Evolution 2009

Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn't heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about "species diversification after the Flood." Someone please fill me in...

I'm heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

ps. I do have to thank Todd for the link to the new antibiotic resistance article, though.

Isn't the Moscow area a really beautiful area of the country? Stomping grounds of my family since the 1880's.

KP said: Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn't heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about "species diversification after the Flood." Someone please fill me in... I'm heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

Frank J said:

KP said: Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn't heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about "species diversification after the Flood." Someone please fill me in... I'm heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

I'll also be too busy the next week to participate, but your question has my intense interest, so I hope someone follows up on it. I'd like to add my own quick question: Was it Minnich himself who mentioned the Flood, or a more politically correct DI person tailoring his argument to an audience that would not be expected to challenge the "evidence" for a global flood? To my knowledge, Paul Nelson is the only major DI person who specifically challenges common descent, and even he is careful enough to base it entirely on "weaknesses" of "Darwinism" and not on any independent evidence of separate (and recent?) origin of "kinds." Even Johnson and Wells have, to paraphrase to several critics, left the door slightly open to common descent. What little I read of Minnich suggests that his position is closer to that of Behe. As you probably know Behe has long conceded common descent (& the ~4 billion year history of life), and just denies (or pretends to deny) that the Darwinian mechanism is insufficient to cause some biological changes. He nevertheless agrees that those changes occur in a "biological continuum" and thus do not require new origin-of-life events. I have no clue on Behe's position on the Flood, but I would like to know. My guess - given his admission that reading the Bible as a science text is silly - is that he would reluctantly admit that there's no evidence for it as described in the Bible. But these days, their main commitment is to tell their target audience what they want to hear, regardless of how ridiculous it is. The DI in general has given up talking to scientists (~99.9% who have dismissed them as nonsensical at best) and seems to concentrate more on the hard-line fundamentalists.

The Genesis Flood by Drs. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would be a good start.

— henry

Frank J said: Was it Minnich himself who mentioned the Flood, or a more politically correct DI person tailoring his argument to an audience that would not be expected to challenge the "evidence" for a global flood?

Here's a follow-up post by the same guy. Its very brief but generally positive.

Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That's the scientific method. Unless this method is followed, the number of doubters in evolution will continue to grow past the 50% mark.

10.55 Brittime

Nov writes... Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method.

stevaroni said:

Nov writes... Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method.

Nope. Creationists must be asked to substantiate their claims at all times, because ID is supposed to be science, and that's the standard the rest of the scientific community has been held to for three centuries without complaint. That's the scientific method, Nov.

So is this Todd Wood guy for the most part an evolution believer but one who sort of bends the facts to support his own view of the Genesis creation? I suppose he's an OEC?

I must admit his blog on Euginie Scott's talk was awfully positive.

The conference ended yesterday so hopefully Reed or someone will give us poor non-attendees a summary or highlights post (hint hint...). Until then, a couple of bloggers have already posted about the conference at the conference's blog collection.

Sorry, you're not going to get much of a report from me. I don't do blog journalism well. Maybe someone else took ample notes and report on the happenings at the conference.

Too big of a conference. I printed off 8 or 9 pages from the schedule of talks just for the 24 hours I was going to be there Mon-Tues.

To novparl, FL, whoisyourcreator and any other creationist lurkers: evolutionary biology is a rich, diverse field of scientific research and if the size of that scientific meeting doesn't make you think for a second, then you are not in touch with reality.

@ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I'm an OECer, not an IDer.

KP : nope, the size of that meeting doesn't make me think for more than 15 seconds. Evolutionists are conformist, so meeting sizes don't mean anything. 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

The failure of evo's to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve, or to even to think about it apart from childish insults, does make me think - that evolution is just empty conformity.

What do you think of Darwin's view of women?

novparl said: 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

@ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I’m an OECer, not an IDer.

novparl said: The failure of evo's to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve,

What do you think of Darwin's view of women?

novparl said: What do you think of Darwin's view of women?

Er - relevant.

Evolutionists are conformist,

Henry J said:

novparl said: Evolutionists are conformist,

So, when scientists were arguing over punctuated equilibrium vs. more gradual models, they were "conforming"? ...

novparl said: @ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I'm an OECer, not an IDer.

KP : nope, the size of that meeting doesn't make me think for more than 15 seconds. Evolutionists are conformist, so meeting sizes don't mean anything. 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

The failure of evo's to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve, or to even to think about it apart from childish insults, does make me think - that evolution is just empty conformity.

What do you think of Darwin's view of women?

novparl said: Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That's the scientific method. Unless this method is followed, the number of doubters in evolution will continue to grow past the 50% mark. 10.55 Brittime

novparl said: Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully.

Too many confused comments to deal with. Just a couple of points. Rilke's Grandd. (why Rilke? Because he was sex-mad?) - of course I'll lose. You'll be the judge.

You don't need to read at all? Even your notes?

As to why Darwin's view of women matters - does the evolution of women matter? Or the evolution of mammals? No more than the evolution of the brain. You people lack, necessarily, intellectual curiosity.

12:40 pm

And he's calling us confused? And the guy who doesn't think he has to look outside his book for answers is telling us we lack intellectual curiosity?

Projection - it's not just a career in movie theatres.

novparl said: As to why Darwin's view of women matters - does the evolution of women matter? Or the evolution of mammals? No more than the evolution of the brain. You people lack, necessarily, intellectual curiosity.

I see Nonpareil is still posting his bullshit lie about "evolutionists" not being able to explain the evolution of the brain, even though there are over 1.7 million hits on scholar.google.com. Then again, all he has to offer are bullshit and malice.

Dave Lovell said: if the Beagle had sunk with all hands leaving Plymouth Sound in 1831, other scientists would have come to the same conclusions as Darwin, and the mountains of evidence gathered from many other scientific disciplines since then mean that you would label evolutionary theory today with a different "ism",

novparl said: Too many confused comments to deal with.

Y'know, there's really to advantage to responding to newspeak (cue 1984 music). His idiocy pretty much speaks for itself. Very loudly.

novparl said: [To practice science] You don't need to read at all? Even your notes?

KP said:

novparl said: 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

Good point. How many people believe creationism in all its forms? 30, 40, 50 million? So what?

Erm... no advantage.

He doesn't like onions? How credible can he be?

novparl said: Evolutionists are conformist,

KP said: Now explain to me how this is "conformist."

eric said:

KP said: Now explain to me how this is "conformist."

I doubt that seeing scientists argue over who is our closest relative is going to change creationist notions about the evil conformity of science. :)

novparl wrote:

"Evolutionists are conformist,"

Well, scientists are "conformist" in that their views must conform to the evidence. Apparently novparl has no such restrictions.

As for primate phylogeny, the issue was a matter of some debate until fairly recently. It was unclear whether gorillas were more closely related to humans than chimps. However, from the preponderance of the evidence it is now very clear and chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas with orangs an distant third. Here are some referenmces for those who are intereested. The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.

Chromosome Banding Science 215:1525-1530 (1982)

Mitochondrial DNA PNAS 88:1570-1574 (1991)

Hemoglobin Genes Mol. Phylo. Evo. 1(2):97-135 (1992)

SINE Insertions J. Mol. Bio. 308:587-592 (2001)

Now if someone proposes a new phylogeny they must also explain all of this evidence as well. The point is that the evidence is what is important, not some "conformist" mentality.

The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.

