NatGeo Tweaks ID 'Just For The Halibut'

Oh it is EARLY for puns like this! Twenty lashes with a wet
flounder!

Sigh, I traced back the DI link: "We are shocked, SHOCKED!
that anyone could confuse ID with creationism!"

I tried to read through the whole thing but a few paragraphs
down I had to say: "Who WROTE this?" Checked the byline;
silly me, Casey Luskin of course. I liked the flow chart.
It could almost go on OBJECTIVE: MINISTRIES unchanged.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

In the past, I have observed that the newsmedia and scientific establishment commonly promote the Darwinist bias against intelligent design (ID), where the media "carefully selects the sources of information it will broadcast to the public on this issue." (To see how various groups in the establishment serve as checkpoints to prevent scientific information that challenges neo-Darwinism from reaching the public, observe the diagram at left.) National Geographic (NG) is doing its job as a media checkpoint, promoting biased information to the public on ID.

Before the publication of her article, Minard spoke to zoologist and ICR science lecturer Frank Sherwin, who called Friedman's findings "underwhelming." "We have no problem with the variation within flatfish. What we're asking is, Show me how a fish came from a nonfish ancestor," Sherwin said. Minard failed to answer Sherwin's challenge,

Robin said: ... Alas, Mr Luskin, but your accusations are unfounded. ...

chuck said:

Robin said: ... Alas, Mr Luskin, but your accusations are unfounded. ...

Shouldn't that be unflounded?

But where are all the craniorectal intermediate forms?

Oh, I see they've found Luskin. Obviously, the intermediate forms with their heads up their backsides got jobs working for the Discovery Institute and, due to their oddly positioned eyes, are unable to find wristbone homologies in tetrapods. Forget I asked.

>it’s just too early for that kind of punning.

Someone better call the cods.

OK, I'll clam up now.

:D

Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry said: >it’s just too early for that kind of punning. Someone better call the cods. OK, I'll clam up now. :D

As Greg noted, it’s just too early for that kind of punning.

— Robin

Interesting the Casey is quoting Dembski in such a way as to make it seem that ID isn't opposed to evolution. Of course, what Casey isn't saying is that they're adamently opposed to natural selection, which is what most people mean by "evolution", but twisting it that way makes them seem like the most reasonable of folks. And in the same breath he claims they're equally compatible with creationism. So it seems they're not contradicting anyone. The perfect political compromise! Of course, that's what the DI propaganda is focusing on these days: packaging their lies to make them irresistable to politicians and political appointees. They must be getting plenty of practice at this in front of legislators and school boards.

Sherwin's 'challenge' smells a little fishy to me.
I mean, seriously, what's his alternative explanation?

Coddidit?

>someone’s a little pun gent this morning.

Lets get a sturgeon in to remove the muscles :) Defintely something fishy about this thread!

Stop the puns! You're giving me a haddock!
As it happens, when I saw this on NatGeographic, I was a bit annoyed that they were making it a specifically anti-IDiocy report. Yes, the new study of fossil flatfish eyes makes the cdesignproponetsists look pretty stupid, but so does every other bit of biological data. Even mentioning ID in the same article in such a huge circulation magazine is giving them some degree of credibility. Also, to a casual reader, it might look almost as if the research was done specifically to refute creo claims, which I'm guessing was not the case.
I realise that I have the luxury of writing this from a country where there isn't such a danger of creationism being taken seriously,(and I think that the very fact that I post this on PT will show that I do find the proposed Anti-Enlightenment dangerous) but in an article with educational aims, why even mention people who are not even vaguely palaeontologists? Let them write letters to the editor in green ink if they think they have anything to contribute.

... Forgive me if I'm not highly impressed with the degree of "evolution" documented by these fossils. Do they explain how halibut and sole evolved to have eyes on the top? Not really. The eyes on these fossils weren't in an "intermediate" location, halfway from the sides to the top. Their eyes are on the sides on the side of the head, like normal fish. The only interesting thing about these fossils, as far as evolution is concerned, is that they share some other skull features--the asymmetrical eye sockets--that are unique to "eyes on top" flatfish. Some other questions must be asked. How do we know that these represent the evolutionary intermediate ancestors of flatfish? ...

Holy mackerel, Luskin can't possibly think his crappie arguments are anything but another red herring. It's true as others have said above, he's just writing for the groupers.

When presented with facts from the sharks of PT they just turn yellowtail and run.

NatGeo just smelt an easy opportunity to poke them with a pike. In the end, I really don't give a cod dam what the creotards do, as long as they keep their religon out of the public schools.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Has Stephen Furst commented yet?

dpr

If evolution is true, why are there still symmetrical fishes?

Oh, I give up, these folks can't be parodied.

Does this "Kind" include those flat creatures I see everyday along the highway?

All the puns have been awarded the unhappy flounder smiley OF DOOM

"(

Cedric Katesby said: Sherwin's 'challenge' smells a little fishy to me. I mean, seriously, what's his alternative explanation? Coddidit?

Which fossil flatfishes did they examine?

Eobothus of Monte Bolca?

Luskin yammers... The eyes on these fossils weren’t in an “intermediate” location, halfway from the sides to the top. Their eyes are on the sides on the side of the head, like normal fish....

mark said: Does this "Kind" include those flat creatures I see everyday along the highway?

Yes, if Darwin was right, then why haven’t possums evolved to figure out how to get across the road?

Does this “Kind” include those flat creatures I see everyday along the highway?

Are there any pictures of the fossil flatfish intermediaries examined?

stevaroni said: Those eyes aren't in the middle of the head like a true "intermediate" would be - they're what - only 35% over - maybe 40% tops! Gotta watch these evolutionists, always exaggerating, they are!

Sorry about that - but I'm hooked on this thread.

Stanton said: Are there any pictures of the fossil flatfish intermediaries examined?

I'm just curious, but do the creationists and/or (well...and) IDers have any thoughts on why the "Great Designer" saw fit to have an eye rotate around the skull of these particular fish during development, but left the mouth skewed sideways?

themadlolscientist said: ROFL! I dunno nuthin' 'bout whutcha call 'em once't they git run over, but some folks say them critters is goooooooood eatin'!

Robin said: I'm just curious, but do the creationists and/or (well...and) IDers have any thoughts on why the "Great Designer" saw fit to have an eye rotate around the skull of these particular fish during development, but left the mouth skewed sideways?

Holy mackerel! And people say I'm gill-ty of abusing puns. Although I do find some of them a little tunny...
You have to understand, Mr. Luskin isn't so good at lateral lines of thinking, being so caudaled all his life. It's no wonder he whistles the same tuna thousand times. But maybe Michael Behe, one of the flounders of the ID movement, is more open-minded? He's been known to dab-ble in biology from time to time. I'm sure he could give us some brill-iant insights. In fact, I have no trout that he'll cut through the carp like a sturgeon and get to the albacore of the matter. Our understanding of ichthyology can only be eel-evated after this roe!
I hope that's fin-ished.

In honor of all these fish puns, I give you "Wet Dream" by comedian Kip Adotta.

Luskin is trolling. He needs to be schooled. Time to man the barracudas, maybe even file a bass action suit.

James F said:

Stanton said: Are there any pictures of the fossil flatfish intermediaries examined?

Specimens of Amphistium and a new species, Heteronectes, were examined. Carl Zimmer has some nice illustrations here.

Stanton said: So they weren't contemporaries of Eobothus?

Holy mackerel, Luskin can’t possibly think his crappie arguments are anything but another red herring. It’s true as others have said above, he’s just writing for the groupers.

Robin said:

Robin said: I'm just curious, but do the creationists and/or (well...and) IDers have any thoughts on why the "Great Designer" saw fit to have an eye rotate around the skull of these particular fish during development, but left the mouth skewed sideways?

Correction - put the mouth on sideways. Silly me - clearly the "Great Designer" couldn't have left the mouth sideways if "He" ("She", "They", "It", whatever) designed it that way to begin with. My bad.

And an armadillo makes a DANDY frisbee … after appropriate processing, of course.

> In honor of all these fish puns, I give you “Wet Dream” by comedian Kip Adotta.

All time classic! Many of these puns, mine included, are shamelessly borrowed (plagarised?) from this true work of art.

============

t was April the Forty-first, being a quadruple leapyear;
I was driving in downtown Atlantis.
My Barracuda was in the shop, so I was in a rented Stingray,
and it was overheating.
So I pulled into a Shell station; they said I'd blown a seal.
I said, "Fix the damn thing and leave my private life out of it, okay, pal?"

While they were doing that, I walked over to a place called the Oyster Bar.
A real dive. But I knew the owner; he used to play for the dolphins.
I said, "HI GILL!" (You have to yell, he's hard of herring.)

Chorus:
Think I had a wet dream, cruisin' through the Gulf stream.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Wet dream.

Gill was also down on his luck.
Fact is, he was barely keeping his head below water.
I bellied up to the sandbar; he poured the usual: Rusty Snail, hold
the grunion, shaken, not stirred.
With a peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich on the side, heavy on the mako.
I slipped him a fin, on porpoise.
I was feeling good; I even dropped a sand dollar in the box for Jerry's Squids,
for the halibut.

