Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher

Posted 3 May 2005 by PZ Myers

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/ten-questions-t-1.html

I'm feeling rather peeved about the failures of the media—in particular, this lazy parroting of Discovery Institute press releases. A ridiculous list of "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher", the product of the despicable Dr Wells and his worthless tract, Icons of Evolution, has been going around for years, and has been answered multiple times, yet it still gets published as if it were a serious challenge. I've addressed Wells' mangling of developmental biology, and there is a thorough demolition of Icons of Evolution on talk.origins; Wells scholarship is appallingly poor, and his questions are so misleading and dishonest that they are basically scientific fraud. In particular, the NCSE has done an excellent job of putting together brief, media-friendly answers to Wells' questions, and those answers need to be spread around more widely. So here they are, Responses to Jonathan Wells's Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher:

Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."

Teachers, you should be aware that there are solid answers to all of these ginned-up "controversies" that the Discovery Institute is pushing, and none of them require invoking mythical designers or bizarre conspiracies by biologists.

Journalists, could you please take notice of the fact that there is an excellent resource you can turn to when creationists send you press releases? Talk to the National Center for Science Education. They're often ready with the answers, and if they aren't, they can tap into the science community and get them for you.

105 Comments

asg · 3 May 2005

Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

You should consider rewriting this bit; I, and I suspect many readers, find the distinction between "evidence" and "a source of information" on which a conclusion is "based" awfully subtle. I mean, suppose a prosecutor said "The blood DNA match is not 'evidence' for the defendant's guilt; rather, his guilt is inferred based on many sources." I think it's clear that, indeed, regardless of the amount of evidence in favor of common ancestry, the fact that homology is part of it doesn't make homology not evidence.

Joseph O'Donnell · 3 May 2005

While reading that I do get an impression that there is an implication that homology isn't actually evidence on its own. To someone who isn't sure about the concepts surrounding evolution, it would appear to be an extremely odd and probably even confused statement. Perhaps a statement that homology isn't the *only* piece of evidence would be a better start?

Salvador T. Cordova · 3 May 2005

Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

That is an innacurate claim by the NCSE. The Urey-Miller experiment generated racemic mixtures of amino acids, whereas biotic reality is made of homo-chiral amino acids. Further, in addition to destructive cross reactions in realistic origin-of-life scenarios, there were not provided plausible pathways for the formation of exclusive alpha-peptide bonds. The 1953 attempt was a failure, not a success, or at the very least it was inconclusive. Charles Thaxton will appear in the Kansas hearings, he and his co-authors wrote in Mystery of Life's Origin why Miller's experiment is not only inadequate, but even if we are generous and say it was plausible, we are confronted with the following problems:

But what if polypeptides and other biopolymers had formed in the prebiotic soup? What would their fate have been? In general the half-lives of these polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months---time spans which are surely geologically insigificant. Besides breaking up polypetides, hydrolysis would have destroyed many amino acids. In acid solution hydroloysis would consume most of the tryptophan, and some of the serine and threonine. Further, acid hydrolysis would convert cysteine to cystine, and hydrolysis would destroy serine, threonine, cystine, cysteine, and arginine in the alkaline solution generally regarded to have characterized the early ocean. An alkaline solution would also have caused several deamidations. .... If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much-metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. ..... Based on the foregoing geochemical assessment, we conclude that both in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destrctive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates and organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call the sceanrio "the myth of the prebiotic soup."

PZ Myers · 3 May 2005

No, it is an accurate statement. Your obfuscations are typical creationist red herrings.

1. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.

This is correct. The experiment showed that organic molecules can spontaneously arise under simple conditions.

2. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks.

This is correct. There are a lot of variations on the old Urey experiments. It turns out that organic gunk arises fairly easily.

3. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

This is correct. Scientists are actively studying the phenomena and trying to figure out how it works.

The experiment was a success, despite dishonest prevarications by creationists to the contrary. Complex organic molecules can be generated by non-specific, undirected processes. That's all it aimed to show, and that's what it did show.

Ed Darrell · 3 May 2005

If Charles Thaxton is going to say that Miller's experiment is invalid or inaccurate, Salvador, he's a liar.

Are these "witnesses" at the Kansas hearings being vetted to see that they are not cranks or crackpots?

Is Thaxton even a researcher in the area? Which part of the NASA astrobiology team is he working with?

Oh? You didn't know that astrobiology, based on the promise that was offered by the Miller-Urey experiment, is a key area of research at NASA?

Does this mean, Salvador, that your team will now try to cut more research funds at NASA?

Where will you guys stop in your drive to censor science?

Sir_Toejam · 3 May 2005

"Does this mean, Salvador, that your team will now try to cut more research funds at NASA?"

yes, Delay has placed himself as the key arbiter of NASA funding. Your assumption is absolutely correct.

Randall Wald · 3 May 2005

...Not to mention that the truth of evolutionary theory stands apart from the truth of any given abiogenesis theory...

Sir_Toejam · 3 May 2005

In case you need to see what DeLay is up to wrt NASA:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050509&s=corn

the right is moving faster than the eye can follow. it's quite a shell game, and we are all being conned.

Salvador T. Cordova · 3 May 2005

One can claim the the Urey-Miller experiment is a success if one wants to remain in denial by believing racemic monomers are really plausible precursors to homochiral polymers. The bio chemists and protein engineers in our IDEA chapters will have a field day with that! Anyway.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

The term "group" was referring to phylum as Wells clarifies in Response to NCSE

Wells writes: The "major groups" to which my question refers are the animal phyla. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are sub-groups (classes) of a single phylum. The NCSE is using semantics to give the illusion that the Cambrian explosion never happened.

to help give an example of "grouping"

For example, a gopher snake would be described in the Linnaen System this way: Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Class Reptilia Order Squamata Family Colubridae Genus Pituophis species catenifer

Wells might be faulted for not using the more technical term "phyla", but a charitable reading of the question would have conveyed the sense of his arguement. In any case, perhaps we'll amend the question to use the term "phyla". Thanks to the NCSE for their editorial suggestion :-) Further, in Paleozoic Era Paleobiolgy shows that NCSE is arguably wrong in their claim that fish are post-cambrian.

Sir_Toejam · 3 May 2005

and, if you're unsure of where DeLay stands wrt to the religious right...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18077-2002Apr19¬Found=true

he is very clear on the subject.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' " DeLay said. "Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity."

Tom DeLay, April 12, 2005

basically, it appears to me that creationists have key figures in many (all?) key areas of federal science funding at this point.

We seem to be halfway to losing this battle, regardless of whether we win in court.

Great White Wonder · 3 May 2005

Charles Thaxton, an inarticulate dweeb, concludes

It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.

I wonder: what is Thaxton's more plausible theory? By chance, does it have anything to do with mysterious alien beings? Fyi, Thaxton is one of those insufferably arrogant Christians (surprise!!!) who goes to extreme lengths to recite pleasing tales about his religion.

In their book, The Soul of Science,{5} authors Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton make a case for the essential role Christianity played in the development of science.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:S28S8wQS4SUJ:www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/threat.html+charles+thaxton+christ&hl=en Thaxton is also a Disclaimery Institute shill, happily taking money from the likes of Christian Reconstructionist extremists like Howard Ahmansen. Thaxton can be Exhibit 3,321 in the list of obvious reasons why the anti-science bozos in Kansas are part of political strategy to run around the First Amendment and promote a bigotry-fueled warped version of Christianity that deserves to fade out of existence yesterday. So Salvador, can you think of any reason not to teach Thaxton's thesis about the "essential" role of Chrsitianity in the development of science in public science classes? I mean, other than the fact that it's pure self-serving horsecrap.

Sir_Toejam · 3 May 2005

@salvador:

define "plausible" for me, please. as in terms of probability.

"fish are post-cambrian"

"fish" are typically defined by ichthyologists as BONY fish, not cartilaginous. now rethink what you just said.

the simplistic article you reference even makes mention of this:

"The first detailed record of vertebrates appears during the Cambrian as fossils of jawless fish...which had skeletons made of cartilage rather than bone"

is your mind really that simple that you would take quotes meant for the press, , and take them for complete scientific explanations??

ding-ding. wake up Salvador, your dreaming.

you are arguing against posts made for the press (as mentioned by the thread's poster, no less). is that the current level of your understanding of the issues involved?

really, you're making yourself look simple.

Great White Wonder · 3 May 2005

Go to this link

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.id.ucsb.edu/veritas/JOURNEY/PHOTOS/Thaxton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.id.ucsb.edu/veritas/JOURNEY/interviews.html&h=72&w=95&sz=12&tbnid=yGUyzBbsYNIJ:&tbnh=57&tbnw=75&hl=en&start=17&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Bthaxton%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN

and click on Number 28 and you can hear this Charles Thaxton character take a giant dump on science. Click on Number 23 to hear Thaxton say that "in terms of function" writing text is "precisely what happens" when nucleic acids are translated into proteins. Also you can hear him admit that most of his colleagues (an understatement, to say the least) describe Thaxton's belief that the process of translation is "obviously" "intelligently designed" as "rubbish." Will Thaxton be testifying to this fact as well? What reason will he give to the board as to why the vast vast majority of genuine and productive scientists are unable to see what Thaxton finds so "obvious"? I suspect Thaxton's reason is that scientists are "obviously" hindered by their inability to invoke deities as explanations for incompletely understood events that took place hundreds of millions of years ago. But I don't suppose Thaxton will be so straightforward. First, he's an inarticulate buffoon. Second, he'd risk "blowing his cover" (note to Thaxton -- it's a bit late for that).

Alex Merz · 3 May 2005

If we were to apply Salvador T. Cordova's line of reasoning (and the latter word is applied only loosely here) to organic chemistry, we would be forced to exclude from consideration any description of Freidrich Woehler's efforts, because they did not lead us directly convenient synthetic schemes for nylon or C60.

