Carnival of Evolution 40

Posted 5 October 2011 by Steve Matheson

The 40th Edition of the magnificent Carnival of Evolution is now up at EvoEcoLab. You'll find a rich diversity of entries, ranging from antibiotic-resistant ice-age bacteria to penguins in Africa. A book review, a podcast, and Flying Monsters 3D. Letters from Huxley. The cost of lanterns (fireflies are the topic). "Magic traits." Jawless fish, fish with limbs, malaria. And, of course, sex with Neanderthals. Carnival admission is free. Rides are safe for people, but may be harmful to ideas. Now run along!

14 Comments

Atheistoclast · 11 October 2011

I'd love to see these "fish with limbs" and other magical beasts.

Sex with Neanderthals is a bit silly given that they were humans like us.

But, hey, let's have a carnival to rival the anti-capitalist protests sweeping America!

DS · 11 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I'd love to see these "fish with limbs" and other magical beasts. Sex with Neanderthals is a bit silly given that they were humans like us. But, hey, let's have a carnival to rival the anti-capitalist protests sweeping America!

Here is the link Joe, enjoy. http://biologos.org/blog/new-limbs-from-old-fins-part-2 Now of course, everyone knows you are going to deny this obvious evidence for evolution. The question is, will you claim it is not a fish or that they are not limbs. Those would seem to be your only choices here. Before you answer, I suggest you read the entire post, along with the other two posts in the series. Then at least you might have a chance of knowing what you are talking about. Everyone already knows that whatever you say it will be spectacularly wrong. The only question is whether the article will have already explained why or whether someone else will have to educate you.

Atheistoclast · 11 October 2011

DS said:
Atheistoclast said: I'd love to see these "fish with limbs" and other magical beasts. Sex with Neanderthals is a bit silly given that they were humans like us. But, hey, let's have a carnival to rival the anti-capitalist protests sweeping America!
Here is the link Joe, enjoy. http://biologos.org/blog/new-limbs-from-old-fins-part-2 Now of course, everyone knows you are going to deny this obvious evidence for evolution. The question is, will you claim it is not a fish or that they are not limbs. Those would seem to be your only choices here. Before you answer, I suggest you read the entire post, along with the other two posts in the series. Then at least you might have a chance of knowing what you are talking about. Everyone already knows that whatever you say it will be spectacularly wrong. The only question is whether the article will have already explained why or whether someone else will have to educate you.

Why do you have to bring up long-debunked nonsense about Tiktaalik? It is based on nothing other than this uninspiring fossilized remain: http://whyy.org/cms/news/files/2008/10/tiktaalik-roseae.jpg I don't see any limbs on Tiktaalik. I don't even think Shooobin claims that it does have any. Some fish can use their fins for terrestrial locomotion - like mudskippers and frogfish - but these features are both physiologically and anatomically 100% fins and are not intermediate to any possible limb. I am, as always, quintessentially correct.

DS · 11 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: Why do you have to bring up long-debunked nonsense about Tiktaalik? It is based on nothing other than this uninspiring fossilized remain: http://whyy.org/cms/news/files/2008/10/tiktaalik-roseae.jpg I don't see any limbs on Tiktaalik. I don't even think Shooobin claims that it does have any. Some fish can use their fins for terrestrial locomotion - like mudskippers and frogfish - but these features are both physiologically and anatomically 100% fins and are not intermediate to any possible limb. I am, as always, quintessentially correct.

How predictable. Yawn. Go away, no one cares what you think.

Atheistoclast · 11 October 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 17 October 2011

Does anyone have a list for the Evolution and developmental biology conferences for 2012 in North American and Europe? I am thinking of attending one. Thanks.

Steve Matheson · 17 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: Does anyone have a list for the Evolution and developmental biology conferences for 2012 in North American and Europe? I am thinking of attending one. Thanks.

I've been to the SDB meeting, and it was great. You can find info on that and other meetings at the SDB site. I would think you'll find similar info at evolution society sites like this one.

Atheistoclast · 17 October 2011

Steve Matheson said:
Atheistoclast said: Does anyone have a list for the Evolution and developmental biology conferences for 2012 in North American and Europe? I am thinking of attending one. Thanks.
I've been to the SDB meeting, and it was great. You can find info on that and other meetings at the SDB site. I would think you'll find similar info at evolution society sites like this one.

Thanks, Steve. I really ought to attend one.

Atheistoclast · 19 October 2011

Slightly off-topic but still relevant: The International Conference on Creationism has made this point about their forthcoming event in 2013: http://www.creationicc.org/

Papers dealing with the age of the earth/universe must be from a young-earth perspective. Papers from an old-earth, geocentric, anti-relativity, or anti-quantum mechanics perspectives will not be considered.