Well, the place was crowded. We were packed in like sardines.
They were all there to listen to the big band sounds of Tommy Dorsal.
What sole. Tommy was rockin' the place with a very popular tuna,
"Salmonchanted Evening", and the stage was surrounded by screaming groupers,
Probably there to see the bass player.
One of them was this cute little yellowtail, and she was givin' me the eye.
So I figured this was my chance for a little fun.
You know, piece of Pisces.

But she said things I just couldn't fathom.
She was too deep, seemed to be under a lot of pressure.
Boy, could she drink. She drank like a...
She drank a lot.
I said, "What's your sign?"
She said, "Aquarium."
I said, "Great! Let's get tanked!"

Chorus

I invited her up to my place for a little midnight bait.
I said, "C'mon baby, it'll only take a few minnows."
She threw me that same old line: "Not tonight, I got a haddock."

And she wasn't kidding, either, cause in came the biggest,
meanest looking haddock I'd ever seen come down the pike.
He was covered with mussels. He came over to me; he said, "Listen, Shrimp.
Don't you come trollin' around here." What a crab.
This guy was steamed. I could see the anchor in his eyes.

I turned to him and I said, "Abalone! You're just being shellfish."
Well, I knew there was going to be trouble, and so did Gill,
cause he was already on the phone to the cods.
The haddock hits me with a sucker punch. I catch him with a left hook.
He eels over. It was a fluke, but there he was, lying on the deck,
flat as a mackerel, kelpless.

I said, "Forget the cods, Gill. This guy's going to need a sturgeon.
Well, the yellowtail was impressed with the way I landed her boyfriend.
She came over to me; she said, "Hey, big boy, you're really a game fish.
What's your name?"
I said, "Marlin."

Chorus

Well, from then on we had a whale of a time. I took her to dinner;
I took her to dance; I bought her a bouquet of flounders.
And then I went home with her.
And what did I get for my trouble? A case of the clams.

stevaroni said: Actually, though 'dillos are adorable little critters, (when they're not destroying your yard), there is an occupational hazard to handling them in any state, active, bowlingball or flatiron.

chuck said:

Robin said: ... Alas, Mr Luskin, but your accusations are unfounded. ...

Shouldn't that be unflounded?

Customer: Hello, I would like to buy a fish license, please.

Shopkeeper: A what?

Customer: A license for my pet fish, Eric.

Shopkeeper: How did you know my name was Eric?

Customer: No no no, my fish's name is Eric, Eric the fish. He's an 'alibut.

Shopkeeper: What?

Customer: He is...an...'alibut.

Shopkeeper: You've got a pet halibut?

Customer: Yes. I chose him out of thousands. I didn't like the others, they were all too flat.

Ahem, I have to claim priority on the floundering designer hypothesis.

iml8 said:

themadlolscientist said: ROFL! I dunno nuthin' 'bout whutcha call 'em once't they git run over, but some folks say them critters is goooooooood eatin'!

And an armadillo makes a DANDY frisbee ... after appropriate processing, of course. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

I want to find more about the actual information on this new study. The Nat Geo article was rather underwhelming in the information provided. Where's the link to the original study?

All of you punsters should be hoisted on a pike.

Your chum,

Scott Hatfield

Lurker, can't resist. Luskin - Codless chum. Credit for 3? David

Jedidiah Palosaari said: I want to find more about the actual information on this new study. The Nat Geo article was rather underwhelming in the information provided. Where's the link to the original study?

Or take the familiar drawing of embryos lined up side by side--fish, amphibian, bird, and mammal--allegedly supporting common ancestry. An article in the American Biology Teacher (May 1999), again by Wells, shows that these drawings were fudged--lengthened in some places, shortened in others--to make them appear more similar than they really are. These drawings continue to appear in most biology textbooks. The fossil, dubbed Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, was picked up at a fossil fair in Tucson, Arizona, in February 1999 by Stephen Czerkas, who runs a small private museum in Utah. He was ecstatic when a Chinese dealer unveiled a foot-long slab of rock with fossilized bones embedded in it: The body was clearly a bird, while the tail was that of a dinosaur. Now Chinese scientists are re-examining other important fossils, with devasting results. Already a second forgery has surfaced. Last April, Nature published an article by Keven Padian of the University of California at Berkeley on a pterosaur with a tail, found in the same fossil deposit where Archaeoraptor was found. It turns out that the tail was attached by a local farmer before selling it to Chinese museum http://www.discovery.org/a/162 http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_edmontonsun100800.htm

Friedman's research reveals additional reasons why these fossils may not represent transitional forms. In Nature, Freidman refers to "the sudden appearance of anatomically modern pleuronectiform [flatfish] groups in the Palaeogene period."2 Thus, these newly-discovered forms were found in the same rock layers with the fish they allegedly evolved into! If they were transitional, they should be in rock layers above regular fish but below flatfish.

How do we know that these represent the evolutionary intermediate ancestors of flatfish? We don't: The paper reports that they appear in the fossil record at the same time as "eyes on top" flatfish, so their placement in the fossil record does not make them a candidate for being the actual ancestors of flatfish

Jedidiah Palosaari said: I want to find more about the actual information on this new study. The Nat Geo article was rather underwhelming in the information provided. Where's the link to the original study?

An Observer said: Should Evolution or Darwinism be classified as science while Intelligent Design is classified not scientific?

Meanwhile, can I get some input concerning some sketches of Amphistium and Heteronectes I did this afternoon waiting for the bus?

Work in progress

Stanton said: Meanwhile, can I get some input concerning some sketches of Amphistium and Heteronectes I did this afternoon waiting for the bus? Work in progress

Luskin and the guys at the DiscoTute are just a bunch of menhaden the fact that evolution is the dominant theory. Watching them skate around the evidence leads me to believe there isn't a ray of hope for them. Thy are just too bullhead-ed. I think I will clam up now, before I get too crabby. I've had it to the bream with this this thread. I hope Richardthughes doesn't join in, the last thing we need is a magnificent bassTARD here.......

What I found very intersting is that the creationsit websites that reported on this story have no way for readers to leave comments. This is old news and is because they don't want the faithful to read the kind of comments that occured to me ('It s a matter of law that ID is creationsim; will you please quite lying!' 'Either precisely define what a kind is or shut up about it!'). But it still amazes me how they can live with their dishonesty, from lying and knowing that they are lying about their core doctrines, to giving the appearance that there is no serious or even possible dissent from their opinions.

iml8 said: Like them, roughs but very nice work. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

iml8 said:

An Observer said: Should Evolution or Darwinism be classified as science while Intelligent Design is classified not scientific?

Should we classify an email from our bank advertising a good rate on a CD as legitimate, but classify an email from Nigeria asking to put $16 million USD left by a deceased African dictator as a scam? White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Observer is back, and he asks... Can evolution be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Intelligent Design?

Observer wrote:

"Should students not be allowed to discuss more than one possiblity when a fossil or species such as the one in the post is discovered?"

Sure, students can discuss anything they want. But what they should be taught in high school is the best scientific explanation reached by the experts in the field. If they want to challenge those conclusions, they will have to go to graduate school and become experts themselves. Oh, and of course they will need some evidence to support their interpretation, not just vehemently disagreeing with everyone else. So, just what alternative explanation did you have in mind?

Why on earth do you think that it matters if something can be proven "in the classroom"? You can't prove that the earth is round "in the classroom", why do you have to prove evolution there?

I actually agree with your comments about intimidation and politics. However, it is creationists who employ these tactics, not scientists, your beef is with them. And as far as past transgressions go, I don't think you want to go there either, as almost all creationist have consistently been dishonest about almost everything on general principle.

In science, it all comes down to data and evidence. There is a vast amount of evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for creationism. That is how we decide what to teach. Why would you want it any other way?

Robin wrote:

"I’m just curious, but do the creationists and/or (well…and) IDers have any thoughts on why the “Great Designer” saw fit to have an eye rotate around the skull of these particular fish during development, but left the mouth skewed sideways?"

For the same reason that cwaysy wabbit, (er, I mean that unnamed designer): gave almost all insects and cruataceans the exact same mitochondrial gene order; gave terrestrial artiodactyls and cetaceans the exact same SINE insertions; gave chimps and humans almost identical chromosomes; gave all organisms a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that corresponds precisely to the time of thier appearance in the fossil record: etc, etc, etc.

Obviously she wants to fool everybody into thinking that the earth is really old and that evolution is true. I for one intend to play along, so as not to piss her off.

Well if yawl can't grouper together, I'm between a hard and a rockfish.

Okay, an unpunned response this time.
Flatfish themselves are a sloppy solution, aren't they? They could have been "designed" like rays, ventrally compressed with dorsal symmetry instead of having skulls twisted all out of whack, the original "wandering eyes" and gimped pectoral fins. I mean, if there's a Designer that's constantly supernaturally tinkering with things, there's not really any need for the flatfish approach, right?

Also it's hard to imagine anyone trying to support the position that evolution isn't "accidental" by putting up a huge slide of that fugly puss in the post. "See how beautiful nature is? Do you really think something like -THIS- could come about accidentally? No, my friends! The Designer MEANT to do that!"

Mike Elzinga said: Nah, these were fish that had near-death experiences and survived; a bit cockeyed, however.