Art · 3 May 2005

One can claim the the Urey-Miller experiment is a success if one wants to remain in denial by believing racemic monomers are really plausible precursors to homochiral polymers. The bio chemists and protein engineers in our IDEA chapters will have a field day with that!

Sal, you should ask these IDEA biochemists and protein engineers if a surface-based catalyst of chemical reactions can be inherently stereoselective.

Noturus · 4 May 2005

to help give an example of "grouping" For example, a gopher snake would be described in the Linnaen System this way: Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Class Reptilia Order Squamata Family Colubridae Genus Pituophis species catenifer
— Cordova

I don't think IDers should get to use a phylogenetic classification system. After all, it is based on the idea that all of the animals in each group are more closely related to each other than to all of the animals in all of the lower groups. Until IDers explain why this follows from their as yet to be explained theory I would think that they would avoid talking about it. Or if common descent is a part of ID theory they should say so as a group. From what I can tell there are as many ID positions on common descent as there are ID positors. 'Course they're so vague how can you tell? At any rate I hope that Irigonegaray is able to get all these guys on record as at least giving sort of positive claims about common descent, as well as asking them about that clotting cascade that was their big thing a couple years ago until scientists explained how it evolved. I haven't heard a peep about it since. I realize Irigonegaray isn't going to debate these guys about science, but when they babble on it would be nice to get them to commit to some specifics, and then point out all of the places they contradict each other. Also to remind everybody of all of their failed predictions - such as that nothing like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, etc. would ever be found, etc. Ah well, there's always Dover.

Ed Darrell · 4 May 2005

Mr. Cordova said:

One can claim the the Urey-Miller experiment is a success if one wants to remain in denial by believing racemic monomers are really plausible precursors to homochiral polymers. The bio chemists and protein engineers in our IDEA chapters will have a field day with that! Anyway.

Not one of your biochemists has a paper on the topic, I'll bet. In the meantime, Andrew Ellington has 165 papers to his name, a goodly number of them on this topic exactly. Here is the way he described it to creationists in the summer of 2003 (and they listened!):

MR. ELLINGTON: Talking about a hard act to follow. [He followed Nobel winner Stephen Weinberg. -ED] I am Dr. Andrew Ellington, The Wilson M. and Catherine Fraiser research professor in biochemistry at the University of Texas at Austin. I have worked in the field of origins, chemistry and biochemistries for over 20 years and have published 165 peer-reviewed papers on this and related subjects. I wish to provide testimony concerning the critiques that have been leveled against the Miller-Urey experiment. I would initially like to point out that the primary purpose in having the Miller-Urey experiment in textbooks is to show that biological compounds can be generated by relatively simple prebiotic chemistry. This purpose is set forth in nearly every textbook. For example, in Raven, Page [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 320] 149, we find, "Organic building blocks arose from simpler chemicals." However, the criticisms leveled by the Discovery Institute's preliminary analysis of evolution in biology textbooks do not focus on this important fact. In other words, the argument ~~against the inclusion of the Miller-Urey experiment almost never talk about the meaning of the experiment itself.~~ In addition, though, the criticisms that are advanced by the Discovery Institute are either completely wrong or misleading to the point of dishonesty. There are two prime examples of this, although others can be found. First, the Discovery Institute says that, 'When the Miller-Urey experiment is repeated with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, no amino acids are produced.' This statement is false. It is factually incorrect. Amino acids are produced when the Miller-Urey experiment is run with only carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. This was shown in a classic paper by Schlessenger and Miller in the Journal of Molecular Evolution in 1983. The evidence is indisputable and has never been contradicted. [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 321] Why is this information which is readily available in the scientific literature not cited by the Discovery Institute? Dr. Wells, in fact, often cites a chapter by Dr. Henrik Holland of Harvard University that purports to prove their point. To quote Dr. Wells, "In 1984 Henrik Holland confirmed that mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor yield no amino acids at all." In fact, the Holland chapter cited by Dr. Wells was a review. The primary literature referenced in that chapter does not support Dr. Wells' claims. The original papers never even tested to see whether amino acids were made or not. These facts can readily be discovered by anyone with scientific training, and yet, the Discovery Institute has chosen to both mislead you and the citizens of Texas. Second, the Discovery Institute suggests that reducing gases would have not been present on the early Earth. This statement is false. It is factually incorrect. Current theories, in fact, support a mildly reducing atmosphere. Moreover, even if the overall atmosphere was neutral, there would have been multiple sites on the Earth's surface that were [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 322] locally reducing. For example, reduced gases such as hydrogen are produced at sites of volcanic activity. At many locales on the early Earth electric discharges precisely like those shown in the Miller-Urey apparatus represented in the textbooks would have yielded amino acids and other organics. Scientists are supposed to be impartial, judging evidence on its merits. However, having read the inaccurate testimony of the data submitted by the Discovery Institute, I can only conclude that their testimony with regard to the Miller-Urey experiment, in particular, is based solely on bias, rather than hard scientific evidence that is readily available and accurately reported in each textbook. As a further conclusion, I'd just like to especially ask not Dr. -- or not doctors, but members Leo, Lowe and McLeroy to please ask questions of an expert that you've been getting answers to by nonexperts. CHAIR MILLER: Dr. McLeroy. DR. McLEROY: This is real exciting. I mean, that's a lot of peer-reviewed articles. I'm very impressed. And thank you. And I love your [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 323] enthusiasm. I tell you, at this time of the night, you waked us up here a little bit. I like it. Okay. Left-hand/right-hand. MR. ELLINGTON: Thank you very much for that, sir. In fact, while that's frequently pointed out as one of the problems with supposed origin theories, what almost certainly happened and you can easily resolve such racemic mixtures by a variety of mechanisms. I was just talking with my colleague, James Ferris, of Rensselaer Polytechnic last week. He is now getting polymerization of nucleic acids without any handedness problems on the surface of clay. Clays probably were around in the early Earth. So this supposed racemic mixture problem often cited by creationist and/or intelligent design folks really isn't a problem. DR. McLEROY: What about amino acids? MR. ELLINGTON: What about them? I just talked about them. DR. McLEROY: Well, you just said nucleic acids are going to -- I mean, you just ignored the amino acids. MR. ELLINGTON: I apologize for [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 324] answering the larger question on racemic mixtures. But for amino acids, in fact, if you have -- if you try and resolve amino acid mixtures in an air/water interface, you often get Chiral Formation of amino acids. So it is, in fact, not really regarded as much of an issue anymore. DR. McLEROY: The left-hand/right-hand quality -- because -- explain how it happens. Because there's water in between? MR. ELLINGTON: In a water/air interface you actually get preferential orientation of the amino acids -- DR. McLEROY: Oh, so they rotate a certain way. So the right-hand -- MR. ELLINGTON: Yeah. So once you have a Chiral surface, a mineral, air, water, what have you, you can resolve such Chiral mixtures. DR. McLEROY: Okay. What about the -- this is -- okay. The left-handed/right-handed -- I do have that -- that one. So you're saying that between air and water, that those amino acids that form, then, will all become left-handed in this one group or will they -- MR. ELLINGTON: No, you will selectively -- [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 325] DR. McLEROY: How did the left -- all the left-handed get together and the right-handed just get secluded? MR. ELLINGTON: Because, for example, with an air/water interface, you can get preferential crystallization of one or the other. And so, therefore, you concentrate one batch relative to the other batch. MS. LOWE: Would that happen naturally? MR. ELLINGTON: I think air-water interfaces were present even at origin. MS. LOWE: The separation -- the crystallization and the separatization of the right hand and the left hand, would that occur naturally? MR. ELLINGTON: I would suspect so, yes. MS. LOWE: Thank you. DR. McLEROY: How do you get -- so in other words, there's -- has there been an experiment done? I mean, this really -- MR. ELLINGTON: Yes, I'm reporting on -- DR. McLEROY: There has been an experiment done that produces all left-handed amino [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 326] acids? MR. ELLINGTON: That concentrates all left-handed or concentrates all right-handed or at least the polymerization of left hand or the polymerization of right hand. Yes. DR. McLEROY: Is there an experiment that produces and concentrates left-handed amino acids? MR. ELLINGTON: Well, if you concentrate them, it doesn't matter how they're produced. It's just like saying -- DR. McLEROY: No, no, no. If you -- can you produce them and concentrate them at the same time? Because that's what you're going to have to do. MR. ELLINGTON: Yes. I would say -- DR. McLEROY: Is that a decent question? MR. ELLINGTON: That's a very decent question, sir. DR. McLEROY: Thank you. MR. ELLINGTON: And I would say, yes, because as I just said in my testimony, under conditions where one of the gases is water, you get amino acids. Then presumably if water was around, [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 327] then they would also have been in air/water interface and they would have both been produced and potentially concentrated in a nonreceiving fashion. DR. McLEROY: How do they -- do they preserve long enough? So now, you've got to have a situation where they're produced. They're all going to be left-handed and you have to have them last long enough before they get destroyed. And what the process that formed them, why doesn't it destroy them, also? MR. ELLINGTON: Well, there is -- there's both spontaneous "generation" and spontaneous degradation of amino acids. And what you do is you reach a steady state level. And what that steady state level was, no one knows. But I applaud your questions, because this is the sort of questions we should be asking in these textbooks. These detailed scientific explanations of how scientifically origins arose. DR. McLEROY: Okay. And I like what the -- it was very well -- clearly pointed out by our Nobel Prize associate folks that this has nothing to do with evolution. He says those are two different issues. When Ms. Lowe asked him about the origin of life and once life evolved whether -- you [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 328] know, once life -- there was life, whether it could evolve. And it's kind of like a side issue, this whole origin of life, though it's included in here. I think -- I'm glad to know there's better research than I thought there was out there. I will check this out. And I appreciate your enthusiasm, again. That exhausts the limit of the dentist's questions on origins of life. CHAIR MILLER: Okay. Gail, did you have anymore questions? MS. LOWE: Well, Dr. McLeroy mentioned that I did ask a question of the Nobel Laureate scientists. So I'm sorry, I've not singled out. I have tried to focus on those who have actually read the textbooks. CHAIR MILLER: All right. Anybody else? Ms. Leo. DR. LEO: Just a quick one. Has that been -- experiment been peer-reviewed? MR. ELLINGTON: As far as I know, yes. I actually saw it at a conference, but I can try and find the original paper. DR. LEO: Yeah, I'd like to see if that's been peer-reviewed. As well as I'm [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 329] encouraged that you think high school kids can understand the complexities and can understand the left-handed/right-handed thing that maybe I don't get altogether there. But I'm encouraged that you would say that, because I don't -- I think all of us on this Board do not want to see a dumbing down of the curriculum. And these are the very things that make science exciting. And so I'm glad you said that. Thank you. CHAIR MILLER: Thank you.

