Egnor loses it, again

Posted 24 November 2008 by PZ Myers

Creationists must live on a different planet. I just summarized this symposium I attended (it was a conference on the history and philosophy of evolutionary theory); I posted the schedule last week, which included well-known figures in this field like Janet Browne, Jane Maienschein, Rasmus Winther, and John Beatty. In between, Michael Egnor takes this scrap of information and spins out a weird tale. He actually put up a post titled, "Is P.Z. Myers Attending a Conference on Eugenics?". To which one can only mutter, "WTF?"

Here's his "reasoning":

I'm having trouble finding the program Myers is referring to (why wasn't I invited!?), but Claudia Cohen Hall is on the medical campus at Penn, so I surmise that the presentations will be on eugenics (apologies for it, I hope), which is Darwin's only legacy to medicine.
But of course eugenics won't be mentioned, except perhaps brief exculpations ("Eugenics was the misuse of Darwin's theory by a few rogue geneticists…"). No doubt the talks will be 'Children Hate Vegetables Because of Ancestral Reproductive Advantage of Avoiding Toxins' or 'We Will Evolve Oiler Skin Because of Frequent Bathing' or 'X-Linked Color Blindness Evolved to Help Paleolithic Male Hunters See Camouflage.' Believe it or not, these are actual cutting-edge evolutionary "theories."

Do we need any further demonstration that creationists are divorced from reality, have no interest in pursuing the truth, and will make stuff up on the airiest of whims? No, it wasn't a conference about eugenics, pro or con. No, it wasn't about medicine. No, none of those very silly talks were given. No, since evolution contributes substantially to basic biology, all that stuff about how cells work and interact and change, evolution has contributed significantly to modern medicine — Egnor's ignorance of the mechanistic underpinnings of what medicine does is no excuse.

Oh, and Dr Egnor, I can guess why you weren't invited. It's because you're a babbling chowderhead.

54 Comments

DS · 24 November 2008

THIS JUST IN - EGNOR ADMITS TO BEING A EUGENICIST

Well, he asked for it. I mean, if he thought that the conference was about eugenics and he expected to be invited, I guess he considers that to the the field he works in. At least that logic is just as good as the reasoning that the conference had to be about eugenics because eugenics was not even mentioned!

By the same logic, we can conclude that Of Pandas and People was indeed about creationism, since the word creationism never appeared in the book. Man, that could have saved the Dover School Board a lot of money. If only they had thought of that argument earlier they wouldn't have had to read through all of those earlier drafts to find the proof.

Seriously, anyone who is so ignorant as to believe that evolutionary theory is not important to modern medicine has already proven that no one should pay any attention to anything they have to say about anything. No further evidence is needed.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 24 November 2008

I'm having trouble finding the program Myers is referring to (why wasn't I invited!?),

I found the symposium in the time it took me to cut-and-paste "Understanding Darwin: The legacy of evolution" from PZ's blog, and add the word "penn" into Google.

but Claudia Cohen Hall is on the medical campus at Penn, so I surmise that the presentations will be on eugenics

because his preconcieved idea of the evils of Darwin lead to this sumrising, not any evidence.

(apologies for it, I hope),

Right.

which is Darwin's only legacy to medicine.

Google "darwin medicine legacy" - there are about 917,000 hits.

But of course eugenics won't be mentioned,

Well, yes, because the symposium had nothing to do with it.

except perhaps brief exculpations ("Eugenics was the misuse of Darwin's theory by a few rogue geneticists…"). No doubt the talks will be 'Children Hate Vegetables Because of Ancestral Reproductive Advantage of Avoiding Toxins' or 'We Will Evolve Oiler Skin Because of Frequent Bathing' or 'X-Linked Color Blindness Evolved to Help Paleolithic Male Hunters See Camouflage.'

All of these, while a bit far out, are interesting explanations that could potentially be true, and might be interesting avenues of research. What has ID explained or even been researched?

Believe it or not, these are actual cutting-edge evolutionary "theories."

Actually, no, they are valid "hypotheses" (that may or may not pan out), not "theories". Egnor should brush up on his knowledge of what the scientific method is, and what the term "theory" means.

eric · 24 November 2008

From Egnor's column comes yet another wrong statement:

Darwin’s theory was (and is) indispensable for only one thing in medicine: eugenics. Eugenics is human breeding.