Wheels said: Okay, an unpunned response this time. Flatfish themselves are a sloppy solution, aren't they? They could have been "designed" like rays, ventrally compressed with dorsal symmetry instead of having skulls twisted all out of whack, the original "wandering eyes" and gimped pectoral fins. I mean, if there's a Designer that's constantly supernaturally tinkering with things, there's not really any need for the flatfish approach, right?

stevaroni said: Evolution can be tested, so it can be, at least, definitively disproven. Thing is, in 150 years it never has. ID on the other hand offers neither the ability to be proven or disproven or examined in any meaningful way whatsoever. After all, just how do you test "In the unspecified past, and unspecified being, who may or may not be an unspecified god, did an unspecified thing that was absolutely critical to life developing on earth... in an unspecified way."?

The discovery of a missing link in the evolution of bizarre flatfishes—each of which has both eyes on the same side of its head—could give intelligent design advocates a sinking feeling.

So the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe, the authors of the new study say. … Though known for their odd eye arrangement, no flatfish start life that way. Each is born symmetrical, with one eye on each side of its skull.

1. It could (and almost certainly would) be falsified by existing data or future discoveries.
2. It wouldn't leave them room to have God be the designer, which is the whole point of ID.

Is it just me, or does Luskin appear to claim that the eyes of flatfish move to the tops of their heads? He keeps banging on about the eyes being nothing special because they're on the sides of the head; well, the eyes of flatfish are on the sides of their heads, both on the same side in fact. It's rays that have eyes on the tops of their heads.

Hmm, three pages. Quess we can't throw it back for being under the limit.

Ever since Archaeopteryx:

Evo-deniers presenting with a "missing link" do one of three things:

a)claim that there is no real proof that the new-found link was part of the chain

b)point out that you now have two missing links, top and bottom, for the price of one

c) a) and (b) simultaneously.

All three are already on display in the present case.

iml8 said: Sigh, I traced back the DI link: "We are shocked, SHOCKED! that anyone could confuse ID with creationism!"

iml8 said: I liked the flow chart. It could almost go on OBJECTIVE: MINISTRIES unchanged.

iml8 said: Oh it is EARLY for puns like this!

An Observer said: It is impossible to test origin of life theories, evolution, as well as intelligent design, inside a public school classroom.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: It is still early. But I'm surprised nobody yet have suggested that it could be design and not just a fluke.

Observer wrote… "Can evolution be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Intelligent Design?"

And I, in part replied... "Duh. That’s exactly what we keep saying." "Evolution can be tested, so it can be, at least, definitively disproven. Thing is, in 150 years it never has."

iml8 said: Ur, hitting a deer would be bad for the car, I don't even want think about a hitting a moose.

fnxtr said: 'Struth, what doesn't kill us, makes us stranger.

Eric Finn said: This new discovery contradicts the ID-theory, then? I was not aware that any existed.

It would help a lot if evolutionists like Richard Palmer didn't offer ready-made quotations for the IDiots by making outrageously inflated statements to the effect that flatfish evolution has been a "major puzzle".

No, it hasn't. The evolution steps were understood in general terms. There's simply been a lack of fossil transitionals in this case.

The fossil record is not a complete record of everything, and we will never even find every transitional that there is to find. We do, however, have way more than enough to expose the vacuity of creation and ID.

But the simple fact is that a lack of fossils is not a "major puzzle". It's a lack of fossils, which proves nothing but a lack of fossils.

Kevin B said: Are you suggesting that flatfish lie on their sides because their behaviour is being modified by a parasitic fluke?

Reed said:

Wheels said: Okay, an unpunned response this time. Flatfish themselves are a sloppy solution, aren't they? They could have been "designed" like rays, ventrally compressed with dorsal symmetry instead of having skulls twisted all out of whack, the original "wandering eyes" and gimped pectoral fins. I mean, if there's a Designer that's constantly supernaturally tinkering with things, there's not really any need for the flatfish approach, right?

... and the transitionals make even less sense. Even if you grant that modern flatfish are perfectly designed, why did the designer start out making ones that were only part way there ? The answer is clear: The designer moves in mysterious ways, so while anything we see that does look nice and elegant is evidence of design, anything that looks totally absurd is also evidence of the designer! Checkmate, evolutionists!

An Observer said: Should Evolution or Darwinism be classified as science while Intelligent Design is classified not scientific?

Are there some instances when the explanation of "evolution" is not the best explanation of a finding?

Do those who practice science and "believe" in evolution have a right to go into our children's textbooks and classrooms while successfully locking out those who practice science and do not believe.

A designer could have started a replicating process from which many, many random body structures would be produce and then culled the crop and let that subgroup variate until the desired output would be evident.

I think you should try to get away from always deifying the designer.

"" Hi Observer. I would love to answer your question, but there are many definitions of Intelligent Design. Why don’t you give us the details of the version you think is scientific, and we’ll discuss it. ""

Pull-eezze! Give us YOUR definition of 'evolution' Now that term has a myriad of flavors.

Do those who practice science and “believe” in evolution have a right to go into our children’s textbooks and classrooms while successfully locking out those who practice science and do not believe.

Pull-eezze! Give us YOUR definition of ‘evolution’

Flint said:

A designer could have started a replicating process from which many, many random body structures would be produce and then culled the crop and let that subgroup variate until the desired output would be evident.

Golly, this sounds familiar. It's standard theistic evolution, characterized by the observation that if no designer is involved, there'd be absolutely no way to tell the difference.

I think you should try to get away from always deifying the designer.

I believe it's been pointed out that the ordinary feedback processes resulting in evolution qualify as the designer even in Dembski's formulation. That is, they make intelligent decisions based on external objective criteria, resulting in selection toward a purpose. The purpose is survival. And again, we can omit any human-style intelligent designer and not change a thing. But saying "natural feedback processes produce evolution as we know it AND there might be some designer involved but it's not required" is unsatisfactory to those who need an invisible omnicient magic man who listens to their prayers and poofed us in His image. I think this is where the real dispute lies. Any Designer (reified or not) whose actions are not required and nothing would change, isn't concrete enough for creationists. They want Someone who is necessary, without whose diligent poofing evolution couldn't happen, and maybe didn't happen.

HamStrung said: There most likely come a day where humans will be the 'designer' I am sure we will try to seed life on planets I think within the next few hundred years. We will first try to make a life sustaining environment. Then get very primitive life going there. Then introduce programmed DNA at stages. The fossil record on earth indicates to some degree this process happened here.

To say that we are so knowledgeable that we know beyond a doubt that this planet was not seeded in some way is very arrogant.

An Observer said: Should Evolution or Darwinism be classified as science while Intelligent Design is classified not scientific?

Can evolution be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Intelligent Design?

Should students not be allowed to discuss more than one possiblity when a fossil or species such as the one in the post is discovered?

Are there some instances when the explanation of "evolution" is not the best explanation of a finding?

Are evolutions to be trusted considering the misinformation given in the past?

Do those who practice science and "believe" in evolution have a right to go into our children's textbooks and classrooms while successfully locking out those who practice science and do not believe.

HAmStrung,

Thanks for remaining on topic. However, I think your analysis is still flawed. Evolutionary biologists are not the ones who deify a designer, creationists do that. Lack of design is not an a priori assumption based on knowledge of the designer. Rather, it is a conclusion that is drawn from the evidence and reasonable assumptions about what any intelligent agent might do. The fact is that all of the evidence is entirely inconsistent with foresight, planning or design of any kind and is also completely consistent with exactly the expectations of evolutionary theory.

Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. It is completely inconsistent with any hypothesis of any reasonable and intelligent designer. The exact same thing is true of all of the examples I gave in my post at 10:35 last night. All of these observations are completely consistent with each other and with the theory of descent with modification. None of them make any sense at all from the view point of design, planning or forethoought of ANY type of intelligence. The characters I mention have no functional significance, they are however excellent phylogenetic markers that allow us to reconsturct the evolutionary relationships between organisms with a high degree of confidsence.

Now you can always claim that the designer is so all-powerful or so inscrutable that we mere mortals can never understand him/her. But then that is not a testable hypothesis and answers no questions whatsoever. It is completely useless as a scientific explanation. That is deifying the disigner, but to no purpose whatsoever.

Now we all know that you accept evolution, so I really don't see the point of hypothesizing the actions of an unknown agent using unknown methods to achieve unknown goals in a way that appears to be completely consistent with natural processes. Everyone who thinks that a god might exist will I'm sure agree that he/she could use evolution by natural means to achieve his/her goals. The point is that there is absolutely no evidence for such an entity, be it god, alien or human agent. If you want to believe in God go right ahead, but I recommend that you follow the advise given in the Bible and make the assumption that God exists on faith. Looking for the fingerprints of God in the eyes of a halibut isn't a wise thing to do.

observer the troll derailing yet another thread: It is impossible to test origin of life theories, evolution, as well as intelligent design, inside a public school classroom.

HamStrung said: There most likely come a day where humans will be the 'designer' I am sure we will try to seed life on planets I think within the next few hundred years.We will first try to make a life sustaining environment. Then get very primitive life going there.

Then introduce programmed DNA at stages.

The fossil record on earth indicates to some degree this process happened here.

To say that we are so knowledgeable that we know beyond a doubt that this planet was not seeded in some way is very arrogant.

What evidence do you have to show us that life on Earth was “seeded” by a pre-existing designer?

If say one thousand years from now we visit other planets and find life how would we determine that that life was the result of events only on that planet or the result of some sort of seeding from an outside source?

