Clueless creationist testifies for Kansas BoE

Typical Creationist: C'mon, any idiot can look at a Euglena and a budding yeast and understand exactly why the budding yeast would have a cytochrome C more similar to humans. Even a high school student can understand that a Cytochrome C that was 100% homologous to humans wouldn't work in a Euglena. Bicycle horns aren't identical to car horns. That doesn't mean they weren't designed.

Scientist:

Cretionist: But you are using Haeckles ideas that were disproved. Actual photos of human and animal embryos are not relevant!! Who would think that actual photos would prove anything, because Haeckle was wrong that makes all comparative embryology wrong!

Nice post, Nick.

The internet shows that Thaxton is an apologist, not a chemist. None of this is the sort of evidence an apologist would pay attention to since it's inconsistent with beliefs.

If listeners are supposed to disregard all of the antievolution testimony before the Kansas Kangaroo Court whenever the antievolution witnesses speak on topics outside of their professional expertise, then there wasn't much point in these hearings.

It is interesting that a Russian TV channel has reacted to the Kansas travesty with a sound bite: "The teaching of Darwin's evolution theory may be forbidden in the USA."

Wells today (yesterday now, I guess) cited sequence differences between the 18s subunit of the ribosome and aberancies between it and the phylogenetic tree produced by other means. No word yet on how he thinks it is possible to construct such a tree in the first place.

My favorite Wells moment would have to be when Irigonegaray asked him if he believes in common descent. Wells answered, "Within a species? Yes."

Just for the records, Jonathan Wells believes in geneology.

Glad we got that cleared up.

BCH

C'mon! Sheriously you guys! Can't you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang "Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay.

C'mon! Sheriously you guys! Can't you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang "Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay."

C'mon! Sheriously you guys! Can't you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang "Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay."

Hey, where's the original of that poster at the top of this thread? Can I buy a copy somewhere?

A copy of the original poster is here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/137/3111/640/Historic_Discoveries_Web_Poster.jpg

To be fair, I think it's a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they're responding to questions we're asking them. (By all means show up their scientific ignorance though; this should be very entertaining)

— Jim Foley

As you're probably aware, there's a fascinating and controversial process playing out in Topeka, Kansas. A subcommittee of the state Board of Education is holding hearings on whether to add the teaching of intelligent design/creationism to the science curriculum.

As a public service, Audible.com is offering free audio downloads of the complete hearings [May 5-7, with an additional session scheduled for May 12]. Short registration is required [name & email address].

We would welcome a link to www.audible.com/kansashearings The audio from Day 1 is already up; we'll be adding each session day by day.

Thanks!

Steve Feldberg
Programming Director -- Audible, Inc.
www.audible.com

Come on Panda's thumb. Is this the best you can do? Charles Thaxton is a CHEMIST, not a biologist, or paleontologist. His expertise is on the origins of first lifes- from a chemists perspective. If Richard Dawkins were to testify, and admitted in testimony that he wasn't familiar with cosmological parameters that yield to a finely tuned universe, I seriously doubt that any of the ID theorists would be ranting 'Dawkins doesn't know anything about cosmology (b/c he's a philosopher of biology) therefore the whole naturalist/evolutionist movement is a fraud!

... Charles Thaxton, the creationist who had the bright idea to rename creationism as "intelligent design" back in 1988.

To be fair, I think it's a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they're responding to questions we're asking them.

If Richard Dawkins were to testify, and admitted in testimony that he wasn't familiar with cosmological parameters that yield to a finely tuned universe, I seriously doubt that any of the ID theorists would be ranting 'Dawkins doesn't know anything about cosmology (b/c he's a philosopher of biology) therefore the whole naturalist/evolutionist movement is a fraud!

To be fair, I think it's a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they're responding to questions we're asking them.

To be fair, I think it's a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they're responding to questions we're asking them.

Btw, I don't yet have a transcript of everything yet. So if by chance Mr. Irigon did correctly ask Dr. Thaxton questions appropriate to Thaxton's specialty and the relevent Sci-Standard proposal (origin of life), I will stand corrected. Just show where he did, that's all.

But if not, then I stand by my comments. I'll check back after work to see.

At any rate, Mr. Irigon knows that Dr. Thaxton, if asked such questions, would immediately offer up a professional tutorial that would, quite honestly, put Mr. Irigon's evolutionist fanny (not to mention Nick's and Mark's, for that matter) to pure public shame. A hickory-smoked disaster for the First Church of Darwin, right in front of the media that Mr. Irigon wants so desperately to play to.

I am not a particular fan of Dawkins, but I think it is not controversial to point out that Charles Thaxton's entire lifetime of thought amounts to less than a zit on the ass of Dawkin's intellect.

