada, Australia and elsewhere point out that they too have a stake in fighting creationism. Many of them are facing their own anti-evolution movements, most of which are founded and funded by American creationist groups. "It seems almost unbelievable that the UK Government should be giving religious extremists control of our schools and then allowing them to corrupt the teaching of science," says Alan Bellis, an anti-creationist campaigner in Great Britain. "Yet it is actually happening." The Emmanuel Schools Foundation (Vardy Foundation), which operates three schools in the north of England and plans to open four more, has made no secret of its plans to teach creationism, and has recieved support from Answers In Genesis, an Australian group that was itself founded by members of the Institute for Creation Research, in California. "Fortunately," says Bellis, "resistance against them is slowly growing and only recently, a concerted campaign by protesting parents halted the takeover of a school near Doncaster."

The battle cry of the intelligent design movement has been to "teach the controversy", but in reality, say list members, there is no scientific controversy over evolution. Michael Brass, a South African archeaeologist residing in England, and author of the anti-creationist book "The Antiquity of Man", points out, "Recent reviews of the available anatomical and genetic evidence have convincingly re-affirmed yet again the theory that apes and anatomically modern humans share a common ancestry. There is no controversy, amongst palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists over the validity of evolutionary processes in human evolution." Rather than being science, Brass says, intelligent design and creationist advocates "take their religious text as their starting point and attempt to force-fit the data into their religious paradigm." Brass concludes, "Creationist works, and those who support such efforts, have no basis whatsoever in any scientific procedure and basic plain scientific reality."

Despite it claims to be "science", the cyber-activists conclude that the intelligent design movement is simply a religious crusade, coupled with a deliberate attempt to conceal that fact. The Discovery Institute (the primary force behind the intelligent design movement), which has been advising the Dover School Board members, goes to great lengths to claim that it has no ulterior religious motives. But Flank points to the 'Wedge Document', an internal Discovery Institute document that was leaked onto the Internet a few years ago. Under the heading 'Governing Goals', the Wedge Document states, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." The primary financial backer of the Discovery Institute is California S&L mogul Howard Ahmanson, a supporter of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, which advocates placing the United States under "Biblical law". The Dover intelligent design advocates are being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, which describes its mission as "Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians". And recent published statements by school board members make clear the religious goals of their intelligent design "theory". "It certainly sounds to me," Flank says, "as if the intelligent design movement and its backers want to do exactly what the Supreme Court has already ruled they can NOT do --- use the public schools to advance their religious opinions."

"There was a time when science had to conform to the opinions of the prevailing religious authorities," Flank concludes. "We call those times 'The Dark Ages'. They are not fondly remembered by most people."

The DebunkCreation email list, formed in 1999 and currently with over 400 members, is found at Yahoogroups.com.

Hubris

Science is not afraid to be judged. Science ideas are judged every day by competent experts in the appropriate field. Scientists are well schooled in statistical inference and we would not be true to our training if we bet on a stacked deck.

Statements like that from imbeciles like Harry McDonald, president of KCFS, insult the intelligence of people who don't self-annoint themselves as scientists. And you wonder why it seems like everyone outside your academic circles is picking on you?

Get a clue!

You DO NOT have a monopoly in either science or intelligence. In fact you're just hired hands working for people even smarter than yourselves.

You've been back several times since then, spouting your usual content-free slurs on mainstream science, yet you just walk away from the gaffe that reveals your own cluelessness. Despite that, I guess you think we should still take you seriously?

— Russell

Nevermind. The prokaryote table I referenced is labeled wrong. The lengend says megabases and it should be kilobases.

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else. Or actually you caught me referring to someone else's error. It's rare. Cherish it.

But in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made that amoeba dubia has a genome size 200 of times the size of the human genome so the point still stands.

Dave,

Always check the original sources - or have you been sniffing the ether again

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12420170&dopt=Abstract

Fred

"There's one of me and scores of you that want a piece of me."

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

Uh, who the hell are YOU. . . .?

You seem to have an awfully inflated sense of your own self-importance, junior.

Dave,

Your motto seems to be - "I have a theory and, if it's wrong, then I have another theory."

It's interesting that despite the scorn you heaped on Russell he actually had even suggested earlier that the table might contain a typo. So, you owe him an actual apology not a juvenile justification which amounts to saying "I was right all along" and the fault lies with others. Your intelligent designer will probably be a bit pissed off at such unhumble behavior.

Now, you have this big theory that we descended from a pre-programmed ameoba - or was it a lungfish - but you're too sloppy even to do your homework. Plus you have no internal BS detector that clearly warns you when something sounds fishy. Then, when you get caught out, in typical fundie fashion, you proclaim that it didn't really matter anyway and you're still right. So what sort of a theorist are you? I'd suggest that 5 or 6 years in a decent graduate school might help you get over this sort of behavior. There you would learn not to take things at face value. That's one of the key differences between a scientist and a nitwit who's perpetually and breathlessly proclaiming a new theory or insight that his betters have overlooked.

You need to learn some humility my boy - drop the hubris and start doing some thinking. With an IQ of 153+ you have some serious potential - but you need to use the intellect and lose the emotionalism. But maybe you have been emulating your hero, Dead Wood Davison, a bit too faithfully. If so, you'll end up just like him.

Cleave to the words of the apostle Paul, which I paraphrase; "When I was a child, I used to think as a child, but now that I am a man ....."

Fred

Okay, I'll do your homework for you just this once. But I want you to do it yourself next time, okay? ...The salient question is whether I should take YOU seriously. Don't confuse my not noticing your questions with not being able to answer them, dopey. There's one of me and scores of you

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else.

Or actually you caught me referring to someone else's error.

But in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made that amoeba dubia has a genome size 200 of times the size of the human genome

You have been touting A. dubia as an example of a "simple" organism that could have enough extra genetic information to encode as yet unselected evolutionary scenarios.

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

Ahhh, the old "PK Zip Theory" of genetics.

I'm curious --- can any IDer out there give me an example of this working? Can anyone show me a parent species and its genome, a daughter species and its genome, and point to the specific genetic sequences that "PK Unzipped" to give this "new genetic information"? Can any IDer tell me how this genetic sequence "unzips", and what happens to all the old sequences once they've "unzipped"?

Wait, let me guess ------- that's "left unspecified by design theory" too, right . . . . just like everything else.

You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else. Or actually you caught me referring to someone else's error. It's rare. Cherish it.

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

Why. Are you that bloody infallible? Give advice to the Pope, do you?

No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are self-righteous arrogant pricks who believe, quite literally, that they are holier than everyone else.

Lenny,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PK Unzip theory would surely have to anticipate all future states that the earth might settle into. So, e.g., there would be a bit of the genome reserved for for thermophilic bacteria, another bit for sulfur eaters etc. That is, each of the actual environments that have developed on Earth would have to have been anticipated. But, presumably, a host of other environments that didn't actually become realized would also be in there too, just to cover the bases. Or do the ID-ers argue that God controlled the environment too?

