Entomologists unite behind evolutionary theory

"My heart soars like an eagle" (Chief Dan George)

I am an entomologist. (Ph.D. from a reputable institution.)

Entomology without evolution is just stamp-collecting! (The same can be said about all biological sciences.)

Now let's hear from the Mammalogists, Herpetologists, Ichthyologists, Parasitologists, Ecologists, Agronomists, Physiologists, Anthropologists, Phytologists, Mycologists, Botanists, Algologists, Bacteriologists... And the bird guys.
(Spelukers optional.) And the Engineers can go to Heol.

Unfortunately, such statements of solidarity will have NO EFFECT on the ID camp. I can hear them now: "Oh, so STRIDENT! They must be feeling threatened! What are they afraid of?"

Now let's hear from the Mammalogists, Herpetologists, Ichthyologists, Parasitologists, Ecologists, Agronomists, Physiologists, Anthropologists, Phytologists, Mycologists, Botanists, Algologists, Bacteriologists... And the bird guys. (Spelukers optional.) And the Engineers can go to Heol.

— djlactin

tijs: re: Heol: read the "Dune" prequels... (I believe Heol is the Muslim equivalent). (and "Bird guys" = joke)
(but the Speluker thng was truly my errot;)

Nice to meet you, djlactin! I'm a postdoc in a lab specializing in insect behavioral and evolutionary ecology. When I saw this thread, the first thing I thought was, "Hurray for our side!"

Strident? Why not? Some things are just worth stridulating about. :-)

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory. Co-evolution of a pair of corresponding features in two co-dependent organisms is virtually impossible where the mutations required in both organisms would be detrimental when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent. Even when a required mutation is not detrimental when the corresponding feature is absent, this mutation would offer no immediate evolutionary advantage unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is pre-existent. This situation contrasts with adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer an immediate advantage to organisms that adapt to them. Also, unlike the case with irreducible complexity, the arguments against co-evolution cannot be explained away by "exaptation," the idea that the parts of an irreducible system existed before the system was created and had different functions than they have in the system.

The following articles show extreme examples of mutual specialization in the insect pollination of plants (thanks, PvM -- you provided the first two of these articles) --

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/coevolution.htm , a general article about insect pollination, says -- "The reward offered is not always food. There is a tropical orchid with flowers that look and smell like females of a certain species of wasp. Males of this species emerge a week before the females. A male who smells a flower of this orchid, think it's a female wasp, gets closer and the flower looks like a female, lands on it and it feels like a female, tries to copulate, gives up in frustration, and goes on to the next thing that smells like a female, and ends up transferring pollen."

Here is an article about long-nosed insects and deep flowers --
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0305/0305_feature.html

A particularly interesting form of pollination is called "buzz pollination," which is used by about 8 percent of the world's species of flowering plants --
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/ic/buzzpol/buzzpol.html

The entomologists' usual doomsday predictions that teaching criticism of evolution theory would destroy biology and the USA's technological competitiveness are unfounded. Biologists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory. Co-evolution of a pair of corresponding features in two co-dependent organisms is virtually impossible where the mutations required in both organisms would be detrimental when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent.

Even when a required mutation is not detrimental when the corresponding feature is absent, this mutation would offer no immediate evolutionary advantage unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is pre-existent. This situation contrasts with adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer an immediate advantage to organisms that adapt to them. Also, unlike the case with irreducible complexity, the arguments against co-evolution cannot be explained away by "exaptation," the idea that the parts of an irreducible system existed before the system was created and had different functions than they have in the system.

Biologists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory.

I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.'s comment. It's transparently stupid and not worthy of response. The fact that Larry keeps repeating the same errors and misconceptions even after having been corrected innumerable times indicates that he's not interested in learning anything. Don't participate in his thread-killing fantasies.

I am glad to see that those who study ents are finally taking a stand against magic and pseudoscience.

Strident? Why not? Some things are just worth stridulating about.

Andy, normally I don't address you at all but this time you did it. I will have to flog myself later.

Are you telling entimologists facts about entimology? Can you tell me why the heck Sebastes pinniger lives as long as it does? Can you tell me what the hell it is?
Sheesh.

Your education ministry would look like Mao's "Cultural Revolution."

God I spelt Entomology wrong. My Mom would spank me.

I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.'s comment.

in contrast, intelligent design---with its central tenet of irreducible complexity (i.e., aspects of living systems are too complex to ascribe to biological processes and therefore must have been designed by some intelligent force)---is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, intelligent design has no utility in entomology and --- for the same reason --- has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction.

in contrast, the String Theory Landscape---with its central tenet of a multiverse (i.e., that our universe only appears fine-tuned only because it is one of 10^500 possible universes) is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, the String Theory Landscape has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction.

Mr. Heddle, I doubt they would agree with that last statement about string theory - mostly because it's not true.

Various flavors of string theory are, at least in 'theory' testable. They require energy levels greater than any current accelerator, but there are aspects which can be considered.

And nobody is teaching 'string theory' to high school students in lieu of an alterative, tested, provable theory.

Really, if you're going to create strawmen, create good ones.

Rilke's Granddaughter ,

You'll note carefully that I said "String Theory Landscape" not generic String Theory--and it's chief proponent (Susskind) admits it does not conform to what we normally call science--and has suggested that just because it isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it isn't right. This is no straw man, but a major controversy in the High Energy Physics world.

And also, you will please note, the entomologists did not say "high school", but at any level of instruction.

Straw man? Pot-kettle-black.

Will you guys ever quit messing with String theory? Those who have thought of and endorse it have tried to construct the very thing IDiots hate the very mention of: A mechanism, consistent in paper and potentially observable, with which one can be led to a Unified Field Theory, an actual controversy in Physics, not made-up mumbo jumbo disputes.
Even so, to be accepted as a debatable alternative (even as an outsider), they had to give battles in the scientific arena and devise experiments that might provide some data that would support their theory. They did not try to force their way into high schools like the petty ID cowards. That's why, however unconventional in their theories, they're still scientists and not quacks.
The ID equivalent would be "ooh ooh I know, you can't unite electromagnetism and gravity because they're Irreducibly Separate; you see, some extra-universal Designer made the universe in a test tube, and added two indredients in the mix... and the children have a right to know"!

(Oh great, now I'm giving them ideas.)

You'll note carefully that I said "String Theory Landscape" not generic String Theory---and it's chief proponent (Susskind) admits it does not conform to what we normally call science---and has suggested that just because it isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it isn't right.

— David Heddle

This is no straw man, but a major controversy in the High Energy Physics world.

Twenty years ago, people were dismissing inflationary cosmology as nothing better than metaphysical speculation, impossible even in principle to test and verify, but the intervening years have revealed this negative judgment was premature: actual tests and verifications have been made.

Unlike ID in any of its forms, both inflation and the landscape have involved serious research done by real scientists aiming for ultimate experimental vindication.

Comment #81983 Posted by Caledonian on February 24, 2006 08:59 AM It is alanic that you'd misuse the word 'ironic' in a statement which is as completely wrong as it is possible to be.

Plants produce pollen. Insects first act as parasites, consuming the pollen, then symbiotes, helping to spread pollen from one plant to another. Plants alter their reproductive organs in order to best attract and support the insects, then produce nectar. The more plants utilize this strategy, and the more insects act to pollinate such plants, the easier it is for other plants insects to form similar relationships.

Comment #81981 Posted by PvM on February 24, 2006 08:56 AM Heck. Darwin even predicted the existence of a particular moth based on the existence of a particular flower. What has Intelligent Design 'predicted' lately? Ever?

Heddle #82060

"However, when you get into the nitty-gritty details, when you try to visualize evolution actually taking place, that is when big problems arise."

Only for small minds with limited imaginations.

Well, Andy H, I have to admit that Darwin's prediction was indeed so vague and lacking in details, that it pales compared to some of ID's predictions- like for instace the one DaveScott gave: The revolutionary prediction that "You can cultivate bacteria forever in the laboratory and never get a nucleus".

MUAHAHAHAHAHA

OOPS, sorry Heddle, that was Andy H/Felafalman with the limited imagination.

Even so, to be accepted as a debatable alternative (even as an outsider), they had to give battles in the scientific arena and devise experiments that might provide some data that would support their theory.

Larry, your final paragraph is incorrect. I'm heading off to do some banking. You have a couple of hours to find and make the correction, otherwise I get to embarrass you yet again by pointing out your (lies/lack of scholarship).

Susskind, too, finds it "deeply, deeply troubling" that there's no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science," he says.

David,
Way to completely ignore the point of my post- but that was expected I guess. Anyway, I'll start form where you did.

