Secondary Addiction, part 3: Ann Coulter on Evolution

You may find this article intersting:

Harris MP, Hasso SM, Ferguson MW, Fallon JF.
The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant.
Curr Biol. 2006 Feb 21;16(4):371-7.

So, rather than gathering information from recognized, noted scientists in their fields, Coulter selected Behe, Berlinski and Dembski. Does she dismiss all others??? What makes these three opinions more valuable or factual than the real leaders in these fields???

This speaks to her motives and agenda. Again, like a poorly written ID or Creationist paper (lol), Coulter has revealed that she is seeking not to learn but, to validate her own beliefs.

After all, why talk someone who doesn't say what you want to hear?

Nothing changes. Suppose that archaeopteryx is an unfortunate "sad birdlike animal," wouldn't that argue against the superb designer?

I at least like the "birdlike" adjective, showing that despite themselves the creationists recognize that it's no house sparrow, or some other unequivocal modern bird. Did the old line, "it's just a bird" finally die out among the pseudoscientists?

Wells and Coulter try to spin what is a none-too excellent bird specimen by today's standards into a liability for evolution, rather than a crushing defeat for the hypothesis of a god-like (has to be godlike, since only gods have completely unknown purposes) designer. The tables are turned, so that "poor design" (compared to modern birds) tells for the designer, while reptilian birds cannot be transitional organisms.

Same old, I know.

What I thought worth mentioning is that technically Coulter is nonetheless right that archaeopteryx is no "transitional" in the strict sense. It may be two or three branches off of the line leading to modern birds, according to the cladists. I know, of course, that the creationists are badly misusing the near-inevitability that we will not find the "true transitional" in any ancient evolutionary sequence.

However, I expect it would be better to try to dispel the misperceptions fostered by IDists etc. than to set the stage for further technically correct statements that archaeopteryx is not transitional to modern birds. Archaeopteryx is part of the adaptive radiation that eventually led to modern birds, and as such is quite informative re the closely related "true transitional".

Will there ever be a forum in which we could press for a credible IDist explanation for archaeopteryx, rather than simply responding to their ignorant attacks upon the evidence? Downard's response is necessary and useful, however the IDists once again manage to raise the questions, however badly, while they are do not, and cannot be compelled or cajoled into, telling us what sort of explanation they might have for an unfortunate "sad birdlike animal."

Does archaeopteryx evince the marks of rational design (which surely would be the best indication of design possible--if perhaps even that is not conclusive by itself (animals produce what appear to be "rational design"))? No? Does it include the marks of derivation, as any evolutionary explanation would require? Certainly.

To be sure, they haven't been writing for anyone but those religiously committed to antievolution for a long time, thus they never have to give an explanation for an unfortunate "sad birdlike animal." None of them want actual explanations for phenomena, rather they insist on "design" to be the template for all allowable explanations.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Like Coulter (2006, 235), Wells (2000, 213-126) trumpeted the Archaeoraptor hoax (where a Chinese fossil merchant had sold a spliced together dino-bird that ended up highlighted by National Geographic). See ....

And it should be noted that this information on Microraptor predates Coulter's current book by three years. So why didn't it come up in her reference to Archaeoraptor? That's a no-brainer: Coulter is a "no-brainer" -- and a lazy one at that.

Excellent! Science vs "Sciency"... Thanks for doing all this work.

If a Designer created all species we see (extant) and potentially all extinct species. Why did the Designer made so many "dead ends" such as Archaeopteryx? Is the Designer a joker or a complete inept to produce that kind of "sad bird-like" creature. Which brings us to the following, if Archaeopteryx did not give way to modern birds, why do IDiots recognize "bird" in the critter?
Their failures in logic are only surpassed by their innate stupidity.

Perhaps Coulter's ebullience is inversely proportional to the CUBE ROOT of her knowledge...?

Thanks Jim for another superbly referenced essay. It's great to have so many references on the subject collected and organized. I'd like to mention a couple things though. In recent analyses Archaeoteryx tends to come out on the dinosaur side rather than on the bird side, although it is rather hairsplitting. And you have lost count of all the specimens. The tenth was announced last December and discussed at the DML. It pushes Archy further in the feathered dino direction. (Technically birds are dinosaurs and I am an ape, but you know what I mean).

For the layman who can't see how birds could be related to reptiles as you know them, let me just say that theropod dinosaurs were quite unlike today's reptiles (other than the flying ones).

Why did the Designer made so many "dead ends" such as Archaeopteryx? Is the Designer a joker or a complete inept to produce that kind of "sad bird-like" creature.

Excellent! Science vs "Sciency"... Thanks for doing all this work.

— J-dog

Glen: What if archaeopteryx was a "happy birdlike animal?" That would blow Coulter's entire thesis to Hell, wouldn't it?

Heddle wrote:

The designer could be less than perfect, and he could be down-right sadistic.

And, um, how many ID proponents, or donors to ID-related causes, would agree with that statement as an "explanation" of anything?

Design incompetence, if it has merit, is an argument against God as the designer, but it is not an argument against ID per se.

Tyrannosaurus wrote: Why did the Designer made so many "dead ends" such as Archaeopteryx? Is the Designer a joker or a complete inept to produce that kind of "sad bird-like" creature.

