The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Freshwater: Appeal Denied (UPDATED)

Posted 5 October 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

Today Judge Otho Eyster of the Knox County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas denied John Freshwater's appeal of his termination as a middle school science teacher by the Mt. Vernon City Schools. In his ruling (Page 1 and Page 2, both PDFs at the Mount Vernon News site), Judge Eyster wrote that "Based on the number of witnesses and exhibits presented at the Referee's hearing held over a period of twenty-one (21) months, the Court finds Freshwater's request that the Court conduct additional hearings is not well taken." Further, the Judge wrote, "...there is clear and convincing evidence to support the Board of Education's termination of Freshwater's contract(s) for good and just cause,...". In the decision Freshwater was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding. As I understand it, Freshwater still has the option to pursue an appeal of Judge Eyster's ruling up the ladder of the state courts. As far as I know he still has the support of the Rutherford Institute. No public comments by Freshwater and/or that Institute concerning the Court's ruling have as yet been made. UPDATE As foreshadowed just above, The Rutherford Institute today (Oct 6) issued a press release saying it will appeal Judge Eyster's decision to the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals. (Hat tip to Accountability in the Media, a site operated by Freshwater supporters.)

108 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 October 2011

It's time to face facts, Freshwater: The courts don't find you appealing.

Just go off and play up the martyr game. If you do it right, it can pay well.

Glen Davidson

DS · 5 October 2011

Here here.

stringfold · 5 October 2011

“Based on the number of witnesses and exhibits presented at the Referee’s hearing held over a period of twenty-one (21) months, the Court finds Freshwater’s request that the Court conduct additional hearings is not well taken.”
Absolutely right. This case has already taken 20 months too long.

morrisma1954 · 5 October 2011

I am pleased by the judge's ruling but I am perplexed by Freshwater's reticence to begin the martyr process. Might he feel that these appeals must play out first? His job as a teacher cannot pay as well as the speaking circuit of fundie events. Seems odd.

harold · 5 October 2011

We shall see, but there may not be much of a market for Freshwater on the fundie circuit.

Take a look at the trolls here. They constantly make absurd claims of persecution.

But not because they admire people who are persecuted for what they believe in.

It is universally true of every fundie creationist troll that I have ever seen posts by, that they crave bullying authoritarian dominance so much that they perceive other people defending themselves from their bullying as them being "persecuted".

Freshwater went to court and lost.

Are any of the clowns who lost in Dover on the speaking circuit?

These aren't people who admire standing up for principle. These are domineering, bullying authoritarians, frequently with a sadistic flavor, who have cobbled together an ad hoc religion to "justify" their behavior.

They liked the Freshwater who made kids with the wrong religion feel unwanted and uncomfortable in public school. The one who lost to the "liberals" in court? They may not have much use for him. He failed in his efforts to dominate.

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 October 2011

Some news coverage:
Mount Vernon News
Columbus Dispatch (Notes that Freshwater has 30 days in which to file an appeal.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 October 2011

harold said: We shall see, but there may not be much of a market for Freshwater on the fundie circuit. Take a look at the trolls here. They constantly make absurd claims of persecution. But not because they admire people who are persecuted for what they believe in. It is universally true of every fundie creationist troll that I have ever seen posts by, that they crave bullying authoritarian dominance so much that they perceive other people defending themselves from their bullying as them being "persecuted". Freshwater went to court and lost. Are any of the clowns who lost in Dover on the speaking circuit? These aren't people who admire standing up for principle. These are domineering, bullying authoritarians, frequently with a sadistic flavor, who have cobbled together an ad hoc religion to "justify" their behavior. They liked the Freshwater who made kids with the wrong religion feel unwanted and uncomfortable in public school. The one who lost to the "liberals" in court? They may not have much use for him. He failed in his efforts to dominate.
Crocker's done awfully playing martyr. To be sure, one might need a doctorate of some kind (relevance to biology isn't important) to get the big bucks from the dominionists. Glen Davidson

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 October 2011

One also needs to be reasonably articulate. Freshwater isn't.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 October 2011