DS said: Chromosome Banding Science 215:1525-1530 (1982) Mitochondrial DNA PNAS 88:1570-1574 (1991) Hemoglobin Genes Mol. Phylo. Evo. 1(2):97-135 (1992) SINE Insertions J. Mol. Bio. 308:587-592 (2001) Now if someone proposes a new phylogeny they must also explain all of this evidence as well. The point is that the evidence is what is important, not some "conformist" mentality.

You are welcome KP.

For those who are interested, the tree of life web page also has an extensive reference list bearing on this issue:

http://www.tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299

As for the alternative hypothesis, the authors are quite correct that DNA evidence alone is not entirely conclusive and can be subject to problems with homoplasy. However, not all of the molecular characters are subject to the same problems and the characters they describe are just as bad if not worse with regards to homolplasy. Regardless, it is the "convergence of results neither sought nor fabricated" that is so compelling.

In any event, the main point KP was making stands. There is no conspiracy in science and no conformity to anything but the evidence. That is in fact what the peer review system is all about, ideally. Funny that the creationist don't have anything comparable.

Frank J said: Like any pseudoscience, creationism tries to have it both ways. When scientists disagree, the theory is "in crisis," when they agree they're toeing the party line for "job security." Until most nonscientists understand the difference between healthy disagreements (like those within evolution) and unhealthy disagreements (e.g. YEC vs OEC, and ID's "don't ask, don't tell" policy), and realize that every evolutionary biologist would jump at the chance to to "dethrone Darwin" (if the evidence would only let them), anti-evolution activists will continue to play that game.

Who controls the British crown?

Who keeps the metric system down?

We do! We do!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?

Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

We do! We do!

Who holds back the electric car?

Who makes Steve Gutenberg...a star?

We do! We do!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?

Who rigs every Oscar night?

We do! We dooooo!

Henry J said:

The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.

Yeah, but the anti-evolutionists will read that and still go off on a tangent.

Wow! All this aggression aimed at one old Limey! Makes me very conceited!

Will reply tomorrow, but will only have time for a couple of points. Catch ya later.

P.S. No wonder so few women comment on Panda's Bum.

novparl wrote:

"Wow! All this aggression aimed at one old Limey! Makes me very conceited!"

Once again novparl, the only aggression shown here is by you. You accussed real scientists of being "conformist" without any evidence whatsoever. We have merely pointed out that you are completely and utterly wrong. If you feel that providing evidence that you are wrong is "aggeression" then too bad.

Now if you would care to discuss the evidence, fine, I have provided many references, why don't you read one of them? If you just want to complain about aggression and sexism don't bother. It will only be met with more overwhelming evidence.

It's creationist well-poisoning 101.

1) Come into the evo blog alleging widespread scientific conspiracy, trashing the life work of thousands of scientists using paltry evidence and fallacious reasoning, and equating evolution with things like atheism and naziism, until the blog regulars get annoyed and respond predictably (and increasingly angrily) that the creationist is lying and wrong.

2) Whine hypocritically about the level of discourse. Waaa, those mean materialists called me a bad name, waaaa.

3) Repeat ad infinitum.

The weird thing is that somewhere behind all this, these twits seem to think there's a real point to all of it. The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.

The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.

— ben

Frank J said:

The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.

— ben

Not every single time, but close to it. The irony is that all one needs to do to shut up the creationists (including IDers who whine about being called "creationists") is to avoid taking their bait, and instead ask them simple questions about what the Creator/designer did, and when he/she/it/they did it.

I agree with. We spend too much time repeating the same things to people who refuse to learn. In this case, novparl has claimed that scientists, the most professionally contentious group of people in history, are "conformist". (This from a YEC who hasn't questioned the party line in his entire life). Contrast that with a real scientist who makes his career by proposing completely novel hypotheses, testing them rigourously and exposing them to public ridicule in the peer reviewed literature. Then he spends the rest of his career trying to disprove his own hypothesis and responding to criticism from the entire scientific community, which often necessitates revision or rejection of the hypothesis. Conformist indeed.

As for primate phylogeny, every possible tree topography has been proposed. How "conformist" can you get? Regarding the chromosomal data, the following web page has several references regarding this issue:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Reference 10 is especially instructive as it provides yet another synapomorphy uniting humans and chimps. Perhaps novparl will want to discuss this evidence, perhaps not.

DS said: Perhaps novparl will want to discuss this evidence, perhaps not.

Stanton wrote:

"The day nonpareil wants to discuss any evidence is the day the Queen Elizabeth outs herself as a Transylvanian transvestite terrorist."

Agreed. However this proves three things:

1) Novparl is completely ignorant of the evidence and completely unable to discuss it

2) Novparl cares nothing for evidence only for hurling insults and projecting his inadequecies onto others

3) The evidence does indeed exist and those who are interested can still read and discuss it, nothing novparl can do about that

While it may be instructive at times to explain the science for any lurkers (I certainly learn a lot from those who know the details in their respective specialties), we never see any of the ID/creationist trolls ever learning science anyway. Most just want the opportunity to taunt, preach, and show how mean we are. But as Frank points out, these trolls never answer the questions he poses.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: Sometimes it's hard to tell a troll from a real creationist, but the latter, like FL, do often grudgingly answer the main questions, and thus come clean as YECs, OECs, and even "virtual evolutionists" (accept common descent but not the Darwinian mechanism).

Mike Elzinga said: Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.

Especially since many Intelligent Design proponents ARE also Young Earth Creationists.

Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.

— Mike Elzinga

Heh heh - as I predicted, nothing but abuse. These so called references either don't exist or are irrelevant. Just having "brain" and "evolution" in a paper proves nothing.

Obviously I ignore Stanton's "links", as he attacked me for inventing Jebus without checking out the 600k refs on Google.

You still haven't told me why you feel so threatened by an old Limey. (Only Stanton, ironically, noticed this. The rest of you are in too much of a dream to read properly.) Why am I more dangerous than a climate change denier, or one who pretends to care, like The Governator or Mr Obama/Amabo? (Axshully I know the answer - I'm just winding you up.)

Sincerely, in Jebus Price name. (Jeebs is an OEC, btw)

Novparl,

Thanks for once again ignoring all of the evidence. If you don't think that the references that I provided actually exist you are sadly mistaken. The scientific literature proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your misconception about scientists being conformist is blatantly false. Too bad you could not comment on anything but your perceived "abuse", but then again I guess we all know the reason for that.

Frank J said:

Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.

— Mike Elzinga

Continuing my comment to Stanton: YECs and OECs are much more honest than IDers if only because of the fact that they will occasionally challenge each other, and criticize ID's don't ask, don't tell policy. But ever since "scientific" creationism arose in the '60s, it has mostly been about "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," so it's reasonable to suspect that the main promoters of classic YEC and OEC know that they too have something to hide - namely that their "theory" is at least as weak as they perceive "Darwinism" is.

So what are the "pure" IDers hiding? I think we can safely say that it is not private belief in the YEC account (except possibly in the case of Paul Nelson).

And certainly not the private belief that the evidence favors a young earth.

The "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when, and how" policy serves very different goals. One is to get around "Edwards v. Aguillard" (presumably even a "critical analysis" of YEC or OEC is unconstitutional), and the other is to keep the masses in their ignorant bliss under the big tent.

DS said: Novparl, Thanks for once again ignoring all of the evidence. If you don't think that the references that I provided actually exist you are sadly mistaken. The scientific literature proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your misconception about scientists being conformist is blatantly false. Too bad you could not comment on anything but your perceived "abuse", but then again I guess we all know the reason for that.