Artificial selection was known long before Darwin, and Darwin contrasted natural selection with artificial breeding. In point of fact natural selection could be summarized as Darwin's contention that nature can do what people do, without the tools, foresight or planning. Human breeding by humans is a form of artificial breeding, not natural selection, and therefore owes nothing whatsoever to Darwin. In fact the goal-oriented genetic manipulation of a species by an intelligent species is better known as intelligent design.

iml8 · 24 November 2008

I just have to feel that picking on Doctor Egnor is like
picking on Casey Luskin ... yes, he's a bogus operator and
he deserves all he gets, but it still feels a little
unsporting.

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

Stanton · 24 November 2008

So if Eugenics is the only contribution made by Darwinism (sic), then what does Dr Egnor consider research in dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria to have been made by?

John Kwok · 24 November 2008

Dear Stanton, I haven't a clue here:

Stanton said: So if Eugenics is the only contribution made by Darwinism (sic), then what does Dr Egnor consider research in dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria to have been made by?

However, maybe I'm going to hazard a guess. A Klingon God maybe? On a more serious note, I wish SUNY Stony Brook would revoke his tenure somehow. He established long ago that he's an acute source of embarrassment to this fine public university. Regards, John

Stanton · 24 November 2008

iml8 said: I just have to feel that picking on Doctor Egnor is like picking on Casey Luskin ... yes, he's a bogus operator and he deserves all he gets, but it still feels a little unsporting. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

If taking apart Dr Egnor's arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel, that's only because he's metaphorically flopping around like a loudmouthed bass on a pier.

Stanton · 24 November 2008

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, {snip} However, maybe I'm going to hazard a guess. A Klingon God maybe?

One wonders whether or not Egnor is "in on the scam" in that he realizes that Intelligent Design offers no alternative explanation beyond a science-crucifying ~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT, but continues spouting such brain-destroyed nonsense simply because he wants a slice of the Discovery Institute's amply stocked coffers.

On a more serious note, I wish SUNY Stony Brook would revoke his tenure somehow. He established long ago that he's an acute source of embarrassment to this fine public university.

Short of being directly responsible for some sort of life-threatening catastrophe, I strongly recommend against revoking Egnor's tenure, as it would simply give Intelligent Design proponents another excuse to scream persecution. Personally, Egnor does great harm himself and the causes of Intelligent Design by continuously demonstrating how much it's rotted his brain, and transforming him into a useless, tenure-supported tumor. Excising him would simply allow him and his Discovery Institute colleagues to play up the martyr card again.

James F · 24 November 2008

iml8 said: I just have to feel that picking on Doctor Egnor is like picking on Casey Luskin ... yes, he's a bogus operator and he deserves all he gets, but it still feels a little unsporting. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

It only feels unsporting until you realize that the DI, armed with zero data, has mounted a diabolically effective PR campaign against the responsible teaching of science, which has included heaping doses of references to Nazis and eugenics. Let 'em have it, I say!

iml8 · 24 November 2008

Like I said, Doctor Egnor deserves all he gets. But it's
just TOO easy ...

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

fnxtr · 24 November 2008

iml8 said: I just have to feel that picking on Doctor Egnor is like picking on Casey Luskin ... yes, he's a bogus operator and he deserves all he gets, but it still feels a little unsporting. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Like hunting deer with a bazooka. Or being the Canadian Olympic Women's Hockey team. :-)

John Kwok · 24 November 2008

Dear Stanton,

Of course I don't want Egnor to be yet another "martyr" for the Dishonesty Institute's reprehensible cause. Still, I could only hope.....

Thanks,

John

Robin · 24 November 2008

fnxtr said:
iml8 said: I just have to feel that picking on Doctor Egnor is like picking on Casey Luskin ... yes, he's a bogus operator and he deserves all he gets, but it still feels a little unsporting. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html
Like hunting deer with a bazooka.

More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...

Reed A. Cartwright · 24 November 2008

More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...

If you pick the deer's pocket, you can place a live grenade on him.... Back to the Capitol Wasteland for me.

slang · 24 November 2008

Robin said: More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...

"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Sorry. When I read Egnor, my mind says Ignore. Best to just chuckle, and move on.