Perhaps Heddle is trying to leave open the possibility that the Designer was in fact Shiva, and that he is pissed off.

There is nothing about the bio-ID argument that states the designer has to (a) himself have been designed (a point Dawkins can't seem to grasp) or

(b) be a perfect, benevolent designer.

The essence of the claim is that the diversity of life as we see it could not have resulted from purely natural processes.

Regardless of the merits of that claim, why do people insist on arguing that alleged incompetence of the designer is an argument against ID?

It isn't. The designer could be less than perfect, and he could be down-right sadistic.

Design incompetence, if it has merit, is an argument against God as the designer, but it is not an argument against ID per se.

So which is it, is the "designer" amazingly intelligent in making his creatures, or is he really poor at designing? We're not willing to accept your standard, which is that so-called good (or more properly, truly excellent in some cases) "design" points to intelligence, while poor design points to what we do not know.

There is nothing about the bio-ID argument that states the designer has to (a) himself have been designed (a point Dawkins can't seem to grasp) or (b) be a perfect, benevolent designer.

Then what, did the Designer evolve? Or more to the point, why don't you give us a designer from which predictions are possible? Dawkins is just filling in the blanks that are left deliberately by people like you who don't want scientific explanations.

Then it can't have resulted from known intelligence, since known intelligences exist and act according to purely natural processes (using the common scientific sense of "natural").

Because we're able to think. You've got an idiot savant "designer", who apparently is capable of designing excruciatingly complex organisms, well beyond our capabilities, who can't manage to design a decent modern bird in the first shot. The designer is intelligent enough to design feathers and flagella, but gives the archaeopteryx teeth (heavy) and a bony (heavy again) tail.

No one said it was incompetence across the board. And we know that God is the designer, no matter how often you protest.

Btw, any intelligent designer would be expected to produce rational designs, at least sometimes. Why is there no good evidence for rational design at all

Development of teeth in chick embryos after mouse neural crest transplantations Teeth were lost in birds 70---80 million years ago. Current thinking holds that it is the avian cranial neural crest-derived mesenchyme that has lost odontogenic capacity, whereas the oral epithelium retains the signaling properties required to induce odontogenesis. To investigate the odontogenic capacity of ectomesenchyme, we have used neural tube transplantations from mice to chick embryos to replace the chick neural crest cell populations with mouse neural crest cells. The mouse/chick chimeras obtained show evidence of tooth formation showing that avian oral epithelium is able to induce a nonavian developmental program in mouse neural crest-derived mesenchymal cells.

Then what, did the Designer evolve? Or more to the point, why don't you give us a designer from which predictions are possible? Dawkins is just filling in the blanks that are left deliberately by people like you who don't want scientific explanations.

Then it can't have resulted from known intelligence, since known intelligences exist and act according to purely natural processes (using the common scientific sense of "natural").

Because we're able to think. You've got an idiot savant "designer", who apparently is capable of designing excruciatingly complex organisms, well beyond our capabilities, who can't manage to design a decent modern bird in the first shot. The designer is intelligent enough to design feathers and flagella, but gives the archaeopteryx teeth (heavy) and a bony (heavy again) tail.

No one said it was incompetence across the board. And we know that God is the designer, no matter how often you protest.

Btw, any intelligent designer would be expected to produce rational designs, at least sometimes. Why is there no good evidence for rational design at all

If modern birds never evolved, what would be the status of archaeopteryx? Would it still be sad? Would it be refered to as bird-like? Would we be looking for transitional fossils between dinoaurs and archaeopteryx? Would Anne Coulter have evolved into Rush Limbaugh?

I saved a few links about a third of the way down on the linked page that show that the truth's more complicated than you guys are making it.

But, Ghosty, Downard has provided us with a reasonably-detailed account of the dissenting opinions of Feduccia et al. from the "mainstream" point of view on feathers, dinosaur-bird cladistics, digit development, and so forth--even if he doesn't always follow every such thread to the very latest publication.

The point is that anyone with an iota of intelligence and a dash of curiosity can easily work forward in time from Downard's citations into the meat of the current literature--and into whatever mini-debates may may yet be going on within Evo-Devo, ornithology, and paleontology about the bird-dinosaur transition.

Coulter, Wells, Johnson, Dembski, and suchlike utterly fail to honestly present the range of opinion, much less actually investigate or pursue the available lines of evidence.

Heck, with a little genuine intellectual effort, any of those dastardly folk could've done what you've just done here. But, of course, "intellectual effort" is beside the point of what they're actually trying to do.

For that matter, they would've come across you. While your arguments are ultimately inconsistent and self-defeating, they're still more interesting attempts at rationalizing the evidence than the PoohBahs of ID ever seem to manage. Maybe you should start, uh, ghostwriting this stuff for them.

It couldn't be any less inane than what they currently extrude...

If modern birds never evolved, what would be the status of archaeopteryx? Would it still be sad? Would it be refered to as bird-like? Would we be looking for transitional fossils between dinoaurs and archaeopteryx?

— Mike Ross

Would Anne Coulter have evolved into Rush Limbaugh?