Fred

Okay, so it may not be relevant (except for his inability to qualify for a teaching post in Kansas) but what was his crime?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PK Unzip theory would surely have to anticipate all future states that the earth might settle into. So, e.g., there would be a bit of the genome reserved for for thermophilic bacteria, another bit for sulfur eaters etc. That is, each of the actual environments that have developed on Earth would have to have been anticipated. But, presumably, a host of other environments that didn't actually become realized would also be in there too, just to cover the bases.

Or do the ID-ers argue that God controlled the environment too?

Jon Wells following one tour of duty, refused to return to Viet Nam, and for that 'crime' was sent to the Levenworth federal pen. I respect, and honor his action. I find it callow that Chase would have brought this personal attack into what should be a measured discussion.

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else. Or actually you caught me referring to someone else's error. It's rare. Cherish it.

I find it callow that Chase would have brought this personal attack into what should be a measured discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire anti-evolution shame is a political movement spearheaded by religious conservatives.

I find that confusing. Why would a man who has the character to go to prison for principle, then lose basic principles like the honesty to be accurate in presenting others' work?

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Personal attack? Chase pointed out what appears to be a fact: Wells is a convicted felon and can't teach in Kansas schools. That's hardly a personal "attack." It's actually a rather "measured" statement of that fact.

— GWW

I find that confusing. Why would a man who has the character to go to prison for principle, then lose basic principles like the honesty to be accurate in presenting others' work?

— Ed Darrell

I must agree with Steve Reuland. To the creationist, evolution *cannot* be correct. It simply can't. It is wrong according to scripture and to God, than which there is no higher authority. If all the evidence indicates otherwise, then those following the evidence are clearly misguided. Man was never meant to follow evidence in any case, since God told us everything we need to know. So I think Wells is sticking to his principles in the case of evolution as well. He made it all the way through a graduate degree in biology, and got the degree, without his convictions ever flagging and without letting the obvious ever deflect his purpose at all. If that's not sticking to principles, what is?

He made it all the way through a graduate degree in biology, and got the degree, without his convictions ever flagging ...

I don't doubt that Wells is highly "principled" concerning his objection to evolution. I'm quite sure he believes strongly in what he's doing, and considers the ends to justify the means.

I don't doubt that Wells is highly "principled" concerning his objection to evolution. I'm quite sure he believes strongly in what he's doing, and considers the ends to justify the means. And I think that's true of all of them.

I must agree with Steve Reuland. To the creationist, evolution *cannot* be correct. It simply can't. It is wrong according to scripture and to God, than which there is no higher authority. If all the evidence indicates otherwise, then those following the evidence are clearly misguided. Man was never meant to follow evidence in any case, since God told us everything we need to know. So I think Wells is sticking to his principles in the case of evolution as well. He made it all the way through a graduate degree in biology, and got the degree, without his convictions ever flagging and without letting the obvious ever deflect his purpose at all. If that's not sticking to principles, what is?

Dr. Case's response to the "trial" proposal is coolly factual, cognizant of the laws and responsibilities of the board, and demonstrate a great deal of careful consideration to the best possible ways to do the board's work while not just pushing the ID advocates into a corner.

I had been thinking that a trial should use at least the state's civil procedure rules on qualifications of expert witnesses (which would rule out almost all self-proclaimed ID advocates). Case's proposal, especially in point 8, requires ID advocates to confront the weaknesses of their own beliefs and proposals as tools for public science education.

In Case, Kansas has a very high degree of leadership, perhaps more than the state might deserve considering their electoral decisions on education board members, but perhaps as high a degree as they need to get things done right. Good on Case.

I wrote the author of genomesize.com who appears to be a nice enough young zoology PhD and informed him of the error. Thanks for all your kind comments on the matter and thank you Russell for pointing out my error in quoting it. ;-)

Uh, who the hell are YOU . . . .?

— Lenny Flank

According to ID "theory" (such as it is), nothing we see REQUIRES any supernatural or divine explanation.

I'm curious ---- can any IDer out there give me an example of this working? Can anyone show me a parent species and its genome, a daughter species and its genome, and point to the specific genetic sequences that "PK Unzipped" to give this "new genetic information"? Can any IDer tell me how this genetic sequence "unzips", and what happens to all the old sequences once they've "unzipped"?

I don't doubt that Wells is highly "principled" concerning his objection to evolution. I'm quite sure he believes strongly in what he's doing, and considers the ends to justify the means. And I think that's true of all of them.

— Steve Reutland

That's a bit unfair to demand examples of things that happened in the remote past.

GWW Hotmail put you in the junk folder and I still agree it's where you belong. You know what I'm talking about. Ploink.

So, then, the two issues may be unrelated? That's possible, I suppose. I've known a few vets made essentially unable to cope with reality by that war. But very few. Most who made a principled stand based on the facts kept both an acute and chronic appreciation for the facts in their character. It took a great deal of honesty to oppose the war, for most. Wells' book is a practice in deception, in contrast. It's not based on a hard analysis of any fact. Footnotes tend to refer to publications which say the opposite of what Wells claims they should say.

Most who made a principled stand based on the facts kept both an acute and chronic appreciation for the facts in their character. It took a great deal of honesty to oppose the war, for most.

The fundies are not "conservatives". They are "revolutionaries", in the truest sense of the word.

I anguished over the war more than opposed it. My brother did four tours of duty in Southeast Asia. We lost 11 kids from my high school by the time I graduated. I was too young for a II-S deferment, and rather than anguish over the draft, I volunteered to go Air Force ROTC. Then the Army overruled the Air Force's physical, and claimed I was 4-F for flat feet (after I had hiked hundreds of miles in the previous four years).

My experience was that those who fought and those who fought to avoid the fighting generally did so out of principle. Wise, smart people went both ways. And when they came back, they tended to be sharper in analysis, and more demanding of honesty in themselves and tolerant of differing views in others. In my experience.

I don't think either the gung-ho soldiers or the conscientious objectors were deluded. They came down on different sides of a difficult issue that was sharply divided.

It might be interesting to find polling data on Vietnam vets, to see how many are creationist. I learn something every day -- it hadn't occurred to me that many who fought or who protested could ever be creationist. My eyes are opened.

Flint,

"Both support and opposition to that war ran strong, and neither side had access to any more or better facts than the other."

I think I'd take issue with that. I served in the AF from 59 - 71. We were fed propaganda and falsehoods, starting with the Bay of Tonkin.

Bob Maurus:

That's why I said the first casualty of war (and religion) is truth. *Everyone* was fed the same propaganda. As Ed and I agree, both sides were sincere. Where I disagree with Ed is, I think both sides were deluded. Even those controlling the news were deluded, since later on it was well documented that battle results were systematically fabricated ("enhanced" or even "corrected") bit by bit as they rose through the chain of command. As LBJ said, this was a war for hearts and minds. Hearts and minds are not won with bullets and napalm, but with carefully constructed fictions nobody is (permitted to be) in a position to relate fully to reality.