I was of course refering to String Theory in general, and the tests designed to provide some comfirmation for it in the subatomic level. ST Landscape is not an autonomous theory, but a string theory prediction to explain the expansion of the universe the way it's observed. To obtain any kind of evidence for that, you can't simply conduct an experiment that will go "Ding! String Landscape"- and the same goes for the basic inflation model. All you can do is create consistent theoretical models that concede or derive from your theory, define any observable data those models may have when applied to the universe, and then look for matching observations.

And, guess what? That's what they do. That brings us to the point of my previous post: String theorists try to provide paradigms and mechanisms of how their theory works and ways to verify it. They may fail eventually (I'm not as supportive of their theory as you might think), but the point is that they try..
And that's what makes them scientists.

Unlike Behe, who in their place would say something like "The Cosmological Constant is the way it is because someone made it that way- come on, it's obvious! No, I dunno who or how! Don't judge me! Oh whatever, you're obviously a hardcore atheist- lemme talk to your kids!"

Spot the difference?

Oh, and, not a germ of Idea? Thank gawd for that: I wouldn't want to start a new ID trend. Although IDers have been known to produce "theories" and "arguments" out of virtually nothing- quantum fluctuations of the void in their mind, perhaps?

Comment #82056 Posted by William E Emba on February 24, 2006 03:09 PM Unlike ID in any of its forms, both inflation [inflationary cosmology] and the landscape [String Theory Landscape] have involved serious research done by real scientists aiming for ultimate experimental vindication.

Comment #82061 Posted by Marine Geologist on February 24, 2006 03:29 PM "However, when you get into the nitty-gritty details, when you try to visualize evolution actually taking place, that is when big problems arise." Only for small minds with limited imaginations.

Comment #82034 Posted by CJ O'Brien on February 24, 2006 01:12 PM "I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.'s comment." I couldn't even read past the first sentence.

Hey larry!

what happened to the discussion we were having about the value of Wiki in your "investigations"?

You bailed out and missed the big, juicy morsel I left there for you.

oh, and why are you posting as Andy H.?

BWE,

" Are you telling entimologists facts about entimology? Can you tell me why the heck Sebastes pinniger lives as long as it does?"

What the heck does Sebastes pinniger have to do with entomology?

Nothing. I just want to know. So I thought I'd go to Andy who seems able to answer questions better than professionals. What's the difference between entiomology and Icthyology? I figured if he could do it for one he must be able to do it for others. Rather than go to an expert, oh, never mind. Anyway I've been wondering.

To obtain any kind of evidence for that, you can't simply conduct an experiment that will go "Ding! String Landscape"- and the same goes for the basic inflation model. All you can do is create consistent theoretical models that concede or derive from your theory, define any observable data those models may have when applied to the universe, and then look for matching observations. And, guess what? That's what they do.

I'll tell you: it is no different.

Susskind, too, finds it "deeply, deeply troubling" that there's no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science," he says. That's the one I intended when I wrote you would roast Behe if he said it.

How is that any different from ID saying, just because it can't be verified doesn't mean it isn't right? I'll tell you: it is no different.

Comment #81981 Posted by PvM on February 24, 2006 08:56 AM Look Andy, your comments about co-evolution are as unfounded as your comments were about evolution of sex. Remember that you considered the latter one to be a good example against evolution? A quick survey of recent scientific articles and voila, another argument was dropped.

fa fa fa fooie.....hey hey hey heddle.......I can imagine a frog that sings like a bird....and as I am saved I can hear the blessed tones....this is creation science / id in action....

let's read an ancient text to understand dna and rocks...

...but I have no new thoughts on the subject

Biologists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

Actually, I like Larry's posts. It is a perfect exposition of someone who did learn enough of the science lingo-jingo to argue his foregone conclusion. He's better at it than I am and I went to school for 3 extra years and learned a bunch of this crap. Granted it's been 20 years roughly but damn, he uses terminology I would have to look up. Also his point always has the same problem, there is no theory of ID. It is a pretty good example for people who just drive-by. So, if you are going to debate Larry, go ahead and consider it a teachable moment. Evolution doesn't have to be right it just has to be accurate. Test test test. :) Anyway, who really gives a darn about evolution right ;~0 (is that a face of some kind?) Darn, can you tell I've been drinking?

50 points to whoever can guess what it is I've been drinking.

Hoo Ya!

Darn, can you tell I've been drinking?

I'll give you a hint, It's got the Letters W__D ___K_Y in the name. Ha ha. Shit.

Never spend time on the computer while drunk. Terrible things happen.

Be sure and write a few entries while hung over tomorrow. I'm curious to see how you evoke that particular state. Bet you're not so fond of Larry then!!!!

Pim:

can you get access to the full text of the article reported on here:

http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html

This is pretty interesting.

Pim can you get access to the full text of the article reported on here: http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html This is pretty interesting.

— TJ, esq

Sir Toe_jam beat you to it, TJ,esq.

Comment #82039 Posted by David Heddle on February 24, 2006 01:38 PM (e) Rilke's Granddaughter , You'll note carefully that I said "String Theory Landscape" not generic String Theory---and it's chief proponent (Susskind) admits it does not conform to what we normally call science---and has suggested that just because it isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it isn't right. This is no straw man, but a major controversy in the High Energy Physics world. And also, you will please note, the entomologists did not say "high school", but at any level of instruction. Straw man? Pot-kettle-black.

Actually, I like Larry's posts.

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed."

David: OK, let's take this from the top.
Like I previously said, ST landscape is not an autonomous theory. It's a cosmological model String Theory uses these days to explain the rate of expansion of the Universe. Now, like I said, there is no way to directly prove that with an experiment: After all, we are limited to the knowledge we can obtain from our universe. But it's not the cosmological model string theory predicts that has to be falsifiable: actually that doesn't even make sense. Such models must be theoretically sound, and be able to produce a theoretical universe that matches the qualities of our own in our observations and tests, without creating any paradox.
It's String Theory itself that has to be falsifiable: And I see you agree that it can, in fact, be falsified (or verified) using scientific methods. Now, if it is proven (personally I have doubts about that, but that's another story), then the theoretical model it predicts becomes the most probable option- unless, of course, another model is proposed that explains things better.
And that brings us to the point you keep avoiding: scientific methodology. String theory tries to produce models and mechanisms that actually explain the universe. ID produces NOTHING. It says NOTHING. String Theory supporters try to find ways to make predictions that can be verified and tests that can validate their theory- after all, isn't that what the supporter of any THEORY would try to accomplish? Well, ID supporters try NOTHING. They get really irritated if one even suggests that they should try and make some speculations on the mechanisms of "design", let alone try and do research to validate it once and for all (and lead to the greatest revolutionary breakthrough in Biology ever- duh). What is their ultimate scientific goal? to be taught in highschools.

Now, in all honesty: Who do you think is being consistent and sincere here?

Arden Chatfield
This needs to be said.
On your post on Lying Lawrence Fafarman the holocaust denier who seems to think that there is a difference between revisionism and denying ...what?.... oh.... 2 or 3 million people.
Should we call that the Adolf Eichman defense or the Pol Pot defense?....... how about the Mohammad Atah or even the Oklahoma defense ?
.
,
.
I Stand And Salute You Sir !
Jesus I hate psychopaths!!!

Larry,

You have convinced me. I now see the error of my ways. I just couldn't see before that coevolution, a powerful evidence for descent with modification, is actually evidence against descent with modification and blows the whole idea of evolution out of the water. It now makes sense to me that even though evolution is wrong that somehow scientists can use it to useful ends. I mean all kinds of theories that are wrong can still come up with predictive results and hold up to around 150 yrs of scientific scrutiny. I am relieved to know that I am an irreducibly complex biological system that was designed by a space alien from Neptar.

Sir Toe_jam beat you to it, TJ,esq.

Comment #82151 Posted by i like latin on February 25, 2006 12:46 PM

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed."

Oh I just love selective quotation..(does anyone find the lack or irony here surprising). How about another excerpts from the same article:

why are you posting as Andy H., Larry Fafarman?

However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator's tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin's prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis --- not the body --- of the insect.

For example, Darwin noted, the flower spur of the Malagasy orchid (Angraecum sesquipedale) contains a pool of nectar that is almost a foot inside the opening of the flower. (A flower spur is a hollow, hornlike extension of a flower that holds nectar in its base.)

In the early twentieth century it seemed that Darwin's prediction had been borne out. A giant hawk moth from Madagascar, Xanthopan morganii praedicta, was captured, with a proboscis that measured more than nine inches long. Although no one has actually seen the insect feeding on the flower, the discovery is still remarkable, and strongly suggestive of the coevolution of the orchid and moth.

As for what intelligent design and other criticisms of evolution theory are good for, the debate over these criticisms has improved our understanding of biology.

Larry Said,

That was not a "selective quotation" ! Your additional excerpt from the article has no effect on the above excerpt, and the above excerpt is directly contradicted by the pictures in the article --- see bottom of Comment #82060 .