— Mike Ross

Glen Davidson said, "What I thought worth mentioning is that technically Coulter is nonetheless right that archaeopteryx is no "transitional" in the strict sense. It may be two or three branches off of the line leading to modern birds, according to the cladists. I know, of course, that the creationists are badly misusing the near-inevitability that we will not find the "true transitional" in any ancient evolutionary sequence."

What does it mean to be a "true transitional"?

Actually, I'd disagree. Archaeopteryx *is* tranisitional, whether it lies on the direct-ancestry line of modern birds or not. It represents the existence of creatures not distinctly dinosaur, nor distinctly bird.

One of the misconceptions I try to expunge from my students' minds is the expection that a transitional form is "on the way" to being something else. All that's required to make a species transitional is that it be difficult to clearly classify as one thing or another--and Archaeopteryx most certainly qualifies.

A species doesn't have to be extinct to be transitional, either. There are creatures alive now which are remnants of transitional groups--eg, monotremes--or represent adaptational intermediates which could easily be considered transitional--eg, seals, which represent an intermediate point along a transition from terrestrial to aquatic tetrapod.

Lynn

It's just a dead end. It transitioned to nothing.

If archy's descendents hadn't taken off (pun intended), Archy would just be a dinosaur.

"diarthognathus"? "two-jointed jaw"?

Great now I'm off to investigate early mammalian jaws.

I love you guys.

Design incompetence, if it has merit, is an argument against God as the designer, but it is not an argument against ID per se.

"diarthognathus"? "two-jointed jaw"? Great now I'm off to investigate early mammalian jaws. I love you guys.

Thanks, Lenny! That was a good start.

So are there extant representatives of the therapsid/cynodonts, or is the snake jaw the only remnant?

Curious that what we consider an 'intermediate form' was a viable structure in its own right and could have continued to this day.

I'm a visually-oriented person, so pretty pictures would have helped. Ah, well, Google awaits....

For the layman who can't see how birds could be related to reptiles as you know them, let me just say that theropod dinosaurs were quite unlike today's reptiles (other than the flying ones).

— Pete Dunkelberg

...no one seems to want to argue about the Darwinism. I mean, it's exactly like my defense of Joe McCarthy a couple of books back in Treason. Liberals build up this 50-year myth on Joe McCarthy in one case, on Darwinism in the other. And you know, I come along and say it's all a crock, and no one wants to argue back. - it's about a third, a quarter of the book --- and no one wants to argue directly about it because it is a myth. It is part of their religious faith. There is no evidence for it --- not the evidence Darwin expected to find. It is what scientists refer to as a pseudoscience. There is nothing they will accept to disprove Darwin's theory. It's like tarot-card reading.

Because we're able to think. You've got an idiot savant "designer", who apparently is capable of designing excruciatingly complex organisms, well beyond our capabilities, who can't manage to design a decent modern bird in the first shot. The designer is intelligent enough to design feathers and flagella, but gives the archaeopteryx teeth (heavy) and a bony (heavy again) tail.

Again, the motivations and perceived shortcomings of the designer are not relevant. It is only a question of whether it could have happened without intelligent, though not necessarily omniscient or benevolent, intervention.

No one said it was incompetence across the board. And we know that God is the designer, no matter how often you protest.

How often I protest---hmm, that would be zero, since I am on record as claiming my belief that the designer is God. Do you grasp the difference between arguing in the most general of terms what ID is claiming and what I specifically believe?

This seems a good place to ask a question about archaeopteryx... Science of Discworld III by Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen (a good popular-science series, as it uses Pratchett's famous fictional world mainly to illustrate the difference between fact and fiction) says:

"We think of it [archaeopteryx] as the ancestral bitd because it is a dinosaur-like animal with bird-like feathers... and it was the first one to be found. However, by the time of archaeopteryx there were plenty of genuine birds around, among them the diving bird Ichthyornix. Poor old archaeopteryx arrived on the scene far too late to be 'the' bird ancestor."

So according to this, would probably be some distant descendent of bird ancestors... so how is it?

If theropod dinosaurs were still around, especially the Maniraptora, birds would be just dinosaurs, just as bats are mammals.

— Pete

...allows heddle to retreat to "the motivations and perceived shortcomings of the designer are not relevant. It is only a question of whether it could have happened without intelligent, though not necessarily omniscient or benevolent, intervention.". Yup, ID allows for lots of different designers.

You may have noticed something about this posting, which should be no surprise for those who are familiar with creationist apologetics. It took many pages to explain why Coulter's single paragraph was wrong. That is one of the daunting challenges facing all who take on the Coulters of the world (or Hovinds ... or even the Discovery Institute pooh bahs). Ignorance and ideology are high compression pursuits, prone to scattershot and rhetorical excess, whereas genuine science is "slow down to thinking speed" and make sure all your facts are lined up properly.

— James Downard

So are there extant representatives of the therapsid/cynodonts, or is the snake jaw the only remnant?

Another brilliant article.

JUst so you know, I Dugg part 1 of this, in the hopes of getting more people interested in it.

Roger, Lenny. Over.