(This is from the September 2003 hearing before the Texas State Board of Education -- the transcript is available at the Texas Education Agency website) Do any of your witnesses actually work in this area, Mr. Cordova?

djmullen · 4 May 2005
Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor --- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Salvador: The term "group" was referring to phylum as Wells clarifies in Response to NCSE
You mean those phyla "appeared together in the fossil record fully formed ..."? Pull the other one!
On a more depressing note, check out CBS News web site for this story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/03/tech/main692524.shtml
"New Tactic In Evolution Debate"
"...critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher.
The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based."
The article includes all ten questions - but of course none of the answers to them, such as the ones presented here.

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
look... the article might be on a cbs newssite, but please NOTE WHO WROTE IT:
By G. Jeffrey MacDonald ©Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
i doubt it reflects cbs's view on the issue, if that's of any consolation to you.

John · 4 May 2005
Wells might be faulted for not using the more technical term "phyla", but a charitable reading of the question would have conveyed the sense of his arguement. In any case, perhaps we'll amend the question to use the term "phyla". Thanks to the NCSE for their editorial suggestion :-)
Too bad Wells is still wrong and blatantly so. He doesn't seem to be aware that several phyla appear in the Precambrian and others in the Ordovician. Cnidarians, molluscs and sponges, for example, have a clear and obvious Precambrian record while bryozoans don't appear until the Ordovician. Also, numerous soft-bodied phyla have no fossil record at all so claiming "all major animal groups" appear in the Cambrian is simply wrong. It's also worth pointing out the dirty little secret the creationists never want to discuss -- there is no "Cambrian Explosion" for plants at all! The plant equivalents of phyla appear scattered across hundreds of millions of years. Did God leave the plants to a different designer?

David Heddle · 4 May 2005
Some of these answers are quite good, but at least two are bothersome.
The answer to the first question, on the Origin of Life and the Miller-Urey experiment is weak. It is essentially: "we don't care how life originated, so that gives us license to continue speaking of this oversold result, even though it creates the false impression that we do know how life started. And as long as we keep saying: we don't care, we don't care, we don't care, all is fine." The first part of the answer is reasonable: evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. (Although that begs the question, why then mention Miller-Urey at all?) There should then follow a mea culpa regarding the historic and continued misuse of the Miller-Urey experiment.
But the really, really bad answer is to the peppered moth question. It is inconceivable to me that you would tell students that reenactments a la Gettysburg are proper fare for a science text. That falsified pictures in science are fine, as long as they demonstrated a point. (We're not talking about cartoon of electrons around a nucleus, but staged photographs.) The answer to this question should involve abandoning the moths-on-trees example, acknowledging it was a blunder/fraud, and use instead real examples to make the point.

louis · 4 May 2005
Mr Cordova,
in ref to #27980
For one way of how "racemic"* material can react in such a way to give enantiomerically enriched material with no chiral catalysis or input, have your pet biochemists look up autocatalytic methods of generating homochiral material from a "racemate". I can find you a few interesting references if you require, but I would hope that a serious and interested scientist could easily do a SciFinder search to get reviews and papers on the subject. I'd suggest you get a synthetic organic chemist or two to look at them rather than a biochemist btw.
It would probably also be to your benefit to look up some of the simple molecules found in astrochemistry, and of the interesting condensation reactions that some simple carbonyl compounds spontaneously undergo to give surprisingly complex molecules, sometimes with high diastereoselectivities even in the absence of chiral input.
* I put quotes around racemate and racemic for a good reason. Strongly autocatalytic processes can be successfully catalysed by relatively small populations of catalyst (in this case reaction product), and while we tend to assume that our flask of racemic material is purely 50:50 of each enantiomer, reality is more complex. For this 50:50 ideal to be the case there would have to be an absolutely even number of molecules in every racemic mixture and every mixture would have to be perfectly homogenous throughout, in terms of its 1:1 component mixture. Local (variations in a whole sample) in concentrations of specific enantiomers in a racemic solution (for example) are more than sufficient to be ampolified by autocatalytic processes.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
Hey Dr Cordova, you still have not answered my four simple questions.
As promised, I will ask again. And again and again and again. As many times as I need to, until you answer.
*ahem*
1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?
3. what, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?
4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
The Urey-Miller experiment generated racemic mixtures of amino acids, whereas biotic reality is made of homo-chiral amino acids. Further, in addition to destructive cross reactions in realistic origin-of-life scenarios, there were not provided plausible pathways for the formation of exclusive alpha-peptide bonds. The 1953 attempt was a failure, not a success, or at the very least it was inconclusive.
How dreadful. What is the plausible alternative offered by intelligent design "theory"? How does intelligent design "theory" postulate that life began, and how do we test this hypothesis, whatever it is, using the scientific method? Please try to answer without runnign away this time, Doctor. People might begin to think that you are avoiding questions that you don't want to answer. We wouldn't want them to think THAT, would we.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
I just want to point out that all of theswe "ten questions" were used prior to the Aguillard case, by the YECs. Indeed, the YECs were also very fond of compiling lists like "Twenty Questions for Evolutionists".
So once again, we see that ID is simply a clone of creation "science", despite all their loud claims that they are different.

Paul · 4 May 2005
I would also add with respect to the Cambrian explosion, that the apparently sudden nature of the event may have as much (or more) to do with taphonomy as evolution.

Salvador T. Cordova · 4 May 2005
Yes it's true Dr. Ellington has made a living for 20 years publishing papers on behalf of flawed theory, I acknowledge that.
I respect also the impartial testimony and the impartial approval of his peer reviewers who will do what they can to perpetuate their journals and jobs.
We all know the treatmet Sternberg and Meyer got. Who reviews the correctness of Ellington's work except us IDists? Sure I'd be willing to submit to the same journals as Ellington and basically tell them that their mistaken. What chances of approval will I get unless I have someone like Richard Sternberg as editor and reviewer?
And as far as Art's question, care to give a quantitative figure of stereo selectivity especially during a plausible polymerization process? When Fox tried to polymerize even non-racemic amino acids, he ended up making them racemic through his polymerization process. Kind of killed the stereo selectivity there, eh Art?

steve · 4 May 2005
Dembski groupie Cordova said: One can claim the the Urey-Miller experiment is a success if one wants to remain in denial by believing racemic monomers are really plausible precursors to homochiral polymers.
I've done a little bit of work on polymers, so I can tell you, either Cordova doesn't know what he's saying here, or he's lying. I vote for the "doesn't know" option. 1) Urey-Miller is not a failure if it fails to produce polymers with certain stereochemistries. Urey-Miller is a success at showing that organic molecules can self-assemble under primitive conditions. This scares the bejesus out of creationists. 2) There are many ways one chirality could have been selected for. Certain simple compounds will even distinguish the two. "This new polymer strongly interacts with one enantiomeric form of an amino acid or component in a racemic mixture enabling chiral separations." http://www.research.ucla.edu/tech/ucla98-601.htm. While scientists don't know how it happened in the case of earth yet, you'd have to be a creationist to misrepresent this as a mortal problem to evolution. Indeed, some creationists even calculate the odds of a long stereochemically-specified polymer arising from a racemic mixture, then pronounce it thermodynamically impossible. I wonder if it is possible to even be an IDiot without abusing statistics.

Alex Merz · 4 May 2005
Very nice, Salvador. A nearly total non-response to the substantive questions. Outstanding.

Andrea Bottaro · 4 May 2005
Who reviews the correctness of Ellington's work except us IDists?
Pardon the guffaw, this was really funny. Salvador, any ID advocate is free to pursue graduate studies in the appropriate field, start experimenting on abiogenesis, and demonstrate, empirically, that any specific hypothesis about it currently being pursued by other scientists is wrong. If the experiments are well-designed and the conclusions solid, they will be published without need for editorial favors or tricks. That's how science works. The act of constant repeating that an entire field is wrong, while refusing to address the actual evidence, does not constitute "review". It's called nagging.

Alex Merz · 4 May 2005
I don't think that that the peppered moth illustration should be used. I think that textbooks should come as close to showing the preliminary data upon which theories are based.
How do you think that an intro chem or physics text should describe Millikan's oil drop experiment? Do the problems with his data-handling (and yes, I realize that the severity of these problems remains contentious) mean that his work should not be described, or photos of his apparatus not be included? Should we not teach students about the charge on an electron?
Does including these illustrations and descriptions call into question the validity of entire areas of physics and chemistry?
Shall we arm our students with handouts asking 10 Questions about physics & chemistry? Why is it that no one has ever seen a so-called "electron"? How could light possibly propagate, except through a medium? Etc., etc. You can laugh, but these are precise analogs of the games that the ID crowd (you, apparently, included) enjoy playing.