Of course, this states that Old Earth Creationists are not welcome. Both sides are equally dogmatic. I have been banned from 2 evolutionist journals (Biology Letters and Evolutionary Biology but also an ID one, Biocomplexity.

mplavcan · 19 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: Slightly off-topic but still relevant: The International Conference on Creationism has made this point about their forthcoming event in 2013: http://www.creationicc.org/
Papers dealing with the age of the earth/universe must be from a young-earth perspective. Papers from an old-earth, geocentric, anti-relativity, or anti-quantum mechanics perspectives will not be considered.
Of course, this states that Old Earth Creationists are not welcome. Both sides are equally dogmatic. I have been banned from 2 evolutionist journals (Biology Letters and Evolutionary Biology but also an ID one, Biocomplexity.

That's quite a track record! Of course, I am curious how you can be "banned" from the biology journals. It just doesn't work that way. You must have had papers rejected, but I am not aware of any journal that will reject papers a priori just because of the name of the author. This leads me to suspect that your characterization of your treatment is not entirely accurate.

DS · 19 October 2011

Good luck Joe. We all look forward to hearing your paper on evo devo at the 2012 SDB meetings. You do know that they review the abstracts before accepting papers, right?

Now Joe, I hope you aren't planning on just attending the meeting without presenting a paper. I hope you don't just plan to heckle the real speakers. That would be a mistake Joe. Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously if you have no data of your own to present? I think maybe we should start collecting bail money just in case. I'm sure that no one wants to see you stuck in jail for too long.

By the way, how did you manage to get "banned" from an ID journal? Were you a bad boy again? Oh well, thanks for at least admitting to the bias of the journal. Now you can't really crow about publishing there on this site now can you?

DS · 19 October 2011

mplavcan said: That's quite a track record! Of course, I am curious how you can be "banned" from the biology journals. It just doesn't work that way. You must have had papers rejected, but I am not aware of any journal that will reject papers a priori just because of the name of the author. This leads me to suspect that your characterization of your treatment is not entirely accurate.

Well I'm sure it now states on the Instructions to Authors page: No submissions from Joe B. will be considered". It has to be a decision from the editor in chief at least. Or maybe they just sent him over fifty rejection letters and got tired of having to pay the postage for all of them, so they told him in one of the rejection letters to stop bothering them. It might not be an editorial decision, but it might work. Somehow I get the feeling that it was more than just the accumulation of rejection letters. Even Joe has to know that that is really being "banned". Remember, this is the guy who had to be legally restrained from harassing real scientists. This is the guy who lives to defrock atheists, or whatever one does to an atheist. No matter what, I'm sure his transgressions warranted the responses. And I presume that he is proud to have been discriminated against by both sides, no doubt thinking that this is a good thing. Anyway, any further responses by me to Joe can be found on the bathroom wall, that's where he always ends up eventually.

Kevin B · 19 October 2011

DS said:
mplavcan said: That's quite a track record! Of course, I am curious how you can be "banned" from the biology journals. It just doesn't work that way. You must have had papers rejected, but I am not aware of any journal that will reject papers a priori just because of the name of the author. This leads me to suspect that your characterization of your treatment is not entirely accurate.
Well I'm sure it now states on the Instructions to Authors page: No submissions from Joe B. will be considered". It has to be a decision from the editor in chief at least. Or maybe they just sent him over fifty rejection letters and got tired of having to pay the postage for all of them, so they told him in one of the rejection letters to stop bothering them. It might not be an editorial decision, but it might work. Somehow I get the feeling that it was more than just the accumulation of rejection letters. Even Joe has to know that that is really being "banned". Remember, this is the guy who had to be legally restrained from harassing real scientists. This is the guy who lives to defrock atheists, or whatever one does to an atheist. No matter what, I'm sure his transgressions warranted the responses. And I presume that he is proud to have been discriminated against by both sides, no doubt thinking that this is a good thing. Anyway, any further responses by me to Joe can be found on the bathroom wall, that's where he always ends up eventually.

Perhaps now that Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (and notorious climate change denialist) had been told in no uncertain terms to stop describing himself as a member of the House of Lords, they can't find anyone to peer-review Joe's papers.

Steve Matheson · 19 October 2011

Hey folks, comments are now closed on this thread. Those who wish to continue discussion of the meaning of the word 'ban' wrt scientific journals may do so on the BW. To 'Clast: I do encourage you to attend a meeting of some sort, and I think you'll find that abstract standards are pretty lax; Paul Nelson had a poster at the SDB meeting that I went to, although he wasn't there due to unspecified personal reasons.