Downard disagreed with that, and I think that Coulter is largely right technically (well, actually archy almost certainly transitioned to something (that went extinct), just not to modern birds). He does agree that archy isn't necessarily a direct ancestor, however I think he makes a small mis-step in disagreeing with Coulter's statement, which is literally accurate (mostly). I don't like the term "transitional" for organisms which aren't actually transiting from one form to another one (implied in this is usually that it is transiting to a modern form, eventually). Etymologically it seems the wrong term, but it is used in that way anyhow. I think that it sets up confusion, yet words only mean what they mean, so I agree with your statement most of the way. I don't think it's true that present-day monotremes can rightly be called "transitionals" (unqualified) though. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I think that at most they should be called "intermediate," and only partially intermediate at that, due to the specializations of today's monotremes.

Sorry, that defintion should read that, where A, B and C are as specified, B is transitional between A and C if and only if C and B share a more recent common ancestor than A and C, and B is more closely related to A than C is to A.

ID does not rule out that a less-than-perfect evolved intelligent creature imperfectly "built" some subset of components of life on earth.

Except, of course, when the Christian fundamentalists who drive the ID movement demand that it does.

That's a bit like saying "Communists are ignorant scumbags, but True Communism is a perfect and unblemished political philosophy." An empty and useless statement, even if technically true.

Mr. Heddle: I can only speak for myself, but I strongly suspect that you'd get a lot more respect here if you would clearly separate your own theology (which I'm sure is sincere and heartfelt) from the "theory" of ID/creationism (which we all know to be fraudulent and contrived). ID is not merely a belief that a God created life on Earth (which I believe); it is, at its dark greasy heart, a belief that such divine intervention is scientifically provable (which is a total crock).

Heddle said:
Design incompetence, if it has merit, is an argument against God as the designer, but it is not an argument against ID per se.

Then the "hypothesis"(?) should not have the Intelligent before it. Call it the Incompetent Design Argument or Incomprehensible Design or whatever but not intelligent.

Heddle has demonstrated why ID really fails to be a scientific position when it comes to biology. I applaud him for that.

I'm amazed Heddle's spending any of his valuable time here. He's figured out a brilliant new field of statistics, where you can declare a result unlikely without knowing the result, or what else it could have been. It's groundbreaking, amazing stuff.

I'm sorry for the (mostly) off-topic post, but I thought y'all might be amused at this latest example of Coulteresque "thought" (from Salon's "War Room"):

Under prodding from Deutsch, Coulter repeated on the air something she had told him just before the cameras went on: She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course. "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality," Coulter explained.

This seems a good place to ask a question about archaeopteryx... Science of Discworld III by Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen (a good popular-science series, as it uses Pratchett's famous fictional world mainly to illustrate the difference between fact and fiction) says: "We think of it [archaeopteryx] as the ancestral bitd because it is a dinosaur-like animal with bird-like feathers... and it was the first one to be found. However, by the time of archaeopteryx there were plenty of genuine birds around, among them the diving bird Ichthyornix. Poor old archaeopteryx arrived on the scene far too late to be 'the' bird ancestor." So according to this, would probably be some distant descendent of bird ancestors... so how is it?

The essence of the claim is that the diversity of life as we see it could not have resulted from purely natural processes. Regardless of the merits of that claim, why do people insist on arguing that alleged incompetence of the designer is an argument against ID? It isn't. The designer could be less than perfect, and he could be down-right sadistic.

— heddle

I'm amazed Heddle's spending any of his valuable time here. He's figured out a brilliant new field of statistics, where you can declare a result unlikely without knowing the result, or what else it could have been. It's groundbreaking, amazing stuff.

For steve s fans, here is a better link.

"diarthrognathus"? "two-jointed jaw"?

— fnxtr

This is a bit off point. But until all this fuss started about Ms. Coulter, I really did not know who she was. Just lucky I guess. But I caught a few minutes yesterday of Ms Coulter on a a news talk show of sort. Yikes! she is the equivalent of finger nails on a chaulk board - extremely grating and annoying. And then to have all this lunacy spew forth is simply too much, I could not turn her off fast enough...

Getting back to Coulter for a moment (Heddle being a One Trick Eohippus, so to speak; welcome back Dave-o, glad to see you haven't learned anything recently.)

I was in Borders Book Store today and I saw Coulters book, G*****S, and immediately noticed two things:

First, it was shelved under "non-fiction." I asked a floor assistant to move it to "fiction" where it belonged and they're going to look into it.

Second, the label on the book said "30% OFF." I suggested that it be re-stickered to read "100% OFF."

Trying to do my part.

Doc Bill - I think you are on to something, but your idea needs just a little refinement. AC's "book" should be repackaged and sold where it can actually do some good - your local grocers papergoods aisle, and sold as good old American 2-ply bathroom tissue. Needs some help with branding however... "Charmin" she ain't, and "Angel Soft"? I don't think so. Will it sell as "Witches Brew?"

Warning
Re: Steve S (comment 114983) and David Heddle (comments 115003 and 115004): Comments containing exchange of irrelevant notions, especially aimed at deriding the opponent should be avoided. They may be deleted.

You bet, Mark. BTW, you're a physicist, you could do a great job taking Heddle's arguments apart, if you feel they deserve any Panda's Thumb attention.