This is on Institute for Creation Research's website [icr.org].

Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study, published online in the Journal of Morphology, effectively determined that if a bird’s legs or ribs were removed or significantly altered, it would suffocate. The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

You still haven’t told me why you feel so threatened by an old Limey.

Henry writes... New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study... demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

"birds’ unusual bone structure means that dinosaur lungs could not have operated the same way as birds’." In considering crocodile lung and skeletal anatomy as a model for large reptile forms like theropods, the authors wrote, “The likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians.”

Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yeah, all it means is that birds evolved what they have now after their separation from the other therapods.

Henry J

novparl asked: [To practice science] You don't need to read at all? Even your notes?

Dan replied: The early person who first noticed that lightning storms were usually preceded by fluffy clouds was practicing science. I doubt this person took notes at all, because I doubt language was invented yet. The scientific point is that lighting storms are usually preceded by fluffy clouds. The linguistic point that these clouds are, in English, called "cumulus" is secondary. Of course, today, it would be terribly inefficient to practice science without reading. Inefficient but not impossible.

novparl said: Wow! All this aggression aimed at one old Limey! Makes me very conceited! Will reply tomorrow, but will only have time for a couple of points. Catch ya later.

Novparl said: Heh heh - as I predicted, nothing but abuse.

Richard Simons said:

You still haven’t told me why you feel so threatened by an old Limey.

You are far from being the only 'old Limey' commenting here. Why do you feel it is important? And you are far from being a threat, more of an irritant. Not even an irritant like a biting mosquito, but a mayfly that flaps around, contribute nothing but gets in the way.

stevaroni said:

Henry writes... The ICR "recap" also closes with the line... Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yup. None whatsoever, Henry. Um, except for Yixianosaurus. Oh, and Pedopenna. And, of course, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis. Which is good, because that way the 12 known specimens of Archaeopteryx won't get lonely. Nice job on the creationist smackdown, steve. But you're forgetting my favorite Hesperornis. Oh and Zhongornis. Well, anyway. Gosh. What are all these "kinds" anyway? Henry? Anyone? Anyone?

Stanton said: Actually, no, mayflies make very large contributions, even though they are ephemeral: when they emerge, the adults compose of a huge portion of insectivorous animals, especially insectivorous fish like trout.

Dan.

It's even worse that that. Novparl accused scinentists of being conformist, ironic indeed coming from a YEC. KP presented evidence that he was wrong. I predicted that novparl would ignore the evidence. Novparl did indeed ignore the evidence and instead claimed that he was somehow abused. Stanton pointed out that this is exactly what I predicted and novparl was happy to oblige. Somehow he must feel that being wrong and ignoring evidence is a good thing, I guess as a YEC he has lots of practice at these two things.

Obviously this guy is just trying to get people mad so he can claim that they are mean to him. Just as obviously he has no ability or desire to discuss any evidence. Prehaps we should cpmpletely ignore him until he shows that he can discuss science. He will of course still claim that that is somehow abuse, but who cares?

But you’re forgetting my favorite Hesperornis.

stevaroni said: Had to look that one up - very cool critter indeed!

DS said: Obviously this guy [novparl] is just trying to get people mad so he can claim that they are mean to him. Just as obviously he has no ability or desire to discuss any evidence. Perhaps we should completely ignore him until he shows that he can discuss science.

Glad to be of service.

DS - how many times do I have to repeat that I'm an OEC? If you can't get even that simple thing right, why should I pay any attention to your survival-of-the-fittest nonsense? I notice that none of you great "scientists" pointed out the mistake. None of you do neutral scholarship, you all do this babyish thing that your opponent HAS to be wrong about everything. DS - you're as bad as Stanton, who cdn't find 1 ref. to Jebus out of 600,000 (and hasn't been able to come back at me on that - surprise!)

I'm an OEC OEC OEC OEC.

So - which ref on the web refers SPECIFICALLY to the timeline for the evo of 100 trillion connections? Please quote the abstract. I've no more time to waste on dud links.

Sincerely, in the name of our Saver Jebus.

OEC, huh?

So, are you a young-life OEC or an old-life OEC? How old of an Earth is that? When did life first appear on it? Thousands of years ago? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions?

Was all life created at more or less the same time, or did the "kinds" slowly appear, created one after another, as older kinds died out naturally? Or do you explain the extinctions of most of the fossil species as having been caused by a Noachian flood? Or maybe other causes?

Are you an OEC that thinks there is no speciation whatsoever, or one who accepts that speciation has occurred, at least in some cases? If you allow speciation, where do you draw the line beyond which no further divergence can occur? Genera? Family? Order? Phyla? Do you account for any speciation (etc) that you do accept by invoking the personal intervention of the Deity (or some other agency) in each case, or do you allow that some speciation can be ascribed to naturally selected variation in descendents?

I never could keep up with these theological controversies. But remember, if you give a wrong answer, somebody like FL or Sal Cordova or Ray Martinez will tell you that you're a heretic and damned to eternal torment. We'll just laugh and tell you you're wrong.

Novparl,

The reference that KP provided absolutely falsifies your claim that "evolutionists" are "conformist". Funny that you complained extensively about being called a YEC and didn't bother to address the issue that you yourself brought up. Thanks for validating my prediction.

So, you are an OEC. Right. I say you are a YEC in disguise. I will ignore all evidence to the contrary. There is nothing that you can do to prove to me that you are not secretly a YEC. I am completely offended that you will not admit it. Where is the reference that proves that you are not a YEC? (See how frustrating it can be when people concentrate on personal irrelevancies amd ignore all the evidence).

So what about the references that I provided showing the relationship between chimps and humans? Did you read those, or were you too buzy being offended about being called a YEC? Do you think that humans are related ot other primates? There was plenty of time for speciation to occur right? Do you thnk that chimps are the proper sister group to humans, or maybe it should be gorillas or orangatans? We are all just waiting on pins and needles to hear your answer. You aren't just a conformist are you?

Novparl said: Glad to be of service. DS - how many times do I have to repeat that I'm an OEC?

If you can't get even that simple thing right, why should I pay any attention to your survival-of-the-fittest nonsense?

I notice that none of you great "scientists" pointed out the mistake. None of you do neutral scholarship, you all do this babyish thing that your opponent HAS to be wrong about everything.

DS - you're as bad as Stanton, who cdn't find 1 ref. to Jebus out of 600,000 (and hasn't been able to come back at me on that - surprise!)

I'm an OEC OEC OEC OEC.

So - which ref on the web refers SPECIFICALLY to the timeline for the evo of 100 trillion connections? Please quote the abstract. I've no more time to waste on dud links.

I’ve no more time to waste on dud links.

fnxtr said:

I’ve no more time to waste on dud links.

Then maybe you should just go away. No one really cares if you can handle reality or not.

Novparl said: So - which ref on the web refers SPECIFICALLY to the timeline for the evo of 100 trillion connections? Please quote the abstract. I've no more time to waste on dud links.

Novparl said: I'm an OEC OEC OEC OEC.

Stanton said: [concerning Novparl] ... fair play is deadly poison to people with the mentality of a kindergarten bully.

Dan said:

Stanton said: [concerning Novparl] ... fair play is deadly poison to people with the mentality of a kindergarten bully.

It is absurd to compare Novparl to a kindergarten bully. Bullies can actually hurt people. Novparl is harmless ... he simply makes people laugh.