" Of course whether life was seeded on this planet or not doesn’t do anything for the ID argument - it merely pushes the natural development of life off to an external location. "

Of course life could have evolved on another planet and those beings seeded earth. But that is certainly beyond our ability to determine. What we are looking at is how life developed on earth. Whether it was designed or not.

Could someone tell me from where or how the picture shown in National Geographic originated? Is this an artist rendition based upon the fossil that was found and if so, does anyone know who the artist was?

All this talk of "seeding" reminds me of the excellent sci-fi novel by "Kilgore Trout" called "Venus on the Half Shell". Spoiler content to follow:

At the end of the book, the protagonist, who is on a lifelong quest to answer the question "why are men born only to suffer and die?", encounters the oldest being in the universe, a giant hoary cockroach known as "It". Turns out that the race of cockroaches seeded the entire universe with life via their fecal and other waste leavings at their exploration outposts.

Still easier to believe than a sky daddy, IMHO.

The "no transitional fossils" lie of the creos is getting about as convincing as the "sun orbits the earth" fallacy.

We now have good series for such important events as the rise of the tetrapods and their movement to terrestrial habitats or the evolution of dinosaurs to flying feathered dinosaurs called birds or large primates giving rise to intelligent tool users.

And the number of transitional fossils will only increase. We find more every year. If all ID/creationism has to offer is to lie about each new discovery, they simply demonstrate their complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

We already knew that, and the number that see what they are doing and why will only increase also.

Mike in Ontario NY said: All this talk of "seeding" reminds me of the excellent sci-fi novel by "Kilgore Trout" called "Venus on the Half Shell".

An Observer said: Could someone tell me from where or how the picture shown in National Geographic originated? Is this an artist rendition based upon the fossil that was found and if so, does anyone know who the artist was?

Like all modern flatfish, the yellowtail flounder has both eyes on one side of its head. The first flatfishes had one eye on each side. The change to the current arrangement was gradual, new fossil studies suggest, contradicting the long-held idea of a sudden shift. Intelligent design advocates have said sudden shifts in the fossil record are evidence of a higher power creating new animal forms. Photograph by Jeff Rotman/Getty Images

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I hit a deer once [icy road, and the bloody deer herd panics to run onto it] and it didn't make a dent in the car.

That's a whale of a tale Casey tells. Careful with the puns, I think he's getting ready to blow a seal.

HamStrung said:

Robin said: " Of course whether life was seeded on this planet or not doesn’t do anything for the ID argument - it merely pushes the natural development of life off to an external location. "

Of course life could have evolved on another planet and those beings seeded earth. But that is certainly beyond our ability to determine. What we are looking at is how life developed on earth. Whether it was designed or not.

Flint said: I think this is where the real dispute lies. Any Designer (reified or not) whose actions are not required and nothing would change, isn't concrete enough for creationists. They want Someone who is necessary, without whose diligent poofing evolution couldn't happen, and maybe didn't happen.

raven said: Irrelevant anyway. We can't test the Big Bang or particle physics or most of science in a public school classroom either in any practical sense. How many high schools have multi billion dollar telescopes or particle accelerators? I can just imagine students slamming protons into targets and counting the pi mesons.

bybelknap, FCD said: That's a whale of a tale Casey tells. Careful with the puns, I think he's getting ready to blow a seal.

iml8 said: If the deer in Sweden are like those I used to see when I was stationed in Germany, they're on the smallish side. A mule deer buck or the like is fair sized.

iml8 said: So, Torbjörn, you were "deep in the heart of Texas" for two years? Did you take a dillo back to Sweden as a souvenir?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Oh, I forgot. In Texas everything is BIGGER.

Yes, I was, in Dallas of all places.

raven said: How many high schools have multi billion dollar telescopes or particle accelerators?

raven said: Irrelevant anyway. We can't test the Big Bang or particle physics or most of science in a public school classroom either in any practical sense. How many high schools have multi billion dollar telescopes or particle accelerators? I can just imagine students slamming protons into targets and counting the pi mesons.

OK, now that we’ve all had our pun – including Luskin who now has even more quotes to mine – it’s time to ask Luskin the hard question:

Do you think all these species, and humans, share common ancestors or not?

Note that a “yes” answer does not necessarily endorse Darwinian evolution as the main driver of species change, and a “no” answer does not necessarily mean that some designer (or delegate) was responsible for any changes.

To help you out, recall that the only DI person ever to give a clear answer to that question, Michael Behe, says “yes.” Now if you thinks it’s “no”, “probably not” or “I don’t know,” then you have a lot to talk about with Behe. The whole point of critical analysis is to not just focus on weaknesses on a current explanation, but to propose alternatives and to critically analyze them.

So if the you are honest about promoting only “critical analysis” (and not ID or creationism), the least you can do is show up here, answer simple questions like the one above (and yes, I have more), and discuss in detail your differences, if any, with other DI folk. Without any reference to any problems you have with “Darwinism” or “Darwinists.”

C’mon Casey. You are welcome here. You too Mike. And the rest of the DI gang too.

JimNorth said: I dunno. I used a cloud chamber in high school to look at sub-atomic particles. Wasn't that expensive; although, obtaining the dry ice was a bit difficult for teenagers pre-WalMart (yessss, wally world does sell dry ice. It's great for chem demos and halloween and assorted parties)

Robin said: If we do get to that point, the fact is we will not 'create' life from scratch, but rather we'll use the basic blocks that we are already familiar with - single-celled organisms. Thus we will not be "Intelligent Designers" but rather "Life Sowers."

Robin said: DNA is "programmed", by definition. It is the program that builds a given organism plan. We may well be able to tinker with DNA in some future, but we certainly aren't going to create new DNA from scratch for any reason.

Robin said: I'm not aware of anyone who states such "beyond a doubt", however there is no reason to presume seeding currently since there is no evidence that such occurred.

iml8 said: It does have a fine naked mole rat exhibit, however.

iml8 said: Somehow I get a vision of kids running evo science and GM experiments in high-school lab. It would make a great cheap tongue-in-cheek horror movie.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I missed that! Bummer!

David Stanton said: HAmStrung, Thanks for remaining on topic. However, I think your analysis is still flawed. Evolutionary biologists are not the ones who deify a designer, creationists do that. Lack of design is not an a priori assumption based on knowledge of the designer. Rather, it is a conclusion that is drawn from the evidence and reasonable assumptions about what any intelligent agent might do. The fact is that all of the evidence is entirely inconsistent with foresight, planning or design of any kind and is also completely consistent with exactly the expectations of evolutionary theory. Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. It is completely inconsistent with any hypothesis of any reasonable and intelligent designer. The exact same thing is true of all of the examples I gave in my post at 10:35 last night. All of these observations are completely consistent with each other and with the theory of descent with modification. None of them make any sense at all from the view point of design, planning or forethoought of ANY type of intelligence. The characters I mention have no functional significance, they are however excellent phylogenetic markers that allow us to reconsturct the evolutionary relationships between organisms with a high degree of confidsence. Now you can always claim that the designer is so all-powerful or so inscrutable that we mere mortals can never understand him/her. But then that is not a testable hypothesis and answers no questions whatsoever. It is completely useless as a scientific explanation. That is deifying the disigner, but to no purpose whatsoever. Now we all know that you accept evolution, so I really don't see the point of hypothesizing the actions of an unknown agent using unknown methods to achieve unknown goals in a way that appears to be completely consistent with natural processes. Everyone who thinks that a god might exist will I'm sure agree that he/she could use evolution by natural means to achieve his/her goals. The point is that there is absolutely no evidence for such an entity, be it god, alien or human agent. If you want to believe in God go right ahead, but I recommend that you follow the advise given in the Bible and make the assumption that God exists on faith. Looking for the fingerprints of God in the eyes of a halibut isn't a wise thing to do.

"Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. "

And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Robin said: If we do get to that point, the fact is we will not 'create' life from scratch, but rather we'll use the basic blocks that we are already familiar with - single-celled organisms. Thus we will not be "Intelligent Designers" but rather "Life Sowers."

Agreed. But even if we look at synthetic life, this is in fact that happens at this very time. Venter et al have managed to synthesize a minimum genome for a single-celled organism. But only by using cells for assembling it. And only by putting them in an existing cell machinery will they be able to get the genome to live. To make new types of cells by replaying evolution from a simple replicator all the way up to something resembling a modern cell that can survive the modern environment would be practically impossible. Who would want to wait millions of years?

Robin said: DNA is "programmed", by definition. It is the program that builds a given organism plan. We may well be able to tinker with DNA in some future, but we certainly aren't going to create new DNA from scratch for any reason.

Well, it's a recipe that works for a certain cell machinery in a certain environment. No one can "program" DNA for our own environment from scratch, much less do so for say Mars or free fall environments. But we know how life can manage it on its own. Imagine that!

Robin said: I'm not aware of anyone who states such "beyond a doubt", however there is no reason to presume seeding currently since there is no evidence that such occurred.