It was renamed Pachygenelius some time ago. (And note the extra 'r'.)

fnxgter:

------------
So... why the name change? And why "Pachygenelius"?
------------

I don't know the derivation of the name Pachygenelus, but that genus was named in 1911, while Diarthrognathus was named in 1958. Originally the latter was thought to be distinct from the former, but newer work suggested that the "Diarthrognathus" specimens were juveniles of Pachygenelus:

See here.

HOWEVER, that may not be the case, and Diarthrognathus may indeed be the legit name:

See here and here.

The joys of taxonomy...

Re "That's why asking 'what is the nature of the designer and how and why did he/she/it actually design its purported works' is not only reasonable but completely necessary."

Designer? Never mind the designer, look for signs of deliberate engineering of life forms. That imnsho is where traces should exist if any such engineering actually took place. Start with the sort of distinguishable features that human modified genomes have (relative to their natural state) and look for similar features in species not modified by humans.

And of course, one could look for signs of a being(s) that might gain some benefit from the "product" of the alleged engineering. Given that the species seem to interact only with each other, I don't see how anybody/anything not within the ecosystem would benefit by particular features of those species, but then I'm not one of those claiming it.

Henry

"She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course."

So the most heterosexual of persons have few or no relations with the opposite sex. I'm sure all altar boys are relieved to hear that.

Umm, okay, that was bad logic. But it was still a little fun, for me at least.

Umm, okay, that was bad logic.

Re "That's why asking 'what is the nature of the designer and how and why did he/she/it actually design its purported works' is not only reasonable but completely necessary." Designer? Never mind the designer, look for signs of deliberate engineering of life forms. That imnsho is where traces should exist if any such engineering actually took place. Start with the sort of distinguishable features that human modified genomes have (relative to their natural state) and look for similar features in species not modified by humans. Henry

Intelligent Design actually has an explanatory cause. We do not claim ID to be inerrant, however, we do claim it be of Scientific value. If you have been ignorant to this (I'm sure most of you have...since you've been glazed over by the Dover case) ID passes empirically tested circumstances that Evolution fails in. For this reason, it has been accepted by Scientists all around the world. Eye doctors are of no exception to this case. We also have support that the retina is not of bad design. The claims that Evolutionists throw our way are readily defeated by Eye Doctors. This makes the eye irreducibly complex, and this proves Darwinism false. Do you realize that we are one of the only countries left in the world who actually adheres to the Science of Evolution? We can see some of this changing in Kansas, Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin however. As time goes on, we are starting to see a paradigm shift in the direction against Evolution (I'm sure you're just ready to jump all over ID just like Glenn Morton did....don't bother, firmly aware of his falsehood of Evolution). For the first time EVER we might see a case taken to the Supreme Court regarding Evolution. This is way overdue, as Scientific discoveries have alluded to the obvious cause of a Creator. Naturalism falters when considering Psychology and Philosophical aspects of life. Humanism crumbles as well, since it is empirically impossible for someone to derive certain things from Evolution. Good luck in your lackluster pursuit.

Dr. John Griffin
PHD Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Delaware

Intelligent Design actually has an explanatory cause. We do not claim ID to be inerrant, however, we do claim it be of Scientific value. If you have been ignorant to this (I'm sure most of you have...since you've been glazed over by the Dover case) ID passes empirically tested circumstances that Evolution fails in. For this reason, it has been accepted by Scientists all around the world. Eye doctors are of no exception to this case. We also have support that the retina is not of bad design. The claims that Evolutionists throw our way are readily defeated by Eye Doctors. This makes the eye irreducibly complex, and this proves Darwinism false. Do you realize that we are one of the only countries left in the world who actually adheres to the Science of Evolution? We can see some of this changing in Kansas, Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin however. As time goes on, we are starting to see a paradigm shift in the direction against Evolution (I'm sure you're just ready to jump all over ID just like Glenn Morton did....don't bother, firmly aware of his falsehood of Evolution). For the first time EVER we might see a case taken to the Supreme Court regarding Evolution. This is way overdue, as Scientific discoveries have alluded to the obvious cause of a Creator. Naturalism falters when considering Psychology and Philosophical aspects of life. Humanism crumbles as well, since it is empirically impossible for someone to derive certain things from Evolution. Good luck in your lackluster pursuit.

Dr. John Griffin
PHD Cellular and Molecular Biology, VTECH

And it is VTECH now, not Delaware (where I used to be)

Wow, you moved from Delaware to Virginia Tech in less than a minute? Can it be that ID has inspired advances in teleportation technology?

Shine on, you crazy, name-changing diamond. You forgot to say "theorum", though.

If you dont want us to dismiss you as a crank, and want to be taken seriously, we require several things from you:

1) Evidence from these eye people you are reffering to where they demonstrate that the eye is a superbly designed piece of work, and all the stuff that we say are flaws are wrong.

2) A list of the countries in the world who do not adhere to evolution, compared with a list of those who do.

3) Which scientific discoveries allude to a creator?

4) Which creator have you in mind? Last I knew there were at least 3 major ones in competition, with many lesser ones also wanting attention.

One can't purport the existence of a designer without explaining how it went about actually designing the things which are said to be its creations.

— Mephisto

There is no John Griffin listed on the Virginia Tech website. Go away, troll.

i'm seeing theorum pronounced "tay-OR-oom" for some reason. gives it a good old latin/catholic feel, you know? don't forget to roll the R a little bit.

you have been ignorant to this (I'm sure most of you have...since you've been glazed over by the Dover case)

Not really. Most of us can handle words with more than one syllable.