SteveF · 4 May 2005
Aaah, the Cambrian 'explosion.' God (lets not kid ourselves about the identity of the IDists designer) is sitting around then one day; hmm, I think I'll create Olenoides serratus. Phew, that was tiring work, I think I'll have a break for a hundred thousand years. (twiddles fingers, scratches himself a few times). Right, I feel better now; I think I'll create Marrella splendens. Now time for another break. And so on for a few million years..........
I say millions of years. Of course there are some IDists (mentioning no names) who believe the earth to be only 6000 years old. In this scenario, Cambrian rocks and those fossils which comprise the 'explosion' were deposited by a worldwide flood. It seems to me that, under such a scenario, the Cambrian explosion is essentially a meaningless event in terms of the development of life (be it by evolution or intelligent design), its merely the product of a flood. Therefore for YEC IDists to talk about the Cambrian explosion as a problem for evolution is somewhat disingenuous as in reality they don't actually believe that the Cambrian explosion is an event related to the development of diversity.
(Note that there are some YECs - namely those in the UK - who subscribe to the 'recolonisation model'. In this 'model' only Precambrian rocks are flood deposits and the Cambrian explosion is meaningful and is the intial burst of recolonisation following the flood. Oh and the earth is 8000 years old not 6000. Clearly this is far more sensible.)

steve · 4 May 2005
I've done the oil drop experiment. It was a pain in the ass. I can see why he took data for years.
It is a good analogy to the peppered moth, Alex, and I think people can see what it means--creationists are grasping at straws.

bill · 4 May 2005
What chances of approval will I get unless I have someone like Richard Sternberg as editor and reviewer?
Indeed, what chance do I have of making money unless I have someone like Al Capone as my banker? Come on, Salvador, tell the truth. You and Heddle are really John Davison in disguise, right?

steve · 4 May 2005
ID Creationists make the same charges repetitively, even when they know they're being dishonest, as another active thread makes clear. The only way to deal with it is to catalogue and refer to the refutations. Any given creationist can keep people occupied forever defending evolution with dumb claims. Consistently retyping the refutations is not efficient.

David Heddle · 4 May 2005
If Millikan fudged data, that should be discussed, and even used as a case study for the teaching of scientific experimentation. The analogy is flawed, however, because Millikan's oil drop (even if not as performed by Millikan) is a legitimate result that has been corroborated (and it is a pain in the ass). Peppered moths on trees is not legitimate--and to justify its continued use as no different than Gettysburg reenactments is bizarre.

steve · 4 May 2005
Peppered moths on trees is not legitimate
Does anyone else find it painful to listen to David Heddle?
First, it is important to emphasize that, in my view, the huge wealth of additional data obtained since Kettlewell's initial predation papers (Kettlewell 1955a, 1956) does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth (Majerus, 1998, p. 116). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

Art · 4 May 2005
I don't suppose it would do to remind us all that peppered moths do rest on tree trunks. This is where Wells was incorrect, and why the example is perfectly legitimate.
The funny things that these discussions lead one to do - the moths (I don't know what kind) were thick in NH last summer at the Gordon Conference I attended, and I (beer in hand, of course) couldn't help but notice that almost every one I could keep track of at least landed on the trunks of trees, and many did not move from their "perch" for the duration of a beer. (Longer periods of time - a bottle of wine, a fifth of scotch - were not tried in this study. Maybe next time.)

Art · 4 May 2005
Sal, my question had nothing to do with Fox' work. I would encourage you to bring it to your IDEA cohorts, and see if they can: 1. answer it; and 2. explain the relevance of the question to the matter of the origin of life.

shiva · 4 May 2005
Sal seems to be straining to prevent shifting gears into the anti-scientific mode that Creationists can't but ride on. "Yes it's true Dr. Ellington has made a living...behalf of flawed theory, I acknowledge that," "I respect...impartial testimony....approval of his peer reviewers...to perpetuate their journals and jobs," "Sure I'd be willing to submit to the same journals ... What chances of approval will I get unless I have someone like Richard Sternberg as editor and reviewer?"
But that last sentence is a giveaway. Sal seems to be saying that he can't get published unless the reviewer too is anti-scientific. OK have you tried Sal? Know anyone who has? Behe reports having sent a publication for review and having it returned because the paper did not fit within the journal's premises. How about actually critiquing Ellington's work? Maybe Sal doesn't want to publish a review of Ellington's work for one or more of the following.
1. Sal's collaborators really have nothing new to add
2. What if the paper uncovers errors in Ellington that will be quickly reviewed and worked on resulting in an even more powerful theory?
3. The low level of awareness among the public of the origins of early molecules provides a peg to hang pseudoscientific arguments on. Talking too much about it only bring more knowledge into the public domain and -heavens no!- molecule synthesis hobby kits? - sandpapering this toehold for good.
4. ID/C was never about science anyway
I favor #3. Look how little excitement the "missing link" and "Xtional fossils" argument evokes. Unless it is one of those who according to Dr.Shallit "No doubt ...buy this book (any ID/C tract) in droves, writing "How true" in crayon in the margins".
How much time before school children get a lite version of AVIDA to work on?

Andrea Bottaro · 4 May 2005
Let's make one point clear: peppered moths do rest on tree trunks, and the effect of cryptic coloration against tree bark is the same on trunks (where they rest occasionally - 25% of the time or so, according to Majerus and others) or branches and branch/trunk junctions (where they rest more often).
In my opinion, in an introductory biology textbook it is just as legitimate to use staged moth pictures to illustrate their camouflage properties as it is to show pictures of red and white flowers from unrelated pea plants to illustrate the results of Mendelian crossings of pea plants with different flower colorations genes.

RBH · 4 May 2005
Art wrote
I don't suppose it would do to remind us all that peppered moths do rest on tree trunks. This is where Wells was incorrect, and why the example is perfectly legitimate.
In fact, in Icons Wells references the (Majerus, IIRC) book in which those data are reported.

David Heddle · 4 May 2005
If the moths do rest on trees, then I have learned something and I appreciate it, and I agree that the oil drop analogy is then valid (if you allow that Millikan fudged.)
However, the answer that PZ provided is still nonsense-- justifying the use of the photos by likening their use to a Gettysburg reenactment. The right answer is still to drop the staged photos and replace them with real ones.

Salvador T. Cordova · 4 May 2005
Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
I'm glad to see that the NCSE says Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry. I'll be glad to use that one! The mentioned convergence. It turns out, the astute Stephen Meyer in his ground breaking paper, Origin of Biological Information references Meuller and Newman. Willmer in Origination of Organismal Form edited by Meuller and Neuman, page 33:
Convergent evolution is prevalent at all levels of organismal design -- from cell chemistry and microstructure to cell types, organ systems, and whole body plans (Willmer, 1990; Sanderson and Hufford, 1996). Indeed, it may be sufficiently common to undermine methodologies (whether morphological, paleontological, or molecular) for determining animal relationships (Willmer, 1990; Willmer and Holland, 1991; Moore and Willmer, 1997). Yet, even though detecting convergence depends on knowing your taxonomy, methods of establishing taxonomy, particularly the now almost ubiquitious cladistic methods, tend to rely on a parsimonious assumption of minimum convergence. 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."
(bolding mine) This is echoed by Simon Conway Morris in Life's Solution
page 126-128: biological convergence can mean many things and operate at many levels. As I shall argue, however, there are some common implications, despite apparantly bewildering range of examples.... I believe the topic of convergence is important for two main reasons. One is widely acknowledged, if as often subject to procrustean procedures of accommodation. It concerns phylogeny, with the obvious circularity of two questions : do we trust our phylogeny and thereby define convergence (which everyone does), or do we trust our characters to be convergent (for whatever reason) and define our phylogeny? As phylogeny depends on characters, the two questions are inseperable... Even so, no phylogeny is free of its convergences, and it is often the case that a biologist believes a phylogeny because in his or her view certain convergences would be too incredible to be true. During my time in the libraries I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, 'remarkable', 'striking', 'extraordinary', or even 'astonishing' and 'uncanny' are common place. It is well appreciated that seldom are the similarities precise, and this in itself is as concrete a piece of evidence for the reality of evolution as can be provided. Even so, the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.
(bolding mine)

PvM · 4 May 2005
I'm glad to see that the NCSE says Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry. I'll be glad to use that one!
— Sal
What part did you not understand Sal? Love your quote mining but that hardly makes a case for ID which still remains scientifically vacuous, even more than YEC. Your adjectives to describe Meyers' paper, while understandable, show even more why ID is scientifically vacuous. Quote mining, incomplete references, old research. Sad.. That YEC'ers abuse the research to make their case about the Cambrian is understandable, that ID proponents who argue for 'teach the controversy' have a problem accurately representing the Cambrian is more troublesome. Unless one of course accepts that ID is and will remain scientifically vacuous doomed to quote mine science and look for God in the gaps of our knowledge.

Who · 4 May 2005
I'm glad to see that the NCSE says Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry. I'll be glad to use that one!
— Sal
What part did you not understand Sal? Love your quote mining but that hardly makes a case for ID which still remains scientifically vacuous, even more than YEC. Your adjectives to describe Meyers' paper, while understandable, show even more why ID is scientifically vacuous. Quote mining, incomplete references, old research. Sad.. That YEC'ers abuse the research to make their case about the Cambrian is understandable, that ID proponents who argue for 'teach the controversy' have a problem accurately representing the Cambrian is more troublesome. Unless one of course accepts that ID is and will remain scientifically vacuous doomed to quote mine science and look for God in the gaps of our knowledge.