Stanton said:

Dan said:

Stanton said: [concerning Novparl] ... fair play is deadly poison to people with the mentality of a kindergarten bully.

It is absurd to compare Novparl to a kindergarten bully. Bullies can actually hurt people. Novparl is harmless ... he simply makes people laugh.

You mean like the same sort of laughter Bill Dembski inspired with his risible prophecy of how "Darwinism" would experience a "Taliban-style collapse," or whenever Sal Cordova tries to convince us that he's better than Charles Darwin because he took high-school algebra during middle school, and Darwin didn't?

Stanton said:

Dan said:

Stanton said: [concerning Novparl] ... fair play is deadly poison to people with the mentality of a kindergarten bully.

It is absurd to compare Novparl to a kindergarten bully. Bullies can actually hurt people. Novparl is harmless ... he simply makes people laugh.

You mean like the same sort of laughter Bill Dembski inspired with his risible prophecy of how "Darwinism" would experience a "Taliban-style collapse," or whenever Sal Cordova tries to convince us that he's better than Charles Darwin because he took high-school algebra during middle school, and Darwin didn't?

Bill Dembski said: "In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years."

Dan said: Perhaps we should report Dembski to the Dept. of Homeland Security for contributing aid and comfort to the Taliban. It makes as much sense as most of Dembski's reasoning ... or Novparl's.

Stanton said:

Dan said: Perhaps we should report Dembski to the Dept. of Homeland Security for contributing aid and comfort to the Taliban. It makes as much sense as most of Dembski's reasoning ... or Novparl's.

It's highly unlikely, and a waste of ours and Homeland Security's time. Dembski couldn't predict the future if he personally went into the future via a time machine to fax himself tomorrow's newspaper clippings yesterday.

Dembski should be charged with vexatious litigation for his trying to frame Eric Pianka as an alleged terrorist, and be sued for his part of illegally distribution of Harvard University's XVIVO animations, rather than be reported to Homeland Security.

What a pathetic attempt by Stanton to avoid admitting that he cdn't even look up "Jebus" before accusing me of inventing Him. If only I had.

I was wondering where Quocky was. Even watching Seinfeld (Existence-field?) re-runs. What a sad-o. Praps he thinks watching psycho-comedy will give him help with his empty life.

Now tell me - many Gringos, including atheists, buy the Zionist krap about returning to their land. This is clearly based on the O>T. How can it be that the OT is untrue when read by Christians, but true when read by Jews? Let me repeat - there is virtually no archeological support for the OT.

I look forward to your evasions. Yours in Jebus, the Bad Shepherd.

An ancient Briton.

Eh? Jebus? Zionism?

Is it just my imagination, or is he becoming more and more incoherent?

Novparl,

What a pathetic atttempt by novparl to completely avoid all of my questions. Keep shoveling it deeper man. Everyone can see that you can't answer even the simplest questions about your own beliefs. Why do you think that your petty personal attacks will obscure the fact that you can't deal with the evidence? Do you really think that anyone will be convinced of anything by your drive-by tactics? I'll make this real simple for you novparl. In fact, I'll make it multiple choice:

Which of the following represents the closest living relative to humans:
(A) Gorillas
(B) Orangatangs
(C) Chimpanzees
(D) All of the above
(E) None of the above

Now, which has been proposed by a real scientist in the peer reviewed literature as representing the closest living rrelative to humans?
(A) Gorillas
(B) Orangatangs
(C) Chimpanzees
(D) All of the above
(E) None of the above

Now, which of the following terms best describes the field of primate phylogenetics and the people who practice it:
(A) Skeptical
(B) Conformist
(C) Contentious
(D) All of the above
(E) None of the above

I will ignore all personal attacks and diversions until you answer these questions. Just three simple letters will suffice. Please note that this is not mean, this is not abuse and this is not a personal attack. You have come to a science blog and made accusations against scientists. Either you can defend your claims or you can't. Either way, if you can't deal with the evidence then just take your personal insults elsewhere. I look forward to your continued evasions.

Stanton said: Dembski should be charged with vexatious litigation for his trying to frame Eric Pianka as an alleged terrorist, and be sued for his part of illegally distribution of Harvard University's XVIVO animations, rather than be reported to Homeland Security.

Did I mention I once interviewed the singer from Crash Test Dummies? No? I didn't?

"Who cares?", you say?

Exactly.

fnxtr said: Did I mention I once interviewed the singer from Crash Test Dummies? No? I didn't? "Who cares?", you say? Exactly.

fnxtr,

I didn't mention what I did to draw attention to myself. I am reasonably confident that Dembski will do something outrageous again, and this time, not only do I want the Federal Department of Justic to prosecute him, but hopefully, he'll be convicted and receive a jail sentence so harsh that he will spend of the rest of his life in prison. I am certain Stanton would concur.

Respectfully yours,

John

John Kwok said: mendacious intellectual pornography

Dave Luckett said: Eh? Jebus? Zionism? Is it just my imagination, or is he becoming more and more incoherent?

I am just wondering if googling the phrase:

"my high school alma mater" with "Kwok" (or without?)

would get more hits than "mendacious intellectual pornography" would. (I assume "Kwok" is not needed there.)

Or would they get the same number, seeing as so many of Kwok's posts contain both phrases.

It's sad, really. But on the bright side, John's headstone one day will have "mendacious intellectual pornography" engraved on it for all future generations to consider the meaning of.

Oh - John Kwok - no matter how hard you try to "say nice things", I seriously doubt erv will let you start posting there again. (Stalking does that.)

Kwok, I see that you're name dropping again. If you'd knock it off, and display a little variety in your postings, people might start taking you seriously.

Abbie won't, though. I agree with Marc: stalkers are creepy.

I'll give credit to someone when it is due. In this case it was warranted.

KP said:

John Kwok said: mendacious intellectual pornography

John: Appropos of absolutely nothing, I was having one in a regular series of bouts with insomnia last night and for whatever reason I was kicking that phrase you use around in my head. I was trying to figure out the exact basis for your comparison of creationism (in all its delightfully inane forms) with porn. Is it because it is a cheap thrill, but with no substance? Something like that? This is NOT an attack or rip in any way. I'm legitimately curious as to how you originally formed that analogy. Plus, if I ever borrow it, I want to be able to explain it correctly.

Rilke's granddaughter -

Read my comment to Marc. It is well documented that Abbie did what she did, and so I have to give her that credit. For the record, I did apologize to her for her groundless accusation, but as of now, in light of the fact that she supports someone as bizarre as PZ Myers, I have no interest in apologizing, period.

I hope that you truly feel comfortable commenting favorably on SLC's comments when he has documented too many times online that he is a male chauvinist pig who doesn't understand that it is demeaning to women to view them solely as sexual objects and judging their worthiness by stating whether or not they are "hot". With a strange bedfellow like SLC, who needs enemies?

John Kwok said: Rilke's granddaughter - Read my comment to Marc.

It is well documented that Abbie did what she did, and so I have to give her that credit.

For the record, I did apologize to her for her groundless accusation, but as of now, in light of the fact that she supports someone as bizarre as PZ Myers, I have no interest in apologizing, period.