Dr John Griffin (& possibly Dr Greenwood, Dr Morgan, friend of Casey Powell, the Dalai Lama?) said:

"Scientific discoveries have alluded to the obvious cause of a Creator."

Um, which ones?

"Do you realize that we are one of the only countries left in the world who actually adheres to the Science of Evolution?"

You could add the UK to that, too. (Aside from one school in Gateshead who only employ religious teachers, last I heard). Strange that we haven't really heard of ID from all these countries surrounding us except America.

"Humanism crumbles as well, since it is empirically impossible for someone to derive certain things from Evolution."

What 'certain' things, and what exactly has it got to do with humanism?

I think the only people you're fooling are the ID crowd.

J Dog said, "Doc Bill - I think you are on to something, but your idea needs just a little refinement. AC's "book" should be repackaged and sold where it can actually do some good - your local grocers papergoods aisle, and sold as good old American 2-ply bathroom tissue. Needs some help with branding however... "Charmin" she ain't, and "Angel Soft"? I don't think so. Will it sell as "Witches Brew?"

Actually, the relatively non-absorbent nature of the paper used for books would make those pages kind of annoying as bathroom tissue. A lot less annoying than as something anyone would want to *read*, of course, but not the best choice. Besides, having the thing sitting in there by the porcelain throne *might* just tempt someone to have a read while trapped in the bathroom. So this usage could actually be counter-productive.

I'd suggest an alternative location--a pet store, in the "birds" section. Should make fairly decent bird cage liners. And the little tweeters probably won't notice all that nonsense about their distant relatives.

Lynn

Lynn - Yes, I believe you have nailed it! An actual use for the Coulter rag.

Wasn't there an imaginary doctor in the Titan thread as well? I think this is just this same guy coming back every day with a different username.

Ah, wait, I was thinking of the supposed "Dr. Bill Quincy" in the Dembski Alert thread.

See, I know your kind. You write off the ID arguments as incompetent without even looking at their side of the coin. And I was that way for the first decade of my career concerning Creationism, which showed me flaws within Evolution. This ID thing is significant, whether you wish to believe it or not and contains more empirical proof than Evolution could ever dream of.

Dr. John Griffin

> That is because I'm an adjunct, and they don't list adjunct professors.

They don't list any department of Cellular and Molecular Biology either. Nor does the U of Delaware. But I'm sure it's because they made one super-specially just for you because you're such an awesome scientist.

What was your thesis work?

> ID theorum

ding ding ding! Who called it? I called it! Go me!

And go away, troll, you're not fooling anybody. You're the same dolt who's posted under multiple names before, and you don't have a PhD. You're barely even coherent.

If you don't wish to believe me, perhaps you will believe Brian Olsen, a former student of mine! He is a good one to talk to ID about. Bob Harman (a friend of mine from Eastern State and a professor himself) would be a good contact too. Thomas Jenssen is another good one to talk to about this. My name is not in the reference list, like I said, I am a brand new Adjunct, and this is my first year. TTFN

I did not teach that subject, nor did I work in that department, fully aware of that! That is my specialty. I taught General Biology and a few post graduate classes for 30 years! You really sound terrible at making excuses for not believing credible sources. This site is just goofy and I refuse to return if this is the way you treat competent Scientists.

Dr. John Griffin

Dr. John Griffin aka
Jesus Freak aka
Honest Question aka
A few more honest questions aka
Casey Powell aka
Darwinian Faith! aka
Dr. Morgan Greenwood aka
Inga Briskanske aka
John West aka
Dr. Bill Quincy aka
Your worst nightmare aka
The real demise of Evolution aka
The Demise pt. 2 aka
Darwinianism is Deadism! aka
Evidence...WHERE? aka
My evidence aka
shaking head aka
Losers aka
Resurrecition aka
interestnig aka
Not just another Fundy aka
end aka
FYI aka
shaking head again aka
In conclusion aka
Yah for illogical aka
logic

apparently couldn't be bothered to read Rule 6.

Good-bye.

Dr. John is, once again in the right place at the wrong time. :-)

This should clear up a few things:

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

He might have lasted longer if all his personalities didn't say "theorum". Somebody DID point it out to him. Oh well...

"I think this is just this same guy coming back every day with a different username."

"Comment #114690

Posted by Dr. Bill Quincy on July 25, 2006 10:52 AM (e)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind. I have found throughout my studies, many anthropologists and the eye doctor community as a whole who disagree with the Evolutionary standpoint. I say this after first being an Evolutionist for the first 18 years of my career. I believe that the Intelligent Design theorum is one of the best laid out theorums known to mankind. The impact it is already having across the world is amazing, and not many Americans are open to this idea. It is primarily the Biologist community and not the Scientific community as a whole that disagree with irreducible complexity as a Science. The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic. As such, I believe it important for our people to realize that ID is and will be the Science that overtakes the Evolutionary viewpoint (and yes Glenn Morton is very and deadly wrong on this issue to I might add).