Crocker’s done awfully playing martyr.
was supposed to be
Crocker’s done awfully well playing martyr.
Obviously, but sometimes it just seems better to correct it anyhow. Oh, and if Freshwater's not articulate that would indeed explain why he's not tried the old martyr market with greater vigor. Glen Davidson

harold · 5 October 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Crocker’s done awfully playing martyr.
was supposed to be
Crocker’s done awfully well playing martyr.
Obviously, but sometimes it just seems better to correct it anyhow. Oh, and if Freshwater's not articulate that would indeed explain why he's not tried the old martyr market with greater vigor. Glen Davidson
I could be wrong about Freshwater (although I suspect that I will be right - that he will receive few tender mercies from his fellow authoritarians). Crocker is a bit different. First of all, although she wasn't especially prestigious within her field, her credentials are at the doctoral level. She can be described with big words like "immunopharacologist". Second, and at least equally to the point, she didn't create and lose a lawsuit. Remember that the entire point of "creation science" and "ID", at least since the 1960's, has been to create the illusion that some way to teach sectarian dogma and deny evolution in public schools, without getting busted in court, has been invented. People who actually follow through, end up in court, and lose are personna non grata in the movement. They have challenged the illusion. Even Behe and Dembski, who were associated with Dover - by far the biggest creationist names to be so at the time - have seen their prestige subsequently fall (yes, I realize Dembski either decided not to or was begged not to testify at the last minute). Behe is at Lehigh for life unless he is insane enough to quit or give them a reason to fire him, and Dembski can still generate an occasional book for bulk sales to right wing think tanks where no-one will actually read it. But even these powerful figures were tarnished by a loss. I can't think of a single low level figure who has benefited in the movement from association with a court defeat. It's all about blustering, but evading any forum where you can be pinned down, especially court.

anonatheist · 5 October 2011

Yes, the martyr circuit will be tough for him. He should stick to the radio where people can't see his wild eyes and flailing arms, they can only hear his rising voice. Things still aren't over for another 30 days and I wouldn't bet against him appealing it again. He seems just that crazy but I think he knows at a real court his shenanigans won't be tolerated.

Gary_Hurd · 5 October 2011

Some good news today.

Nice change.

Matt Young · 5 October 2011

Here here.

I understand about evolution and all that, but the correct locution is "Hear hear." Too many damned homonyms.

Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011

Matt Young said:

Here here.

I understand about evolution and all that, but the correct locution is "Hear hear." Too many damned homonyms.
I frequently make the same mistake. Sometimes it's forgetfullness, sometimes it's careless typing. Hear, hear = Listen, listen. Pay attention to what he/she said; it’s important. Here, here = Me too; I agree also. Look at me.; I’m as clever and wise as he/she is. The first is more “gentlemanly” and respectful of the wisdom of others.

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011

As I was thinking back over the history of the ID/creationist movement, I find I can’t remember any instance, other than this one, in which ID/creationists suffered financial consequences for their actions.

In every case I remember, it was the taxpayer who ultimately picked up the tab for the time-wasting meddling by ID/creationists.

Freshwater cost the Mt. Vernon City Schools a lot of money and time wasted on completely unnecessary shenanigans; but in this case, Freshwater wiped himself out.

If this is a first, perhaps it will send an unmistakable message to any other ID/creationist sectarians thinking they are going to bully secular institutions and strain school budgets with useless expenses.

And maybe it will also send a message to administrators to develop some backbone and knowledge of the law rather than constantly attempting to placate aggressive sectarianism.

Kevin B · 6 October 2011

Matt Young said:

Here here.

I understand about evolution and all that, but the correct locution is "Hear hear." Too many damned homonyms.
Given the stories of Freshwater using "Here" as a codeword as part of his planting of doubt about those bits of science that give the lie to YEC, it might be that DS was indulging in some deliberate satire. On the other hand, I might just be making an invalid design inference. Maybe an ad homonym argument.