Salvador T. Cordova · 4 May 2005
Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked? A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
Well it is rare that I will offer agreement with PZ, but the following I have to absolutely applaud. In Wells mangling of developmental biolog (the title PZ gave at 10 Questions) PZ writes:
PZ wrote: In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory. ... Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an extremely influential German scientist. He had an enviable reputation as a comparative embryologist, but his primary claim to fame was that he was an early adopter of Darwin's theory who used the evidence of embryology to support evolution. Wells is quite correct to mention the importance of Haeckel in 19th century biology. There is no doubt that his efforts to popularize the theory were important in giving evolution credibility in the scientific establishment, and to laymen as well. Darwin and Haeckel met and corresponded, and each influenced the theories of the other strongly. However, Haeckel's theories owed an even greater debt to an earlier philosophical tradition, in particular the work of Goethe and Lamarck. Although Darwin was appreciative of Haeckel's support for natural selection, he was also tentative in using Haeckel's ideas in his writings; Darwin relied far more on von Baer's embryological data to support common descent. Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected. Haeckel's theory is encapsulated in his memorable aphorism, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," also called the biogenetic law. What that means is that development (ontogeny) repeats the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the organism - that if we evolved from a fish that evolved into a reptile that evolved into us, our embryos physically echo that history, passing through a fish-like stage and then into a reptile-like stage. How could this happen? He argued that evolutionary history was literally the driving force behind development, and that the experiences of our ancestors were physically written into our hereditary material. This was a logical extension of his belief in Lamarckian inheritance, or the inheritance of acquired characters. If the activity of an organism can be imprinted on its genetics, then development could just be a synopsis of the activities of the parents and grandparents and ever more remote ancestors. This was an extremely attractive idea to scientists; it's as if development were a time machine that allowed them to look back into the distant past, just by studying early stages of development. Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong. The discoveries that ultimately demolished the underlying premises of the biogenetic law were the principles of genetics and empirical observations of embryos.
(bolding mine) I applaud PZ for coming out and attacking the fraudulent work of Haeckel that had been promoted in our high schools and even colleges for decades. By the way, I point out this fact which Wells presented:
Yet two college textbooks, Starr and Taggart's Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th Edition, 1998) and Guttman's Biology (1999) feature slightly redrawn versions of Haeckel's faked originals. Three high-school textbooks, Biggs, Kapicka and Lundgren's Biology: The Dynamics of Life (1998), Schraer and Stoltze's Biology: The Study of Life (7th Edition, 1999), and Miller and Levine's Biology (5th Edition, 2000), contain stylized drawings that improve only slightly on Haeckel, and perpetuate Haeckel's misrepresentation of the midpoint of development as the first stage. Worse yet, two advanced textbooks for college biology majors feature Haeckel's original drawings: Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts and Watson's Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd Edition, 1994), and Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (3rd Edition, 1998). It was textbooks like these that prompted Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould to write in 2000: "We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks." (10)
To be fair, I heard the Futuyma reference by Wells is possibly errant, but how about the others? And for the record, I'm happy to refer PZ's essay on Wells and Haeckel to my IDEA chapters. Though I may disagree with PZ on many things, in matters pertaining to devlopmental biology, PZ deserves the fullest hearing.

Great White Wonder · 4 May 2005
Heddle
If Millikan fudged data, that should be discussed, and even used as a case study for the teaching of scientific experimentation.
How many weeks on that subject Heddle? I say we study the Columbia experiments on the effects of distant prayer. That would be much more interesting to students, especially the part where the self-proclaimed Christian turns out to be a sleazy con artist. That would be most educational. And we could also talk about crying statues. And Kent Hovind. And liars like Bill Dembski. And the difference between "absurd" miracles and ones that David Heddle approves of. Yes, the more Americans know about charlatans, the better off we'll all be. Oh, except for you of course, David. Sales of your little pamphlet might be negatively impacted. Boo hoo.

steve · 4 May 2005
That particular NCSE answer is bad, I'll give you that, Heddle.

David Heddle · 4 May 2005
GWW,
between "absurd" miracles and ones that David Heddle approves of.
I like that you see a pre-Cambrian human fossil as a legitimate falsification test. It shows off your intelligence almost as well as your comments do.

Great White Wonder · 4 May 2005
David, you forgot to add "How do you like them medlars?"
Please, get with the program.

John · 4 May 2005
Sal: I'm glad to see that the NCSE says Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry. I'll be glad to use that one!
Before you move on to new material, why don't you correct your old material? Why does Wells keep saying ALL animal phyla appear in the Cambrian when, in fact, cnidarians, molluscs and sponges all appear millions of years BEFORE the Cambrian and bryozoans appear AFTER it? Why can't he keep up with discoveries that are now over 50 years old? Also, why doesn't anyone in the creationist camp mention that plants don't even HAVE an equivalent of the Cambrian Explosion at all? Are they afraid of admitting there is no "poof" of creation for plants?

GCT · 4 May 2005
David Heddle, we no longer have need of legitimate falsification tests. We just have to ask whether you believe in it or not. It's because of your disbelief that Communism has been falsified afterall.

Joseph O'Donnell · 4 May 2005
I wonder why Salvatore failed to respond to the defence posted about the Miller experiment and other origin of life experimets.
I wonder, is it because he's simply full of it?

Alex Merz · 4 May 2005
ding ding ding. "Because he's full of it!" That is the CORRECT answer, and you've just won a STUFFED PANDA BEAR*, Joseph O'Donnell!
*The plush toy in question is virtual.

Joseph O'Donnell · 4 May 2005
I WON!! I WON!!! Oh I would like to thank, Darwin, my mother, all the people who actually gave me an education in science and all you wonderful folks here.
*Puts stuffed virtal panda bear on desktop*
Hooray!

SteveF · 4 May 2005
As another prize Joseph, I hereby provide you with a link to one of Salvador's favourite sites. Yup, he's a YEC and this is the 'science' he favours:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Don't rush to thank me.

Rafi · 4 May 2005
Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
God creats life but since everything that is alive eventually dies so no net creation occurs.

Salvador T. Cordova · 4 May 2005
Regarding Ellington etc.
The Dismissal of ID: He is now getting polymerization of nucleic acids without any handedness problems on the surface of clay. Clays probably were around in the early Earth. So this supposed racemic mixture problem often cited by creationist and/or intelligent design folks really isn't a problem.
Really? Did he explain the probablities of clay being found with a chiral bias in the first place! They pass this stuff off claiming it supportive of origin of life, and they fail to even offer the plausibility of such scenarios.
MR. ELLINGTON: I apologize for [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 324] answering the larger question on racemic mixtures. But for amino acids, in fact, if you have --- if you try and resolve amino acid mixtures in an air/water interface, you often get Chiral Formation of amino acids. So it is, in fact, not really regarded as much of an issue anymore. DR. McLEROY: The left-hand/right-hand quality --- because --- explain how it happens. Because there's water in between? MR. ELLINGTON: In a water/air interface you actually get preferential orientation of the amino acids --- DR. McLEROY: Oh, so they rotate a certain way. So the right-hand --- MR. ELLINGTON: Yeah. So once you have a Chiral surface, a mineral, air, water, what have you, you can resolve such Chiral mixtures.
These experiments done in nice chemically purified environments where desctructive cross reactions (such a the likely alkaline PH of the water in the early earth) are not present. And I saw some of the papers which described this. No mention of the plausibiliy of such scenarios in a pre-biotic setting. It was completely tautologous saying if the "right conditions occur" such and such happen. No mention is made of the resonability of the pre-conditions. Some of the air/water infterface experiments involved DESIGNED reations involving carefully selected esters and thioesters to form the amino acids. They were not, as far as I can tell, anything resembling Urey-Miller with the electric discharges and specialized gasses. To resolve the problem of some precursors, origin of life researchers used formaldehyde to help the synthesis of the biomonomers and biomonomer precursurs such as esters. But formaldehyde kinda puts a damper on the viability of early peptides, don't it? The very soup that makes the monomers also prevents the formation of life. They just can't seem to put soups together which won't ultimately be TOXIC to life! But there is a nice twist to all this: Analysis of RNA World Hypothesis
A.G. Cairns-Smith criticized writers for exaggerating the implications of the Miller-Urey experiment. He argued that the experiment showed, not the possibility that nucleic acids preceded life, but its implausibility. According to Cairns-Smith, the process of constructing nucleic acids would require eighteen distinct conditions and events that would have to occur continually over millions of years in order to build up the required quantities.
So much for the "RNA world" hypothesis if one accepts Urey-Miller type scenarios and the "amino acid world". Each OOL scenario finds fatal flaws in the competing scenario. "The amino acid world" competes with the "RNA world". And somwhere with all these scenarios, one must still solve the problem of DNA! These difficulties, by the way, are consistent with a key prediction of ReMine's Biotic Message ID Theory: that life is architected to resist evolutionary interpretations. Life is architechted to resist abiogenesis scenarios! So far so good.
Wikipedia on Abiogenesis: Nucleotides have not been found in Miller-Urey-type experiments. They would have to have been made from their components: nucleobases, ribose, and phosphates. The base cytosine does not have a plausible prebiotic simulation method because it is so easily undergoes hydrolysis. Prebiotic simulations making nucleotides have conditions incompatible with those for making sugars (lots of formaldehyde). So they must somehow be synthesized, then brought together. However, they don't react in water. Anhydrous reactions will bind with purines, but only 8% of them are joined with the correct carbon atom on the sugar joined to the correct nitrogen atom on the base. Pyrimidines, however, will not react with ribose, even anhydrously. Then phosphate must be introduced, but in nature phosphate in solution is extremely rare because it is so readily precipitated. After being introduced, the phosphate must combine with the nucleoside and the correct hydroxyl must be phosphorylated. For the nucleotides to form RNA, they must be activated themselves. Activated purine nucleotides will form small chains on a pre-existing template of all-pyrimidine RNA. However, this does not happen in reverse because the pyrimidine nucleotides do not stack well.
Biotic Message ID prediction is that these difficulties will never be solved despite scientists efforts to the contrary because life was design to resist chemical evolutionary explanations of origins. Origin of life researchers are invited to keep wasting their energies proving ID is correct. All they've done is they publish papers with implausible speculations like Mr. Ellington....Unfortunately, they promote the impression that they've actually come closer to solving the mysteries. Nothing could be further from the truth. They've only made the problems more obvious.