Dr. Bill Quincy
Cellular Biologist , GSD"
( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/the_dembski_ale.html )

"Sir, I do believe that this is probably some of the most grotesquely awful research I have ever seen performed. The Intelligent Design Theorum, unknown to many across the country of the United States, is generally accepted as true among the countries outside of the United States. This is one area, believe it or not, that many Europeans look down upon Americans for denying. Europeans actually see Evolution as already dead, and having been dead for apparently the past 8-10 years. It is no longer accepted at all in Europe, and in many places across China and Australia. Darwinism has been accepted in Kansas, and if the trends go as they have in other countries, I suspect America will be the next strong recipient of the Intelligent Design Theorum.

Cheers,
Dr. Morgan Greenwood"
( http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/07/the_state_of_id_research.php )

"Posted by Dr. John Griffin on July 27, 2006 07:36 AM (e)

Intelligent Design actually has an explanatory cause. We do not claim ID to be inerrant, however, we do claim it be of Scientific value. If you have been ignorant to this (I'm sure most of you have...since you've been glazed over by the Dover case) ID passes empirically tested circumstances that Evolution fails in. For this reason, it has been accepted by Scientists all around the world. Eye doctors are of no exception to this case. We also have support that the retina is not of bad design. The claims that Evolutionists throw our way are readily defeated by Eye Doctors. This makes the eye irreducibly complex, and this proves Darwinism false. Do you realize that we are one of the only countries left in the world who actually adheres to the Science of Evolution? We can see some of this changing in Kansas, Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin however. As time goes on, we are starting to see a paradigm shift in the direction against Evolution (I'm sure you're just ready to jump all over ID just like Glenn Morton did....don't bother, firmly aware of his falsehood of Evolution). For the first time EVER we might see a case taken to the Supreme Court regarding Evolution. This is way overdue, as Scientific discoveries have alluded to the obvious cause of a Creator. Naturalism falters when considering Psychology and Philosophical aspects of life. Humanism crumbles as well, since it is empirically impossible for someone to derive certain things from Evolution. Good luck in your lackluster pursuit.

Dr. John Griffin
PHD Cellular and Molecular Biology, VTECH"

"the ID theorum"

"I taught General Biology and a few post graduate classes for 30 years!"

Not too inventive. BTW, "theorum" seems to be a creationist telltale. There was a troll at Cosmic Variance that used it too.

This thread has experienced an attack of malicious trolls who inundated it with repetitious senseless messages using various monikers such as Dr. Griffin, Rachel Schwartz, Elliott, etc. Most of those screeds came from the same source. The PT administration kindly assisted in banning these sources, and I also deleted many of those meaningless and repetitious displays of intellectual impotence, having preserved some of them as illustration of how the anti-evolution nincompoops resort to hooliganism in their impotent rage. Cheers!

All honest commenters, including those who disagree with ET and/or with the prevailing views of the PT contributors are of course welcome to continue posting critical comments without any limitations and censorship.

If anybody still has any doubts, both "Dr. Griffin" and "Dr. Quincy" posted their comments from the same computer.

"She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course."

Darwinianism is Deadism!

Dr John - We DID look at the evidence. It was found wanting in ways that are legion and have been discussed in many venues, including this one. It was consigned to where it belongs - the scrap heap.

Sorry to veer away from the many worlds of Drs. Quincy & Griffin, but to comment on some of the prior posts, thanks to Gary Hurd for spotting my finger dyslexia in the Wells footnote. I've corrected my master text accordingly.

Pete Dunkelberg, thanks for the new Archaeopteryx data. I'd missed that bit (thought it related to the 8th specimen and filed it away for future ref).

The nomenclature matter: whatever was the earliest desribed taxon gets priority, so when specimens are found that allow identification with another, it can require name changes. Hence Apatosaurus today instead of Brontoaurus.

Anyway, one thing that comes through is how contact with genuine science rubs off, and learning often results. For contrast, there is that thought vacuum of ID, where one only gets retreads of last decade's apologetics, dressed up as the impending design revolution.

It is gratifying always to spark an exploration into the sources we bump into in our various venues.

i'm seeing theorum pronounced "tay-OR-oom" for some reason. gives it a good old latin/catholic feel, you know? don't forget to roll the R a little bit.

There is no John Griffin listed on the Virginia Tech website

She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course.

The idea that repressed homosexuals will make a big show of their heterosexuality isn't a new one and goes back at least to the fifties. They idea being they fear discovery, so act to make their heterosexuality rampantly plain. It's called "Overcompensation", and it's not restricted to repressed homosexuals. (For instance, someone who is Muslim in an area that legally enforces Christianity might act hyper-Christian in public to avoid people investigating his private life.)

I have no clue if this actually happens and don't claim to be a psychiatrist or anything, but it was a commonly accepted truism back in my high school days (Florida).

This, of course, means Clinton doesn't qualify, since he didn't act PUBLICLY hetereosexual, he was caught having a secret affair. This isn't remotely an example of overcompensation. If it was overcompensation, he would have trumpeted it to the rafters. But never let it be said that Coulter let a few facts stand in the way of casting aspersions on people she doesn't like.

This, of course, means Clinton doesn't qualify, since he didn't act PUBLICLY hetereosexual, he was caught having a secret affair. This isn't remotely an example of overcompensation. If it was overcompensation, he would have trumpeted it to the rafters. But never let it be said that Coulter let a few facts stand in the way of casting aspersions on people she doesn't like.