Can't you fools see that the sagaciousness of Larry's point. The length of the proboscis on the Hawk Moth contradicts Darwin's prediction about the type of moth that would be able to cross-pollinate the Malagasy Orchid. This proves that Darwin was in fact wrong about evolution and natural selection. Everybody knows that if one assertion made by a scientist is even slightly incorrect, then everything they do is wrong and should be suspect. We must teach the controversy and expose the conspiracies of the scientific community to keep the truth of the intelligent space monkey designer out of our classrooms. After all it is better to know the answer to everything instead of limit ourselves to the novel but limited answers science provides. It had to be the intelligent designer that made the Hawk moth's proboscis 9 inches instead of a foot, and that darn space monkey designed everything else too, it's obvious. Hail Neptar.

Comment #82200 Posted by PvM on February 25, 2006 06:05 PM

However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator's tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin's prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis --- not the body --- of the insect.

Note that the prediction was for a particular flower

As for what intelligent design and other criticisms of evolution theory are good for, the debate over these criticisms has improved our understanding of biology.

and shown ID to be scientifically vacuous as well. Nice how ID activists seem to be backpedalling as to the scientific relevance of ID.

Comment #82201 Posted by J. Biggs on February 25, 2006 06:17 PM Can't you fools see that the sagaciousness of Larry's point. The length of the proboscis on the Hawk Moth contradicts Darwin's prediction about the type of moth that would be able to cross-pollinate the Malagasy Orchid. This proves that Darwin was in fact wrong about evolution and natural selection.

The article did not make that clear --- it looked like a very general prediction. And the prediction certainly does not apply to the meganosed fly, which was the main featured insect of the article.

I can't understand why Darwinist scientists are complaining about the criticism of Darwinism.

Think of all the wonderful opportunities that this criticism creates for research on evolutionary mechanisms in irreducible complexity, co-evolution, sexual reproduction, etc..

— Landarry H. Farfarfromsane

Posted by TJ, Esq. on February 25, 2006 09:08 PM

I can't understand why Darwinist scientists are complaining about the criticism of Darwinism.

they aren't. it's that simple.

Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on February 25, 2006 10:51 PM

Think of all the wonderful opportunities that this criticism creates for research on evolutionary mechanisms in irreducible complexity, co-evolution, sexual reproduction, etc..

Think of all the wasted effort in the here and now, because all of the refutations of IDiots' "criticism" are implicit in scientific work done over the last century and a half and should not have to be repeated.

They aren't ? Then why do we have so many scientists on Panda's Thumb ? Why did 700 "Steves" sign the pro-Darwinism letter ? Why is this criticism such a big thing on the AAAS website ? Etc., etc..

...now then, shall we explore your "darwinism" strawman further, super Larry? or would you prefer to let the matter drop...

'cause if you were really talking about debate within the scientific community about evolutionary theory, that's a whole different topic.

you'd actually have to exhibit some knowledge of the theory first, before you could possibly grasp what the current debates over mechanisms are.

or did you want to set up another strawman about how there exists "controversy" in the scientific community about the validity of the ToE itself?

will you ever get over yourself, there, super Larry?

Posted by Andy H. on February 26, 2006 01:40 AM (e) Posted by TJ, Esq. on February 25, 2006 09:08 PM I can't understand why Darwinist scientists are complaining about the criticism of Darwinism.

But then again, you know all that Larry.

Posted by TJ, Esq. on February 26, 2006 02:18 AM (e) why oh why does he keep changing his name all the time???

And what are these Landscape experiments? Please let me know---or at least let Susskind know. And Columbia prof (and non IDer) Peter Woit who dubs String Theory "Not Even Wrong" because it is unfalsifiable.

— David Heddle

Do you understand the magnitude of the Landscape concept? It means there is no fundamental theory, because the constants are essentially a random draw.

The glorious search for an explanation of the physical constants is a fool's errand; physics is not ultimately beautiful but rather hideous.

Landscape theory is not science in exactly the same way that ID is not science.

But, PT hypocrites deem it an "acceptable" form of non science, probably because it has no (obvious) religious overtones. Or because it is touted by "acceptable" academics so it is given, for the most part, a free pass.

How do you know nobody teaches the Landscape in a grad course? Are you sure?

Unlike ID in any of its forms, both inflation and the landscape have involved serious research done by real scientists aiming for ultimate experimental vindication.

Nobody is arguing whether serious research is being done, but if Landscape theory (not inflation) is science. Or is your new definition of science "that which people do serious research in?"

It's leading proponent admits it probably is not science by Popperian standards.

What experimental verification? It's only prediction is a nebulous "slight negative curvature" so it takes a 50/50 shot, given that we know the universe is nearly flat.

There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the Popperazzi.

— 'Lenny' Susskind

If Behe said that about IRC, PT would roast him over the coals.

IRC and ID, in contrast, are banging head on against one of the best known and best verified theories in all of science, and as such, they have to offer a reason to be even considered in the running. Proselytizing school boards doesn't count.

Actually, it's a very minor controversy.

More accurately, you don't actually "side" with Nobel Laureate David Gross. You cherry pick a line from him to your favor, and besmirch his genius along the way. As soon as any Nobel Laureate points out that ID is bunk, you whistle a different tune. Hypocrite.

So what is the big deal ? Darwin figured that unless the plant was self-pollinated, which is rare, it had to be pollinated either by the wind or by an animal. Since the pollen must have looked like it was carried by animals, he figured that there must be some kind of animal that was physically suited to pollinating that flower. So what was the big prediction ? Also, Darwinism was not even necessary for making that prediction. In fact, those articles I presented did not even have to describe insect pollination in terms of co-evolution --- they could have simply described the pollination strictly in terms of mutualism (co-dependence).... BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed." However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator's tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin's prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis --- not the body --- of the insect.

— Larry, 82060

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed."

— Larry, 82194

Oh I just love selective quotation..(does anyone find the lack or irony here surprising). How about another excerpts from the same article: "Those studies and others suggest that what Darwin predicted of the Malagasy orchid is a rather general phenomenon: hawk moths and long-nosed flies coevolved with their plant partners. As floral tubes became longer, so did the pollinators' proboscises, and those led, in turn, to even longer flowers. As the lengths of the flower tube and the insect proboscis converge, a remarkable degree of specialization develops. The plants come to rely for pollination on the few insect species that can reach their flowers' nectar supplies."

The most important trait in the pollination syndrome of the long-nosed fly (and indeed, in all pollination syndromes of long-nosed insects) is a deep, tubular flower or floral spur. One of us (Johnson) and Kim E. Steiner of the Compton Herbarium in Claremont, South Africa, studied the orchid Disa draconis, a southern African plant with a deep, tubular floral spur. The two investigators artificially shortened the spurs of some orchids in a habitat where the only pollinators present were long-nosed flies. The plants whose spurs remained long got more pollen, and were more likely to produce fruits, than the ones whose spurs were shortened. Yet short floral spurs are not necessarily a reproductive disadvantage. Shorter spurs would make it possible for a wider range of pollinators to access the nectar, if various potential pollinators are present. Instead, longer spurs only seem to be an advantage when long-tongued insects are the sole pollinators. Johnson and Steiner found that differences in spur length among populations cannot be blamed on differences in moisture or temperature, thus reinforcing their conclusion that spur length was an adaptation to the local distributions of long-tongued flies. Not only does spur length correlate statistically with pollinator traits, but a direct causal connection can be demonstrated. Johnson and Ronny Alexandersson, a botanist at Uppsala University in Sweden, studied South African Gladiolus flowers pollinated by long-tongued hawk moths. When the hawk moth proboscises were long compared to the length of the flower tube, the hawk moths did not efficiently pick up pollen, and the flowers did not reproduce well. When the hawk moth proboscises were relatively short, pollen was more readily transferred, and the plants were more likely to be fertilized and bear fruit. Thus the length of the pollinator's proboscis exerts a strong pressure on the reproductive success of the flowers.

The proboscis lengths of flies varied significantly between sites (F = 44.59, P < 0.00001; Fig. 9). The average functional proboscis lengths of the flies were similar to or slightly shorter than the corolla tube of Z. microsiphon at all of the five sites (Fig. 9). At one site (Bushmansnek), some individuals of P. ganglbaueri had much longer proboscides than the flower corolla lengths while others were closely matched, suggesting a bimodal distribution of proboscis lengths (both morphs were seen foraging on Z. microsiphon). The unidentified nemistrinid found pollinating Z. microsiphon at this site has a proboscis length closely matching that of the short-tongued P. ganglbaueri. Average flower depths of both plant species were significantly correlated with the average functional proboscis length of the flies captured at each site.