But I think that's a bit beside the point. Both sides started with a determination to see things they way they wanted to, and both sides succeeded at this. And this was my point: That Wells is being consistent, and remaining in character, by selecting a position a priori and making the facts support it, whether they do or not. There seems to be an assumption going on here that Wells, being smart and educated and knowledgeable, must be perfectly aware that he is being deceitful. I don't think this assumption is a slam dunk. I think Wells is "correcting" the facts in light of Truth. At the very least, he has mastered Orwell's doublethink.

My observation was that even years later, when more and more of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' duplicity came to light, minds did not change. People agreed that these administrations had agendas, and managed the news accordingly. But whether the public was deliberately manipulated (no doubt they were), is a different question from whether the war was good or bad. And similarly, whether the facts support Wells' beliefs is a different question from whether his beliefs are right or wrong.

Maybe it would be more helpful to regard both the creationists and the conscientious objectors as being rigid and inflexible. Most people are willing to follow the path of least resistance. Whether the war was a good or bad thing was less important than how much it was costing and the fact that it showed no sign of a traditional military resolution. Similarly, if evolution seems best supported by the facts, then that must be as God intended. In other words, the majority is able to accommodate ambiguity and change and the pressures exerted by education, by changing their views and their understandings and rolling with the punches.

Wells and the war protesters fall at the brittle end of the adaptive curve. If we admire their fixations, we call them "principled". If we don't, we call them brainwashed.

DaveScot understates the situation. Drosophila melanogaster is still Drosiphila melanogaster and has been for millions of years, All dog, wolves and coyotes are a single species as proved by hybrid fertility. Darwin's precious finches are as near as we can tell from field observations all one species. Their beak size changes are freely reversible, something evolution has never been.

Besides, evolution is a thing of the past, just as Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and Julian Huxley all realized and proclaimed. Julian Huxley, in case you may have forgotten, is the author of that old neo-Dawinian classic "Evolution" The Modern Synthesis."

As for Darwinism the most exquisitely discredited hypothesis in all of history, I quote Bertrand Russell:

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

John A. Davison

burp

I love those gastric comments. They are so revealing.

John A. Davison

Flint,

My only dispute with your post was the line about neither side having access to more or better facts. They were there if you knew where to look.

I voted for Goldwater in the first election I could vote in - I remember laughing at the first Vietnam protestors, in Porstmouth, NH. I then spent 2 1/2 years at Kadena AFB on Okinawa, where I had access to better facts and began learning the truth.

I serviced electronic nav systems on F-105s, and occasionally transient cargo aircraft, including some full of wounded and dead on their way back home from Nam. I remember the NV claiming to have shot down B-52s, and the denials and silence from our gov't and then - a week or two later - seeing acknowledgements buried somewhere at the bottom of the page in the Stars and Stripes.

Spent the last few years of my time at Shaw AFB in Sumter, SC, working first on F-4s, and later on Jolly Greens training rescue crews, and writing and cartooning for an anti-war GI underground newspaper aimed at the army trainees at Ft. Jackson. Had my flightline security clearance revoked over that - they evidently thought I might sabotage planes or something.

Took a discharge after 12 years rather than an assignment to SE Asia. I was ready to go to jail rather than support that war. Full circle.

Bob

Bob,

Yeah, the problem was that the US has a terrible time understanding the nature of a nontraditional 19th century war. I notice from our middle east experience that we have learned nothing in the meantime, and so we send well-armed soldiers whose mission is vague and largly negative -- don't let terrorists do anything newsworthy, don't commit any atrocities, don't get killed. You can return when these unruly foreigners stop blowing things up and behave like good democrats.

Like every such war we've stuck ourselves with, we go in with flags flying, lots of newsworthy missions and military accomplishments, lots of propaganda, morale sky-high, public support out the wazoo. For God and country, yellow ribbons, destroy the axis of evil, yeah yeah yeah. But this level of enthusiasm can only be sustained for so long before the binary vision (pure good against pure evil) starts to degenerate. And so we get My Lai and Abu Ghraib leaking past the thought police, because writing to an increasingly impatient public, the war reporters morph from cheerleaders and mouthpieces to advocates against the war, or at least deeply suspicious of the way the war is being presented ("packaged" is probably a better word). And so a new picture emerges -- one of competing self-interests neither holding any position of moral superiority and both using whatever tactics work at the time.

Of course, the prosecution of the war hasn't changed at all. What has changed is the patriotic sheen has worn off, and underneath war is always ugly. Perhaps, for those whose nations the US decides to convert to the One True Government, war is a necessity. Being foursquare in favor of conscientious pacifism is great -- you go first!

Drosophila melanogaster is still Drosiphila melanogaster and has been for millions of years,

— John A. Davison

"It might be interesting to find polling data on Vietnam vets, to see how many are creationist."

I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran but didn't get sent overseas. I understand that communism was a real threat to a free world and the United States chose to fight it on various fronts - economic, political, and military. Vietnam was one battle on the military front. If nothing else we caused communist forces to expend resources and focus on that front for a decade. We might have lost that battle but we won the war. The United States doesn't live in a vacuum. Isolationism became an untenable strategic position in the 20th century when technology overcame the natural protection offered by vast oceans.

It might be interesting to find polling data on Vietnam vets, to see how many are creationist. I learn something every day — it hadn’t occurred to me that many who fought or who protested could ever be creationist.

— Ed Darrell

JAD once agian flips and makes excuses. JAD you asked for an instance of speciation where speciation is defined by the parent and child species can not interbreed with fertile offspring. You have been provided with that. Now you use the creationist call "But its still a fly". It IS a new species by the definition YOU demanded.

Do you also claim a blue whale is actually still a Meonychid?

You don't move the goal posts....you just fail to accept that touchdowns are being made by the rules you've asked us to play by. You make statement unsupported by the evidence, then claim all the evidence points to your hypothesis.

According to ID "theory" (such as it is), nothing we see REQUIRES any supernatural or divine explanation. Bingo!

Well, it's pretty hard to tell just WHAT the ID, uh, "theory" states or doesn't state, since ID "theorists", for some unfathomable reason, refuse at all costs to tell us just WHAT THE HELL THEIR "THEORY" SAYS. Gee, I wonder why that would be . . . ? Is it because they have no scientific theory to offer and are just lying to us when they claim they do?

As you may (or may not) know, speciation is still being observed today, all around us. Hence, your PK-ZIp genetics should still be operating. Show it to me. Where can I see it. Where can I see an example of this genetic "unzipping". Where can we see the remnants of previous "unzipping". How do you propose this "unzipping" happens, and how are the genetic remains eliminated. Wait, let me guess ------- those things "aren't specified by ID theory". Just like everything ELSE. What the heck *does* Id, uh, "theory", say --- other than "Goddiddit!!"?

JAD once agian flips and makes excuses. JAD you asked for an instance of speciation where speciation is defined by the parent and child species can not interbreed with fertile offspring. You have been provided with that. Now you use the creationist call "But its still a fly". It IS a new species by the definition YOU demanded. Do you also claim a blue whale is actually still a Meonychid?

The claim that Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x larger than a human set off my BS detector as well.