I am not a particular fan of Dawkins, but I think it is not controversial to point out that Charles Thaxton's entire lifetime of thought amounts to less than a zit on the ass of Dawkin's intellect.

— GWW

This new Kansas Trial may be historical. The outcome does not seem to me guaranteed, PZ may have been right a month ago - he wrote we may be losing. It has to be recognized that bringing in a Muslim was master stroke. Nick´s article is the best summary I have ever seen on evolution, could it be used in the trial?

Bringing in a Muslim from a fundamentalist Holocaust-denying organization, however, may well backfire on the Kansas creationists.

"Nick´s article is the best summary I have ever seen on evolution, could it be used in the trial?"

I agree it's a great summary of solid empirical evidence. One issue (a vacuous one, in my opinion) that the opposing side would likely raise is that all of the evidence Nick has summarized is comparative in nature. Of course, comparative data are entirely fair game for scientific inference and are widely used in various scientific disciplines. But, that won't stop the deniers from trying to discount it.

>So, to avoid gettin' what's comin' to >him, what does Mr. Irigon do, smart >attorney that he is? But of course, mon >ami!
>He asks Thaxton about human evolution >instead, as if Thaxton's a >paleontologist or something. So very >clever, he is!

Gee, a clever lawyer not asking "relevant" questions in order to avoid the evidence. Not that a lawyer with the initials PJ would ever try to do that.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11575585.htm Giuseppe Sermonti, a retired genetics professor from the University of Perugia, Italy, said evolution can lead groups to discriminate against "lesser" cultures. He called the idea that man and apes share a common ancestor "very questionable."

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..." Fix, William R. (1984) The Bone Peddlers p.150

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.... Richard Lewontin (1995) Human Diversity p. 163

I liked, the NY times title, "Darwinism Goes on Trial", it originally was, "Hearings on Diluting Evolution" or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:"In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More". DARWIN ON TRIAL!

Someone disbelieving human evolution does not imply they are ignorant about their field of expertise.

No one here at PandasThumb has been able to successfully refute the major premises of Thaxton's book, The Mystery of Life's Origin.

Oooh!! Thaxton's a scientist?!? Hmm, the Pubmed search that I did on him had his last paper (in JCB) in 1979, on freeze-fracture EM studies in myelin. And now he's working as a visiting professor in Charles University in the Czech Republic. So, as a P Chem PhD, who has published studies on muscle fibers, this makes him at all relevant to the evolution discussion how? Not only that, not publishing for over 30 years and working on a visiting basis for a university in Prague (sorry to offend any Czech Republicans!) is not exactly an impressive scientific resume. My guess is he fudged some data a while back (we went through this in my lab - the guy who did it is now blacklisted for life) and now CAN'T work in science any more. So he publishes his little irrelevant books. Really, to be a qualified creation scientist and contribute to the public discourse on evolution, apparently all you need to have done is looked at a test tube or something.

Sorry - I meant nerve fibers instead of muscle fibers. Myelin is the structure that covers nerves in order to prevent ion leakage and allow electrical signals to propagate further.

Giuseppe Sermonti is way past his good days as biologist, if ever he was a good scientist. If you happen to know italian evolutionists, they will clarify you the present Sermonti position on evolution debate, in Italy and elsewhere. That is, none, zilch, nada, niente, zero. Nobody pays attention to the old orthogeneticist anymore. Nobody but you creationists, I mean.

Marco Ferrari

Salvador-

When two students turn in 20pg papers and 98% of the words are the same, what's the probability that they have independent origins, or could it be convergent thinking?

Does convergent evolution lead to convergent nucleotide sequences or only to convergent phenotypes?

How do you explain the chromosome similarities that Nick Matzke so kindly provided? Was the "intelligent designer" a plagiarizer?

Are you clear on the difference between science and apologetics?

Charles Thaxton is a CHEMIST, not a biologist, or paleontologist. His expertise is on the origins of first lifes- from a chemists perspective.

I liked, the NY times title, "Darwinism Goes on Trial"

I liked, the NY times title, "Darwinism Goes on Trial", it originally was, "Hearings on Diluting Evolution" or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:"In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More". DARWIN ON TRIAL!.

Therefore the human evolution has theoretical considerations which call the theory's plausibitily into question.

Thaxton is a big reason why intelligent design is marching ahead. His book in 1984, is viewed by Dembski as the beginning of intelligent design movement.

Los Angeles Times Reports Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate. Afterward, she was curious and confused. "I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?" That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.

Darwinists have never refuted the major points of (Drs Thaxton et al.) book.

But let's look at the effect that the hearings are having on the listeners.