Note that the prediction was for a particular flower

— Larry, 82214

The article did not make that clear --- it looked like a very general prediction. And the prediction certainly does not apply to the meganosed fly, which was the main featured insect of the article. ... I was only pointing out that the statement that the depth of the flower must be equal to or greater than the proboscis length of the pollinator is wrong as a general statement, because the meganosed fly featured in the article is an obvious exception.

when an insect probes the flowers searching for nectar, its proboscis is involved by the glove-like viscidium and the pollinarium is therefore removed. To fix the pollinarium, pressure has to be laterally exerted against the viscidium.

When a Sphinx moth visits a flower of P. leucophaea, it inserts its proboscis into the nectar spur through an entrance placed strategically between the two pollinaria and their sticky viscidia. The short distance between the viscidia insures that the moth will touch one of them with its proboscis. The pollinarium is pulled from the flower as the moth retracts its proboscis. As the moth travels to the next flower, the caudicle or stalk on the pollinarium changes position by bending forward until the caudicle is almost parallel to the proboscis. In this position, the pollinarium will come in contact with the stigma of the next flower visited (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). In a caged situation, one short-tongued moth came away from P. praeclara with a pollinariwn on its eye. To pollinate P. praeclara, a moth must have eyes placed at the precise distance on its head to come in contact with the wider spaced viscidia. The placement of the proboscis into the nectar spur would not result in contact with the widely spaced viscidia. The caudicle on P. praeclara rotates to the right or left, assuming a central position on the moth's head. The specialized placement of pollinaria on the moths provides a mechanical barrier to hybridization between the two species. The laterally placed pollinarium of P. praeclara won't reach the recessed stigma of P. leucophaea and the forward pointing pollinarium of P. leucophaea will not contact the stigma of P. praeclara, positioned above the entrance to the nectar spur, which is where the moth will be thrusting it proboscis (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Long-tongued moths are nectar thieves on P. praeclara (Bowles pers. comm.). Their probosci never touch the widely spaced viscidia, but can still take nectar from the flowers. Moths with shorter tongues and wide-set eyes will effect pollination in P. praeclara (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Due to deposition of the pollinarium on the proboscis, P. leucophaea can adapt to a wider variety of pollinators than can P. praeclara. It may be that this adaptation enabled P. leucophaea to spread eastward, exploiting a diversity of moths in the various habitats encountered. P. praeclara may be restricted in the tallgrass region by its pollinator specificity (Sheviak and Bowles 1986).

So what is the big deal ? Darwin figured that unless the plant was self-pollinated, which is rare, it had to be pollinated either by the wind or by an animal. Since the pollen must have looked like it was carried by animals, he figured that there must be some kind of animal that was physically suited to pollinating that flower. So what was the big prediction ? Also, Darwinism was not even necessary for making that prediction. In fact, those articles I presented did not even have to describe insect pollination in terms of co-evolution --- they could have simply described the pollination strictly in terms of mutualism (co-dependence).... BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed." However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator's tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin's prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis --- not the body --- of the insect.

— Larry, 82060

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed."

— Larry, 82194

Oh I just love selective quotation..(does anyone find the lack or irony here surprising). How about another excerpts from the same article: "Those studies and others suggest that what Darwin predicted of the Malagasy orchid is a rather general phenomenon: hawk moths and long-nosed flies coevolved with their plant partners. As floral tubes became longer, so did the pollinators' proboscises, and those led, in turn, to even longer flowers. As the lengths of the flower tube and the insect proboscis converge, a remarkable degree of specialization develops. The plants come to rely for pollination on the few insect species that can reach their flowers' nectar supplies."

The most important trait in the pollination syndrome of the long-nosed fly (and indeed, in all pollination syndromes of long-nosed insects) is a deep, tubular flower or floral spur. One of us (Johnson) and Kim E. Steiner of the Compton Herbarium in Claremont, South Africa, studied the orchid Disa draconis, a southern African plant with a deep, tubular floral spur. The two investigators artificially shortened the spurs of some orchids in a habitat where the only pollinators present were long-nosed flies. The plants whose spurs remained long got more pollen, and were more likely to produce fruits, than the ones whose spurs were shortened. Yet short floral spurs are not necessarily a reproductive disadvantage. Shorter spurs would make it possible for a wider range of pollinators to access the nectar, if various potential pollinators are present. Instead, longer spurs only seem to be an advantage when long-tongued insects are the sole pollinators. Johnson and Steiner found that differences in spur length among populations cannot be blamed on differences in moisture or temperature, thus reinforcing their conclusion that spur length was an adaptation to the local distributions of long-tongued flies. Not only does spur length correlate statistically with pollinator traits, but a direct causal connection can be demonstrated. Johnson and Ronny Alexandersson, a botanist at Uppsala University in Sweden, studied South African Gladiolus flowers pollinated by long-tongued hawk moths. When the hawk moth proboscises were long compared to the length of the flower tube, the hawk moths did not efficiently pick up pollen, and the flowers did not reproduce well. When the hawk moth proboscises were relatively short, pollen was more readily transferred, and the plants were more likely to be fertilized and bear fruit. Thus the length of the pollinator's proboscis exerts a strong pressure on the reproductive success of the flowers.

The proboscis lengths of flies varied significantly between sites (F = 44.59, P < 0.00001; Fig. 9). The average functional proboscis lengths of the flies were similar to or slightly shorter than the corolla tube of Z. microsiphon at all of the five sites (Fig. 9). At one site (Bushmansnek), some individuals of P. ganglbaueri had much longer proboscides than the flower corolla lengths while others were closely matched, suggesting a bimodal distribution of proboscis lengths (both morphs were seen foraging on Z. microsiphon). The unidentified nemistrinid found pollinating Z. microsiphon at this site has a proboscis length closely matching that of the short-tongued P. ganglbaueri. Average flower depths of both plant species were significantly correlated with the average functional proboscis length of the flies captured at each site.

Note that the prediction was for a particular flower

— Larry, 82214

The article did not make that clear --- it looked like a very general prediction. And the prediction certainly does not apply to the meganosed fly, which was the main featured insect of the article. ... I was only pointing out that the statement that the depth of the flower must be equal to or greater than the proboscis length of the pollinator is wrong as a general statement, because the meganosed fly featured in the article is an obvious exception.

when an insect probes the flowers searching for nectar, its proboscis is involved by the glove-like viscidium and the pollinarium is therefore removed. To fix the pollinarium, pressure has to be laterally exerted against the viscidium.

When a Sphinx moth visits a flower of P. leucophaea, it inserts its proboscis into the nectar spur through an entrance placed strategically between the two pollinaria and their sticky viscidia. The short distance between the viscidia insures that the moth will touch one of them with its proboscis. The pollinarium is pulled from the flower as the moth retracts its proboscis. As the moth travels to the next flower, the caudicle or stalk on the pollinarium changes position by bending forward until the caudicle is almost parallel to the proboscis. In this position, the pollinarium will come in contact with the stigma of the next flower visited (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). In a caged situation, one short-tongued moth came away from P. praeclara with a pollinariwn on its eye. To pollinate P. praeclara, a moth must have eyes placed at the precise distance on its head to come in contact with the wider spaced viscidia. The placement of the proboscis into the nectar spur would not result in contact with the widely spaced viscidia. The caudicle on P. praeclara rotates to the right or left, assuming a central position on the moth's head. The specialized placement of pollinaria on the moths provides a mechanical barrier to hybridization between the two species. The laterally placed pollinarium of P. praeclara won't reach the recessed stigma of P. leucophaea and the forward pointing pollinarium of P. leucophaea will not contact the stigma of P. praeclara, positioned above the entrance to the nectar spur, which is where the moth will be thrusting it proboscis (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Long-tongued moths are nectar thieves on P. praeclara (Bowles pers. comm.). Their probosci never touch the widely spaced viscidia, but can still take nectar from the flowers. Moths with shorter tongues and wide-set eyes will effect pollination in P. praeclara (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Due to deposition of the pollinarium on the proboscis, P. leucophaea can adapt to a wider variety of pollinators than can P. praeclara. It may be that this adaptation enabled P. leucophaea to spread eastward, exploiting a diversity of moths in the various habitats encountered. P. praeclara may be restricted in the tallgrass region by its pollinator specificity (Sheviak and Bowles 1986).

So what is the big deal ? Darwin figured that unless the plant was self-pollinated, which is rare, it had to be pollinated either by the wind or by an animal. Since the pollen must have looked like it was carried by animals, he figured that there must be some kind of animal that was physically suited to pollinating that flower. So what was the big prediction ? Also, Darwinism was not even necessary for making that prediction. In fact, those articles I presented did not even have to describe insect pollination in terms of co-evolution --- they could have simply described the pollination strictly in terms of mutualism (co-dependence).... BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed." However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator's tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin's prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis --- not the body --- of the insect.