The wonders of Google led me to this site, which says that this comes from a 1968 paper by Friz, which apparently only looked at total DNA content from a biochemical perspective. If the site is correct, then Friz didn't attempt to control for possible polyploidy or other things that could drive up DNA content without increasing true genome size.

Moreover, the linked site says that Friz also claimed a high DNA content for A. proteus, but that subsequent investigators found numbers 10-fold lower.

Of course, the linked site might be wrong. (I found the Friz reference on PubMed, but there's no abstract, and I don't happen to have Comp Biochem Physiol on the shelf here at home.) Still, the claim for A. dubia seems rather, er, "dubious" to me.

Darwin's precious finches are as near as we can tell from field observations all one species. Their beak size changes are freely reversible, something evolution has never been.

It is the work of the Grant's that provides the best evidence that Darwin's finches are all one species. I mentioned one of their papers in the Manifesto, which you obviously have not read or you wouldn't have asked the question. Do you people ever read anything or do you just mindlessly quote unread sources? I honestly cannot tell. Beak sizes vary with annual rainfall which controls the kinds of plants and their seeds on which the finches feed. Don't tell me otherwise as I know better. Phasic changes such as these have nothing to do with evolution.

The paleontologist, David Raup, in an interview offered the following commentary:

"On the creation-evolution debate, I foresee continued conflict. Both sides will continue to lie, cheat and steal to make their points."

Amen

John A. Davison

I still have not heard you refute the Drosophila evidence. For someone who seems to be arguing against evolution, you don't appear to have an answer for the most studied system.

It is the work of the Grant's that provides the best evidence that Darwin's finches are all one species.

I mentioned one of their papers in the Manifesto, which you obviously have not read or you wouldn't have asked the question. Do you people ever read anything or do you just mindlessly quote unread sources? I honestly cannot tell.

Beak sizes vary with annual rainfall which controls the kinds of plants and their seeds on which the finches feed. Don't tell me otherwise as I know better. Phasic changes such as these have nothing to do with evolution.

The paleontologist, David Raup, in an interview offered the following commentary: "On the creation-evolution debate, I foresee continued conflict. Both sides will continue to lie, cheat and steal to make their points."

So . . . ID theory is atheism?

— Lenny

Have you told your fellow fundies yet that they are preaching atheism?

Have you told your fellow atheists in the Church of Darwin that they don't have to abandon their faith in materialism to accept the possibility of ID?

— DaveScot

Ummm... that was ME that said drosophila is still a fly. I didn't see JAD saying it.

The fact is that no one has observed mutation/selection creating:

1) novel body forms
2) novel tissue types
3) novel organs

The evidence suggests that it is not.

— RPM

DaveScot,
you've been called again and again on this. You call cells "complex machines", but never define what a "complex machine" is. This is not acceptable.

First, tell us what a "complex machine" is; THEN we can discuss whether cells are "machines" or not (and at the same time whether all such "machines" are the fruit of intelligent design or not).

machine 1 a archaic : a constructed thing whether material or immaterial... 2 a : a living organism or one of its functional systems...

— Merriam-Webster

I would say that it is actually very inaccurate to refer to cell as complex machines in the way that IDists tend to use that phrase.

Mr. Heddle:

just WHAT is "a complex machine"? Let's not dodge the question, please.

Well, go ahead and say it, but you would be wrong. It is pefectly sensible to refer to a cell as a complex machine. It ought to be one thing that IDers and evolutionists can easily agree upon.

— David Heddle

It's a machine that is complex. We are not talking about some precise quantitative measure of complexity, just ordinary qualitative common sense.

What's the problem? The cell transforms energy into work, so it is a machine. It is amazingly complicated, with biochemistry that nobody completely understands, so it is complex.

Which part to you disagree with? Are you saying the cell is (a) not a machine (b) is simple or (c) both?

Not the way that IDists use the term. IDists want to use the term to denote something manufactured, which would be an incorrect use of the term, unless ID turns out to be true,

Well what do you expect them to do? That's their premise. I don't get your point.

— David Heddle

Mr. Heddle:

I was asking for a DEFINITION of "complex machine". Now you've offered one.

Yes, according to your definition, cells are "complex machines". I concur.

Which also implies that the overwhelmingly vast majority (by many orders of magnitude) of "complex machines" in existence are lifeforms, not man-made mechanisms.

And this in turn implies that the insignificant percentage of "complex machines" that humans have designed tells us precisely NOTHING about the nature of the rest.

This was my point all along. Thanks.

GCT,

Well, we can go around and around, but what you are really saying is, in my opinion, quite silly. It is equivalent to an IDer telling you that, until you prove evolution you must use machine, when referring to the cell, to mean something manufactured (designed), otherwise you are jumping the gun.

Demanding that people don't use words in a manner consistent with accepted definitions yet also consistent with their hypothesis is a logical restriction that I have not encountered before. But hey, if it floats your boat.

Emanuele,

Glad to be of service.

By the way, I love Mr. DaveScot's "logic".

"In all cases where the origin of complex machines can be determined said machines are of intelligent design."

In all cases where the origin of complex machines can be determined, said machines were designed and built by us. Surprise! That's EXACTLY how we know they were designed: we did it ourselves.

Cells not being machines is silly.

Let's take some attributes of my favorite example; DNA/ribosome.

1) DNA stores specifications for 3-dimensional parts (folded proteins) in a well understood format of sequential base-pair triplets (codons) each specifying one of 20 amino acids plus stop/start codons.

2) RNA is used to make temporary copies of the protein specification for transmittal to the ribosome.

3) the ribosome reads the transcribed sequence of codons and attaches amino acids specified to a growing chain until a stop codon is encountered.

Now let's look at the attributes of a CNC milling machine that makes 3-d parts of out metal.

1) a disk drive stores specifications for 3-D parts in a format of sequential octets specifying the cutting heads and travel distances used to create a part.

2) random access memory is used to make tempory copies of part specifications for transmittal to the cutting head controller

3) the cutting head controller reads the transcribed sequence of steps and cuts metal according to the instructions

Both are machines performing essentially the same task - converting instructions stored in non-volatile format into finished 3 dimensional parts.

Anyone arguing that DNA/ribosome is not a machine is just being intellectually dishonest. Period. End of story.

Hi DaveScot,

I'm wondering - what machine has the property that it replaces all of its parts - good as well as bad or worn out - periodically and continuously over its life? What computer requires that you replace the motherboard every time you click a new link on Explorer? What car manufacturer builds into auto design the requirement that 'most every part of a new car be systematically, continuously, perpetually replaced, regardless of whether or not the item being replaced is functional or not? Not once or twice in the life of a car, or just when something has worn out, but totally rebuilt each and every week? Without regard to expense, to boot?

Are cells machines? Not likely. They only share a few superficial features with machines. At their core, they are very, very different.

DaveScot,

DNA only encodes the primary structure of a protein (ie, amino acid sequence). The secondary and tertiary structure is due to amino acid affinity and other subcellular structures (not ribosomes). Hence, transcription + translation only produces a chain of amino acids and not necessarily a completely functional 3D protein. Get the facts right, then you can start discussing the philosophy of biology.