Tom · 6 October 2011

I think he may get a little bit of play on the Christian Martyr circuit, but not in regard to the creationism angle. I think the myth that's been most effectively spread is that he was fired simply for having a bible on his desk. That's what the preachers and fundie radio hosts will play up.

Whether there's any money in that, I don't know.

DS · 6 October 2011

Matt Young said:

Here here.

I understand about evolution and all that, but the correct locution is "Hear hear." Too many damned homonyms.
Thanks Matt. Sorry, I guess I forgot how it was spelled in the transcripts. Then again, I guess that according to Mike the second meaning is actually closer to what I meant anyway. Still, the point remains, this guy got exactly what he deserved. He can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, just as long as he pays for it, or cons some gullible religious folks into paying for it. He had his day in court, he had almost a thousand days in court. Sour grapes make a really bad whine.

morrisma1954 · 6 October 2011

Has Hamilton, Freshwater's (erstwhile?) attorney suffered from his failure in Freshwater's defense? Karma would suggest public stocks for the man but that kind of justice seldom happens.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 6 October 2011

The only future I can see for Freshwater on the talk circuit is at occasional fundraisers for the benefit of his lawyers. They'll introduce him, let him stand up, and maybe give him a few moments on stage so he can recite a script about their public interest legal activities. The money raised will benefit the lawyers, but they may pay Freshwater's travel expenses and give him a few bucks. In other words, his principal function will be as a fundraising prop -- for the benefit of others.

Matt Young · 6 October 2011

Maybe an ad homonym argument.

Splendid pun!

DavidK · 6 October 2011

Tom said: I think he may get a little bit of play on the Christian Martyr circuit, but not in regard to the creationism angle. I think the myth that's been most effectively spread is that he was fired simply for having a bible on his desk. That's what the preachers and fundie radio hosts will play up. Whether there's any money in that, I don't know.
Selling points of the extremist far right, i.e., what could be more obvious than: Evolution is evil. Public schools are bad. Public schools are anti-Christian. Private/parochial school vouchers are one good remedy (Ohio Republicans is trying very hard to do this).

eric · 6 October 2011

From RBH's new update:
"The judge's ruling is unfortunate because academic freedom is the bedrock of American education," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don't need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves."
Irony, thy name is Rutherford Institute.

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011

And the band played on (and on and on and …).

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011

A little, off topic alert: (sorry)

Over at UD the editorials are simply livid that nobody in the ID community got a Nobel Prize. The sour grapes over the Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physics are really palpable.

And it appears that Joe Bozorgmehr has been banned over there.

Flint · 6 October 2011

eric said: From RBH's new update:
"The judge's ruling is unfortunate because academic freedom is the bedrock of American education," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don't need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves."
Irony, thy name is Rutherford Institute.
I guess branding crosses into their arms is one of those "think for yourself" aides.

raven · 6 October 2011

We shall see, but there may not be much of a market for Freshwater on the fundie circuit.
You don't understand fundie xians. They can just make something up. It isn't like Freshwater and his supporters showed any great veracity during the hearings. "On the night that Freshwater lost his hearing board proceedings, the moon rose, red as a poppy. Howls were heard as antlered beings that even the Druids feared roamed the earth. Things went down hill from there. Packs of evolutionary biologists clutching Pippettmen surrounded his house, chanting their evil spell, "Random mutations and Natural Selection equal Evolution. The police were stopped by a barricade of liberal lawyers waving the US constitution around. Then the gay, Moslem atheists circled the area in UFO's, piloted by the Grey Space Reptiles. The next day all the Hex signs were found high in trees and the dog was dead in the driveway, completely drained of blood" Need to work in satan, demons, and astronomers in there somewhere.

raven · 6 October 2011

It is interesting and typical that the fundies didn't bother to bail Freshwater out. IIRC, he ended up selling his residence.

They like martyrs but the best martyrs are someone else.

I've seen the same thing with the Forced Birther crowd. They want someone to assassinate MD's but the best killers are somebody else. They don't want to spend their life in prison, they want someone else to do the time.