Jedidiah Palosaari · 24 November 2008

I know Egnor is just completely clueless on basic biology, but I'm really having trouble following his reasoning on that last one. Can anyone explain to me how one would argue that colour blindness would *help* you see camouflage? If all you see is green when there's actually red, I think it's going to get you eaten by the big red monster, not protect you.

Henry J · 24 November 2008

Can anyone explain to me how one would argue that colour blindness would *help* you see camouflage?

I've read an explanation of that some time ago. As I understand it, in some cases the shades of gray of the camouflaged object (when viewed in black and white) would tend to be more distinctive than the colored image when the colors match those of the background. Henry

harold · 24 November 2008

eric said -

Artificial selection was known long before Darwin, and Darwin contrasted natural selection with artificial breeding. In point of fact natural selection could be summarized as Darwin’s contention that nature can do what people do, without the tools, foresight or planning. Human breeding by humans is a form of artificial breeding, not natural selection, and therefore owes nothing whatsoever to Darwin. In fact the goal-oriented genetic manipulation of a species by an intelligent species is better known as intelligent design.

Although it's obvious that Eric and I are on the "same side", I must take issue with the false distinction between natural and "artificial" selection. Human intelligence and human behavior are 100% natural, and any selection resulting from human activity is just as natural as any other selection. The selection that results from human activities like agriculture, fisheries, and hunting is just as natural as if it resulted from ant agriculture, seal fisheries, or leopard hunting. All known biological selection to date, including that resulting from domestication, etc, is natural selection. None of it is magical or supernatural selection. Darwin's ultimate point was to note the existence of a type of natural selection that no-one could deny was both selection, and natural, and then extend the example.

Stanton · 24 November 2008

Henry J said:
Can anyone explain to me how one would argue that colour blindness would *help* you see camouflage?
I've read an explanation of that some time ago. As I understand it, in some cases the shades of gray of the camouflaged object (when viewed in black and white) would tend to be more distinctive than the colored image when the colors match those of the background. Henry

Then one would be forced to explain why baby prey mammals like fawns and tapirs are still camouflaged when their primary predators are color-blind predatory mammals like big cats and wild dogs. In humans, and most mammals, color-blindness takes the form of either being unable to see red or blue. Color-blindness where one sees everything in shades of gray is extraordinarily rare, especially in humans.

Henry J · 24 November 2008

Well, I no doubt have forgotten most of the details. It could have been talking about a reduced number of colors rather than going to black and white. And it probably depends on the particular circumstance; it may well be rare for a species to be in the situation in which reduced color reception makes the camouflage of their enemies (or their food) less effective.

Henry

Mike · 24 November 2008

Stanton said: Personally, Egnor does great harm himself and the causes of Intelligent Design by continuously demonstrating how much it's rotted his brain, and transforming him into a useless, tenure-supported tumor.

I'd be interested in any anecdotes, or evidence, that many of the faculty to Stony Brook know, or care, about Egnor. After decades of observing the dishonest creation science campaign, and the reaction of academia, one of the things that has most impressed me is how the grand majority of professors would sooner gnaw off their own leg than spend any time opposing the progress of creationism in the US. Those that do deserve much much more recognition and appreciation that they're going to get, but they are in the minority. Witness, for instance, the Harvard Medical School co-authors on Egnor's latest 3rd, 4th, 5th, whatever, author paper: J Neurosurg Pediatrics. 2008 Jul;2(1):83-94. They're apparently not the least bit put off by Egnor's extra-curricular activities in undermining science education. This kind of collaboration in "translational research", along with his surgical practice and medical school teaching, is probably more than enough to keep Egnor in good standing. Yes, major scientific associations have made statements condemning the creationism campaign, but these statements serve the purpose of absolving members of having to get their hands dirty. Often time these statements are strangely naive, as though not much time had gone into considering them.

Henry J · 24 November 2008

I’d be interested in any anecdotes, or evidence, that many of the faculty to Stony Brook know, or care, about Egnor. [...]

That's not overly surprising, I guess. After all, doing politics and doing science use different skill sets, and in general attract different sets of people. Henry

Larry Boy · 25 November 2008

harold said: Human intelligence and human behavior are 100% natural, and any selection resulting from human activity is just as natural as any other selection. The selection that results from human activities like agriculture, fisheries, and hunting is just as natural as if it resulted from ant agriculture, seal fisheries, or leopard hunting. All known biological selection to date, including that resulting from domestication, etc, is natural selection. None of it is magical or supernatural selection. Darwin's ultimate point was to note the existence of a type of natural selection that no-one could deny was both selection, and natural, and then extend the example.