Bounded items that perform processes are machines. Dave says so.
Cells are bounded items and perform processes. No debate there.
Therefore, cells are machines, Dave says so.

I think Dave has this one right. Define a machine broadly enough, so that just about any process qualifies, and we see machines everywhere. Weather is a machine. Ocean currents are machines. Erosion is a machine. The solar system is a machine. Cells are machines.

The problem is, defining a machine this broadly kind of drains the usefulness from the word. Sure, if we squint real hard, we can find roughly analogous comparisons between cells and milling machines. We can find equally analogous comparisons between cells and weather patterns, of course.

So it's not a matter of honesty at all, it's a matter of whether a loose analogy can provide us with any useful insights. In other words, can someone with intimate knowledge of milling machines use that knowledge to suggest something new that might be learned about cells? Alternatively, can a biologist expert in cells use HIS knowledge to improve a milling machine? Maybe so. Some loose analogies DO produce fruitful insights. The elephant REALLY IS "like" a rope, a hose, a tree trunk, etc.

What is NOT honest is to argue that because a loose analogy may possibly suggest a useful insight, therefore the items being compared are alike in every way. Cells are not milling machines. There is no logical chain leading from the statement "some internal cell operations might be considered mechanical" to the statement "cells were designed by magical beings." Many natural processes can be described as mechanical without abusing the term. So what?

Lenny wrote: So . . . ID theory is atheism? ID is a big tent. It merely states that intelligent design is evident in observations of life on earth. It does not characterize the source of the intelligence. An intelligence that arose naturally is not excluded.

Have you told your fellow fundies yet that they are preaching atheism? I'm not at all religious. Write that down.

Have you told your fellow atheists in the Church of Darwin that they don't have to abandon their faith in materialism to accept the possibility of ID?

The fact is that no one has observed mutation/selection creating: 1) novel body forms 2) novel tissue types 3) novel organs

An intelligence that arose naturally is not excluded.

An intelligence that arose naturally is not excluded.

It merely states that intelligent design is evident in observations of life on earth.

It does not characterize the source of the intelligence.

An intelligence that arose naturally is not excluded.

DaveScott wrote:

: In all cases where the origin of complex machines can be determined said machines are of intelligent design.

It is also true that, according to your definitions, the designer was also a machine - this is true in every case. Ergo-I, the IDer must be a machine according to this logic. Ergo-II. as Lenny has just pointed out, the IDer must also have a designer. And so on.

So, leaving aside the particular merits of ID as applied to the origin of creatures on Earth, if we accept ID then does it not logically lead to a "through the looking glass" series of IDers stretching for infinity?

Are IDers prepared to teach not only that life was by design but that it was designed by a machine. Imagine textbooks that stated:

Evolution is just a theory. Some scientists believe that humans were constructed by a machine aka God. I wonder how them apples would play in Kansas.

Both are machines performing essentially the same task - converting instructions stored in non-volatile format into finished 3 dimensional parts. Anyone arguing that DNA/ribosome is not a machine is just being intellectually dishonest. Period. End of story.

Comment #19288 Posted by DaveScot on March 8, 2005 01:00 PM Ummm . . . that was ME that said drosophila is still a fly. I didn't see JAD saying it. The fact is that no one has observed mutation/selection creating:

— DaveScot

Comment #19211 Posted by John A. Davison on March 7, 2005 01:29 PM DaveScot understates the situation. Drosophila melanogaster is still Drosiphila melanogaster and has been for millions of years, All dog, wolves and coyotes are a single species as proved by hybrid fertility.

— John A. Davison

Comment #19288 Posted by DaveScot on March 8, 2005 01:00 PM ... The fact is that no one has observed mutation/selection creating: 1) novel body forms 2) novel tissue types 3) novel organs

— DaveScot

Comment #14221 Posted by DaveScot on January 19, 2005 04:24 PM ... For instance, if a big enough asteroid hits the earth and makes a new asteroid belt one of the few things that might survive is spores from an amoeba and if those spores contain all the information needed to make everything from trees to the dogs that piss on them well than that makes good sense...

— DaveScot

Comment #18806 Posted by DaveScot on March 2, 2005 01:33 PM GCT ... Given that dubia has a c-value hundreds of times larger than any mammal could it be that dubia has the potential within it to diversify into a very wide range of organisms in response to internal or external triggers? I think that's a possibility worth investigating. ...

— DaveScot

A major problem with ID and the PEH is similar to that encountered in robotics and AI. Trying to build all the information into the organism up front just doesn't work. Organisms use their environments to store knowledge and to operate within it. One example is termite mounds. It's ridiculous to think that termites have a blueprint inside them and they all huddle together and talk about who does what.

PEH would require not only that a huge amount of information would have to be stored about every possible environment which we see, but also about multiple environments that could have happened but didn't. To think that God anticipated Nylon is a logical and inescapable conclusion of the PEH. Then again, black nylons with seams and high heels...maybe....

The PEH leaves unanswered questions such as why embryos produce and then destroy organs or features. Why would a whale embryo develop hair? The ID answer is, I assume, that the IDer is God and, therefore, supernatural, and so these unpleasant realities are some sort of consequence of the fall from perfection. But with their wedge agenda they can't talk about God in court and so they lie and deceive instead.

Have you told your fellow atheists in the Church of Darwin that they don't have to abandon their faith in materialism to accept the possibility of ID?

I'm not at all religious. Write that down.

Give him a minute. He'll come out guns blazin' with his talk of Copernican mediocrity and how if humans can manipulate a genome, so can aliens, therefore all life on earth has been front loaded and preprogrammed. It's so obvious.

Give him a minute. He'll come out guns blazin' with his talk of Copernican mediocrity and how if humans can manipulate a genome, so can aliens, therefore all life on earth has been front loaded and preprogrammed. It's so obvious.

Reverend Doctor,

my bet is that Mr. DaveScot will say that intelligent life can arise naturally, just not here, as anyone but us Darwimps can see (to borrow a term from another, uh, "gentle"man).

Here, everything was frontloaded by a naturally-arisen-elsewhere intelligent designer.

my bet is that Mr. DaveScot will say that intelligent life can arise naturally, just not here, as anyone but us Darwimps can see

— Emanuele

Jeeze Lenny - you really don't what it means to be agnostic, do ya?

There may be supernatural forces in the universe. Or maybe there ain't. I DON'T KNOW. It requires faith to say there is or isn't.

Write that down.

In any objective, informed view of the evidence one must conclude that it probably didn't arise here first.

Are cells machines? Not likely. They only share a few superficial features with machines. At their core, they are very, very different.

Life on earth appears to be designed. I haven't observed life anywhere else. As soon as I do I'll let y'all know whether or not it appears to have been designed or not.

Hi Dr. Page,

I estimate the odds at almost 100% that life on earth is the result of intelligent design. But I could be wrong.

What do you figure the odds are? And could you be wrong?