Actually we would have evidence to the contrary, wouldn't we? First life wasn't certainly not DNA, in fact it is likely it wasn't the prior RNA either. Now, why would a putative seeder want to introduce chancy life that wasn't designed to have a stable hereditary mechanism, such as DNA? It makes no sense for us to do it, and money says it doesn't make sense for any other presumed seeder either. Speaking of seeders, where are they? What would be the incentive to seed a planet with just primitive life, as opposed to make certain to establish a mature biosphere? And notably there are no local seeders around, nor any visiting. And what would seeders gain? We haven't established that there is an economical gain from local seeding due to space transport costs. But we are fairly certain there will never be any interstellar commerce. Modeling seeders from a practical and economical perspective predicts that there likely will be none for Earth, which is what we observe. As usual creationists are espousing wishful thinking, without ever taking any responsibility for their breathtaking inanities.

hamstrung said: etc etc etc

hamstrung said: "Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. " And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

{{

Actually we would have evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t we? First life wasn’t certainly not DNA, in fact it is likely it wasn’t the prior RNA either.

Now, why would a putative seeder want to introduce chancy life that wasn’t designed to have a stable hereditary mechanism, such as DNA? It makes no sense for us to do it, and money says it doesn’t make sense for any other presumed seeder either.

Speaking of seeders, where are they? What would be the incentive to seed a planet with just primitive life, as opposed to make certain to establish a mature biosphere? And notably there are no local seeders around, nor any visiting.

And what would seeders gain? We haven’t established that there is an economical gain from local seeding due to space transport costs. But we are fairly certain there will never be any interstellar commerce.

Modeling seeders from a practical and economical perspective predicts that there likely will be none for Earth, which is what we observe.

}}

All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Robin said:

hamstrung said: "Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. " And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

You're placing an aweful lot evidentiary weight on the helibut research. The validity of evolution is based upon the accumulation of MANY such finds. Such finds now are just more and more icing on an already well-established and defined cake. So if one such find right now turned out to be an anomoly (say...the halibut fossils showed no change at all between modern halibuts) it wouldn't have a great impact on the overall theory. However, if cat skeletons started appearing in sediments dated at 400 million years old AND halibuts showed no change AND there was no similarity between genomes of any of the primates or other mammals, well...evolution would not stand up for long.

I have printed off the EN&V and ICR responses for future use.
I like reading National Geographic often, but I also like seeing National Geographic get pwned when they deserve it.
This is one of those times.

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

FL said: I have printed off the EN&V and ICR responses for future use. I like reading National Geographic often, but I also like seeing National Geographic get pwned when they deserve it. This is one of those times.

Mike Elzinga said: The eyes stayed where they were; the fish rotated about its longitudinal axis. So, what good is a partially rotated fish (and therefore evolution doesn’t occur)? Nah, these were fish that had near-death experiences and survived; a bit cockeyed, however.

hamstrung said: " Evolutionary biologists are not the ones who deify a designer, creationists do that " "Looking for the fingerprints of God in the eyes of a halibut isn't a wise thing to do." You honestly do not see how you are contradicting yourself?

“Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. “ And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Hamstrung wrote:

"You honestly do not see how you are contradicting yourself?"

No, I don't. It is completely consistent to say that evolutionary biologists should not diefy a designer and to say that creationsts should not deify a designeer or look for the fingerprints of God in nature. Do you see how you would be contradicting yourself if you claimed that they should?

"And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?"

Probably it would. If the halibut had a genetically unique developmental process that was not homologous to any known developmental pathway, that would be strong evidence against the hypothesis that halibuts evolved from other fish ancestors. The fact that the developmental pathway is a minor modification of the end of the existing fish pathway is strong evidence of common ancestry and strong evidence against any sort of intelligent design.

If you took a Ford Escort and replaced the hood ornament with one from a BMW and then claimed that the car was a BMW and that it had no relationship to a Ford Escort, that would be analogous to denying that halibuts were related to other fish.

I notice that you did not address any of my questions or dispute any of my examples. Oh well, at least you are trying to remain on topic. I sure am glad that everyone knows that you accept evolution, otherwise they might get the wrong idea about your questions. By the way, I didn't say anything about "seeding" nor do I intend to. I did not prove any of your points. Remain on topic or no one will respond to you.

Thanks to Kevin B for the helpful comments.

FL said: I have printed off the EN&V and ICR responses for future use.

hamstrung said:

Robin said:

hamstrung said: "Look at the example of the halibut. It is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, including the development, genetics and palentology. " And if the halibut did not develop that way that would be evidence against Darwinism?

You're placing an aweful lot evidentiary weight on the helibut research. The validity of evolution is based upon the accumulation of MANY such finds. Such finds now are just more and more icing on an already well-established and defined cake. So if one such find right now turned out to be an anomoly (say...the halibut fossils showed no change at all between modern halibuts) it wouldn't have a great impact on the overall theory. However, if cat skeletons started appearing in sediments dated at 400 million years old AND halibuts showed no change AND there was no similarity between genomes of any of the primates or other mammals, well...evolution would not stand up for long.

This the point: there is no 'test' for Darwinism as there is for heliocentrism and so many other theories. As you have expressed it is difficult to falsify. A plausible explanation but hardly a scientific theory.

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Eric said:

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Yes, clearly no scientist has ever published on directed panspermia. ... yes there have Or studied the possible existence of life on mars. ... yes they have Or in meteorites. ... yes they have You are demonstrably wrong: recognizing TOE as the best current explanation for the progression of life on earth clearly does not prevent any scientist from entertaining "other scenarios." ... true but not allowing the weaknesses of Darwinism to be discussed does The difference, however, between scientists who entertain other scenarios and fundamentalists, is that we don't try to illegally and deceptively pass off our "scenarios" as scientific theories to high school students. ... who is doing something illegal?? Though I have to say great quote mining of the posters here. You have yet to respond to any of the cogent points people took the time to write to your emails, such as: -Halibut genetics, development, and paleontology match the predictions of evolution. (D. Stanton) ... I did not say evolution does not happen. I believe in it just as you do -Flatfish biology is one of many of cases where this is so (Robin) ... yes so?? -There are many ways a halibut could have developed that would be problematical for TOE, i.e. the exact test you asked Robin for. (GuyeFaux) ... which way would have been problematic?? -You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS) ... why must I have an alternative hypothesis??

HDX replied to comment from FL | July 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply FL said: I have printed off the EN&V and ICR responses for future use. Same here. It is always prudent to have extra toilet paper around the house.

… why must I have an alternative hypothesis??

I’m not aware that helicentrism ever reached the status of a Theory,

... see wiki

so comparing it to the Theory of Evolution is a false comparison.

.... your opinion

One might say it was an hypothesis in a strict sense, but I’m not aware of any tests or research conducted to falsify the apparent movement of the sun.

... study harder and google

Of course, when such experiments DID begin, they quickly demonstrated that the observation was false.

The Theory of Gravity, however, is just as workable as the Theory of Evolution and has the same number (if not more) areas that are currently vague in terms of its testability.

Methinks you don’t know what a Theory actually is because quite frankly a Theory is a plausible explanation for a given phenomenon that holds up under a given amount of scientific scrutiny.

... see wiki and study harder

And quite frankly, the ToE is one of the best tested and substantiated Theories in science.

.... show me the tests

Go complain about the Theory of Gravity if you are having heartburn over such things.

... I have no complaints about the theory of gravity expect the mechanism is unknown

Eric said in an OBVIOUSLY sarcastic tone: Yes, clearly no scientist has ever published on directed panspermia.

hamstrung mindlessly replied: ... yes there have

Eric: [SARCASM] Or studied the possible existence of life on mars. [/SARCASM]

hamstrung cluelessly replied: ... yes they have

Eric: [SARCASM] Or in meteorites. [/SARCASM]

hamstrung floundered: ... yes they have

I'm not aware that helicentrism ever reached the status of a Theory, so comparing it to the Theory of Evolution is a false comparison. One might say it was an hypothesis in a strict sense, but I'm not aware of any tests or research conducted to falsify the apparent movement of the sun. Of course, when such experiments DID begin, they quickly demonstrated that the observation was false.

hamstrung said: ... true but not allowing the weaknesses of Darwinism to be discussed does

... who is doing something illegal??

Anyone who attempts to force religion into public schools, in other words, the creationist movement.

... when was that done?

Fredgiblet said:

I'm not aware that helicentrism ever reached the status of a Theory, so comparing it to the Theory of Evolution is a false comparison. One might say it was an hypothesis in a strict sense, but I'm not aware of any tests or research conducted to falsify the apparent movement of the sun. Of course, when such experiments DID begin, they quickly demonstrated that the observation was false.

I think you are thinking of geocentrism...

hamstrung said: ... when was that done?

Dave Thomas said: ... I recommend you ask your pharmacist if he can prescribe something for your serious irony deficiency problem.

hamstrung said: And quite frankly, the ToE is one of the best tested and substantiated Theories in science. .... show me the tests Go complain about the Theory of Gravity if you are having heartburn over such things. ... I have no complaints about the theory of gravity expect the mechanism is unknown

iml8 said:

Dave Thomas said: ... I recommend you ask your pharmacist if he can prescribe something for your serious irony deficiency problem.

The pharmacist can do nothing. It requires a brain surgeon to get the comprehension of an irony into the head of a lunatic fringer. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

So. let's review shall we.

Mentally hamstrung has been proven to be wrong about every claim he/she/it has made. He/she/it did not answer a single question, except with inane questions of his/her/it's own. He/she/it did not refute any of the evidence for evolution, in fact claims to believe in evolution, yet at the same time claims that evolution is not a scientific explanation or even testable! He/she/it didn't understand a single argument put to him/her/it, or apparently even the concept of irony and continually discredits his/her/it's own nonsensical assertations.