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
"Biotic Message ID prediction is that these difficulties will never be solved despite scientists efforts to the contrary because life was design to resist chemical evolutionary explanations of origins"
no, salvador, i think it's you who was "design[ed] to resist chemical evolutionary explanations of origins".
ever bother to analyze yourself?

Joseph O'Donnell · 4 May 2005
Oh he manages to come out with something at last! Shame he could only go to the wiki rather than presenting something out of actual papers however.
No mention of the plausibiliy of such scenarios in a pre-biotic setting. It was completely tautologous saying if the "right conditions occur" such and such happen. No mention is made of the resonability of the pre-conditions.
Because there are a wide range of pre-conditions, scenarios and ways in which these reactions could have been accomplished. It's not a fault of the research, but rather one of the strengths of the argument that there is such a wide range of pre-conditions that are likely to be responsible for the formation of life. To choose one over many others without further investigation, which many of these papers are aimed at doing. Experiments of which it's worth noting ID still hasn't got any especially if such experiments are able to 'prove' ID so readily, you'd think they'd do a few of their own! Obviously, when you actualy look at the findings of these experiments, as I'm sure Salvator didn't as the best he could do was a wiki entry, you find that ID isn't well supported at all. Oh well, at least he tried.

Great White Wonder · 4 May 2005
Salvador
Origin of life researchers are invited to keep wasting their energies proving ID is correct.
Huh? No one has articulated a testable scientific "ID" theory so how can it be proved correct? Or do you have a testable scientific theory of "ID" that you'd like to share with us? We're waiting (as you know).

bill · 4 May 2005
In ReMine's own words, excuse the quote mining from http://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm
As one of its central design goals, life was intentionally designed to resist all theories of evolution, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's theories.
And a further gem from the same mine crafted by none other than our very own Biochemist d'renown, M. Behe:
I never thought of or read of the connection that Walter made. As far as Message Theory goes, in the book Walter does a great job of explaining it. The theory appears to be original, defensible, and scientific.
By the way, there's no actual data or research presented in the book, other than the quote-mined results of others; it's all ReMine's opinion.

PvM · 4 May 2005
Once again Salvador exemplifies why ID is scientifically vacuous. It believes on faith that no scientific explanations exist for particalar evolutionary scenarios. So what does ID have to offer to science then? Nothing....
I wish that ID would give a fair hearing to scientific evidence rather than to nitpicking particular aspects and hiding God in the gaps of our knowledge. Both science and God deserve better.

steve · 4 May 2005
Why let IDiots make the debate about evolution uncertainties? I suggest following Lenny Frank's lead, and keep the focus on the lack of an ID theory. These guys have not accomplished anything. Put them on the defensive, don't let them put you there.

mynym · 4 May 2005
"no, salvador, i think it's you who....
ever bother to analyze yourself?"
Ever bother to think that if you deny message theory then you have just reduced your text to a meaningless artifact of the biochemical state of your brain?

Not to mention that it is an idiotic state. But...hate the idiocy and love the idiots, I say. They are useful idiots, after all.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
Yes it's true Dr. Ellington has made a living for 20 years publishing papers on behalf of flawed theory, I acknowledge that.
How dreadful. You, uh, still seem to have not answeed any of my simple questions. Forget them already? No problem --- I'm happy to repeat them again. And again and again and again, as many tiems as I need to, utnil you either answer them or run away (again). *ahem* 1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method? 2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not? 3. what, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine? 4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? I look forward to your not answering my questions yet again, in public.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005

Huh? No one has articulated a testable scientific "ID" theory so how can it be proved correct? Or do you have a testable scientific theory of "ID" that you'd like to share with us? We're waiting (as you know).
Indeed. I can think of only three possible explanations, in general, for Dr Cordova's continuing refusal to answer my simple question ("what is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?"). Either: 1. There *IS NO* scientific theory of ID, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim there is, or 2. There *IS* a scientific theory of ID, but Dr Cordova is too uninformed to know what it is, or 3. There *IS* a scientific theory of ID and Dr Cordova *DOES* know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason he doesn't want anyone ELSE to know what it is and wants to keep it a big secret. If you won't answer my simple question, Dr Cordova, would you at least tell us WHY you won't answer it? Give us a hint here. Is it reason number one, number two, or number three? My money, of course, is on number one.

mynym · 4 May 2005
"These guys have not accomplished anything. Put them on the defensive, don't let them put you there."
Here is an example, the sandlance's eyes:
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/sandlance.html
The chameleon's:
http://monkeybiz.stanford.edu/~jim/eyes/3.gif
There is a lot of empirical evidence indicating common design, with the design itself designed to point to a common designer. "Those who have eyes, let them see." In this example the chameleon and the sandlance both bear the same design for their eyes. And the message of a single common designer is hard to avoid, yet I am interested in the various ways that half-wits would try to deny it. It is important to know, as they and their denials are useful.
So, how did Nature select eyes for an organism that lives under the sea just as it did for one that lives in trees? Does the environment have the same "selective" or "creative" capacity? Or can it process the organisms to achieve this result? How about a narrative, "Once upon a time there were some fish in the sea and they grew some eyes. Sometimes, things just grow eyes you know. Eventually, their descendants hopped and flopped on out of the sea onto land and grew some legs, lungs and things. Then their descendants crawled up into some trees and grew some other things. But all along they kept the same eyes because that is what mommy Nature selected for them. Mother Nature is something that can "select" one thing or another, naturally enough, by natural selections. So one day, there was a fish in the sea and a lizard in a tree that had the same eyes."

Joseph O'Donnell · 4 May 2005
So much for the "RNA world" hypothesis if one accepts Urey-Miller type scenarios and the "amino acid world". Each OOL scenario finds fatal flaws in the competing scenario. "The amino acid world" competes with the "RNA world". And somwhere with all these scenarios, one must still solve the problem of DNA!
Just another comment, but the fact there are multiple ideas that experimenters have come up with that may explain the origins of life, through an RNA or amino acid world (for example), doesn't immediately disprove both. It just means that there is even MORE chance of developing life through independant pathways, especially if there are strong cases that you can get these developing. I think Salvator confuses the idea that experiments support different notions with multiple ideas immediately disproving the same concept. Of course, it's worth noting that ID has yet to produce any research of its own at all into this region as I pointed out last time, and I'm still waiting on Salvator to bother producing any ID literature that would contradict EITHER amino or RNA world hypothesis.

AV · 4 May 2005
I look forward to your not answering my questions yet again, in public
— Lenny Flank
. I wonder, Lenny, if you put these questions in a thread of their own, you might not have more success in getting answers to them from ID supporters?

Joseph O'Donnell · 4 May 2005
No, he probably wouldn't. Salvator tends to run away with his tail between his legs every time he's been challenged on it. It isn't as if he hasn't had multiple chances to answer it as Lenny has asked him these questions virtually every time he's posted here.

mynym · 4 May 2005
"....and hiding God in the gaps of our knowledge. Both science and God deserve better."
Did you know that you have to have a synaptic gap for a neuron to fire? It's a gap, a separation. (Yikes! Why, the division of that!) But anyway, check out Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and all the evidence that indicates that Nature is a finite system. If it is, as is indicated by the evidence, then the scientific answer to the growing gaps is that Naturalism will always be a failure. Various God-haters and believers in scientism have not smothered the Mind of God into Naturalism, not even close, although it is not for a lack of trying. That's probably why the main arguments of the believers in scientism are reduced to the associative, "Disagreein' with me is just like disagreein' with gravity or saying that the earth is flat....or somethin'!"
The answer that there will always be a gap in knowledge is the same Socratic answer that can be known by any thinker. All you can know given the premise of a closed system is that you cannot know. And then when you cannot, after rejecting the poets who can tell you how the system is not closed, perhaps you decide to have a drink of hemlock.

AV · 4 May 2005
No, he probably wouldn't. Salvator tends to run away with his tail between his legs every time he's been challenged on it. It isn't as if he hasn't had multiple chances to answer it as Lenny has asked him these questions virtually every time he's posted here.
— Joseph O'Donnell
I don't doubt it (nor do I doubt that Lenny has put these questions to many others besides Salvator): but perhaps in their own thread the questions would be more difficult to ignore.

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
"So, how did Nature select eyes for an organism that lives under the sea just as it did for one that lives in trees?"
actually i wonder if you have bothered to consider that you have only looked at "half" the story, and so are in danger of being the half-wit you accuse others of being?
if you think your example is a "support" of design, then lets pick two other animals:
you and a squid.
compare the morphology of your eye and a squid's and then explain how that fits in with your "support"
If you cant "believe" unless you can somehow imagine god in the works, I would say that is a question for your faith, not one of the fallibility of science.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
I wonder, Lenny, if you put these questions in a thread of their own, you might not have more success in getting answers to them from ID supporters?
I doubt it. For seven years now, I have asked every creationist/IDer I have ever come across, one simple question. It is: "What is the scientific theory of creationism/ID, and how do we test it using the scientific method". In the six years that I have run the DebunkCreation list at yahoogroups, well over 300 different creationist/ID supporters joined the list to preach at us. All of them were asked this simple question, repeatedly. None ever answered it. Ditto for all the years I've been on talk.origins . Here, in this forum, we get a, uh, higher caliber of creationsit/IDer, including some of DI's, uh, best and brightest. Alas, though, they seem to be no more capable of answering my simple question than their brainless minions are. Whcih kind of makes me think that . . . well . . . there IS NO scientific theory of ID, and all those IDers are simply lying to us when they claim there is. If any IDer out there would like to dispute that, please by all means feel free. Here's your chance to prove me wrong, right in front of the whole world. Simply show us a scientific theory of ID, and show us how to test it using the scientific method. Or, uh, isn't there any . . . . ?