Artificial does not imply non-natural, and never has. So we have artificial flavors which are entirely natural molecules extracted from organic material by a materialist process and put into food. We have artificial intelligence which is the orderly operation of a program following mathematical rules. Artificial flavors are not supernatural flavors, nor is artificial intelligence supernatural intelligence. Artificial merely means something akin to "the product of human skill." If an object is artificial than that object is an artifact. I think you see the fundamental thrust here. I think eric's comment captures Darwin's rhetorical point. Obviously the operation of artificial selection is closely akin to that of natural selection. However, in artificial selection organisms have little intrinsic fitness. The major determinant of an organisms fitness in some artificial system is an arbitrary human rule, which clearly bares only a slight resemblance to environmental forces such as flooding, predation, etc. In your examples of fishing and hunting, I would argue that there is no artificial selection occurring, since humans are not apply any skills to select organisms towards any end. Unsurprisingly natural selection still operates on the organisms we predate and the efficiency of our predation decrease as a result. (This is contrasted against the products of artificial selection where the efficiency of the industry is increased.)

Dale Husband · 25 November 2008

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, I haven't a clue here:
Stanton said: So if Eugenics is the only contribution made by Darwinism (sic), then what does Dr Egnor consider research in dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria to have been made by?
However, maybe I'm going to hazard a guess. A Klingon God maybe? On a more serious note, I wish SUNY Stony Brook would revoke his tenure somehow. He established long ago that he's an acute source of embarrassment to this fine public university. Regards, John

Egnor was already featured in that EXPELLED movie. Why make him look like a real victim of censorship? That would only play into the creationist propaganda machine.

Dale Husband · 25 November 2008

Robin said:
fnxtr said: Like hunting deer with a bazooka.
More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...

How about blowing up the entire forest with a nuclear bomb?

eric · 25 November 2008

harold said: Human intelligence and human behavior are 100% natural, and any selection resulting from human activity is just as natural as any other selection.

I completely agree. But I think Darwin was using the term 'natural' in a much more limited sense than 'everything governed by natural law.' Darwin's use of the term may be more like 'without human intervention.' I'll quote Origin and let you decide:

Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in character, both from each other and from their common parent. But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in nature? I believe it can and does apply most efficiently (though it was a long time before I saw how), from the simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be enabled to increase in numbers.

He clearly contrasts 'man's productions' with 'in nature' and I think it's fairly clear that when he says 'the polity of nature' he doesn't mean kennels or greenhouses. In fact Darwin may have meant something even narrower than just 'without human intervention,' because he drew a distinction between natural selection and sexual selection. So he might have been limiting the term 'natural selection' to adaptations that improve odds of survival, not even including adaptations that improve odds of successful mating! In any event, I agree that the actions of humans (or other intelligent species :) are natural in the sense the word is used by creationists today (i.e. naturalism). And I'd agree that the creationists who claim intelligent design is an alternative hypothesis to natural selection yet is not about God clearly don't understand the terms they're using. The only way it makes sense for ID to be an 'alternative' is if its about miracles. Otherwise ID is just a sub-type of natural selection and, ironically, falls well within the boundaries of both methodological and philosophical naturalism. :)

Robin · 25 November 2008

Dale Husband said:
Robin said:
fnxtr said: Like hunting deer with a bazooka.
More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...
How about blowing up the entire forest with a nuclear bomb?

Kevin B · 25 November 2008

slang said:
Robin said: More like 'hunting' a chained deer with a grenade...
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Sorry. When I read Egnor, my mind says Ignore. Best to just chuckle, and move on.

Sorry, I think I've missed a bit of the thread. Is this something to do with Precambrian rabbits?

Henry J · 25 November 2008

Sorry, I think I’ve missed a bit of the thread. Is this something to do with Precambrian rabbits?

Nah; Elmer Fudd shot all of those. The modern rabbits though are giving him a lot of trouble.

SWT · 25 November 2008

Henry J said:
Sorry, I think I’ve missed a bit of the thread. Is this something to do with Precambrian rabbits?
Nah; Elmer Fudd shot all of those. The modern rabbits though are giving him a lot of trouble.