Let me guess. Next he/she/it will demand to see references about experiments that prove evolution, even though he/she/it claims to already believe in it. Then he/she/it will demand mathematical proof that the halibut eye could move exactly .005 cm per year. Then he/she/it will demand definitions for every term everyone uses but provide none of his own. Then he/she/it will make up a bunch of crap in a vain attempt to try to divert attention away from the fact that he/she/it did not have a single answer for the evidence that the halibut is descended from other fish ancestors. Then he/she/it will cut and paste this post in it's entirety and make no tangible response whatsoever. Then he/she/it will change names and repeat the same nonsense all over again on every other thread, regardless of the topic. Very strange behavior from someone who claims to beleve in evolution.

The point is simply that the halibut fossils are strong evidence of common descent and strong evidence against intelligent design, by anyone. The evidence is exactly what is predicted by modern evolutionary theory. ID has no answers and never will. Unless he/she/it can come up with a convincing counter argument, he/she/it will just have to concede the point and shut up. No big deal really, since he/she/it already believes in evolution.

David Stanton said: Let me guess. Next he/she/it will demand to see references about experiments that prove evolution, even though he/she/it claims to already believe in it.

hamstrung said:

comment from Dave Thomas Anyone who attempts to force religion into public schools, in other words, the creationist movement.

... when was that done?

In a parallel universe Igor said: What hump?

hamstrung said: Anyone who attempts to force religion into public schools, in other words, the creationist movement. ... when was that done?

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Dave Thomas said:

hamstrung said: Anyone who attempts to force religion into public schools, in other words, the creationist movement. ... when was that done?

Oh, let's see... Would you believe 1968, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1990, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005? (And that's just the famous ones.) Dave

Gary Hurd said:

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Actually all of those "stimulating ideas" were generated by reasearchers with far better things to do that piddle around with creationists. ID and other forms of creationism are a net negative to science detracting from the careers and productivity of the few of us that bother with idiots.

Regarding Hamstrung...Jacob.

He/she/it has passive-aggressive disorder and is a very sad case. Here are some of the descriptors of passive-aggressive disorder:

Ambiguity, Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness, Blaming others, Complaining, Does not express hostility or anger openly - (e.g., expresses it instead by leaving notes), Fear of competition, Fosters chaos, Intentional inefficiency, Making excuses, Lying, Obstructionism, Resentment, Resists suggestions from others, Sarcasm, Stubbornness, Willful withholding of understanding

I pity anyone in relationship with him. He/she/it has a broken mind.

I also find the name "Hamstrung" compellingly Freudian.

rog

rog said: Regarding Hamstrung...Jacob. He/she/it has passive-aggressive disorder and is a very sad case. Here are some of the descriptors of passive-aggressive disorder: Ambiguity, Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness, Blaming others, Complaining, Does not express hostility or anger openly - (e.g., expresses it instead by leaving notes), Fear of competition, Fosters chaos, Intentional inefficiency, Making excuses, Lying, Obstructionism, Resentment, Resists suggestions from others, Sarcasm, Stubbornness, Willful withholding of understanding I pity anyone in relationship with him. He/she/it has a broken mind. I also find the name "Hamstrung" compellingly Freudian. rog

rog said: Regarding Hamstrung...Jacob. He/she/it has passive-aggressive disorder and is a very sad case. Here are some of the descriptors of passive-aggressive disorder: Ambiguity, Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness, Blaming others, Complaining, Does not express hostility or anger openly - (e.g., expresses it instead by leaving notes), Fear of competition, Fosters chaos, Intentional inefficiency, Making excuses, Lying, Obstructionism, Resentment, Resists suggestions from others, Sarcasm, Stubbornness, Willful withholding of understanding I pity anyone in relationship with him. He/she/it has a broken mind. I also find the name "Hamstrung" compellingly Freudian. rog

Stanton said:

Gary Hurd said:

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Actually all of those "stimulating ideas" were generated by reasearchers with far better things to do that piddle around with creationists. ID and other forms of creationism are a net negative to science detracting from the careers and productivity of the few of us that bother with idiots.

I mean, what have either Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents done to explain why flatfish are the way they asymmetrically are better than what paleontologists already have said?

Mike Elzinga said:

rog said: Regarding Hamstrung...Jacob. He/she/it has passive-aggressive disorder and is a very sad case. Here are some of the descriptors of passive-aggressive disorder: Ambiguity, Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness, Blaming others, Complaining, Does not express hostility or anger openly - (e.g., expresses it instead by leaving notes), Fear of competition, Fosters chaos, Intentional inefficiency, Making excuses, Lying, Obstructionism, Resentment, Resists suggestions from others, Sarcasm, Stubbornness, Willful withholding of understanding I pity anyone in relationship with him. He/she/it has a broken mind. I also find the name "Hamstrung" compellingly Freudian. rog

Indeed. Most of the trolls (keith, Sal, FL, and the many-names hamstrung) posting here in recent months (in fact, ever since Dover) have this seething anger and passive-aggressive shtick down pretty well. This seems to be the ID/Creationists’ latest weapon of choice (they have nothing else; even their gods have abandoned them). And it also reveals, as much as anything else they do, just how malevolent these self-proclaimed “Christians” really are. They have actually taken on the ugliest characteristics they attribute to their very own Satan; and they seem to take great delight in it. Anyone who works that hard at being stupid is obviously sick and full of unresolved rage, and one doesn’t have to be a psychiatrist to recognize it. The general rule-of-thumb in dealing with these trolls should be to starve them to death by not responding to them.

Fredgiblet said:

hamstrung said: ... when was that done?

The most recent instance that has gotten publicity would be the Freshwater case that has been posted about frequently here for the last couple weeks.

DON'T YOU TROLLS HAVE ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO DO??

DON'T YOU TROLLS HAVE ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO DO??

HamStrung said: DON'T YOU TROLLS HAVE ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO DO??

Hamstrung,

Your responses are comical.

hamstrung said: {{ Actually we would have evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t we? First life wasn’t certainly not DNA, in fact it is likely it wasn’t the prior RNA either. Now, why would a putative seeder want to introduce chancy life that wasn’t designed to have a stable hereditary mechanism, such as DNA? It makes no sense for us to do it, and money says it doesn’t make sense for any other presumed seeder either. Speaking of seeders, where are they? What would be the incentive to seed a planet with just primitive life, as opposed to make certain to establish a mature biosphere? And notably there are no local seeders around, nor any visiting. And what would seeders gain? We haven’t established that there is an economical gain from local seeding due to space transport costs. But we are fairly certain there will never be any interstellar commerce. Modeling seeders from a practical and economical perspective predicts that there likely will be none for Earth, which is what we observe. }} All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

hamstrung said:

Eric said: You are demonstrably wrong: recognizing TOE as the best current explanation for the progression of life on earth clearly does not prevent any scientist from entertaining "other scenarios."

... true but not allowing the weaknesses of Darwinism to be discussed does

Hamstrung said: "... I did not say evolution does not happen. I believe in it just as you do"

-You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS)

... why must I have an alternative hypothesis??

-You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS)

… why must I have an alternative hypothesis??

??? Because science deals in hypotheses and theories. Without such, you aren’t dealing in science.

--- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

hamstrung said:

I’m not aware that helicentrism ever reached the status of a Theory,

... see wiki

so comparing it to the Theory of Evolution is a false comparison.

.... your opinion

One might say it was an hypothesis in a strict sense, but I’m not aware of any tests or research conducted to falsify the apparent movement of the sun.

... study harder and google

Of course, when such experiments DID begin, they quickly demonstrated that the observation was false. The Theory of Gravity, however, is just as workable as the Theory of Evolution and has the same number (if not more) areas that are currently vague in terms of its testability. Methinks you don’t know what a Theory actually is because quite frankly a Theory is a plausible explanation for a given phenomenon that holds up under a given amount of scientific scrutiny.

... see wiki and study harder

And quite frankly, the ToE is one of the best tested and substantiated Theories in science.

.... show me the tests

Go complain about the Theory of Gravity if you are having heartburn over such things.

... I have no complaints about the theory of gravity expect the mechanism is unknown

I think the fishy puns are Brill..

Dave is clearly a Dab hand at them...

Dembski's Autistic Son Rejected By Faith Healer

I apologize if this is off topic, but thought it would be of interest.

A faith healer is visiting Louisville, KY. The Louisville Courier-Journal quotes Dembski, who notes that after driving 130 miles to see the faith healer for a cure for his son, he was prevented from having his son seen for healing.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/NEWS01/807170410&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

… why must I have an alternative hypothesis??

TomS said:

hamstrung said: All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

Do you have another scenario in mind?

I realize the proprietors of this site are busy men, and have far better things to do than clean up after trolls, but this is ridiculous. How about giving some of us limited access to do so for you? I'd be glad to take the 5 pm-10 pm CST shift to delete any and all trolling.

Letting this go on as it has is fracking ridiculous.

HamStrung said: --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

Science Avenger said: I realize the proprietors of this site are busy men, and have far better things to do than clean up after trolls, but this is ridiculous. How about giving some of us limited access to do so for you? I'd be glad to take the 5 pm-10 pm CST shift to delete any and all trolling. Letting this go on as it has is fracking ridiculous.