Emanuele,
We were discussing this general critque of the ID position (eg that any non-supernatural creators must have either evolved naturally or been created themselves). A couple of fruits of that discussion:
1)IDers can argue that there is some specific evidence in earth life that suggests design, but that evolution is possible in theory. Of course, I've never heard one point out the specific traits that suggest design (paens to "complexity" nonwithstanding, Im assuming that any advanced life form would be relatively complex).
Id call that weak ID for shorthand. A belief in ID, but an admission that evolution via natural selection isn't impossible.
2)Strong ID would be the position that complexity cannot evoluve. The position Dembski explicitly staked out recently, but that has been articulated by other IDers as well. Here, I think the critique is strong- unless, as you say, they claim that the rules on earth are different somehow. But that's pretty transparent without an accompanying rationale.

To expand on Flint's idea:
The earth's weather/climate is complex, complex enough to be poorly understood. It is also clearly a machine. Must we conclude that the earth's weather/climatological system was designed? Of course not. No more than when someone creates a 'tornado in a bottle' with oil, water, and food coloring.
[Anticipating the objection that, in this case, the human is the designer: the human in this case merely throws the ingredients in the bottle and provides the initial movement. He does not control, or even predict, the specific motions of the molecules of water- other than to know that the general outcome is self-organizing into a vortex. That is, if used as an analogy to life, the 'designer' would merely be dropping some amino acids or proteins on the planet and walking away, knowing that life would take root because of the laws of physics.
To my understanding, that would be questioning abiogenesis, not evolution via natural selection.]

So, by the simplistic definition offered, cells are indeed "complex machines"- but that gets us precisely nowhere, and other than the attempted equivocation fallacy.

DaveScot- since you claim expertise, what would randomly evolved life look like? Or, if you'd prefer, what characteristics of earth life make it so obviously not the product of natural selection?
(and, while your at it, you might explain how you've distilled this knowledge about what is and is not the result of natural selection in the face of your admitted ignorance of life on other planets...)

Demanding that people don't use words in a manner consistent with accepted definitions yet also consistent with their hypothesis is a logical restriction that I have not encountered before.

— David Heddle

I see old "cutnpaste" Wayne is cutting and pasting to his heart's content and offering nothing of substance. McX is doing the same thing explaining to all why the PEH is out of the question when evidence is unfolding daily to support it. Of course the PEH is unreasonable. Life is unreasonable but it is there staring us in the face isn't it?

As someone once said, hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't. The major problem with the Darwinian fairy tale is that it seems so reasonable.
Yet on inspection not one of its postulates has any support.

Here are a few of the difficulties.

1. There is no earthly way that natural selection can possibly influence something that is not there yet.

2. Evolution WAS an irreversible process. Allelic mutation, the cornerstone of Darwininian dogma is reversible.

3. There is yet not a single demonstrated example of the environment influencing in any way the appearance of a novel evolutionary structure or of fundamentally altering that structure after its appearance.

4. The intermediate forms so sought for by the gradualists simply do not exist. Schindewolf, in agreement with Goldschmidt, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.

5. In view of the above, the only rational thing to do is to reject the Darwinian model in its entirety. Having done so, and I have, what remains?

There remains only one conceivable explanation. Phylogeny, like its contemporary counterpart ontogeny, proceeded without reference to the external environment by the controlled derepression of latent information stored somehow in the evolving genome. Since there is no reason to believe evolution is still in progress we can only hope to reconstruct that event experimentally. I am confident that is on the horizon. When we can control pericentric and paracentric inversions, translocations and fusions in higher organisms we will be able to reproduce our ancestors in the laboratory. This has already been achieved, inadevertantly I might add, with yeast.

Furthermore there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is any other necessary difference between ourselves and our fellow primates than just what we observe in our respective karyotypes. It may even be possible to create new and improved versions of contemporary and otherwise immutable species through the controlled manipulation of chromosomal architecture.

"We have long been seeking a different kind of evolutionary process and have now found one; namely, the change withnin the pattern of the chromosomes ... The neo-Darwinian theory of the geneticists is no longer tenable. Richard B. Goldschmidt, "The Material Basis of Evolution" 1940

John A. Davison

Life could arise naturally here. Anything's possible. It's just a matter of probabilities. In any objective, informed view of the evidence one must conclude that it probably didn't arise here first. The most logical thing to do when presented with overwhelming evidence of something is just to accept the obvious.

Jeeze Lenny - you really don't what it means to be agnostic, do ya? There may be supernatural forces in the universe. Or maybe there ain't. I DON'T KNOW. It requires faith to say there is or isn't. Write that down.

Life on earth appears to be designed.

Ah, so you believe there's some spooky supernatural process going on inside cells that can't be explained by physical laws? Interesting . . . I'll have to go ahead and disagree there.  Nothing leads me to believe that anything going on in a cell defies any known physical laws.

You'd lose that bet. Life could arise naturally here. Anything's possible. It's just a matter of probabilities.

In any objective, informed view of the evidence one must conclude that it probably didn't arise here first.

The most logical thing to do when presented with overwhelming evidence of something is just to accept the obvious.

Atheists and bible thumpers simply aren't objective and for the rest of you I can only conclude you're ill informed.

2. Evolution WAS an irreversible process. Allelic mutation, the cornerstone of Darwininian dogma is reversible.

4. The intermediate forms so sought for by the gradualists simply do not exist. Schindewolf, in agreement with Goldschmidt, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.

Comment #19345 Posted by John A. Davison on March 9, 2005 06:21 AM I see old "cutnpaste" Wayne is cutting and pasting to his heart's content and offering nothing of substance.

— John A. Davison

Comment #19345 Posted by John A. Davison on March 9, 2005 06:21 AM ... 1. There is no earthly way that natural selection can possibly influence something that is not there yet. ...

— John A. Davison

Comment #19345 2. Evolution WAS an irreversible process. Allelic mutation, the cornerstone of Darwininian dogma is reversible.

— John A. Davison

Comment #19345 3. There is yet not a single demonstrated example of the environment influencing in any way the appearance of a novel evolutionary structure or of fundamentally altering that structure after its appearance.

— John A. Davison

Comment #19345 4. The intermediate forms so sought for by the gradualists simply do not exist. Schindewolf, in agreement with Goldschmidt, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.

— John A. Davison

Comment #19345 5. In view of the above, the only rational thing to do is to reject the Darwinian model in its entirety.

— John A. Davison

Not to get back on topic or anything... but here's an excellent article that appeared in the Kansas City Star dealing with a number of important issues relevant to the evolution debate.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11062117.htm

As for who claims evolution was irreversible, Schindewolf, Berg, Grasse, Bateson, Broom, Davison and I am sure many others. Please inform me of someone who would claim that it is reversible. Better yet, provide an example.