I hope that you truly feel comfortable commenting favorably on SLC's comments when he has documented too many times online that he is a male chauvinist pig who doesn't understand that it is demeaning to women to view them solely as sexual objects and judging their worthiness by stating whether or not they are "hot". With a strange bedfellow like SLC, who needs enemies?

ithout the risk of being accused of name dropping, I thought I might have a chance since the Attorney General is a fellow alumnus of my high school alma mater and I know fellow alumni who have met him and have worked alongside him in alumni relations.

stevaroni said:

Henry writes... New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study... demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

Um, no. The study demonstrates that...

"birds’ unusual bone structure means that dinosaur lungs could not have operated the same way as birds’." In considering crocodile lung and skeletal anatomy as a model for large reptile forms like theropods, the authors wrote, “The likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians.”

In other words, dinosaurs, animals that died out 65 million years ago, probably had simpler lung functions more like crocodilians, which have relatively lower metobolic requirements, rather than birds, which have higher metabolisms and use an improved system. Hardly earth-shattering, Henry, but I guess when lying about someone elses research is all you have, that's what you use. The ICR "recap" also closes with the line...

Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yup. None whatsoever, Henry. Um, except for Yixianosaurus. Oh, and Pedopenna. And, of course, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis. Which is good, because that way the 12 known specimens of Archaeopteryx won't get lonely.

KP said:

stevaroni said:

Henry writes... The ICR "recap" also closes with the line... Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yup. None whatsoever, Henry. Um, except for Yixianosaurus. Oh, and Pedopenna. And, of course, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis. Which is good, because that way the 12 known specimens of Archaeopteryx won't get lonely. Nice job on the creationist smackdown, steve. But you're forgetting my favorite Hesperornis. Oh and Zhongornis. Well, anyway. Gosh. What are all these "kinds" anyway? Henry? Anyone? Anyone?

Certainly.

Sustained, controlled flight is a very complex business, but it has simple precursors. Just being able to use a flat surface to slow a fall into a glide is a start. Frogs spread their digits. Snakes expand their ribs. No changes to lung function are required by them. The small raptors who were adapting to greater degrees of tree cover in the middle Jurassic also had a suitable surface - their feathered forelimbs. These were already being used to grab air to help them turn when pursuing prey.

Any improvement to this ability would reduce the glide angle, thus making longer glides possible, so evolution had a progressive advantage to select for. As the wing improved, genuine level or even rising flight became possible, if sufficient air could be pushed downwards and backwards by beating the wing with a differential shape. Improvements in this ability are also progressive, and would also be subject to selection. Even the ability to make one or two beats would be advantageous.

At first, with the lungs it had, the animal would rapidly go into oxygen debt. But again, improvements to lung function are progressive and subject to selection. An ability to fly for longer periods and distances is an advantage, in some environments - perhaps where trees occur in belts or groups separated by open terrain. The protobird's lung function would evolve under that selection pressure.

The rest is simply exaption - the co-opting of earlier structures to perform new functions, with bridging structures reducing as they are no longer needed. Similarly, all the other avian adaptations - hollow bones, caudal fusion, hyperdevelopment of flight feathers, weight saving - are all explained by natural selection of advantageous traits.

Now, the real paleontologists are going to correct me on this, and indeed, the fossils of the last stage are not yet known - the animals were almost certainly small, and lived in forests, which don't preserve fossils well. But afaik, there is nothing in such an explanation that contradicts the evidence, and nothing in the evidence that provides comfort to a creationist. Birds, like all life, evolved.

DS - I get it. You think that if you accuse someone of something, you can't be guilty of it yourselves.

As for your meaningless quiz, there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know the difference between an OEC & a YEC.

Hava nice day - from Jebus

Novparl said: DS - I get it. You think that if you accuse someone of something, you can't be guilty of it yourselves.

Novparl,

Great, another hit and run by the sultan of irrelevance.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are emotionally incapable of having a real grown up discussion about anything scientific. Therefore, all of your made up nonsense and personal attacks will henceforth be ignored.

And speaking of accusing someone of something, you are the one who obviously doesn't know the difference between YEC and OEC. You have not even demonstrated that you know what the letters stand for. You are completely incapable of even describing your own beliefs, so why should anyone else care what you think? Just keep repeating OEC, OEC, OEC over and over again until you know what it means.

No one cares if you are British or male or white or anything else. Quite frankly, it would not make one bit of difference if you were a cross dressing transvestite who made blood sacrifices to Mickey Mouse in his basement (not that there is anything wrong with that). If you refuse to read the scientific literature you are worthless here. Just go away and stay there.

... and cue Newspeak playing the persection card in 3, 2, 1...

u

(It fell on the floor.)

henry said (in effect): What good is half a lung?

DS said: Novparl, Great, another hit and run by the sultan of irrelevance. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are emotionally and mentally incapable of having a real grown up discussion about anything scientific. Therefore, all of your made up nonsense and personal attacks will henceforth be ignored.

fnxtr said:

henry said (in effect): What good is half a lung?

Boy, that's original. Did you even look at how bird lungs work?

henry parroted ICR: The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

henry said: Let's look at this again. This is on Institute for Creation Research’s website [icr.org]. Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development by Brian Thomas, M.S.* New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study, published online in the Journal of Morphology, effectively determined that if a bird’s legs or ribs were removed or significantly altered, it would suffocate. The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds. Can you explain how the evolution of birds occurred without them suffocating in transition?

"Many of these skeletal specializations are not apparent in the earliest birds, including Archaeopteryx, confuciusornithine or enantiornithine birds (Hillenius and Reuben 2004a). Their presence is also questionable in even Early Cretaceous ornithurines, but well developed in the Late Cretaceous hesperornithiform birds (Hillenius and Reuben 2004a). The femur most likely did not attain its subhorizontal position until the Late Cretaceous in ornithurines as indicated by the presence of the antitrochanter, although some enantiornithine birds may have achieved this femoral orientation (Hertel and Campbell 2007)...."

Well KP, I suppose ICR hasn't stumbled upon this excellent piece of science journalism by Carl Zimmer, which was also noted by PZ Myers here at PT:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/06/17/of-birds-and-thumbs/

Carl provides an excellent example as to why transitional fossils are important, as well as de-emphasizing the relevance of certain fossils as "missing links" (Unfortunately I haven't kept up with some of the finer points of digit and limb arrangement in theropods and their surviving avian clade, so won't comment further about them here.).

Henry wrote:

"Can you explain how the evolution of birds occurred without them suffocating in transition?"

Actually, this has been known for a long time. Here is a good reference on the topic:

Hicks and Farmer (1999) Gas exchange potential in reptilian lungs: implications for the dinosaur-avian connection. Respiration Physiology 117:73-83.

The paper shows that there is no theoretical reason why birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. You will find that it is not a good idea to accept the word of creationists about any biological issue. They do not tend to be familiar with the relevant literature, some even seem to be particularly proud of this fact

In any event, from the genetic, developmental and palentological evidence it is quite clear that birds did indeed evolve from reptilian ancestors. Simply refusing to believe that this could occur is not an argument and does not address the evidence.

fnxtr said: When was the last time anyone got to change the Bible? Council of Nicaea?

Dave Luckett said: OEC, huh? So, are you a young-life OEC or an old-life OEC? How old of an Earth is that? When did life first appear on it? Thousands of years ago? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? Was all life created at more or less the same time, or did the "kinds" slowly appear, created one after another, as older kinds died out naturally? Or do you explain the extinctions of most of the fossil species as having been caused by a Noachian flood? Or maybe other causes? Are you an OEC that thinks there is no speciation whatsoever, or one who accepts that speciation has occurred, at least in some cases? If you allow speciation, where do you draw the line beyond which no further divergence can occur? Genera? Family? Order? Phyla? Do you account for any speciation (etc) that you do accept by invoking the personal intervention of the Deity (or some other agency) in each case, or do you allow that some speciation can be ascribed to naturally selected variation in descendents? I never could keep up with these theological controversies. But remember, if you give a wrong answer, somebody like FL or Sal Cordova or Ray Martinez will tell you that you're a heretic and damned to eternal torment. We'll just laugh and tell you you're wrong.