"Precambrian rabbit season!" BLAM!

slang · 25 November 2008

Kevin B said: Sorry, I think I've missed a bit of the thread. Is this something to do with Precambrian rabbits?

Hmm.. it's been a while, but Monty Python ain't that old. It's no ordinary rabbit to be sure, requiring a special form of pest control. Perhaps the rabbit was precambrian after all.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 25 November 2008

SWT said:
Henry J said:
Sorry, I think I’ve missed a bit of the thread. Is this something to do with Precambrian rabbits?
Nah; Elmer Fudd shot all of those. The modern rabbits though are giving him a lot of trouble.
"Precambrian rabbit season!" BLAM!

I believe the term is "wabbits", as in "Pwecambwian wabbit season. Heh heh."

harold · 25 November 2008

Larry Boy -

Artificial merely means something akin to “the product of human skill.”

Although you are correct that this is the technical meaning of "artificial", (similar to "artisanal"), it creates confusion when the term is used this way with respect to biological selection. Although a fine organic yogurt manufactured in some ancient traditional way by people choosing a traditional, tribal lifestyle is, technically, "artificial" in the way you describe, I'm sure that you'll agree that most people consider the term "articial" to refer imply to something that cannot happen without the presence of modern human technology. Anyone who wants to actually understand either "spontaneous" biological selection outside of direct human control, or agricultural selection, must understand that they are essentially the same thing. It is also very helpful, when refuting creationist arguments, to emphasize that natural intelligence, observed in humans and other highly cephalized animals, is not equivalent to supernatural intervention. Of course, I know you won't concede. I post only so that third parties can see my point clarified.

Dave Luckett · 25 November 2008

I'd never seen the word "artisanal" before. I'm actually rather amazed that the filters let it through.

novparl · 26 November 2008

Since medicine owes so much to evolution, it seems very ungrateful that medical textbooks don't acknowledge their debt.

Stanton · 26 November 2008

If you actually knew how to read, or had the desire to learn, you would know that medical textbooks, especially those concerning Microbiology or Virology, tend to require a prerequisite in Evolutionary Biology in order to understand them properly. But, your purpose here is not to know, or even learn, but to make a smarmy ass out of yourself.

novparl said: Since medicine owes so much to evolution, it seems very ungrateful that medical textbooks don't acknowledge their debt.

Stephen Wells · 26 November 2008

@novparl: the instructions for using a computer don't make any mention at all of quantum physics, without which we couldn't build modern electronic computers.

eric · 26 November 2008

Since internet users such as yourself owe so much to science, it seems very ungrateful that they don't acknowledge their debt.

novparl said: Since medicine owes so much to evolution, it seems very ungrateful that medical textbooks don't acknowledge their debt.

novparl · 26 November 2008

@ Stanton. As I can't read, I have no idea what you're screaming.

@ anyone. As Harvey didn't understand evolution, it's amazing he managed to describe the blood's circulation. Musta bin magic.

eric · 26 November 2008

I'm formally requesting better trolls. The current batch has sunk beyond bad arguments into blatant non sequiturs.

Thom Denick · 26 November 2008

No, no, no Novparl, the correct response to:

"you would know that medical textbooks, especially those concerning Microbiology or Virology, tend to require a prerequisite in Evolutionary Biology in order to understand them properly."

That the established Darwinists have enforced the dogmatization of young microbiologists and virologists. And according to Egnor this has done great *harm* to both fields!!

Come on, you can do better than that, jesus is depending on you!

xela · 26 November 2008

So if Eugenics is the only contribution made by Darwinism (sic), then what does Dr Egnor consider research in dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria to have been made by?

Are you saying that if someone does not accept Darwinism they also do not accept that bacteria can become antibiotic resistant? That seems like an uniformed statement.

Henry J · 26 November 2008

Here we go again...

Henry J · 26 November 2008

So, is a uniformed statement a statement that's wearing a uniform, or is it a statement that's like other statements?

xela · 26 November 2008

Henry J said: So, is a uniformed statement a statement that's wearing a uniform, or is it a statement that's like other statements?

UNINFORMED. I think you knew that. Petty!

Larry Boy · 26 November 2008

harold said: Although a fine organic yogurt manufactured in some ancient traditional way by people choosing a traditional, tribal lifestyle is, technically, "artificial" in the way you describe, I'm sure that you'll agree that most people consider the term "articial" to refer imply to something that cannot happen without the presence of modern human technology.