Joe Felsenstein · 6 October 2011

Let's remember that what seems like a suicidal strategy, Freshwater's ill-advised insistence on martyrdom, might actually work in the long run. We can laugh about the defeat of the effort in Dover, Pennsylvania, and about Freshwater's doomed crusade. But if cases like those got appealed up to a sufficiently right-wing Supreme Court, the result might be very different.

I suspect that getting the case to the Supreme Court was the implicit strategy in Dover. The defeat of the creationists on the school board thwarted that. It probably wouldn't have worked with the current court, as bad as they are. But a right-wing president appointing a couple more Scalias and Thomases would be a whole different kettle of fish. We might find ID, or Teach The Controversy, or Teach Critical Thinking But Only About Evolution, shoved down our throats by that court. The results would be dire, both for science and for separation of church and state.

tomh · 7 October 2011

Joe Felsenstein said: But a right-wing president appointing a couple more Scalias and Thomases would be a whole different kettle of fish. We might find ID, or Teach The Controversy, or Teach Critical Thinking But Only About Evolution, shoved down our throats by that court.
Exactly right. People are way too complacent about what will happen when another evolution case gets to the Court. One comes up about every 20 years or so, so we're about due. If McCain had been elected, for instance, the Court would look very different now. After all, in an interview on the campaign trail, when asked, "Are there any members of the current Supreme Court that you particularly admire or regard as a model?" he answered, "Eh of course, Antonin Scalia." That would be the same Scalia who wrote the dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. McCain also admired Roberts. A President Perry, for instance, would likely be on the same page.

Kevin B · 7 October 2011

raven said:
We shall see, but there may not be much of a market for Freshwater on the fundie circuit.
You don't understand fundie xians. They can just make something up. It isn't like Freshwater and his supporters showed any great veracity during the hearings. "On the night that Freshwater lost his hearing board proceedings, the moon rose, red as a poppy. Howls were heard as antlered beings that even the Druids feared roamed the earth. Things went down hill from there. Packs of evolutionary biologists clutching Pippettmen surrounded his house, chanting their evil spell, "Random mutations and Natural Selection equal Evolution. The police were stopped by a barricade of liberal lawyers waving the US constitution around. Then the gay, Moslem atheists circled the area in UFO's, piloted by the Grey Space Reptiles. The next day all the Hex signs were found high in trees and the dog was dead in the driveway, completely drained of blood" Need to work in satan, demons, and astronomers in there somewhere.
What about Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptists? They would be very cross if you ignored them.

Wolfhound · 7 October 2011

Kevin B said: What about Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptists? They would be very cross if you ignored them.
I see what you did there.

morrisma1954 · 7 October 2011

BranchOFELIA31 said: I strictly recommend not to hold off until you get big sum of cash to buy different goods! You should get the credit loans or short term loan and feel comfortable
WTF?

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2011

Blogspam.

morrisma1954 · 7 October 2011

Dave Luckett said: Blogspam.
Sure, but under what bizarre circumstances is something that out of context ever going to be effective?

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2011

It's like all spam. It depends on how much of it he's put out. Bizarre or no, it'll generate some traffic to that site, if he puts enough out.

harold · 7 October 2011

Mike Elzinga said: A little, off topic alert: (sorry) Over at UD the editorials are simply livid that nobody in the ID community got a Nobel Prize. The sour grapes over the Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physics are really palpable. And it appears that Joe Bozorgmehr has been banned over there.
100% predictable, but still hilarious.