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
after seven years, you'd think by random chance SOMEONE would have come up with something.
oh, that's right, IDers don't "believe" in random chance.
oh well.
in that case, it must be impossible.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
There is a lot of empirical evidence indicating common design, with the design itself designed to point to a common designer.
Reaaalllyyyyyy. Then I have some simple questions for you. *ahem* What did the designer do, specifically, to design either of these eyes. What mechanisms did the designer use, specifically, to do whatever the heck you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms ina ction today, designing anything. What evidence indicates that there was just one designer, and not, say, two or five or fifty or a thousand of them all working together?
"Those who have eyes, let them see."
Interesting quote. It wouldn't happen to have any religious purpose, would it? Naaaaahhhhhh, of COURSE not. After all, IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NO religious aim or purpose, right? None AT ALL. They couldn't possibly be lying to us about that, could they . . . .?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
No, he probably wouldn't. Salvator tends to run away with his tail between his legs every time he's been challenged on it.
Which is, in itself, quite an eloquent answer, isn't it . . . . .

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
after seven years, you'd think by random chance SOMEONE would have come up with something.
Alas, the only "responses" I get are various versions of either (1) "Jesus saves!!!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you". Oddly enough, those are EXACTLY the same two answers that the Kansas Board of Ed is about to get from all its ID "expert witnesses" . . . . .

mynym · 4 May 2005
"...compare the morphology of your eye and a squid's and then explain how that fits in with your "support"..."
It fits, just as mountains of empirical evidence does.
Like the sandlance and the chameleon, the design of the the eyes of both humans and squid are very similar in terms of structure and function. And is that because they live in the same sort of environment with the same "selective" pressures? They live in disparate environments. Perhaps they had a common ancestor, at some time. Yes, Mother Nature selected their morphology for some rather drastic changes between their evolutionary paths from the supposed common ancestor but in all the time saved the same eyes....or somethin'. Or maybe, the same eyes evolved twice through totally separate evolutionary pathways, even in the different environments, then three times! Why not? To infinity, and beyond!
"Self-replication can produce, in theory, an infinite number of products; yet, in reality, the world that supplies the materials for replication is finite. Life, then, is a tension between the infinite and the finite."
(Science as a Way of Knowing: The
Foundations of Modern Biology, By John A. Moore :1)
Hmmm, too bad that the earth is finite.
More likely than a reliance on infinity is that the very design of things is layered as a designed message, while also being designed to fit the environment, to harmonize with other organisms, to self-replicate, to make use of death itself so that things may be born again, and on and on. Those are some of the many reasons that no human designer can compete with the Mind of God.
"If you cant "believe" unless you can somehow imagine god in the works, I would say that is a question for your faith, not one of the fallibility of science."
Can't believe what? You've shown that you do not understand common design vs. common descent, as you cite empirical evidence that goes against the mythological narratives of Naturalism. I.e., organisms with virtually the same eyes yet one in the sea and one on land, with disparate morphology, etc.
Perhaps the minds of Naturalists are folded in on themselves and they cannot think through their brains very well. Can you think through your brain or are you letting your brain do your thinking for you? Perhaps you are waiting for Mother Nature to make a selection, naturally enough?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
If you cant "believe" unless you can somehow imagine god in the works, I would say that is a question for your faith, not one of the fallibility of science.
Alas, fundies don't HAVE any faith in a god --- their faith is in a book about god, and they can't recognize the difference. Idol-worshippers, really.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005
Those are some of the many reasons that no human designer can compete with the Mind of God.
Why the heck are you dragging "God" into this? IDers keep telling us that ID is SCIENCE and has NO religious aim, purpose, or goal. Heck, they even tell us that the "designer" might be nothing but a techologically advanced space alien. Or are IDers just lying to us about THAT, too . . . . ?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 4 May 2005

or are you letting your brain do your thinking for you?
Huh . . . . . ? OK, you're an idiot. No point wasting any more time on you.

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
"Like the sandlance and the chameleon, the design of the the eyes of both humans and squid are very similar in terms of structure and function. "
ahhhh now, naughty naughty. you didn't do what i asked you to.
there are some VERY significant differences, that you shouldn't blind yourself to.
did you need me to point them out for you? or would you prefer to continue in ignorance? perhaps ignorance is bliss for you?

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
"Can't believe what? "
exactly. you really have no idea what you actually believe in.
Your "faith" is that of Thomas. worse; not only must you be shown the wound, but even then you doubt it was made by a spear.
I feel sorry for you, if you pretend to live a life of faith, but refuse to acknowledge that faith is not predicated by material evidence.
Where did you come to the conclusion that god is aking you to justify your faith by false representation?
You're living a lie, pal.

Sir_Toejam · 4 May 2005
"...or are you letting your brain do your thinking for you?"
gotta admit, I don't think he actually is.
;)

Stuart Weinstein · 4 May 2005
Ed writes:
"Does this mean, Salvador, that your team will now try to cut more research funds at NASA?
Where will you guys stop in your drive to censor science?"
Well, just wait until the findings on Titan filter down to Salvadore.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7308
How about Titan's experiment Sal?

Alex Merz · 5 May 2005
These experiments done in nice chemically purified environments where desctructive cross reactions (such a the likely alkaline PH of the water in the early earth) are not present.
Yes, that's right, folks. Cordova assumes that the pH and other chemical conditions on the early earth were homogenous. It never seems to have occurred to him that, much like today's earth, the early earth may have been a rather chemically diverse place. Instead he sees it as a small, well-stirred reaction vessel. Of course, part of the problem is that he's a YEC and doesn't believe this at all; it's pure rhetorical fiction on his part. (That's a nice way of saying it's an ideologically-motivated lie, for any of you lurkers who have trouble with subtlety.)

SteveF · 5 May 2005
As I previously mentioned, what you say Alex is similar to when Cordova talks about the Cambrian explosion being a problem for evolution. As (for the vast majority of YECs) the Cambrian explosion is purely the product of a flood and nothing to do with the development of life's diversity, I do wonder why YEC IDists even bother discussing it.
This is why its also rather disingenuous for the ID big tent to claim that the age of the earth doesn't matter. It matters because it determines what certain events actually are, such as the cambrian explosion and other major radiations (products of hydrologic action or significant and 'real' changes over time. Only IDists like Behe can actually talk honestly about the Cambrian explosion, from the others its mere spin and rhetoric.

terp · 5 May 2005
The sad thing is that we people that accept mondern science and evolution are in the minority. the poll i saw today was something like 24% of american accept evolution and 48% believe in creationism. the whole thing kind of scares me. the majority of people want to topple arab religious states, but they want to create on here.

Sir_Toejam · 6 May 2005
bingo.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 6 May 2005

the majority of people want to topple arab religious states, but they want to create on here.

bingo.
Well, it's not a theocracy that Americans object to --- it's just that the Muslim kooks have the wrong "theo".

David Wilson · 8 May 2005
In comment 28083
Let's make one point clear: peppered moths do rest on tree trunks, and the effect of cryptic coloration against tree bark is the same on trunks (where they rest occasionally - 25% of the time or so, according to Majerus and others) or branches and branch/trunk junctions (where they rest more often).
— Andrea Bottaro
I don't believe there is any evidence available to justify the statement that peppered moths rest on tree trunks "25% of the time or so". Nor do I believe that any active researchers on the peppered moth, including Majerus himself, would endorse it. The evidence that has been cited to support the statement was first published by Howlett and Majerus in 1987 (Ref. 1), and updated by Majerus in his book Melanism in 1998 (p.123), and then again in his 2004 Darwin day address to the British Humanist association (powerpoint slide 42). But in the first of the references cited above, Howlett and Majerus note that there is almost certainly a very strong observer-induced bias in the data. When gathering it they searched tree trunks much more often than other surfaces, and they would have completely missed any potential resting sites high up in the canopy that were not conveniently observable from the ground. While they do draw some conclusions from their data about the moth's preferred resting sites (which I will get to below), they also conclude that:
The observer bias makes an appraisal of the relative importance of these sites impossible.
In other words, Howlett and Majerus consider that drawing even rough quantitave conclusions about the moth's normal resting sites from their data is not justified. I have never seen Majerus give any quantitative estimate of the proportion of peppered moths that he believes rest on any particular parts of trees. From what I have read of his writings, however, I suspect he would consider that they probably rest quite a bit less than 25% of the time on what he commonly refers to as "trunks". I have even seen a couple of statements of his which, if given a strict literal interpretation and taken out of context, could be reasonably construed as saying that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks. (Don't bother asking for a citation, since I am not prepared to give one. Potential quote-miners who wish to find the statements will have to trawl through Majerus's writings to do so.) Nevertheless, I also suspect that when Majerus refers to "trunks" in such statements as, for example, "B. betularia rarely rest by day on tree trunks" (from Ref 2, p.155), he is probably referring only to the first two categories into which he classifies the moths' resting sites when presenting his data. Here is the data from slide 42 of his Darwin day presentation where he gives the number of moths he had observed resting naturally on various parts of trees:
Exposed trunk: 7 Unexposed trunk: 7 Trunk/branch joint: 23 Branches: 22
The figure of approximately 25% supposedly resting on "trunks" comes from combining the first two categories in these data to give a total of 14 out of 59 that were apparently found there. However, when describing the initial set of data they collected, Howlett and Majerus say:
Of the 15 moths found [up to that time] near trunk branch joints, 12 were directly below the branch and three roughly on a level with it. In all cases they were within 8 cm of the join.
In other words, of the 23 moths scored in the table above as having rested near trunk-branch joints, at least 12, and probably more, were actually observed on the trunks below the joint. Thus, the proportion of moths observed resting on trunks was in fact closer to 45% than to 25%. The concusions that Howlett and Majerus drew were:
... that B. betularia habitually utilizes three main resting situations: (a) tree trunks within a very short distance of a branch/trunk join, and always below so that the moth is in shadow; (b) on branches, and again probably on the underside; (c) on foliate twigs. The observer bias makes an appraisal of the relative importance of these sites impossible.
Thus, while these data cannot be used to justify the conclusion that peppered moths rest on tree trunks "25% of the time or so", they certainly show that the moths do in fact rest there, and that they probably do so some quite significant proportion of the time if the parts of the trunk just below trunk-branch joints are included.
1. Rory J. Howlett & Michael E.N. Majerus, The understanding of industrial melanism in the Peppered moth (Biston betularia) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), Biol J. Linn. Soc., 30 (1987), 31-44.
2. Majerus, M.E.N., Brunton, C.F.A. & Stalker, J., A bird's eye view of the peppered moth, J. Evol. Biol., 13 (2000), 155-159.