Novparl said: ...a bunch of gibberish ending with: I look forward to your evasions. (Followed with more irrelevant gibberish)

fnxtr said:

henry said (in effect): What good is half a lung?

Boy, that's original. Did you even look at how bird lungs work? The sacs could easily have developed gradually, while the bellows-type lungs continued to function. Cue Henry demanding unreasonable evidence of every single mutation generating each step of the development in 3, 2, 1...

Prediction:

Novparl will evade answering Dave Luckett's questions. And everyone else's questions, as well.

QED.

Henry, did you read the comments, complete with references, from KP, DS, and John Kwok? My guess is no, or if you did, you did not follow the references, or if you did, you dismissed the information without actually reading it.

Henry wrote:

"How about any evidence? Evolution is science, isn’t it?"

Yes, evolution is science and therefore the evidence is in the scientific literature, like the reference I provided (see my post of 8:08 PM). When you have read it we can discuss it. Until then, everyone should note that you have not provided any evidence of anything yourself. All you have done is to quote some guys who have a vested interest in casting doubt on evolution and misrepresented published literature. That is not evidence. If you think that it is you are sadly mistaken.

Also, everyone should also note that you have been provided with many examples of intermediate forms which you have completely ignored. Do you think that that is not evidence either? There is lots of genetic and developmental evidence as well, but how about reading the references provided already first.

Why do trolls always demand evidence and then refuse to look at it?

henry said: How about any evidence? Evolution is science, isn't it?

KP said: all that work I did reading the paper and exposing

Won't work anyway. Henry's ilk is immune to facts. But show them one passage of a thousands-of-years old book of cultural tales, well, clearly, that's Truth(tm). Another example of worshipping scripture rather than God. God wrote the rocks and (hopefully) gave you the wit to understand them; men wrote the scripture. Who you gonna believe, Henry?

fnxtr said: Won't work anyway. Henry's ilk is immune to facts. But show them one passage of a thousands-of-years old book of cultural tales, well, clearly, that's Truth(tm). Another example of worshipping scripture rather than God. God wrote the rocks and (hopefully) gave you the wit to understand them; men wrote the scripture. Who you gonna believe, Henry?

So birds appear before reptiles in the fossil record huh. That's really funny. I guess they had a whole day to die and get buried before reptiles came along. Or maybe they were hydrologically sorted below reptiles, in which case there is no evidence that they were created first. You should really be careful before opening up a can of fossil worms.

I wonder if Henry has realized by now that the guys he was counting on for evidence have absolutely nothing except misconcepotions and ignorance. Maybe that is why he hasn't read the scientific references yet, maybe not.

So, do the idiots at ICR think that ostriches, kiwis, rheas, and all other flightless birds were created on the 5th or the 6th Day?

Clearly not. Those "kinds" diverged after the Flood. Get your lies straight already.

fnxtr said: Clearly not. Those "kinds" diverged after the Flood. Get your lies straight already.

stevaroni said:

fnxtr said: Clearly not. Those "kinds" diverged after the Flood. Get your lies straight already.

How does a flighless bird "diverge" to a place like New Zealand in the first place?

How does a flighless bird "diverge" to a place like New Zealand in the first place?

you're missing their current baramin message:

it's still just a bird. It obviously flew to NZ before slightly changing via "microevolution".

since 30 years ago, they doubtless wouldn't be caught dead even saying the word "evolution" in a sentence in a positive fashion before, it's obvious that some sort of twisted progress is slowly being made in their thinking.

Eventually, they'll likely take a similar stance to the CC.

that said, when they say shit like this, I always ask them:

"Just how long do you really think it takes for a flighted bird to become flightless?"

Cool thing about kiwis is the size of their eggs. In that Attenborough series, he explained that the eggs didn't keep getting bigger and bigger; the birds got smaller and smaller and the eggs didn't.

Egg-laying Echidna Could Not Have Evolved
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

The strange combination of mammalian and reptilian features may defy a Darwinian description of origins, but they fit perfectly with a Creator who is able to shape living forms with whatever features He wants them to have. All indications point to echidnas being uniquely created to live as underground nocturnal creatures and to reproduce only more echidnas. Hopefully, the fruits of this groundbreaking and painstakingly-obtained research will help ensure that echidnas continue to thrive, since they are such marvelous manifestations from the mind of their Maker.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on June 23, 2009.

KP said:

stevaroni said:

Henry writes... The ICR "recap" also closes with the line... Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yup. None whatsoever, Henry. Um, except for Yixianosaurus. Oh, and Pedopenna. And, of course, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis. Which is good, because that way the 12 known specimens of Archaeopteryx won't get lonely. Nice job on the creationist smackdown, steve. But you're forgetting my favorite Hesperornis. Oh and Zhongornis. Well, anyway. Gosh. What are all these "kinds" anyway? Henry? Anyone? Anyone?

henry said:

KP said:

stevaroni said:

Henry writes... The ICR "recap" also closes with the line... Since there are no bird transitional forms in the fossil record... the time is overdue to issue a recall on the long-cherished naturalistic theory that theropod descendants developed into birds.

Yup. None whatsoever, Henry. Um, except for Yixianosaurus. Oh, and Pedopenna. And, of course, Confuciusornis and Ichthyornis. Which is good, because that way the 12 known specimens of Archaeopteryx won't get lonely. Nice job on the creationist smackdown, steve. But you're forgetting my favorite Hesperornis. Oh and Zhongornis. Well, anyway. Gosh. What are all these "kinds" anyway? Henry? Anyone? Anyone?

All are fine specimens of God’s creation, except for Yixianosaurus which has only a pair of fossilized arms with fossilized feathers and Pedopenna which has only hind legs. By the way, why do some evolutionists deny that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form and others claim that it is? Impact Sept 1, 1989 As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly by Duane Gish, Ph.D. The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged reptilian progenitor and other birds. A discussion of other features of Archaeopteryx, such as its teeth and clawed wings, may be found in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. *Dr. Gish is Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Ah. So the fact that the echidna demonstrates a mosaic of reptilian and mammalian features, and Archeopteryx demonstrates a mosaic of reptilian and avian features proves that these lifeforms could not have evolved. Ri-ight. And I guess the same would apply to Tiktaalik, with its mosaic of fish and amphibian features. None of these could be intermediate forms, as predicted by the Theory of Evolution, no matter how much they look like it.

So... what would it take to persuade you, henry, that there might be something in it? What evidence would you accept? How loud would God have to shout, before you heard Him?

henry the creationist troll said: *Dr. Gish is Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Henry,

So, your boys claim that there are no intermediate forms then proceed to hand wave away all intermediate forms. News flash for you Henry, intermediates are exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory. The "yea but God coulda done that" argument is spurious. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that these species could not have evolved, you have only quoted those who chose not to believe so for some unstated reasons. And, please note, none of their musings are published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. They could publish anything they want in their own publications, it doesn't even have to make sense and it doesn't.