I don't remember the exact words, but Letterman had something like this to say about Clinton's original response to Coulter:

"He told her he was gay so she wouldn't hit on him with her bony ass"

Is this another application of reverse psychology?

1) Some men pretend they're gay to get close to women.
2) Supposedly having many relations with women means you're gay.
3) Therefore, you have as many relations with women as possible to make it seem as if you are gay in order to get close to more women!

Letterman re Coulter: Clinton told her he was gay to explain why he didn't hit on her bony ass. Tag line: "Clinton: only gay when it comes to crazy, evil bitches." I just about wet my pants.

This may be a bit late, but even the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't safe from the trolling of "Dr" Casey Powell. :(

http://www.venganza.org/hatemail.php

I watched Anne Coulter on C-Span's BookTV rattle on about her new book to a roomful of girls at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute in D.C. from my "Godless" apartment in Paris. The girls, mostly blonde except for one hispanic Harvard grad with 12 children, read their questions from cards that largely served as grapefruits for the pundit to swat. Seemed like a girls bathroom in a serority house in the 1950s, with plenty of guffaws about lipstick bits on front teeth. I was especially amazed when one girl (from Yale or Harvard or GWU) said that Coulter refuted "evolution" and "Darwinism" with pure science and then bashed her critics (this board). I was staring at my computer and asking in amazement: "You hold a degree from Yale?"

The poster who talked about rhetorical compression is exactly right. Any argument floated out into the telesphere or blogosphere gets equal time with any other argument. How often during that hour and change did I say out loud: "Where's your proof?" And the girls were clapping and giggling in agreement. They applaud Coulter's arguements about abortion "murder" and the war on terrorism but never see the murder involved in the War in Iraq, never see the details involved iin torture (or even if it's effective strategy for gaining information) and of course never see that various parts of a mouse trap are useful in and of themselves and not, as Coulter's "ID" argument goes, only something special when all the parts come together. She leaves out the time and context of evolution and for her purposes wins points with the powder blue and pink sweater crowd. It's all curious this business.

There is a disconnect in the US between those who say they know things and others who really do know things. Problem resides in who has the better bumper sticker.

I watched Anne Coulter on C-Span's BookTV rattle on about her new book to a roomful of girls at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute in D.C. from my "Godless" apartment in Paris. The girls, mostly blonde except for one hispanic Harvard grad with 12 children, read their questions from cards that largely served as grapefruits for the pundit to swat. Seemed like a girls bathroom in a serority house in the 1950s, with plenty of guffaws about lipstick bits on front teeth. I was especially amazed when one girl (from Yale or Harvard or GWU) said that Coulter refuted "evolution" and "Darwinism" with pure science and then bashed her critics (this board). I was staring at my computer and asking in amazement: "You hold a degree from Yale?"

The poster who talked about rhetorical compression is exactly right. Any argument floated out into the telesphere or blogosphere gets equal time with any other argument. How often during that hour and change did I say out loud: "Where's your proof?" And the girls were clapping and giggling in agreement. They applaud Coulter's arguements about abortion "murder" and the war on terrorism but never see the murder involved in the War in Iraq, never see the details involved iin torture (or even if it's effective strategy for gaining information) and of course never see that various parts of a mouse trap are useful in and of themselves and not, as Coulter's "ID" argument goes, only something special when all the parts come together. She leaves out the time and context of evolution and for her purposes wins points with the powder blue and pink sweater crowd. It's all curious this business.

There is a disconnect in the US between those who say they know things and others who really do know things. Problem resides in who has the better bumper sticker.

I watched Anne Coulter on C-Span's BookTV rattle on about her new book to a roomful of girls at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute in D.C. from my "Godless" apartment in Paris. The girls, mostly blonde except for one hispanic Harvard grad with 12 children, read their questions from cards that largely served as grapefruits for the pundit to swat. Seemed like a girls bathroom in a serority house in the 1950s, with plenty of guffaws about lipstick bits on front teeth. I was especially amazed when one girl (from Yale or Harvard or GWU) said that Coulter refuted "evolution" and "Darwinism" with pure science and then bashed her critics (this board). I was staring at my computer and asking in amazement: "You hold a degree from Yale?"

The poster who talked about rhetorical compression is exactly right. Any argument floated out into the telesphere or blogosphere gets equal time with any other argument. How often during that hour and change did I say out loud: "Where's your proof?" And the girls were clapping and giggling in agreement. They applaud Coulter's arguements about abortion "murder" and the war on terrorism but never see the murder involved in the War in Iraq, never see the details involved iin torture (or even if it's effective strategy for gaining information) and of course never see that various parts of a mouse trap are useful in and of themselves and not, as Coulter's "ID" argument goes, only something special when all the parts come together. She leaves out the time and context of evolution and for her purposes wins points with the powder blue and pink sweater crowd. It's all curious this business.

There is a disconnect in the US between those who say they know things and others who really do know things. Problem resides in who has the better bumper sticker.

I watched about 5 minutes and found myself swearing at the TV. I had to turn it off; I caught 5 min worth of lies about science-not a single shred of truth in the whole interval. Outrageous.