As for the presumed intermediates, they have invariably proved not to be placed in any logical sequence. Each of them has been a unique expression of morphology with no evidence of organic continuity. The horse series is a good example. That is not to deny organic continuity of course. It is simply to demonstrate there were no gradual transformations. It is exactly what one would expect from such all-or-none type devices as chromosome restructuring. There is no such thing as a gradual genetic event and evolution is no exception. I wrote a paper to that effect called "The Case for Instant Evolution." Rivista di Biologia 96: 2-3-206, 2003. That paper is interesting because the referees were so upset with my conclusion section that they refused to publish it. We compromised by publishing it without the conclusion section. The conclusions were self- evident and unavoidable in any event. The restructuring of preexisting information, which is what evolution was really all about, like pregnancy, has no intermediate state. To assume such transitional states is both bad genetics and bad physiology. If you would like to read the "unexpurgated" version of that paper you can find it in the Document section of Terry Trainor's Talk Origins forum. Otherwise I guess you will have to go to the library.

As for the hominid line which someone mentioned, the number of such discrete saltations corresponds nicely with the number of discrete chromosomal structural differences which separate us from our nearest living relative, the chimpanzee, thereby providing a beautiful demonstration in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. If our DNA were identical with that of the chimpanzee, which it nearly is anyway, we would still be Homo and Pan nevertheless. Allelic mutation never played a role in creative evolution, only in extinction and possibly as an isolating device. It takes more than isolation to produce a new life form.

"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution. It is, as it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the 'magnetic tape' on which the primary information for the species is recorded."
Pierre Grasse, page 243

John A. Davison

2. Evolution WAS an irreversible process. Allelic mutation, the cornerstone of Darwininian dogma is reversible.

— John A. Davison

3. There is yet not a single demonstrated example of the environment influencing in any way the appearance of a novel evolutionary structure or of fundamentally altering that structure after its appearance.

1. There is no earthly way that natural selection can possibly influence something that is not there yet.

2. Evolution WAS an irreversible process. Allelic mutation, the cornerstone of Darwininian dogma is reversible.

There is yet not a single demonstrated example of the environment influencing in any way the appearance of a novel evolutionary structure or of fundamentally altering that structure after its appearance.

4. The intermediate forms so sought for by the gradualists simply do not exist. Schindewolf, in agreement with Goldschmidt, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.

5. In view of the above, the only rational thing to do is to reject the Darwinian model in its entirety.

As for the presumed intermediates, they have invariably proved not to be placed in any logical sequence. Each of them has been a unique expression of morphology with no evidence of organic continuity. The horse series is a good example. That is not to deny organic continuity of course. It is simply to demonstrate there were no gradual transformations.

An actual scientist would not be using such general terms without defining them. One suspects that the goalposts will be moved as necessary when new intermediates are uncovered... each 'intermediate' becomomg a discrete step in your "reorganization" theory. Put another way- does your theory have any specific predictions? (Eg 'there will be no intermediates found between Epihippus and Mesohippus').
(And I've never heard a scientist heap self-praise on himself for having the referees reject part of his paper before. Similarly to your scientific process, your self-evaluation process apparently takes all evidence (eg rejection, acceptance) as proof of what you want so desperately to believe).
It sounds like you would only be satisfied if some large fraction of the organisms in this line of evolution (eg the horses) has been preserved. With hundreds of millions of fossils you could be convinced, you claim, but with merely hundreds or thousands, we're unjustified in suspecting "organic continuity". (whatever that means).

And then you reach the profoundly unscientific conclusion that the present lack of a known intermediate in a series is proof that it does not exist. Fossilization is a haphazard process, and no compentent scientist would make conclusions based on a supposed paucity of evidence when facing such a process.

Each of them has been a unique expression of morphology with no evidence of organic continuity.

I admit, I've been reading this over and over, and it gets funnier every time. You're asking for a discrete fossil creature to show evidence of "organic continuity"? You express surprise that a discete fossil creature shows 'unique morphology'? Tell me, how could either of these be otherwise? Your semantic games know no end...

As for the presumed intermediates, they have invariably proved not to be placed in any logical sequence. Each of them has been a unique expression of morphology with no evidence of organic continuity. The horse series is a good example. That is not to deny organic continuity of course. It is simply to demonstrate there were no gradual transformations.

As for Drosophila melanogaster, the black-bellied dew lover, let me quote Pierre Grasse. He is always there when I need him. Also since you pay no attention to me anyway here is an opportunity to denigrate and insult the greatest French zoologist of his generation. Just to get you started, Scott Paige has already described Grasse's book as "an egomaniacal rant."

"The genetic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as proof of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times."
page 130

In other words, Drosophila melanogaster is immutable just as Linnaeus and Cuvier proclaimed even before the silly hypotheses of Lamarck and Darwin even hit the press.

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

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

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Leo Berg page 406

Species arising from mutations are sharply distinguished from one another."
ibid, page 406

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
ibid page 406

God but its fun to quite great minds. Keep spinning the Darwinian myth folks. War, God help me, I love it so.

John A. Davison

Congratulations Mr.Davidson, you've rediscovered the fallacy of argument from authority en masse. Your most striking acomplishment so far, I must say. Insofar as it's the closest thing you've offered to an actual argument for your case.
Btw, it is no insult to a scientist to suggest that he might be mistaken. It is in the nature of science and the scientific process, something with which you apparently have no familiarity whatsoever.

Who does Wu quote (isn't that clever?) in support of whatever it is that Wu believes. I assume Wu has core beliefs of some sort. By the way Wu (I love it) it is Dr. Davison, not Mr.Davidson. Since when is it a fallacy to quote ones intellectual superiors? If you ever read anything you would realize what a humble person I really am. From the title page of "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change."

"This treatise is dedicated to the memory of six great scientists."
William Bateson
Leo S. Berg
Robert Broom
Richard B. Goldschmidt
Pierre Grasse
Otto Schindewolf

This is followed by:

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

This is followed by an indirect reference to the likes of Mayr, Gould, Provine and Dawkins not to mention the thousands of their devoted disciples like yourself.

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle

I think it is very likely that I am wrong about a number of things but that has yet to be demonstrated. Until it is I intend to go right on blaspheming Darwinism to my hearts content with or without your approval.

Speaking of blasphemy excuse me while I quote another of my favorite intellectuals:

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Dr. Davison,

I have provided some links to some required reading before you use Drosophila as evidence against modern evolution. These also show the role both karyotypic and genic changes play in speciation.

Speciation within Drosophila melanogaster

Speciation genes in the D. melanogaster subgroup:
Odysseus
HMR
Nup96
Speciation between D. simulans and D. mauritiana

Karyotypic evolution and speciation in Drosophila:
Sympatric vs. allopatric speciation
Model for speciation via genomic rearrangements

There is abundant evidence for speciation within Drosophila with examples from different stages in the speciation process. Within species variation in D. melanogaster shows the very early steps of speciation. D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis give insight into intermediate stages. Studies on the D. melanogaster subgroup allow us to understand species boundries between well established species. How does this reconcile with your view of modern evolution?

RPM

Here is a task for you. Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don't want any nonsense about "incipient" species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place. The other side of the coin is this little task for you. I want demonstrable proof that Darwin's precious finches are not all one species.