— Larry, 82060

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin's prediction was wrong. The article said, "Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed."

— Larry, 82194

Oh I just love selective quotation..(does anyone find the lack or irony here surprising). How about another excerpts from the same article: "Those studies and others suggest that what Darwin predicted of the Malagasy orchid is a rather general phenomenon: hawk moths and long-nosed flies coevolved with their plant partners. As floral tubes became longer, so did the pollinators' proboscises, and those led, in turn, to even longer flowers. As the lengths of the flower tube and the insect proboscis converge, a remarkable degree of specialization develops. The plants come to rely for pollination on the few insect species that can reach their flowers' nectar supplies."

The most important trait in the pollination syndrome of the long-nosed fly (and indeed, in all pollination syndromes of long-nosed insects) is a deep, tubular flower or floral spur. One of us (Johnson) and Kim E. Steiner of the Compton Herbarium in Claremont, South Africa, studied the orchid Disa draconis, a southern African plant with a deep, tubular floral spur. The two investigators artificially shortened the spurs of some orchids in a habitat where the only pollinators present were long-nosed flies. The plants whose spurs remained long got more pollen, and were more likely to produce fruits, than the ones whose spurs were shortened. Yet short floral spurs are not necessarily a reproductive disadvantage. Shorter spurs would make it possible for a wider range of pollinators to access the nectar, if various potential pollinators are present. Instead, longer spurs only seem to be an advantage when long-tongued insects are the sole pollinators. Johnson and Steiner found that differences in spur length among populations cannot be blamed on differences in moisture or temperature, thus reinforcing their conclusion that spur length was an adaptation to the local distributions of long-tongued flies. Not only does spur length correlate statistically with pollinator traits, but a direct causal connection can be demonstrated. Johnson and Ronny Alexandersson, a botanist at Uppsala University in Sweden, studied South African Gladiolus flowers pollinated by long-tongued hawk moths. When the hawk moth proboscises were long compared to the length of the flower tube, the hawk moths did not efficiently pick up pollen, and the flowers did not reproduce well. When the hawk moth proboscises were relatively short, pollen was more readily transferred, and the plants were more likely to be fertilized and bear fruit. Thus the length of the pollinator's proboscis exerts a strong pressure on the reproductive success of the flowers.

The proboscis lengths of flies varied significantly between sites (F = 44.59, P < 0.00001; Fig. 9). The average functional proboscis lengths of the flies were similar to or slightly shorter than the corolla tube of Z. microsiphon at all of the five sites (Fig. 9). At one site (Bushmansnek), some individuals of P. ganglbaueri had much longer proboscides than the flower corolla lengths while others were closely matched, suggesting a bimodal distribution of proboscis lengths (both morphs were seen foraging on Z. microsiphon). The unidentified nemistrinid found pollinating Z. microsiphon at this site has a proboscis length closely matching that of the short-tongued P. ganglbaueri. Average flower depths of both plant species were significantly correlated with the average functional proboscis length of the flies captured at each site.

Note that the prediction was for a particular flower

— Larry, 82214

The article did not make that clear --- it looked like a very general prediction. And the prediction certainly does not apply to the meganosed fly, which was the main featured insect of the article. ... I was only pointing out that the statement that the depth of the flower must be equal to or greater than the proboscis length of the pollinator is wrong as a general statement, because the meganosed fly featured in the article is an obvious exception.

when an insect probes the flowers searching for nectar, its proboscis is involved by the glove-like viscidium and the pollinarium is therefore removed. To fix the pollinarium, pressure has to be laterally exerted against the viscidium.

When a Sphinx moth visits a flower of P. leucophaea, it inserts its proboscis into the nectar spur through an entrance placed strategically between the two pollinaria and their sticky viscidia. The short distance between the viscidia insures that the moth will touch one of them with its proboscis. The pollinarium is pulled from the flower as the moth retracts its proboscis. As the moth travels to the next flower, the caudicle or stalk on the pollinarium changes position by bending forward until the caudicle is almost parallel to the proboscis. In this position, the pollinarium will come in contact with the stigma of the next flower visited (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). In a caged situation, one short-tongued moth came away from P. praeclara with a pollinariwn on its eye. To pollinate P. praeclara, a moth must have eyes placed at the precise distance on its head to come in contact with the wider spaced viscidia. The placement of the proboscis into the nectar spur would not result in contact with the widely spaced viscidia. The caudicle on P. praeclara rotates to the right or left, assuming a central position on the moth's head. The specialized placement of pollinaria on the moths provides a mechanical barrier to hybridization between the two species. The laterally placed pollinarium of P. praeclara won't reach the recessed stigma of P. leucophaea and the forward pointing pollinarium of P. leucophaea will not contact the stigma of P. praeclara, positioned above the entrance to the nectar spur, which is where the moth will be thrusting it proboscis (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Long-tongued moths are nectar thieves on P. praeclara (Bowles pers. comm.). Their probosci never touch the widely spaced viscidia, but can still take nectar from the flowers. Moths with shorter tongues and wide-set eyes will effect pollination in P. praeclara (Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Due to deposition of the pollinarium on the proboscis, P. leucophaea can adapt to a wider variety of pollinators than can P. praeclara. It may be that this adaptation enabled P. leucophaea to spread eastward, exploiting a diversity of moths in the various habitats encountered. P. praeclara may be restricted in the tallgrass region by its pollinator specificity (Sheviak and Bowles 1986).

OK, what actually observable experiments do you propose for testing such things as Darwinism ( the notion that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection), punctuated equilibrium, and exaptation, all of which are widely accepted in the scientific community ?

— Andy H

I can't understand why Darwinist scientists are complaining about the criticism of Darwinism.

— Andy

they aren't. it's that simple.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

OK, so we already know everything that we need to know about the evolutionary mechanisms in irreducible complexity, co-evolution, sexual reproduction, etc., and have no need for new research in these areas.

— Andy

The article did not make that clear --- it looked like a very general prediction. And the prediction certainly does not apply to the meganosed fly, which was the main featured insect of the article.

By no means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I said. I was only pointing out that the statement that the depth of the flower must be equal to or greater than the proboscis length of the pollinator is wrong as a general statement, because the meganosed fly featured in the article is an obvious exception.

Susskind, too, finds it "deeply, deeply troubling" that there's no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science," he says. Heddle: That's the one I intended when I wrote you would roast Behe if he said it.

Landscape theory is not science in exactly the same way that ID is not science. But, PT hypocrites deem it an "acceptable" form of non science, probably because it has no (obvious) religious overtones. Or because it is touted by "acceptable" academics so it is given, for the most part, a free pass.

— David H

Andy wrote

Comment #82275 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 26, 2006 12:32 PM I tried to post this a few minutes ago, but the nannyware caught it (I'm presuming too many links, but the message is totally useless as a diagnostic)

Upon examining all five illustrations, I don't see how you could possibly arrive at any conclusion of the relative lengths of the proboscis and floral tube in any of them. At least part of the proboscis is in the flower for all illustrations, and there is nothing to indicate how deep the proboscis is penetrating (or how far it has withdrawn, for that matter).

Now, yourself sir?

This post by Kevin is another one of his long dissertations that could have been greatly shortened and still gotten his points across.

I think that the limit is four URL links. One of my messages was blocked when it had five links but went through when it had four links. I don't know why there is a limit on the number of links --- I think maybe that PT is using standard software for blocking advertising spam, and a large number of links is supposed to create the suspicion that a message is advertising spam.

Also, Darwin said that for efficient pollination the insect's body must press against the flower and I did not see that in any of the illustrations.

Now that was quite interesting. As I noted, the remarks attributed to Darwin regarding the orchid and moth co-evolution were paraphrases - someone's description of what Darwin said. Since there was a certain amount of discussion over how general his description was supposed to be taken, I decided to look up what Darwin actually said. I got even more than I bargained for.

First off, it is quite clear that the prediction was intended to be specific to that flower. That does not prevent the concepts and methodologies from applying more generally, of course.

But what is really interesting is that Darwin, at least in the original paper, didn't exactly say what the paraphrase said. In fact, he predicted not that the pollinaria would be deposited on the body, but that it would be deposited on the proboscis, a short distance from the base. In fact, the manner in which it deposited the pollinaria is similar to what I had postulated near the end of my previous post. Bonus!

The text of this essay can be found here. The part on the Malagasy orchid Angraecum sesquipedale and predicted moth begins in the middle of page 197 and continues for a number of pages (these are very short pages). It describes the experiments he performed to determine how and where the pollinaria would attach. Enjoy!

Nope, ID is far more non-science than landscape theory could ever be. David's 'argument' is based on the flawed premise that falsifiability is the only relevant aspect to determine the relevance of a scientific theory.