Paul Burnett · 7 October 2011

Odd - the Rutherford Institute press release somehow fails to mention Freshwater burning crosses on students' flesh. I wonder why.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Joe Felsenstein said: Let's remember that what seems like a suicidal strategy, Freshwater's ill-advised insistence on martyrdom, might actually work in the long run. We can laugh about the defeat of the effort in Dover, Pennsylvania, and about Freshwater's doomed crusade. But if cases like those got appealed up to a sufficiently right-wing Supreme Court, the result might be very different. I suspect that getting the case to the Supreme Court was the implicit strategy in Dover. The defeat of the creationists on the school board thwarted that. It probably wouldn't have worked with the current court, as bad as they are. But a right-wing president appointing a couple more Scalias and Thomases would be a whole different kettle of fish. We might find ID, or Teach The Controversy, or Teach Critical Thinking But Only About Evolution, shoved down our throats by that court. The results would be dire, both for science and for separation of church and state.
In reality, there is no pressing educational reason to teach evolutionary biology and the origins of life or the universe in schools. You will find that in Europe, there is little controversy about the issue because biology teachers focus on the fundamentals like photosynthesis, germination, reproduction, pollination etc. I looked at an old GCSE Biology textbook from England (dated 1992) and couldn't find a single reference to evolution and natural selection. If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today. I think if we return to basics in high schools, we will give kids the grounding they need to succeed in all disciplines at the college level - including evolutionary biology.

dalehusband · 8 October 2011

That statement below is ABSOLUTELY false, as well as absurd on every possible level! Ban this pathological liar!
Atheistoclast said: In reality, there is no pressing educational reason to teach evolutionary biology and the origins of life or the universe in schools. You will find that in Europe, there is little controversy about the issue because biology teachers focus on the fundamentals like photosynthesis, germination, reproduction, pollination etc. I looked at an old GCSE Biology textbook from England (dated 1992) and couldn't find a single reference to evolution and natural selection. If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today. I think if we return to basics in high schools, we will give kids the grounding they need to succeed in all disciplines at the college level - including evolutionary biology.

Chris Lawson · 8 October 2011

A'clast,

I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?

apokryltaros · 8 October 2011

dalehusband said: That statement (by Atheistoclast) is ABSOLUTELY false, as well as absurd on every possible level! Ban this pathological liar!
Agreed. Everything Atheistoclast says is either a) a painfully blatant lie, b) blatant trolling or c) inane boasting.
Chris Lawson said: A'clast, I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?
I strongly doubt that Atheistoclast wound if he could. Do remember that he is a pathological liar who insults and belittles us for not worshiping him as God of Science. That is, when he isn't imploring us to wallow in his daydreams of upending and conquering the scientific community for Jesus.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Chris Lawson said: A'clast, I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?
"GCSE Biology" By D.G Mackean. I don't have a copy of it at hand now but it was the first edition. He has since added some stuff in the latest edition. However, I do have two reference books on my desk right now. Collins Gem: Basic Facts Biology for GCSE and SCE (ISBN: 0-00-459103-8) Usborne Dictionary of Science - Physics, Chemistry and Biology Facts (ISBN: 0-86020-989-X). The first book makes fleeting references to evolution, natural selection, mutation and variation. The vast majority of it is about biological structures and processs. The second, just mentions "adaptive radiation or evolutionary adaptation" in a sub-section on page 237 about lifestyles and life cycles! That is it. There is also a book called "Ecology" (ISBN: 0746002874). It talks about evolution but also mentions "Darwinism" and even has a section called "Beyond Darwinism". The text on page 31 reads:
"Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately."
That's a fact, jack.

Dave Lovell · 8 October 2011

apokryltaros said:
dalehusband said: That statement (by Atheistoclast) is ABSOLUTELY false, as well as absurd on every possible level! Ban this pathological liar!
Agreed. Everything Atheistoclast says is either a) a painfully blatant lie, b) blatant trolling or c) inane boasting.
Chris Lawson said: A'clast, I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?
I strongly doubt that Atheistoclast wound if he could. Do remember that he is a pathological liar who insults and belittles us for not worshiping him as God of Science. That is, when he isn't imploring us to wallow in his daydreams of upending and conquering the scientific community for Jesus.
Be fair. What he actually said was "I looked at an old GCSE Biology textbook from England (dated 1992) and couldn’t find a single reference to evolution and natural selection." (my emphasis). Maybe not so much a lie as a demonstration of his pride in his Morton's Demon.