Now I am going to be very firm on what constitutes a species by insisting on Dobzhansky's criterion. Now you understand that genomic rearrangement is exactly what the PEH predicts as the only speciation mechanism so be careful in your evidence that you don't inadvertantly support the PEH.

I want that on my desk within 24 hours. Do as you are told and stop spouting Darwinian dogma. It makes me upset

John A. Davison

RPM

I am also sick and tired of your claim that I am not an evolutionist. You Darwimps are all alike. If someone is not a Darwinian he is some kind of a mystic. The Darwimps are the mystics and always have been.

I am unable to post on these insanely long threads so if you want to communicate with me you will have to do it before the thread reaches the 250 post level. I downloaded Foxfire and it helped some but I still cannot deal with these very long threads. I am sure that will be a relief for some of you.

You guys remind me very much of what is going on over at ARN where some of you post as well, Salvador for example. There, I simply do not exist. They go on and on about allelic mutations oblivious to the demonstrable fact that they never had anything to do with evolution. You do the same thing here. It is monstrously idiotic to ignore reality like that. The same with Natural Selection. It has never been a creative force in evolution. Quite the contrary it is anti-evolutionary. Similarly, sexual reproduction is incompetent as an evolutionary device. It separately evolved many times and in many drastically different forms in order to stabilize species rather than change them. That is what led to my Semi-meiotic Hypothesis a corollary to the PEH.

Darwinism, like its ideological sister political liberalism, is a genetic disease and there is no hope for those that are so afflicted. You are all homozygous at the atheist materialist locus which I have sound reason to believe is located on chromosome # 12.

Everything, and I mean everything, about the Darwinian model is without foundation. It will never be patched up and it should have been abandoned the day the Origin was published. Mivart did just that. I am convinced that Darwin would never have published it at all if Wallace hadn't come up with the same idiotic idea. After all Darwin had sat on it for 25 or more years. Wallace first gradually and then finally completely abandoned the whole scheme which is very much to his credit. I am obviously wasting my time trying to communicate with you all so I think I will let DaveScot deal with you. He is a lot younger than I am and a lot smarter too. As far as I am concerned the rest of you have IQs in the room temperature range. That is Celsius not Fahrenheit.

Take over Dave, I am fed up. Incidentally Dave, William Paley was right on.

John A. Davison

Comment #19550 Posted by John A. Davison on March 10, 2005 06:31 PM ... I am obviously wasting my time trying to communicate with you all so I think I will let DaveScot deal with you. ...

— John A. Davison

Who does Wu quote (isn't that clever?) in support of whatever it is that Wu believes. I assume Wu has core beliefs of some sort.

Beliefs and the scientific process have nothing to do with each other- your mistake here reveals your misunderstanding of the process. If I were to quote something to support a scientific argument, it wouldn't just be the conclusion. Note, for example, the information-rich links RPM pointed out to you. That is how you support a scientific argument.
If you quoted the Sermon on the Mount in favor of humility and generosity, that would make sense. Quoting an unknown ("great") scientist saying "evolution didn't happen" isn't worth beans.

Since when is it a fallacy to quote ones intellectual superiors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
It isn't a fallacy to quote them. It's a fallacy to treat the quote as a stand-alone argument, as you did. You quoted his conclusion, then proceeded to claim that In other words, Drosophila melanogaster is immutable. Those are freshman-level reasoning skills.

I think it is very likely that I am wrong about a number of things but that has yet to be demonstrated. Until it is I intend to go right on blaspheming Darwinism to my hearts content with or without your approval.

It's almost always the poor thinkers who claim that they're being censored somehow. I have no problem with you speaking your befuddled, dogmatic mind about these matters, or any matters. I haven't seen a single poster on this site suggest that you needed someone's approval to speak your mind.
So stop whining, and maybe answer some of the science-type questions. Such as: what about the trilobite series is lacking that would demonstrate intermediates? Maybe your definition of "intermediates" would be useful in clarifying your position.

Coincidentally, we share your belief that you're likely wrong about many things. Who knew we had something in common?

Incidentally Dave, William Paley was right on.

Carleton Wu

You said
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority . . .
It isn't a fallacy to quote them. It's a fallacy to treat the quote as a stand-alone argument, as you did.

.....Coincidentally, we share your belief that you're likely wrong about many things. Who knew we had something in common?"

***

If you read your post you may have learnt what appeal to authority is. When you present yourself as the authority, you are still appealing to authority.

But turning your self into we must be a neat party trick.

I am going to do the same thing I did at EvC. I am going to request a poll on whether the PEH is "worthy of scrutiny". They took me up on it over there AFTER they banned me for life of course. At first the poll was very much in favor of NO. Somehow that changed and was reversed. Next they claimed chicanery and reanalyzed the data, discarding the bulk of the YES votes. That is still a matter of record over there or was the last time I looked.

Now don't misunderstand me. I couldn't care less whether you think the PEH is worth a nickel or not, since you have already made it very clear that you don't like it. What I want is a record engraved in cyberspace for all time that the majority of the participants at Panda's Thumb in 2005 rejected it so you can show that to your children and your grandchildren long after both the PEH and the SMH become standard textbook fare.

Now do as your told for a change.

John A. Davison

Mr. Davison, we are not here to "do as we are told." It is not our job to provide a forum for, or a poll about, your ideas.

I think this thread has gone on long enough, so I will close comments soon unless some new and relevant topic of discussion arises.

P.S. (I will also be posted updates on Kansas soon, which is what this thread was actually about.)

John,

If you were prepared to go through it step by step and respond rationally to rational questions or criticisms on a point by point basis then I for one would be prepared to do that. I am away for a week but after Spring Break I would be more than happy and quite interested actually, to take you up on your proposal. But simple declarations that it's the truth and Darwimpism is wrong aren't helpful to your argument.

Despite our recent tantrums out this is meant seriously.

Fred

Since Jack Krebs is about to close this thread anyway, please allow me to present a closing thought.

As you probably know by now I am convinced that political liberalism and Darwiniam are closely linked genetically. This is based partly on my 55 years in academe and partly on the make up of internet forums with which I have had considerable experience.

I just ran into the following comment by my favorite political commentator, Ann Coulter, from her March 9 weekly column. Just substitute Darwinians for liberals.

"Liberals have been completely intellectually vanquished. Actually they lost the war of ideas long ago. Its just that now their defeat is so obvious, even they've noticed."

As for going through my evolutionary hypotheses step by step, that has already been done in the form of seven published papers and my unpublished Manifesto. I am happy to respond to specific questions which reveal, in their format, comprehension of that material. All of that material is available in online versions except the original 1984 paper. I think those are reasonable expectations. I am too old to present that evidence again.

John A. Davison

As you probably know by now I am convinced that political liberalism and Darwiniam are closely linked genetically.

I just ran into the following comment by my favorite political commentator, Ann Coulter

Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don't want any nonsense about "incipient" species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place.

Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don't want any nonsense about "incipient" species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place. I've already pointed out that domestic wheat is descended from wild emmer grass. And can't interbeed with it. That is the very definition of a "species". Is emmer grass and wheat the same "kind"? Why or why not.