HamStrung said: ... unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

Eric Finn said:

Mike in Ontario NY said: All this talk of "seeding" reminds me of the excellent sci-fi novel by "Kilgore Trout" called "Venus on the Half Shell".

Kilgore Trout is a fictional character created by Kurt Vonnegut. Sci-fi novels have been published under that pseudonym, but personally I wouldn't call them "excellent". Regards Eric

Eric Finn said:

HamStrung said: --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

I think this statement is basically correct. The observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury was known to be a problem in classical mechanics, even before the general theory of relativity was published. However, the overall success of the classical mechanics clearly told scientists that the theory can't be all wrong.

HamStrung said: -You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS) … why must I have an alternative hypothesis?? ??? Because science deals in hypotheses and theories. Without such, you aren’t dealing in science. --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a ‘sacred cow’.

And, btw, MET looks like a sacred cow due to 150+ years' worth of dead beef behind it. There have been literally thousands of falsification opportunities (including this flatfish transitional), all of them having failed. Alternative hypotheses have been raised; iff they were better, they were incorporated.

Sure, nobody’s telling you you can’t criticize. You can criticize all you want, but without an alternative hypothesis that criticizm is not constructive.

— GuyeFaux

Dave Thomas said: Most of us (PT crew) do have day jobs. I would be inclined to retire the thread, but there's nothing more recent, so I'll wait a bit before throwing it back into the blog-pond.

If you’ve got a bunch of guys who hang out at a cafe having science discussions and one oddball keeps showing up who is only interested in being an annoyance and picking fights, the solution is not to close the cafe, it’s to ban the offender.

Science Avenger said: No, no, a thousand times no. If you've got a bunch of guys who hang out at a cafe having science discussions and one oddball keeps showing up who is only interested in being an annoyance and picking fights, the solution is not to close the cafe, it's to ban the offender. Who do you think sufferred more when you closed the thread Keith ruined, Keith, or everyone else? This isn't rocket science. Hamstrung has broken sock puppet rules, and his every argument is modelled after a great description given by another poster here of the typical creationist trolling: Troll: There are no redheaded women. Scientist: You are wrong. There is my sister, and she has red hair. Troll: She's not your sister. That's Jacob/bobby/Hamstrung in a nutshell. Get him the phuck out of here. And please do me the courtesy of not changing words in my posts. I've never used a madeup curse word from a second-rate sci-fi show in my life and I'm not about to start.

GuyeFaux said: And logically: MET is claimed to be the best theory, among many, explaning the complexity of life. Nothing more and nothing less is claimed. If you disagree, you have to show why it's not the best theory; i.e. you have to show a better one.

HamStrung said: -You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS) … why must I have an alternative hypothesis?? ??? Because science deals in hypotheses and theories. Without such, you aren’t dealing in science. --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

Mike Elzinga said:

If you’ve got a bunch of guys who hang out at a cafe having science discussions and one oddball keeps showing up who is only interested in being an annoyance and picking fights, the solution is not to close the cafe, it’s to ban the offender.

Probably in such a situation, if the proprietor didn’t do anything about the jerk, the other customers would, and the jerk would suddenly find himself in the dumpster out back. I’m a little puzzled that people keep responding to trolls like this hamstrung jerk and the keith jerk also. They are clearly sociopaths bent on disruption, and they feed on the annoyance they cause. Beyond a few posts, everything involving them becomes repetition; and it just degenerates into a bar fight. So the rest of the customers start looking for another café; and the trolls accomplish their objective of taking over the bar.

Sometimes resistance is futile...

Meanwhile, what does everyone think of the inked version of my reconstructions of Amphistium and Heteronectes?

Inked version

Any recommendations on color schemes?

An Observer said: Should Evolution or Darwinism be classified as science while Intelligent Design is classified not scientific?

Can evolution be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Intelligent Design?

Should students not be allowed to discuss more than one possiblity when a fossil or species such as the one in the post is discovered?

Are evolutions to be trusted considering the misinformation given in the past?

Do those who practice science and "believe" in evolution have a right to go into our children's textbooks and classrooms while successfully locking out those who practice science and do not believe.

First the question must be answered, "Can evolution be tested and proven inside a classroom?" The answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Some aspects of the subject can be tested in a science lab inside a public school if the class is very well equipped and the teacher is highly trained.

Students have been taught using Marsh's drawings of 'horse evolution', and with false information such as the piltdown man

Textbook illustrators are doing a much better job of checking sources before including information into textbooks, however, the subject itself has become so politically motivated in some cases even those who call themselves "scientist" may be agenda driven.

It is time that we no longer allow those who use intimidation and politics to stop us from getting involved.

Stanton said: Meanwhile, what does everyone think of the inked version of my reconstructions of Amphistium and Heteronectes? Inked version Any recommendations on color schemes?

Eric Finn said:

HamStrung said: --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

I think this statement is basically correct. The observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury was known to be a problem in classical mechanics, even before the general theory of relativity was published. However, the overall success of the classical mechanics clearly told scientists that the theory can't be all wrong.

Robin said: I know they should be starved, but from time to time I just want to point out the obvious error in their statements. I'll see if I can get some Benadryl for that itch. :(

GuyeFaux said: And, btw, MET looks like a sacred cow due to 150+ years' worth of dead beef behind it. There have been literally thousands of falsification opportunities (including this flatfish transitional), all of them having failed. Alternative hypotheses have been raised; iff they were better, they were incorporated.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Can evolution be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Intelligent Design?

Can quantum physics be tested and proven in a classroom any better than Newtonian physics?

Dale Husband said:

HamStrung said: -You have no alternate hypothesis for halibut creation (TomS) … why must I have an alternative hypothesis?? ??? Because science deals in hypotheses and theories. Without such, you aren’t dealing in science. --- wrong... one does not need an alternative hypothesis to criticize another hypothesis. unless the latter is a 'sacred cow'

Needless to say, that is laughably false. Making up an alternative hypothesis follows naturally from questioning an established one. Otherwise, science does not answer questions that are raised. And that's what anti-science bigots really want, because the answers science comes up with threaten their narrow views.

hamstrung said:

GuyeFaux said: And, btw, MET looks like a sacred cow due to 150+ years' worth of dead beef behind it. There have been literally thousands of falsification opportunities (including this flatfish transitional), all of them having failed. Alternative hypotheses have been raised; iff they were better, they were incorporated.

Tell me what you think is the best example of a falsification opportunity.

hamstrung said:

GuyeFaux said: And, btw, MET looks like a sacred cow due to 150+ years' worth of dead beef behind it. There have been literally thousands of falsification opportunities (including this flatfish transitional), all of them having failed. Alternative hypotheses have been raised; iff they were better, they were incorporated.

Tell me what you think is the best example of a falsification opportunity.

Tell me what you think is the best example of a falsification opportunity.

It is a pity YOU [who? sic] do not understand science are unabel [sic] to back up your points with examples. Interesting how the trolls above roll out the insulst [sic] and vulgarities when the [sic] have no logical response. It is funny. But sad too. Hope they take some science course or basic logic courses soon.

Sorry. Homology does not prove that reptiles became mammals thru natural selection. try againg

hamstrung is feeling put upon. Oh well. Unlike ID/UD, he can still adore his verbosity at the Bathroom Wall, courtesy ATBC.
Dave

iml8 said:

Robin said: I know they should be starved, but from time to time I just want to point out the obvious error in their statements. I'll see if I can get some Benadryl for that itch. :(

Visualize them as small noisy dogs and then trying to reply begins to seem a bit more absurd. It's like having a conversation with a concrete block. They do make fairly good "straight men" though ... in comparison Margaret Dumont was astute: DUMONT: I've sponsored your appointment because I feel you are the most able statesman in all Freedonia. GROUCHO: Well, that covers a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself. You'd better beat it; I hear they're going to tear you down and put up an office building where you're standing. Alas, it is a simple rule that no matter how obviously dense and shifty a provocateur, on a forum someone will snap at the bait. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

In addition to not feeding, would it be too much to ask that, if one must reply once or twice, one asks the kind of questions TomS asks in his excellent comment of 12:19? It has been my experience that they almost always go away when we ask them to give details of their "theory" instead of taking their bait. And as a bonus, lurkers take note of their evasion instead of reading more misrepresentations of evolution.

Dave Thomas said: Now, STAY ON TOPIC! (flatfishies). - Dave

Robin, Robin. . . . .

Dontcha know? God, er I mean the designer, moves in mysterious ways.

That great thinker Ken Ham says that we just are such low, stupid creatures that there's no way we could know the mind of God.

Casey "attack gerbil" Luskin thinks we're just too stupid to know, so
the Great Mysterious Designer dunnit.

I personally thinks it's just because the Great Designer has a sick sense of humor. Hell, he gave me tits, and I still can't figger out how to make 'em work.

And of course, you’ve got those pesky pre-Cambrian rabbits. Damn things wouldn’t fossilize no matter how hard God tried.

Frank J,

Good point. Why not just ask pointed questions, like:

Why do flatfish begin development with eyes on different sides of their heads? Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between fish with eyes on two sides of their heads and fish with eyes on one side of their head? Why are flatfish genetically more similar to other fish than they are to reptiles, amphibians, birds or mammals? What is the inescapeable conclusion that can be drawn from all of the above observations?