Dave Lovell · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: There is also a book called "Ecology" (ISBN: 0746002874). It talks about evolution but also mentions "Darwinism" and even has a section called "Beyond Darwinism". The text on page 31 reads:
"Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately."
That's a fact, jack.
Regardless of the merits of this book, that statement is undoubtedly false. I think it is not "most" but "almost all". Scientific understanding has come a long way since Darwin's death, but I don't think most evolutionary biologists would object even if Darwinism was replaced with modern ToE. The many things it doesn't yet explain are dwarfed by the huge mountain of things it does. And of course conceding that it explains everything will put them out of a job.

Dave Lovell · 8 October 2011

Sorry, that should have read:

I think it is not "some", but “most” if not “almost all”.

apokryltaros · 8 October 2011

Dave Lovell said: Be fair. What he actually said was "I looked at an old GCSE Biology textbook from England (dated 1992) and couldn’t find a single reference to evolution and natural selection." (my emphasis). Maybe not so much a lie as a demonstration of his pride in his Morton's Demon.
Do also remember that he's also repeatedly boasted how Evolutionism/Atheism is going to collapse like Communism did, and that his three papers are kicking off a "regime change" in the scientific community. (and that's before we get into how he keeps wanking on and on and on how he's apparently the bane of every evil atheist-Darwinist currently alive)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 October 2011

If you can deny that the Holocaust happened like AC does, why not evolution? Or, is it the other way around?

Quite seriously, this yahoo is from Iran where evolution denialism and Holocaust denialism go hand in hand. Why not indeed? The latter has a moral dimension that the former does not, but, aside from that, it's about the same loathsome abuse of evidence, arguments, and the very conceptions of truthfulness and honesty.

Evolution is blamed for all kinds of evils by these clods, without being able to convince anybody who isn't already condemning evolution that it causes much of anything (aside from the evolution of life). I'd be rather surprised, by contrast, if the denial of the evidence of evolution doesn't play a rather direct role in aiding and abetting the Holocaust denialism in the Mideast, including that of this AC bozo.

Glen Davidson

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkWCfqq_fzPq0Wg6oR3i1Q5_WQtE1SgWuw · 8 October 2011

If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today.
Heh. I'm pretty sure Joe has a better appreciate of evolution than you do, AC. You've heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Maybe you need to "return to the basics."

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today. I think if we return to basics in high schools, we will give kids the grounding they need to succeed in all disciplines at the college level - including evolutionary biology.
This is a typical creationist ploy. Bozo Joe wants a free ride on the coattails of a scientist; so he taunts (slobber, drool, taunt, pant pant). But Bozo Joe has never taken any chemistry or physics. He always gets the fundamental concepts wrong. Bozo Joe keeps being taken down by a bunch of nobodies. So humiliating. Being taken by nobodies doesn’t get Bozo Joe the publicity he so desperately wants. It doesn’t get Bozo Joe the Nobel Prize. It doesn’t get Bozo Joe a prestigious chair in a major biology department. It’s doesn’t get Bozo Joe unlimited funding to prove ID/creationism is true and evolution is false. Poor Bozo; he can only mud wrestle with nobodies. Oh the shame!

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Quite seriously, this yahoo is from Iran where evolution denialism and Holocaust denialism go hand in hand. Why not indeed? The latter has a moral dimension that the former does not, but, aside from that, it's about the same loathsome abuse of evidence, arguments, and the very conceptions of truthfulness and honesty.
I am not from Iran - I just have a Persian surname. And Evolution is not denied by the religious authorities there. I suggest you read the NCSE's report on science education comparing Iran with Saudi Arabia (where Darwinism is considered evil). http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19234639/1613108208/name/Iran+and+Saudi+Arabia+Compared.pdf Iran is leading the world in terms of the growth in science output, including biology: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20291-iran-is-top-of-the-world-in-science-growth.html It is true that I am consistent. I question just about everything in science and history, and consider myself to be a supreme skeptic. The powers that be want us all to blindly accept their contrived account of reality.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkWCfqq_fzPq0Wg6oR3i1Q5_WQtE1SgWuw said:
If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today.
Heh. I'm pretty sure Joe has a better appreciate of evolution than you do, AC. You've heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Maybe you need to "return to the basics."
No chance. I could beat him in any chemistry test any day....just not a math test where he would resoundingly whip me....and just about everyone else here.