Speaking of which, have you read the paper that I provided the reference for yet? There is the evidence that you yourself demanded. If you are going to ignore the evidence then your opinion is worthless. The "I can't imagine how it could possibly have evolved therefore it didn't" argument isn't going to fly here Henry. We have provided evidence, now it is your turn. If all you can come up with is creationist quotes you should really reconsider your position. These guys are not exactly known for their biological expertise or their honesty.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Bea Arthur once said: "OH, a bullshitter!"

By the way, why do some evolutionists deny that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form and others claim that it is?

I think henry is playing the same game all creationist rubes play. He grabs, without any comprehension whatsoever, paragraphs and claims by his heroic “scientists” and “experts” at ICR and tosses them out as imagined intellectual hand grenades or IEDs at “evilutionists”.

Then he stands back and thinks he is watching the anger and frustration of the scientific community being unable to grapple with and counter his “arguments”.

But, as you have noticed, he has never picked up a real science textbook or ever looked at real scientific evidence. And he never will. His ignorance is written all over his misinformation about scientific concepts and evidence.

It’s a waste of time attempting to argue with this one; there is no capability or desire for comprehension anywhere in its nervous system.

Quoting “Dr.” Duane Gish; sheesh!

stevaroni said:

fnxtr said: Clearly not. Those "kinds" diverged after the Flood. Get your lies straight already.

How does a flighless bird "diverge" to a place like New Zealand in the first place?

John Kwok said: I suppose they were "transported" by a time-traveling Klingon battlecruiser:

stevaroni said:

fnxtr said: Clearly not. Those "kinds" diverged after the Flood. Get your lies straight already.

How does a flighless bird "diverge" to a place like New Zealand in the first place?

Of course if nonpareil believes that, then maybe he'll be able to buy the Brooklyn Bridge with Bernie Madoff's few remaining assets.

henry said:

KP said:

henry said:

henry, I'm not playing with you anymore. I have far too much work to do this week. There are two long posts earlier in this string where I pointed out that the ICR has misrepresented science and LIED about the fossil record. So why should I give any credence to the new article about echidnas??? I imagine I can pick it apart just as easily as I did the bird nonsense. Go answer those posts of mine before sending me more pseudoscientific BS from ICR.

And while you're at it, why don't you look up what a monotreme is and try to explain their distribution to me, particularly how that fits with the MYTH of the noachian flood?

What's the matter Henry, bird got your tongue? Why won't you read and discuss the evidence that you demanded? Don't have access to the scientific literature huh? Who would have guessed? Here, I'll help you out. This is the abstract from the paper I cited:

The theory that birds evolved from a group of small terrestrial dinosaurs has created much controversy. One argument proposed against this theory is that the lungs of early theropods were incapable of sustaining endothermic gas exchange requirements and could not have given rise to the lungs of birds. A reexamination of the comparative physiological and morphological literature combined with a theoretical analysis of gas exchange potential indicates that non-avian lungs would not constrain the gas exchange requirements of early endotherms. Furthermore, our analysis sugests that factors besides diffusive gas exchange were important in the evolution of the distinict morphology of the highly effective avian and mammalian lungs.

Respiration Physiology 117:73-83 (1999)

So as you can see Henry, your sources are not only mistaken, but ignorant of the relevant literature. Why should anyone believe them about anything when they get such fundamental things wrong? But then of course they offer no evidence at all, only their opinions as non-experts. So who ya gonna beleive Henry, real scientists or a bunch of nut jobs with a grudge against science?

I have this amusing vision of echidnas populating and terraforming extra-solar planets. Thanks, Stanton.

http://tolweb.org/Monotremata/15991

I guess those spines are part of the warp engines?

Henry,

Where are ya lad? Where is your evidence? Creationism is science isn't it?

Oh well. Remember I told you that there was also developmental and genetic evidence regarding the origin of birds? Well, if you won't discuss the physiological evidence, perhaps you will read some of the developmental studies. They really are becoming quite detailed in terms of molecular mechanisms such as signal cooption and the evolution of expression cascades. Let's start with some basics:

Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology 285(4):291-306 (1999).

Evolution of the morphological innovations of feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology 304(6):570-579 (2005).

After you have read those we can move on to the genetic evidence. In fact, whether you respond or not I think that would be a good idea. You can try to change the subject again, but that won't fool anybody either.

What good is half a lung?

Can't remember the publication, but a few years back one biologist said "Saying feathers evolved for flight is like saying fingers evolved for playing the piano."

Nonsense. Fingers evolved for eating fried chicken.

Henry's evidence...

"As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won’t Fly" Duane Gish, Ph.D.

Um, yeah.

If you do a little digging, and actually get a hold of the article, you find that it was published in late 1989, probably written some time before that.

The most "current" citation was some work from 1985, with most being from the 70's. Actually, "citation" is a little too grandiose a word, since about half of the authoritative quotes either come from the popular press or are self referential.

This is what passes for evidence in the creationist world - 19 year old opinion pieces (you can't call them research papers, they aren't reviewed and they contain no actual original research), which, some cursory googling quickly reveals, are not much more than quotemines of 30 year old research papers.

For instance, Gish once again holds up the 1983 Whetstone paper that DI's been crowing about for 2 and a half decades* and once again points out that Whetstone argued that the evidence shows that Archaeopteryx did not descend from tetrapods. (In a real scientific journal, no less - the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology).

What Gish conveniently always omits from the story is that Whetstone didn't argue that Archaeopteryx isn't some ancient, transitional half-bird /half-reptile, it's just that Whetstone felt the root node should be crocodilians, not tetrapods.

Hardly an earth-shaking repudiation of everything Archeoptrix has to tell us, Duane.

Gish also conveniently always omits that the availability of new specimens allowed Gauthier and Paidin to largely overturn Whetstones ideas by 1986 - well within the time frame of the original Gish paper - um, if good ol' Duane had been motivated to actually look up the research.

Of course, Gish isn't really into the whole time thing. For instance, his paper is still up in it's original form on the ICR website, with no reference to the fact that at's 19 years old.

And it still makes claims that the Archeopteryx specimen (apparently,t he London specimen) is probably a fraud. anyway - making no reference at all, of course, to the fact that no less than 4 other specimens were known at the time, and another 5 have turned up since Gish's "critique" was first published in '89.

Yeah, good, scholarly work there, Henry.

Nothing like the detail-lesss, outdated, hack papers that come pouring by the dozens from a quick search of PubMed, like "A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features -
Mayr, Pohl, Peters, 2006."

( *Don't believe me? Google "K. N. Whetstone". You'll find scores of references to ICR citing one line from one research paper as a shining beacon, outnumbering by far any references to the actual papers themselves, which, nobody actually reads in 2009 )

Game, set, and match: Stevaroni.

fnxtr said: Cool thing about kiwis is the size of their eggs. In that Attenborough series, he explained that the eggs didn't keep getting bigger and bigger; the birds got smaller and smaller and the eggs didn't.

Here, to be exact (hope the link works, it's a long one):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pzj90slTTEIC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=gould+kiwi+eggs&source=bl&ots=jrHQ243F9G&sig=qkERfapJeovdRGj6rL5GVZPisbQ&hl=en&ei=O2pJSr_eB5GiswPD6JX6BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Yeah. Some quotes from Gish:

"Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless." This means: "If I choose to dispute something, whatever it is, it doesn't exist. Come to think of it, if anybody chooses to dispute something, it doesn't exist. Evidence? We don' need no steenking evidence!"