Why do trolls always run away without answering such questions? Why do some people think that asking another question is an answer to a question?

Henry J said: Yeah, wabbits can be wascally - just ask Elmer Fudd!

This is Off-Topic, but the conversation reminds me of it. Perhaps anyone here may have an answer?

For several years (possible still) there were a population of large carp, perhaps grass carp, that lived in Vortex Spring, in North Florida. Most of the fish looked normal but there were a few that looked as if someone had beat them with a paddle. Their spines, viewed from above, was bent in a Z shape. They were all bent in the exact location on their spines, in identical directions. The bends were severe-these fish could not swim as well as the normal ones, but they seemed to have no predators, so it didn't really matter. Google turns up little information. Genetic? Parasites in early development?

Please forgive me for being off topic, but if anyone has ideas, they probably read this site.

Eric said: I'd argue that what distinguishes science from skepticism (the ancient greek type which Observer and Hamstrung represent, not the modern meaning of the word) is a drive for useful knowledge. Skeptics may be content to poke holes in every idea, but scientists want to build stuff that works (even if what works is just the next experiment). The only way to accomplish that is to come up with rough and ready rules about how the world consistently and repeatedly behaves.

And since ID is really about about what gets taught to kids, this distinction between skepticism and science really means something. We DONT want to teach kids some bogus, deficient and debased form of science that consists of merely reciting the elements of the periodic table and critiquing theories. Such a lesson will make them woefully incompetent at actually *doing* science. We need to teach them how to form positive, testable hypotheses and then actually test them. How to design and carry out experiments.

Introducing ID in class truly does "make them stupid" because it misinforms them about how science operates and what scientists do. It creates this bogus type of science where the student critiques a theory and then (like the skeptics of ancient Greece) sits back on their butt content to neither produce an alternative nor to test one if its offered to them.

Now...ask me how I really feel about it... :)

So, I'd argue that, while poking holes in other people's theories is *part* of science, if that's all you're doing, then you aren't really doing science.

Why are flatfish genetically more similar to other fish than they are to reptiles, amphibians, birds or mammals?

Robin said: They're great - they give a real sense of the fishes' proportions and comparison to modern day halibuts. I would suggest a sandy-brownish color contrasted with a cream color. Of course, I have no idea where the dividing line would be on such a transition - 2/3rds to 3/4 down the eye dominant side and 1/3 to 1/4 or the other? Or would one whole side of the fish be darker than the other with the assumption that these fish likely "laid down" on one side upon a sandy floor waiting for prey and avoiding predators?

lkeithlu said: This is Off-Topic, but the conversation reminds me of it. Perhaps anyone here may have an answer? For several years (possible still) there were a population of large carp, perhaps grass carp, that lived in Vortex Spring, in North Florida. Most of the fish looked normal but there were a few that looked as if someone had beat them with a paddle. Their spines, viewed from above, was bent in a Z shape. They were all bent in the exact location on their spines, in identical directions. The bends were severe-these fish could not swim as well as the normal ones, but they seemed to have no predators, so it didn't really matter. Google turns up little information. Genetic? Parasites in early development? Please forgive me for being off topic, but if anyone has ideas, they probably read this site.

That is very interesting. I will pass that on to my friends who also saw these very unusual fish. They will be excited to know some possible explanations! Thanks!

Stanton said: [...] some flatfish are actually capable of changing their skin patterns, in that, in one experiment, a flatfish was given various patterns for the floor of its aquarium, and it would change its markings to match, though, when it wasn't able to suitably match the checkerboard floor, and the poor thing exploded when the researchers put in a paisley matt.

Well, now I am really curious. Where is the path for the optic nerve of the migrating eye? Is there a “trench” in the skull of the mature flatfish?

I haven’t yet found a detailed anatomical layout of this beast that gives some idea of just what goes on in between the larval stage and the mature stage of development.

Does the migration take place inside or outside the skull? I'm guessing inside, but I'm not sure that makes sense either.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, now I am really curious. Where is the path for the optic nerve of the migrating eye? Is there a “trench” in the skull of the mature flatfish? I haven’t yet found a detailed anatomical layout of this beast that gives some idea of just what goes on in between the larval stage and the mature stage of development. Does the migration take place inside or outside the skull? I'm guessing inside, but I'm not sure that makes sense either.

Dave Thomas said: While hamstrung has indeed been quite the troll, I haven't observed any sockpuppet behavior, at least on this thread. If you have info that he/she/it is a sockpuppet (jacob? Bobby? perhaps on other posts?), send along links to the specific comments, and I can check it out with the crew.

Cool; Evo-Devo with a twist.

One can get a picture of what development gets turned on in this animal; and it isn’t the typical bilateral or radial symmetry in most other animals.

Again, it is selection working with what it has to enhance a bilateral asymmetry into development that favors animals that lie flat against the bottom. With buoyancy in water effectively reducing the effect of gravity, one might suspect that such an asymmetry would be easier to adjust in response to selection pressures relative to the bottom of the ocean.

It raises a question about whether any corresponding “twist” of a bilateral symmetry has taken place on land. My suspicion would be that it would be far less likely; but I could be wrong.

Eric Finn said:

Stanton said: [...] some flatfish are actually capable of changing their skin patterns, in that, in one experiment, a flatfish was given various patterns for the floor of its aquarium, and it would change its markings to match, though, when it wasn't able to suitably match the checkerboard floor, and the poor thing exploded when the researchers put in a paisley matt.

About the flatfish (and other animals) that are capable of changing their skin patterns... Do they always see the part of their skin that changes the pattern, or does the pattern change all over the skin (majority vote)? Regards Eric

I keep thinking that Elmer would make a gweat, er great, creationist.

Critizing a theory in a vaccuum is meaningless. Unless you offer some alternative explanation for a phenomenon in your criticism and some analysis demonstrating the validity of your alternative, a criticism is worthless for science in nearly all cases. You are welcome to criticize evolutionary theory to your heart’s content, but unless you have some scientific foundation for the criticism, such will fall on deaf ears.

Thank you Henry! I was beginning to miss the puntathalon.

"puntathalon"? :p

I was beginning to feel punished. ;-)

By just reading the article by Institute of Creation Research's Brian Thomas is a clear indication that Intelligent Design is not science. To have your main theory needing to critique another theory does not make it a scientific theory. Science is not a debate. The proof supporting your thesis must be presented and must have more evidence than the establish theory in explain how the system works.

Why not just ask pointed questions, like: Why do flatfish begin development with eyes on different sides of their heads?

— David Stanton

Frank J said: And we all know that bait-taking is especially common in threads about fish.

GET YOUR FINAL BARBS IN!

Thread closure is imminent!

Meanwhile, I will query the PT crew about the alleged sockpuppetry of various commenters. However, keep this in mind: just because people are mindlessly using the same playbook doesn't prove they are one and the same. Creationists are remarkably un-creative. The same old idiocy doesn't prove it's the same old idiot. New idiots can seamlessly take the place of the old.

Dave

I'm still disappointed that there wasn't even one single gas-bladder joke.

Mike in Ontario NY said: I'm still disappointed that there wasn't even one single gas-bladder joke.

Stanton said:

Mike in Ontario NY said: I'm still disappointed that there wasn't even one single gas-bladder joke.

That's because flatfish lost their swimbladders very early in their evolutionary history, what with them being benthic predators, and all. After all, it's very hard to keep anything down, fish, a good man, if you have gas and a (full) bladder.

D P Robin said: I suppose then, you are saying that it is hard to keep a flat fish up?!

iml8 said: I got a couple of nice shots of them:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

iml8 said: I got a couple of nice shots of them:

yes, you did. Thanks for sharing! But the drowsy anteater was the cutest...

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: yes, you did. Thanks for sharing! But the drowsy anteater was the cutest...

Mike in Ontario NY said: I'm still disappointed that there wasn't even one single gas-bladder joke.

I feel like a such heel for all those poor soles lost because of me.

Henry J said:

I feel like a such heel for all those poor soles lost because of me.

Well, then you'll just have to toe the line from now on, huh?

It’s time to give this thread the boot.

Oooh! I made it back in time .. there is a thread over at Florida Citizens for Science that is just "Ich"ing for some playful punning. :-)

Go show em' how it's done!

http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=655

Stacy

hamstrung said: {{ Actually we would have evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t we? First life wasn’t certainly not DNA, in fact it is likely it wasn’t the prior RNA either. Now, why would a putative seeder want to introduce chancy life that wasn’t designed to have a stable hereditary mechanism, such as DNA? It makes no sense for us to do it, and money says it doesn’t make sense for any other presumed seeder either. Speaking of seeders, where are they? What would be the incentive to seed a planet with just primitive life, as opposed to make certain to establish a mature biosphere? And notably there are no local seeders around, nor any visiting. And what would seeders gain? We haven’t established that there is an economical gain from local seeding due to space transport costs. But we are fairly certain there will never be any interstellar commerce. Modeling seeders from a practical and economical perspective predicts that there likely will be none for Earth, which is what we observe. }} All of the above are stimulating ideas which would never be addressed if we just bow down to Darwinism and give up thinking of other scenarios. I think you just proved my point.

It's time. The thread, she's going belly up.

Dave