— PvM

A classic example is Einstein's old quantum theory prediction of stimulated emission, back in the days when people were groping almost blindly for what was going on. Old quantum theory died in 1925, and soon new calculations verified Einstein's results, but it wasn't until around 1960 that the mases and the laser were developed and provided experimental proof of the concept.

Another example is Einstein's prediction of gravitational radiation. It wasn't until around 1960 that there was even theoretical consensus that the phenomenon was real, and the only confirmed experimental verification so far is indirect, from studying the Hulse-Talyor binary pulsar. Major efforts are underway now to directly detect it.

An atomic Bose-Einstein condensate was a purely theoretical concept, until finally identified in the last ten years.

The only reason these experiments were done, of course, was because the theory had only said such-and-such must be true for decades. But in Heddle's view, Einstein's work was as bogus as ID, simply because he can cut-and-paste a few words of similarity.

Heddle, you're just moronic.

David Heddle,

I would not pay much attention to the comments and insults directed your way by that character William Emba. After all he is the same fellow who, on another thread, apoke derogatorally of woman and gentiles and will soon get around to claiming that you have "a goyesher kup" (a gentile brain). He is also the author of the brilliant claim that the literal meaning of "my office is in the west wing of the building" is that "my office is in the western bird appendage of the building". By his lights it turns out that the great commentator Rashi in Hosea (6:2) "glosses" yohm there to mean "house"! What an ignoramas!

David, a poster on the "science needs God" thread named Jonboy has some questions that I thought you would be in a better position to respond to than myself. Perhaps you can look into it.

Tsk, Carol, lying for Landa again?
You completely misrepresent Mr. Emba's calm and rational responses to your ignorant rants.
Given that, why should we believe anything you say about Landa's silly little "book"?

All are encouraged to dig into the relevant threads if you think that there's even the tiniest shred of truth or accuracy to Carol's ravings.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out --- in the future I will use the preferred spelling so that people won't "bug" me about this.

I am glad to see that those who study ents are finally taking a stand against magic and pseudoscience.

Strident? Why not? Some things are just worth stridulating about.

I would not pay much attention to the comments and insults directed your way by that character William Emba.

— Carol Clouser, addressing David Heddle,

After all he is the same fellow who, on another thread, apoke derogatorally of woman and gentiles and will soon get around to claiming that you have "a goyesher kup" (a gentile brain).

He is also the author of the brilliant claim that the literal meaning of "my office is in the west wing of the building" is that "my office is in the western bird appendage of the building".

By his lights it turns out that the great commentator Rashi in Hosea (6:2) "glosses" yohm there to mean "house"!

What an ignoramas!

I mean, duh.

Many scientific organizations have spoken out strongly in favor of evolutionary theory and often also against the scientifically vacuous concept of Intelligent Design.

Comment #81975 Posted by Andy H. on February 24, 2006 08:16 AM It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory. Co-evolution of a pair of corresponding features in two co-dependent organisms is virtually impossible where the mutations required in both organisms would be detrimental when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent. Even when a required mutation is not detrimental when the corresponding feature is absent, this mutation would offer no immediate evolutionary advantage unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is pre-existent. This situation contrasts with adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer an immediate advantage to organisms that adapt to them. Also, unlike the case with irreducible complexity, the arguments against co-evolution cannot be explained away by "exaptation," the idea that the parts of an irreducible system existed before the system was created and had different functions than they have in the system.

Comment #82352 Posted by Andy H. on February 26, 2006 07:19 PM Anyway, it was not my intention to make a big deal about this --- it was not intended to be a criticism of Darwinism. Darwinists are unable to rebut my big arguments against Darwinism and therefore pound me into the ground on trivia.

Comment #82093 Posted by David Heddle on February 24, 2006 06:34 PM How is that any different from ID saying, just because it can't be verified doesn't mean it isn't right? I'll tell you: it is no different.

Comment #82660 Posted by William E Emba on February 28, 2006 08:37 AM I did not speak derogatorily of women or gentiles. I spoke derogatorily of you. You are, after all, seriously stupid and incredibly dishonest.

And your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why women shouldn't study Torah.

I really don't know enough biology to be sure but isn't this wrong because the process of evolution didn't involve a single breeding pair of moths and a single breeding pair of orchids followed in the next generation by another single breeding pair of moths and single breeding pair of orchids, etc. Isn't LaLaLarry implicitly (if not intentionally) setting up a strawman here. It involved a whole population of moths and orchids. Neither did it have to involve mutation. I am shorter than my father and my brother is taller than my father. That variation was not because of mutation. Variation is completely normal. The quantum of variation (for lack of a better word) doesn't have to deviate so far from the average that it kills immediately. Selection then simply has to favor a particular direction in variation in a positive feedback loop. And once that self-reinforcement has begun it is very hard to back out of it. Do I have this correct? Kevin Vicklund thanks for that last post. It was very instructive. Sincerely, Paul

Comment #83046 posted by Paul Flocken on March 1, 2006 10:42 PM I really don't know enough biology to be sure but isn't this wrong because the process of evolution didn't involve a single breeding pair of moths and a single breeding pair of orchids followed in the next generation by another single breeding pair of moths and single breeding pair of orchids, etc.

Isn't LaLaLarry implicitly (if not intentionally) setting up a strawman here.

Neither did it have to involve mutation. I am shorter than my father and my brother is taller than my father. That variation was not because of mutation.

Comment #83049 posted by Paul Flocken on March 1, 2006 10:56 PM

Comment #82352 Posted by Andy H. on February 26, 2006 07:19 PM Anyway, it was not my intention to make a big deal about this --- it was not intended to be a criticism of Darwinism. Darwinists are unable to rebut my big arguments against Darwinism and therefore pound me into the ground on trivia.

Well Larry, it looks like you were trying to make a big deal out of it. And as far as evolution is concerned it is the trivia and details that are important. They're called data, and they are, root and branch, what make the theory. As is the case for any theory.

PS -- Larry I may have missed you doing so but you haven't answered my request to define what the difference between macro- and micro-evolution is. I don't want to read what Wikipedia thinks. I read that years ago. I want to know what you think.

Ok, who want's to give Larry a lecture on quantitative genetics and genetic correlations.

This is getting really really old.

And your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why women shouldn't study Torah.

— Paul Flocken

You didn't specifically mention Carol.

This was a general insult, to be mild, at all women.

Maybe in a Hebrew context this is acceptable, but, as much as I detest Carol and appreciate all the posts you wrote explaining her subterfuge, in the context that I live in, it wasn't acceptable. I will guess that in any one else's context it wouldn't be either.

There's an elementary difference between use and mention, and to confuse the two, while not as ridiculous as Carol or Larry in reasoning, is still pretty lame.

I agree that she is incredibly dishonest, but her beliefs make her so; just see anything Flint has ever posted here to understand why.

Flint and others can offer conjectures, nothing better. I, for one, have no interest in such speculation. In general, I find it in bad taste.

As for seriously stupid, she is a pedigreed PhD in physics.

I respect this at least, especially as I was never able to finish college.

egarding co-evolution --- A single mutation that creates a co-dependent feature can immediately produce thousands of individuals in organisms that reproduce in large numbers, but the mutation will still be relatively isolated in location and time.

Unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is already locally common, this mutation would at best produce no evolutionary advantage in natural selection, and at worst could be deleterious.

The corresponding feature could be produced by a mutation in the other organism, but this mutation is not likely to occur at the same place and time but is likely to occur far away in place and/or time, so again there would be no mutual benefit. Co-evolution is thus radically different from adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer immediate advantages to organisms that adapt to them.

Also, as I have pointed out, "exaptation" ( the idea that irreducible systems are formed from parts that previously had different functions outside the system), which is used to explain away irreducible complexity, cannot explain away the problems with co-evolution.

I never set up strawman arguments --- why would I set myself up to be easily rebutted ?

I am not talking here about variations of an existing feature --- I am talking about the creation of whole new features. The creation of whole new features by mutation would have to sometimes occur in co-evolution.

it was not intended to be a criticism of Darwinism. Darwinists are unable to rebut my big arguments against Darwinism and therefore pound me into the ground on trivia.

William E Emba wrote: And your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why women shouldn't study Torah

William E Emba also wrote: It was a specific insult, aimed at Carol. I said absolutely nothing about all women as such

your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why you shouldn't study Torah

your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why people who live in New Jersey shouldn't study Torah

And your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why women shouldn't study Torah.

It was a specific insult, aimed at Carol. I said absolutely nothing about all women as such.

— ben

It's hard to imagine a coherent parsing of that original statement which doesn't strongly imply you hold the statement, "women shouldn't study Torah" to be a truthful one which Carol has provided evidence for.