I think most people would refer to florescent light as artifical, and candle light as natural. Clearly the colored, scented, carefully marketed Avon candle burring away is just as much the product of human effort as a gas filled tube of glass, so I admit that the english language is not entirely logical. But I think it is unfair to say that artificial can only be applied to the products of advanced (post-industrial?) technology. See for instance artificial hair color, artificial flowers, artificial environment, artificial breeding, etc. Artificial selection seems entirely consistent with these usages. If you do not wish to refer to anything as artificial selection that is entirely your prerogative. However I think it is disingenuous to speak of a "false distinction." You can argue, as you did, that the term creates confusion by implying the existence of a mechanistic difference between artifical and natural process. Empirically this confusion exists. However, I do not believe that their confusion is inevitable; instead, I believe their confusion is almost entirely artificial. ;) We don't assume that sexual, kin or group selection implies a fundamentally different mechanisms of evolution. We uses these terms to add information regarding the specific cause of differential reproductive success. Similarly by saying something is artificially selected we know that the differential reproductive success arose from the human choice. I'm not going to ignore this useful and intuitive distinction in order to counter the rhetorical ploys of intellectually dishonest religious lunatics.

Stanton · 26 November 2008

So tell me again why it's my fault that you're a willfully ignorant ass with no social skills, and tell me exactly where I was "screaming."

novparl said: @ Stanton. As I can't read, I have no idea what you're screaming. @ anyone. As Harvey didn't understand evolution, it's amazing he managed to describe the blood's circulation. Musta bin magic.

Stanton · 26 November 2008

Or, perhaps you could explain how accusing me of screaming at you, in print, apparently, is supposed to be a defense of your claim, even though it does nothing to address the counterpoints of how either the authors of medical texts and textbooks already assume that the reader already has an intimate understanding of Evolutionary Biology before reading, or that the authors use direct applications of Evolutionary Biology in order to explain what the ideas and techniques they're trying to communicate?

novparl said: @ Stanton. As I can't read, I have no idea what you're screaming. @ anyone. As Harvey didn't understand evolution, it's amazing he managed to describe the blood's circulation. Musta bin magic.

novparl · 27 November 2008

@ Stanton. Sorry, sweetie, I still haven't learnt to read.

@ Thom Denick. You're being unscientific. You should ask me 1st whether I believe in "jesus". No. If he ever lived, he's been dead nearly 2000 years.

@ Stephen Wells. Interesting point. I'd suggest, however, that whereas 99% of us have heard of evolution, only 10% have heard of quantum mech etc., and most of those regard it as something arcane, if not hermetic. Obviously I can't say whether computer nerds take much interest in Max Planck & Co.

Dale Husband · 28 November 2008

novparl said: @ Thom Denick. You're being unscientific. You should ask me 1st whether I believe in "jesus". No. If he ever lived, he's been dead nearly 2000 years.

And it seems that you've been brain-dead for even longer!

novparl · 28 November 2008

Brilliant putdown! I'm crushed!

novparl · 28 November 2008

"Creationists must live on another planet."

What, all 150 million US creationists?

mharri · 29 November 2008

Question: If this Egnor fellow is so opposed to eugenics of any kind, what are his views on anti-incest laws?

novparl: "As Harvey didn’t understand evolution, it’s amazing he managed to describe the blood’s circulation. Musta bin magic." Wait, what? One of the basic strategies in science is to describe, then explain, then figure out why the explanation works (e.g., the periodic table).

Also, "Sorry, sweetie, I still haven’t learnt to read." It just made me think of: Mike TV -- "If you hate chewing gum so much, why make it?" And in response, Willy Wonka -- "So sorry, I can't understand you when you mumble."

Antaeus Feldspar · 15 January 2009

I remember seeing a quick piece on the color-blindness/camouflage issue a while back; the researchers hypothesized (and apparently verified the hypothesis) that though the supposedly "color-blind" were by definition not capable of distinguishing colors that the "normal-visioned" could, the reverse was also true: the "color-blind" could consistently distinguish between two shades of khaki that to "normal vision" look entirely alike.

Interestingly, I discovered this while attempting to dig up a link for the shades-of-khaki thing: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,772387,00.html Apparently the correlation between color-blindness and seeing through camouflage is not new news...