If ID, ahem, I mean "the controversy", is taught in the public schools

"I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?"

Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.

Afterward, she was curious and confused.

"I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?"

And thus we see the true mission of the creationists -- to confuse, to obfuscate, to dissemble, to mislead. Congratulations to the Kansas Kangaroo Court, on the triumph of having miseducated a 15-year old. That's really something to be proud of. It is this sort of "enlightenment" that we can look forward to on a statewide scale in Kansas once the creationists are done with their charade. What a sad day for science and education.

Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it. Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."

Les inquried: Salvador- When two students turn in 20pg papers and 98% of the words are the same, what's the probability that they have independent origins, or could it be convergent thinking?

Les asked: Does convergent evolution lead to convergent nucleotide sequences or only to convergent phenotypes?

Convergent evolution is prevalent at all levels of organismal design --from cell chemistry and microstructure to cell types, organ systems, and whole body plans. Meuller, Newman, Willmer Origination of Organismal Form Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2003

From DDD 5 Converge means to "tend toward a common result or conclusion ." Biological convergence means "the recurrence of similar design solutions in different phylogenetic lineages, despite their absence in a common ancestor" [Gerd B. Muller and Stuart A. Newman, Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, (MIT Press 2003)] The eye of an octopus and that of a vertebrate are extraordinarily similar, yet they appear to have developed independently without a common ancestor.

The Molecules Converge The convergence of antifreeze proteins and the multiple paths to a C4 photosynthesis can therefore be added to the other examples of molecular convergence mentioned earlier, such as the 'five-site rule' for vertebrate colour vision (CHapter 7) and probably also rhodopsin itself. As already noted, the combinatorial vastness of protein 'space' would, a priori, suggest that examples of molecular convergence would be very rare indeed: there are after all, so many alternatives. As it happens, however, there is a growing list of such examples. These include the proteases and peptidases, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, cytokinases, proteins associated with malaria, NADH dehydrogenase 1, lactate dehydrogenases, nicotine oxidaes, the evolution of polysaccharide lyases, light-harvesting proteins, proteins associated with cartilage (lamprins) and various elastic proteins, chitin-binding proteins, HIV-portease, antigen receptors in sharks, as well as biochemical processes such as thoses involved with nucleaotide binding by proteins, possibly DM domain factors involved with sexual determination, and signalling.

Or, as Foley (1993, 197) put it: "The best phylogeny is essentially the one that has the least convergence. And yet if cladistics is itself showing that convergence is rife in the real world of evolution, then the very assumptions of cladistics are open to question." Meuller and Newman, page 33

Les asked: How do you explain the chromosome similarities that Nick Matzke so kindly provided? Was the "intelligent designer" a plagiarizer?

Salvador wrote I liked, the NY times title, "Darwinism Goes on Trial", it originally was, "Hearings on Diluting Evolution" or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:"In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More". DARWIN ON TRIAL!.

Either they changed it back or (could it be?) Salvador is full of shite. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/education/06cnd-evolution.html?hp&ex=1115352000&en=99646bddc8de7257&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login

The girl is curious. She will probably, unlike Kathy Martin, open a scientific journal at some point to see who is right, and science will win. Drawing public attention to themselves only works to the ID'ers disadvantage in the long run because they will be forced to state their true beliefs, make actual positive claims, and people who are actually willing to examine the evidence for themselves will be motivated to do so.

"Covergence" is a "Darwinian epicycle" (to quote Sternberg, PhD PhD). It really is not convergence via evolution, it is convergence ordained by a common designer.

Sal, I only have one question for you (in mutliple parts):

say, hypothetically, we stopped teaching evolutionary theory all together.

1. How would replacing it with intelligent design further our scientific knowledge?

2. What practical value does the assumption "goddidit" have?

these should be easier for you to answer, since you can't seem to answer Lenny's questions.

I'm even leaving you lots of lattitude in how you answer.

essentially, I am asking you what practical value your belief structure has.

Apparently the author decided to have two copies of basically the same article under differnt titles. See the new improved version here, which proves I'm not full of shiite.

The Intelligent Designer used a common design, with man as the crown jewel stuck somewhere inside the Linnaean Hierarchies as discovered by the pre-Darwinian, creationists and platonic essentialists. [\i]

Yes, those were the days. When we knew lightning was made from toothpicks and puppy dogs could live for millions and millions of years and reading a hundred pages for "trial" was just a twinkle in their eyes. Where has mankind gone wrong, I wonder.

The similarities were part of pre-ordained plan to create a hierarchical relationship. The convergence was placed there to confound naturalistic interpretations.

Oh to be confounded naturalistic interpretations! Those were the days...