If it was a specific insult, aimed at Carol, you could have just said "your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why you shouldn't study Torah"

The claim that it was specific to Carol doesn't make any more sense than saying this comment is aimed solely at Carol: "your drivel on Rashi has been a great demonstration of why people who live in New Jersey shouldn't study Torah."

What are we missing?

So you don't agree with a ban on women studying Torah?

So you don't agree with a ban on women studying Torah?

— ben

Comment #83176 Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 2, 2006 09:19 AM An utterly incoherent statement, demonstrating once again that Larry is ignorant both of science and of logic. In what fashion can a single mutation create 'thousands of individuals'? And how can we have thousands of individuals in organisms?

Unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is already locally common, this mutation would at best produce no evolutionary advantage in natural selection, and at worst could be deleterious.

Again, nonsensical bafflegab. Of course most of the time a single mutation isn't going to produce a co-evolution scenario.

The corresponding feature could be produced by a mutation in the other organism, but this mutation is not likely to occur at the same place and time but is likely to occur far away in place and/or time, so again there would be no mutual benefit. Co-evolution is thus radically different from adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer immediate advantages to organisms that adapt to them.

Mind-boggling stupid. A given feature in a local population is part of the environment in which the success of failure or variation is determined.

Also, as I have pointed out, "exaptation" ( the idea that irreducible systems are formed from parts that previously had different functions outside the system), which is used to explain away irreducible complexity, cannot explain away the problems with co-evolution.

Nobody ever said it did. This is yet another strawman.

I am not talking here about variations of an existing feature --- I am talking about the creation of whole new features. The creation of whole new features by mutation would have to sometimes occur in co-evolution.

Strawman. Yet another from Larry.

A queen bee, for example, lays thousands of eggs, so I presume that a mutation in a queen bee will affect thousands of offspring.

— Larry

Anyway, I was just stating that even when a single mutation can immediately appear in thousands of individuals, the mutation can still be relatively isolated in place and time, and hence the likelihood of a corresponding mutation occurring in a co-dependent organism at the same place and time is quite remote.

But of course co-evolution must be driven by single mutations --- these mutations are, after all, random mutations.

All I said was that when a co-dependent feature is created by a mutation in one of the two co-dependent organisms, the likelihood of the corresponding mutation occurring in the other organism at the same place and time is extremely remote.

Also, as I have pointed out, "exaptation" ( the idea that irreducible systems are formed from parts that previously had different functions outside the system), which is used to explain away irreducible complexity, cannot explain away the problems with co-evolution. (emphasis added)

— Larry

Nobody ever said it did. This is yet another strawman.

— RGD

I never said it did, either.

— Larry

I was just trying to say that the problems with co-evolution might not be as easy to explain away as irreducible complexity. I should have made that point clearer.

I am not talking here about variations of an existing feature --- I am talking about the creation of whole new features. The creation of whole new features by mutation would have to sometimes occur in co-evolution.

— Larry

Strawman. Yet another from Larry.

— RGD

No, I was just responding to the obviously false claim that co-evolution just consisted of variations of existing features.

— Larry

Posted by Andy H. on March 2, 2006 02:14 PM (e) ... I was just trying to say that the problems with co-evolution might not be as easy to explain away as irreducible complexity. I should have made that point clearer...

Could somebody just explain to Larry that, essentially, ALL evolution is co-evolution?

Remember, everybody: Arguing with an idiot is like wrestling a pig. You both get covered in dung, and the pig enjoys the activity.

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 2, 2006 02:48 PM

I was just trying to say that the problems with co-evolution might not be as easy to explain away as irreducible complexity. I should have made that point clearer...

Have you finally accepted that the IC challenge has been met?

Posted by CJ O'Brien on March 2, 2006 03:35 PM Could somebody just explain to Larry that, essentially, ALL evolution is co-evolution?

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 2, 2006 02:39 PM

A queen bee, for example, lays thousands of eggs, so I presume that a mutation in a queen bee will affect thousands of offspring.

In other words you made a stupid mistake with the English language, and your comment about a single mutation producing thousands of individuals meant nothing.

Anyway, I was just stating that even when a single mutation can immediately appear in thousands of individuals, the mutation can still be relatively isolated in place and time, and hence the likelihood of a corresponding mutation occurring in a co-dependent organism at the same place and time is quite remote.

Unsupported assertion. Tell me what the actual probabilities are? How do you know they are 'quite remote'?

But of course co-evolution must be driven by single mutations --- these mutations are, after all, random mutations.

Utterly false, of course. A mere strawman.

Look, Larry, I realize you're ignorant, but I'll try this one time to actually educate you. There is no "corresponding mutation" that needs to be present. The existence and morphology of other species is simply a factor of the environment in which a mutation or set of mutations occurs. In that environment, a variation may be of reproductive benefit because of that morphology. If, at some future point, a variation occurs in one of the species making up that environment that includes the first species, then a chain of 'mutual cooperation' may start.

I never said it did, either.

Then why did you say it?

I'm so proud of myself for once again resisting the temptation to say:

"Shut up, Larry."

Re "that, essentially, ALL evolution is co-evolution?"

All of it, rather than just a majority? Are there never cases of something adapting to an environmental condition?

Henry

Ben,

Don't allow Emba's utter lack of integrity to bamboozle you into thinking that he is anything other than an unrepentant bigot. There is NO BAN and THERE NEVER WAS a ban in traditional Judaism against women studying Torah. That notion is to be found, however, in the minds of bigots in tiny pockets of the fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community, who fancy their own prejudices as constituting faith sanctioned official policy, and Emba shares that notion because he thinks like those members of that community.

His unacceptable attitude toward women is matched only by his demonstrated and openly asserted derogatory opinion of the intelligence of gentiles. This too is a notion to be found in the same ultra-orthodox community.

Comment #83407 Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 09:11 PM Re "that, essentially, ALL evolution is co-evolution?" All of it, rather than just a majority? Are there never cases of something adapting to an environmental condition?

your drivel on civil rights has been a great demonstration of why black people shouldn't be allowed to vote

I now think

I think

As I have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, co-evolution raises questions about evolution that are at least as serious as the questions raised by irreducible complexity

Don't allow Emba's utter lack of integrity

— Carol `What an ignoramas!' Clouser, addressing ben,

to bamboozle you into thinking that he is anything other than an unrepentant bigot. There is NO BAN and THERE NEVER WAS a ban in traditional Judaism against women studying Torah.

That notion is to be found, however, in the minds of bigots in tiny pockets of the fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community, who fancy their own prejudices as constituting faith sanctioned official policy, and Emba shares that notion because he thinks like those members of that community.

As I have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, co-evolution raises questions about evolution that are at least as serious as the questions raised by irreducible complexity.

It did seem like Emba was trying to wriggle out of an apparently bigoted statement on formalistic grounds.

— ben

You, in contrast, are trying to wriggle something into my statement that isn't there whatsoever. You proved this by coming up with a variant statement that I supposedly could have made and still convey the same put-down, and when I pointed out your variant was absolute nonsense, you did not admit your error. Instead, you simply went fishing, that act itself proof that my statement did not mean what you thought it did.

I think that the statement in question could be compared to me saying, while arguing with an Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas on constitutional interpretations of civil rights laws and finding their wingnut viewpoints to be off-base and dishonest, "your drivel on civil rights has been a great demonstration of why black people shouldn't be allowed to vote" ...and then claiming that I was only referring to the previous "tradition" of african-american disenfranchisement,

And how is not like all the previous posters citing Biblical statements about killing non-virgins? Are they to be presumed supportive of killing non-virgins?

not saying that I agreed that it was acceptable, or that my statement was intended to insult all black people.

Because "huh? What does my opinion matter? All I did was reveal myself to be a racist!"

you simply went fishing, that act itself proof that my statement did not mean what you thought it did

I guess you never talk to black people, do you, or have any black friends? I've often said similar statements in the context of roll-the-eyes stupidity of certain mouth-dropping antics of prominent blacks, and you know what, they weren't the least bit offended

Seriously, what does my opinion matter? You didn't answer.

I'm not answering, because I absolutely refuse to acknowledge your game.

you simply went fishing, that act itself proof that my statement did not mean what you thought it did

— ben

I cannot make a statement that directly proves what your statement meant. You could, but you seem disinclined to.

Like I said, it's simple English. I referred directly to Carol, yet Paul claimed I did not. Paul has not acknowledged my correction.

You suggested that I instead should have referred to the traditional ban on "Carol learning Torah", which I pointed out was absurd, since there is no such ban. You have not acknowledged my correction, and instead harbor delusions that I'm obligated to come up with a proof that somehow there must be somewhere a misreading of my sentence that isn't bogus.

Instead, you keep telling us it should be obvious that your statement pertained solely to Carol and that any other interpretation is ridiculous. My point is that your original statement is hard to read any other way, and that you continue to stand by it even though I think your argument that the interpretation of it is obvious is a strained one.