"No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!" This means: "The only things I know about birds is that they've got feathers and they fly. Don't bother me with details. Anatomy, schmamatomy."

"Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules." This means: "More complex things can't evolve from simple things, because I say so."

That and the hilarious logical pratfall where he spends three paragraphs saying the thing's a true bird and then admits that it's got teeth, solid bones and no keel. A skull that's avian, except for the jaws that no bird has. Oh, did I mention the tail? No, neither did he.

Invincible ignorance, blind prejudice, and appeal to incredulity. Disgusting.

fnxtr said: Game, set, and match: Stevaroni.

Whetstone didn’t argue that Archaeopteryx isn’t some ancient, transitional half-bird /half-reptile, it’s just that Whetstone felt the root node should be crocodilians, not tetrapods.

novparl said: @ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I'm an OECer, not an IDer. KP : nope, the size of that meeting doesn't make me think for more than 15 seconds. Evolutionists are conformist, so meeting sizes don't mean anything. 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what? The failure of evo's to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve, or to even to think about it apart from childish insults, does make me think - that evolution is just empty conformity. What do you think of Darwin's view of women? Impact, March 1, 1994 Darwin's Teaching of Women's Inferiority by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized. It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. ...Women's inferiority—a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s—was a major proof of evolution by natural selection. .... Almost all believed that "Negroes and women" were intellectually inferior. These scientists were not repeating prejudices without extensive work and thought; they were attempting to verify this major plank in evolutionary theory by trying to prove, scientifically, that women were inferior.

henry said: Impact, March 1, 1994 Darwin's Teaching of Women's Inferiority by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized. It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. ...Women's inferiority—a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s—was a major proof of evolution by natural selection. .... Almost all believed that "Negroes and women" were intellectually inferior. These scientists were not repeating prejudices without extensive work and thought; they were attempting to verify this major plank in evolutionary theory by trying to prove, scientifically, that women were inferior.

Dave Luckett said: Yeah. Some quotes from Gish: "Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless." This means: "If I choose to dispute something, whatever it is, it doesn't exist. Come to think of it, if anybody chooses to dispute something, it doesn't exist. Evidence? We don' need no steenking evidence!" "No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!" This means: "The only things I know about birds is that they've got feathers and they fly. Don't bother me with details. Anatomy, schmamatomy." "Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules." This means: "More complex things can't evolve from simple things, because I say so." That and the hilarious logical pratfall where he spends three paragraphs saying the thing's a true bird and then admits that it's got teeth, solid bones and no keel. A skull that's avian, except for the jaws that no bird has. Oh, did I mention the tail? No, neither did he. Invincible ignorance, blind prejudice, and appeal to incredulity. Disgusting. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

RIlke's Granddaughter said:

henry said: Impact, March 1, 1994 Darwin's Teaching of Women's Inferiority by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized. It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. ...Women's inferiority—a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s—was a major proof of evolution by natural selection. .... Almost all believed that "Negroes and women" were intellectually inferior. These scientists were not repeating prejudices without extensive work and thought; they were attempting to verify this major plank in evolutionary theory by trying to prove, scientifically, that women were inferior.

Bergman is clearly ignorant of the history of science, and more to the point, a liar. Evolutionary theory is not racist at all; it is neutral on what is fundamentally an emotional point that for most of human history seems to have been driven (or at least supported) by religious considerations. More important is the utter lack of relevance of Darwin's opinions on women or racism to the theory of evolution he originated. The theory has moved on. Folks like Henry don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that the personal foibles or opinions of a scientist have no bearing on the validity of his or her work. They also lack any sense of time; failing to recognize that theories develop and grow. There is no 'racism' in evolutionary theory, Henry. None. You can, of course prove me a liar by ACTUALLY PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS RACIST. But of course, you can't do that, can you Henry? Because there is no such evidence except the unsupported claims of religious fanatics like Bergman. Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life doesn't sound racist to you?

henry failed to answer for any of ICR's LIES again: by taking the usual copout, trying to claim that Darwin was racist and mysoginist.

Is there something wrong with my computer?? I see henry quoting some people ...but no inclusion of any thoughts from henry himself? What gives, henry???? Ah ...maybe there is something wrong with henry. Comprehension comes to mind.

Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life doesn’t sound racist to you?

If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

Dave Luckett said: .... Further, a transitional form for bats has been found. See http://sunaddict86.blogspot.com/2008/02/solving-mysteries-with-onychonycteris.html. Yes, this one has wings, and it's a bat - but it's a bat with differences. It has claws on all digits, it doesn't have echolocation, and the hind limbs are different - apparently it was capable of significant terrestrial or arboreal movement. In other words, it's what you'd expect of a transitional from an insectivore that hunted insects in foliage to the fully flight-dependent nocturnal bats of today. It wouldn't have been as efficient in the air, but it could fly. Take a look at the brachial index chart, it's a doozy. ....

Well Henry seems to have taken a trip to never-never land. I guess he thinks that quoting someone is evidence, even if they disagree with him. Maybe some day he will at least read the abstract of a paper, maybe not. Who cares? Let him wallow in his own crapulance. He certainly isn't capable of convincing anyone of anything but his own ignorance. That could perhaps be forgiven, but willful ignorance has no excuse. Anyone who really cared about the scientific issues would have read the papers cited and wanted to discuss them, Henry did not. But then again, anyone who was really interested in the scientific issues would have already read the papers.

Keelyn said: Is there something wrong with my computer?? I see henry quoting some people ...but no inclusion of any thoughts from henry himself? What gives, henry???? Ah ...maybe there is something wrong with henry. Comprehension comes to mind.

henry yammers... What do you think of Darwin’s view of women? ...It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. ...Women’s inferiority—a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s—was a major proof of evolution by natural selection.

Henry J said: http://tolweb.org/Monotremata/15991 I guess those spines are part of the warp engines?

Thanks for the link Dave. I wonder who many more times Henry will try to change the subject before he admits he has no clue what he is talking about?

John Kwok said: On a more serious note, I suppose henry hasn't heard of... ...have offered rather robust evidence in support of the hypothesis that birds are the sole living lineage of theropod dinosaurs.

Henry - if you're still around - you're quite right about Darwin's racism and "sexism". There are a few slitely honest evo's who have protested against rewriting books to fit in with modern sensibilities. (Like Winston Smith in 1984)

GVL Geologist - what use is 1 thousandth of a wing? Or did wings evolve a half at a time? Evo-magic.

In the cases of bats, a "thousandth of a wing" is called a leg. In the case of birds, I presume it would be called an arm.

Novparl said: what use is 1 thousandth of a wing?

Henry and Novparl,

"A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man who plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric...."
— Thomas Henry Huxley

Stanton said:

Keelyn said: Is there something wrong with my computer?? I see henry quoting some people ...but no inclusion of any thoughts from henry himself? What gives, henry???? Ah ...maybe there is something wrong with henry. Comprehension comes to mind.

henry's own alleged thoughts are at the bottom of his posts: he accidentally included them inside the [/blockquote] tag.

Note to henry and Novparl: Albert Einstein was said, “We obviously don’t know what we are doing. If we did, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?” Take a hint – research. Try it sometime.

Novparl said: ... GVL Geologist - what use is 1 thousandth of a wing? Or did wings evolve a half at a time? Evo-magic.

I just can’t imagine what it must be like to be that stupid.

I'm bored. Take it to the bathroom wall.