Salvador T. Cordova · 12 May 2005
Yes, that's right, folks. Cordova assumes that the pH and other chemical conditions on the early earth were homogenous. It never seems to have occurred to him that, much like today's earth, the early earth may have been a rather chemically diverse place. Instead he sees it as a small, well-stirred reaction vessel. Of course, part of the problem is that he's a YEC and doesn't believe this at all; it's pure rhetorical fiction on his part. (That's a nice way of saying it's an ideologically-motivated lie, for any of you lurkers who have trouble with subtlety.)
I assume no such thing, but the problem is all the origin of life scenarios require vast pools of soup since the improbability of life is so great, supposedly one needs a vast pool to help overcome the odds. Small isolated soups are inssufficient. A chemically diverse place? In effect saying most of the Earth is inhosbitable to abiogenesis, like it is today. Good proof against abiogenesis. Great to see how you guys just self destruct your arguments.

Russell · 12 May 2005
...the problem is all the origin of life scenarios require vast pools of soup since the improbability of life is so great, supposedly one needs a vast pool to help overcome the odds. Small isolated soups are inssufficient.
— Cordova
Please show your math.

Salvador T. Cordova · 12 May 2005
Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
It shows that when an environmental change reverts back to a previous state, the population reverts back to a previous state. Dembski's displacement theorem shows how outrageous it is to believe there can even be selective forces in nature to create the degree of complexity we see. It's circular reasoning to claim that the selective forces exited in the past to create the complexity of life, and the comlexity life is evidence the selective forces existed. The finch beak actually is wonderful example that natural selection has limits to what it can accomplish. The beak lengths won't grow to infinity if we starve the finches will it? One could argue that the finch beak examples show that natural selection has limits. It's would be more academically honest to say: 1. We don't really know if Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the complexity life given the fact we have little clue what the limits of natural selection really are (unless one accepts Dembki's theorem, and it becomes apparent, Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous claim) 2. One actually measures natural selection in the wild. It is apparent, that the question is open, as evidenced by Berlinski's article: The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild Some counter claims agains Berlinky's interpretation have been offered by PZ and Glen Davidson. I'm not so sure, however, Berlinisky has been refuted. The question is open, and Dembksi's theorem argues against such pressures even existing over the long term toward adding integrated complexity. Even if there is strong correlation between natural seleciton and biology, one still needs to correlate complexity with natural selection. Something that has never been done convincingly, and actually, in my view something that has been falsified. Reductive evolution and extinction are the rule, not the execption. Therefore long term complexity increase is doubt. Finch beaks do little to make the case for large scale information increase.

Russell · 12 May 2005
It shows that when an environmental change reverts back to a previous state, the population reverts back to a previous state.
— Cordova
Yeah. It shows that can happen (surprise, surprise!). What does it tell us about when the environment doesn't revert back to what it was? Or about when an organism migrates into a different environment?
The finch beak actually is wonderful example that natural selection has limits to what it can accomplish. The beak lengths won't grow to infinity if we starve the finches will it?
Wow! what a powerful insight! Without the IDers to correct our misconceptions, "Darwinists" had always assumed that they would grow to infinity!
One could argue that the finch beak examples show that natural selection has limits.
Whoa! Another paradigm shift! I suppose diehard "Darwinists" will counter with some nonsense about the selective disadvantages of having too large a beak.
...(unless one accepts Dembki's theorem, and it becomes apparent, Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous claim)

... one still needs to correlate complexity with natural selection. Something that has never been done convincingly, and actually, in my view something that has been falsified.
Really? Where? How do you explain the generation of Spiegelman's "monster" RNA's we discussed earlier?

jeebus · 12 May 2005
"Those who have eyes, let them see."
What about the blind cave fish of the genus Astyanax?
http://pharyngula.org/images/astyanax.jpg
Salvador T. Cordova argues from incredulity:
"Small isolated soups are insufficient."
So, are you conceding that slightly larger soups would have been sufficient? Regardless, I think it would be pretty difficult to accurately measure primordial soup size... unless of course we can find some soup fossils.
Also SCT:
"...A chemically diverse place? In effect saying most of the Earth is inhospitable to abiogenesis, like it is today. Good proof against abiogenesis..."
Now children, what have we learned today? That's right! We've learned that if something is just too difficult to imagine - for you personally, not for the experts who actually know anything about the subject at hand - then it absolutely could not have happened!
Oh sh*t, did I just say that? I'm sorry, children. Do not apply anything I just said to what we've been learning here in Sunday School...
...Oh, wait. Did I just say "sh*t?" Disregard that, as well, children.

Russell · 12 May 2005
. . . (unless one accepts Dembki's theorem, and it becomes apparent, Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous claim)
There was supposed to be a [guffaw] after that Cordova quote, but it got lost in a formatting glitch. Reason being, of course: name one real biologist who does accept Dembski's theorem. [ crickets chirping ]

alienward · 12 May 2005
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
It shows that when an environmental change reverts back to a previous state, the population reverts back to a previous state. Dembski's displacement theorem shows how outrageous it is to believe there can even be selective forces in nature to create the degree of complexity we see. It's circular reasoning to claim that the selective forces exited in the past to create the complexity of life, and the comlexity life is evidence the selective forces existed.
Do you think that maybe a shorter beak could be more advantageous in the previous state? Is it circular reasoning to say the designers keep having to increase the complexity of life as they are continuously improving the ability of predators to capture prey and prey to escape predators?
The finch beak actually is wonderful example that natural selection has limits to what it can accomplish. The beak lengths won't grow to infinity if we starve the finches will it? One could argue that the finch beak examples show that natural selection has limits. It's would be more academically honest to say:
Do you think if finch beaks got to about 10 feet long the finches might have a little trouble flying so maybe natural selection would limit the number of finches with 10 foot beaks in a population?
1. We don't really know if Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the complexity life given the fact we have little clue what the limits of natural selection really are (unless one accepts Dembki's theorem, and it becomes apparent, Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous claim)
You're deliberately misrepresenting evolution here (dude, you can get away with this in your fundie club, but it doesn't work in a place like this), as well as putting one crackpot on a pedestal while saying the thousands of scientists who have researched natural selection make ridiculous claims. We know plenty about the limits of natural selection as demonstrated above.
2. One actually measures natural selection in the wild. It is apparent, that the question is open, as evidenced by Berlinski's article: The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild Some counter claims agains Berlinky's interpretation have been offered by PZ and Glen Davidson. I'm not so sure, however, Berlinisky has been refuted. The question is open, and Dembksi's theorem argues against such pressures even existing over the long term toward adding integrated complexity. Even if there is strong correlation between natural seleciton and biology, one still needs to correlate complexity with natural selection. Something that has never been done convincingly, and actually, in my view something that has been falsified. Reductive evolution and extinction are the rule, not the execption. Therefore long term complexity increase is doubt. Finch beaks do little to make the case for large scale information increase.
Does Dembski's theorem and Berlinski's interpretation say that even if the beaks got to 10 feet long, the wingspan got to 40 feet, and other parts got huge there wouldn't be large scale information increase because it would still be a finch?

Russell · 12 May 2005
Reason being, of course: name one real biologist who does accept Dembski's theorem. [ crickets chirping ]
OK. Perhaps I'm setting the bar too high. Name one serious thinker in any field who accepts Dembski's theorem.

Sir_Toejam · 12 May 2005
well, define "serious thinker".
there are apparently quite a few who believe in ID. not that they can justify their views scientifically, but they do exist.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 12 May 2005
It shows that when an environmental change reverts back to a previous state, the population reverts back to a previous state.
How dreadful. What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is? How, again, did you say t could be tested using the scientific method? Oh, that's right --- you DIDN'T say, did you . . . . . . Hmmmm . . . . . Sal, I can think of only threee possible reasons for your continuing refusal to answer my simple quesiton. They are: (1) there is no scientific theory of ID, and those who claim there is, are just lying to us. (2) there *is* a scientific theory of ID, but you are too dumb to know what it is, or (3) there *is* a scientific theory of ID, and you *do* know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason, you don't want anyone *else* to know what it is. If you won't answer my simple question, Sal, would you at least tell me *why* you won't answer it? Is it reason number one, number two, or number three? My money, of course, is on number one. . . . .

Russell · 12 May 2005
name one real biologist who does accept Dembski's theorem. [ crickets chirping ] OK. Perhaps I'm setting the bar too high. Name one serious thinker in any field who accepts Dembski's theorem.
— I
To which Sir ToeJam responded:
well, define "serious thinker". there are apparently quite a few who believe in ID. not that they can justify their views scientifically, but they do exist.
I guess that's part of "lowering the bar". I'm curious to hear Sal's definition of "serious thinker". But what I'm looking for is a respectable academic, writing in a professional peer-reviewed journal. Someone in a position to actually judge Dembski's "theorem" - like, say, David Wolpert. Someone, in other words, who is not just waving ID pom-poms.