More precisely, the "other" way you want to read my statement is a connotation that you wish to project into my statement. Given the right history, such a connotation is entirely valid. But no such history exists on my part, and it's entirely your own fabrication. If the possibility of hostile connotations were all you wanted to point out, I'd have conceded as much from the beginning. But your claim has been rather different: there was essentially no other way to read my statement in the first place, and I've shown the arguments given for that to be nonsense.

I don't mean to argue that you've shown yourself to be a bigot, and I apologize if I'm approaching this in a way that makes it seem like I think that. I'm not attacking you, just your statement. I said "apparently bigoted," by which I meant that I think the potential for misunderstanding is very high.

I guess you never talk to black people, do you, or have any black friends? I've often said similar statements in the context of roll-the-eyes stupidity of certain mouth-dropping antics of prominent blacks, and you know what, they weren't the least bit offended

and 2) You are not saying you made these statements to your black friends (yes, I believe you have black friends, how about not assuming I don't) in a public forum where the comments are prone to being misunderstood by others---which is what seems to have happened here. Had you made the remarks you refer to in public and had they been overheard by black people who didn't understand your angle, you likely wouldn't be getting the opportunity to perform semantic maneuvers to explain what you really meant, you'd just be getting labeled a bigot.

When you make a statement about how black people would react to a white person making a certain kind of crack regarding another black person that contradicted my own experiences in that situation, I conclude that you are rather inexperienced in the black person as friend department.

Seriously, what does my opinion matter? You didn't answer.

I once heard the crack "Hitler missed one" in regards to a particularly annoying Jew, and at no point did I assume the speaker was a Nazi, an anti-Semite, or even a general purpose clod. I thought he meant the target of his crack was particularly annoying. Had he been wearing a swastika armband, I'd have probably suspected otherwise.

Meanwhile, try and figure out my opinions on this or any other issue by what I post, not what you read into my postings. So far as I can tell, you're just delusional, imagining that I'm wearing some kind of armband that telegraphs my secret intentions, and that you are responding accordingly.

I'm not answering, because I absolutely refuse to acknowledge your game.

Comment #83493 Posted by ben on March 3, 2006 07:33 AM "I now think" "I think" Thanks for your opinion, nobody asked.

It was Lenny Flank who started all this "no one cares what you think" crap on PT, and now all the unevolved "monkey see, monkey do" types on PT are aping him.

Ben,

Emba conveniently ignores the fact that there does indeed exist a broader context to his derogatory remark against women. It is his derogatory remark against gentiles. He attacked me as having "a goyisher kop", meaning "you have a gentile brain". That was not meant as a compliment, I assure you. The fact that it was stated in Yiddish makes it sound even more sinister and onerous. And since this is yet another bit of bigotry Emba shares with some in the fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community, it makes the anti-women comment fit neatly into an emerging pattern.

Now, for the record, I could not care less what Emba thinks about me or about anything else. That he was totally wrong on the points we argued about is as sure as night follows day. But I will expose him for what he is. And I am quite chagrined that but for Paul and you, no one else seems to care.

Someone did ask, you moron --- someone asked an open question about co-evolution, and I was the only one who answered. And no one needs to wait to be asked here before posting a comment. It was Lenny Flank who started all this "no one cares what you think" crap on PT, and now all the unevolved "monkey see, monkey do" types on PT are aping him. And whereas I have been making just on-topic posts about co-evolution (co-evolution is a very important subject in entomology), you have been involved with Carol Clouser and William Emba in a long, grossly off-topic argument about Torah interpretation, sexism, racism, etc..

— Larry

Now, for the record, I could not care less what Emba thinks about me or about anything else. That he was totally wrong on the points we argued about is as sure as night follows day. But I will expose him for what he is. And I am quite chagrined that but for Paul and you, no one else seems to care.

— Carol

er....Rilke's Granddaughter

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a Revisionist" Fafarman I predict will take your 100% correct statement about him as a compliment.

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a Revisionist" Fafarman I predict will take your 100% correct statement about him as a compliment.

— k.e.

Emba conveniently ignores the fact that there does indeed exist a broader context to his derogatory remark against women. It is his derogatory remark against gentiles.

— Carol &quot;What an ignoramas!&quot; Clouser, addressing Ben,

Note that you have a well-established history of lying, by the way. In some sense, that is your assumed default mode.

He attacked me as having "a goyisher kop", meaning "you have a gentile brain". That was not meant as a compliment, I assure you.

You are also totally silent that you called me "farmboy" by way of insult, before I insulted you. In Hebrew, to make it official.

The fact that it was stated in Yiddish makes it sound even more sinister and onerous.

And the status of you calling me "farmboy" in Hebrew is ...? Onionladyland is a very peculiar place, methinks.

And since this is yet another bit of bigotry Emba shares with some in the fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community, it makes the anti-women comment fit neatly into an emerging pattern.

If you showed even a grain of reasoning ability, you would have noticed that I very obviously do not fit in the "fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community". For one thing, I read and post on the Internet. Even the middle-of-the-road right wing American Orthodox community considers the Internet treyf, and numerous rabbaim permit nothing more than work-related access. And second, the "fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community" has serious problems with evolution. So, QED, I am obviously not a member, but little things like facts and proof don't matter to Carol "What an ignoramas!" Clouser.

Now, for the record, I could not care less what Emba thinks about me or about anything else. That he was totally wrong on the points we argued about is as sure as night follows day.

Regarding the most recent lies you have made, regarding women learning Torah being a modern day, ultra-orthodox invention, let me simply summarize: In the Mishnah (Sotah 20a, Kesuvim 62b), R. Eliezer says one who teaches his daughter Torah is like one who has taught her promiscuity. The Shulkhan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 246:6) quotes this and says this is regarding the Oral Torah but one should not teach women Written Torah either. The Rema says women need to learn the basic laws that they must fulfill. The Taz says that women are also allowed to learn the simple meaning of the Written Torah.

The Mishnah is more or less the background of the Oral Torah, and this goes back about 2000 years. Promiscuity is considered the lowest of low in terms of womanly behavior, so it's a very strong condemnation. The Shulkhan Arukh, from the 1500s, is the fundamental summary of Jewish law, and most of Orthodoxy claims to follow the Shulkhan Arukh, with the modern right-wing taking a more literalist approach. The Rema's contemporary commentaries on the Shulkhan Arukh are, from the Ashkenazi point of view, an actual part of the Shulkhan Arukh. The Taz's commentaries, from the next century, are highly regarded.

In other words, Carol, you are just lying. The restrictions on women regarding Torah are all from very authoritative sources.

But I will expose him for what he is.

And I am quite chagrined that but for Paul and you, no one else seems to care.

Meanwhile, people have noticed repeatedly that you simply make up your claims, lie left and right, and don't actually respond to any substantive replies.

And whereas I have been making just on-topic posts about co-evolution (co-evolution is a very important subject in entomology), you have been involved with Carol Clouser and William Emba in a long, grossly off-topic argument about Torah interpretation, sexism, racism, etc..

— Rilke's Granddaughter

But the point is that no one does care what you think. ...

I've come to the conclusion that Heddle is uncomfortable with people here he can't bluff "string theory" at, and that at some level he is aware that sitting around and going "golly, I can't explain XYZ" is not actually up to Einstein's way of thinking, although it accurately describes his, Behe's and Dembski's.

Instead, Carol "What an ignoramas!" Clouser pipes in with her sore loser accusations and revisionist version of posting history, telling Heddle to avoid this discussion. I note that she too avoided the chance to contribute something of scientific value. I mean, somebody might learn something intelligent, right?

Comment #83542 Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 3, 2006 01:37 PM When someone asks for an opinion on a topic, generally they're looking for someone who can contribute some actual insight - someone who has studied the field, not such some regurgitation of a web-site. We can all get to web-sites.

I've spent almost a thousand hours this year alone doing lab-work and research.

You've not studied these fields; you've not done research; you've not shown that you have any insights of interest.

Larry: Shut up.

Carol: Thanks for (yet again) sharing your religious opinions with us. Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a website when appropriate. I mentioned the website where I saw the statement that was in the question. And far from "regurgitating" what the website said, I actually contradicted the website's statement.

I've spent almost a thousand hours this year alone doing lab-work and research.

— RGD

Whoopee.

— Larry

I've spent almost a thousand hours this year alone doing lab-work and research. You've managed to exert yourself to the extent of logging onto a computer or taking a book off a shelf. Why should I give a damn what your opinion is, given that you've done nothing to make yours even slightly informed?

— RGD

You've not studied these fields; you've not done research; you've not shown that you have any insights of interest.

— RGD

You mostly do not address the issues but mostly just accuse me of ignorance or using "strawman" arguments.

And I easily refuted your arguments in the few instances where you did address the issues.