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkWCfqq_fzPq0Wg6oR3i1Q5_WQtE1SgWuw said:
If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today.
Heh. I'm pretty sure Joe has a better appreciate of evolution than you do, AC. You've heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Maybe you need to "return to the basics."
No chance. I could beat him in any chemistry test any day....just not a math test where he would resoundingly whip me....and just about everyone else here.
Ah; but you couldn’t handle this! So simple! Chemists know this.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

harold · 8 October 2011

In reality, there is no pressing educational reason to teach evolutionary biology
There is a pressing reason to teach the basics of evolution.
and the origins of life
Abiogenesis is not a necessary part of high school curricula, although students should probably be aware that the field exists.
or the universe in schools.
I'm not sure where big bang theory is taught in schools - I can't remember where I learned about it - but it is pretty basic.
You will find that in Europe, there is little controversy about the issue because biology teachers focus on the fundamentals like photosynthesis, germination, reproduction, pollination etc.
So many illogical implications and undocumented assertions jammed into one sentence. 1) Subjects mentioned are not competitive with evolution, they are also part of a good biology curriculum (a bit botany heavy). 2) Assertions that evolution is not taught in Europe or that there is little controversy in Europe are not supported by links or citations. 3) If evolution is not taught in Europe, and it obviously is, but hypothetically if it were not, that would be a reason to encourage Europeans to teach it, not to eliminate teaching it in the US.
I looked at an old GCSE Biology textbook from England (dated 1992) and couldn’t find a single reference to evolution and natural selection.
1) Dubious. And already conceded to be false, anyway. 2) Again, learning about evolution requires and complements learning about cell biology, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, etc, as well as having an adequate background in chemistry, physics, and math.
If folks like Joe Felsenstein had spent more wakeful moments in chemistry class, they would have a better appreciation of molecular biology and evolution today.
1) Assertion that Joe Felsenstein slept in chemistry "class" is absurd - could not possibly be known by AC if true, and unlikely to be true. 2) Joe Felsenstein is already a renowned expert in molecular biology and evolutionary biology; only possible interpretation is that his expertise would be even more impressive with more chemistry background. However, this is unlikely.
I think if we return to basics in high schools, we will give kids the grounding they need to succeed in all disciplines at the college level - including evolutionary biology.
A perfectly reasonable statement on the face of it, but implicitly a call to censor evolutionary biology from high schools.
“Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately.”
ALL modern scientists agree that Darwin did not have access to the data required to formulate a complete mechanism for biological evolution. His intuitive understanding and predictions were remarkable. No-one thinks that biological evolution was completely explained in 1859. Note that, as always, the sole purpose here is to deny evolution and call for its censorship.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Quite seriously, this yahoo is from Iran where evolution denialism and Holocaust denialism go hand in hand. Why not indeed? The latter has a moral dimension that the former does not, but, aside from that, it's about the same loathsome abuse of evidence, arguments, and the very conceptions of truthfulness and honesty.
I am not from Iran - I just have a Persian surname.
OK, whatever, it's what someone else said on the web.
And Evolution is not denied by the religious authorities there. I suggest you read the NCSE's report on science education comparing Iran with Saudi Arabia (where Darwinism is considered evil). http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19234639/1613108208/name/Iran+and+Saudi+Arabia+Compared.pdf
It's not at all clear from that or anything else that opposition to evolution in Iran isn't strong. Even the article states that texts largely stay clear of the evolution of humans, and while ours usually do not, in many cases evolution simply isn't taught here. Nevertheless, I'm no expert on the Mideast and Iran, so it may be that opposition to evolution isn't strong there. I'd be surprised if a substantial amount isn't there, but I don't know for sure. The real point is, Holocaust denialism and evolution denialism are common in the Muslim world, and they are similar in their mistreatment of evidence, etc.
Iran is leading the world in terms of the growth in science output, including biology: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20291-iran-is-top-of-the-world-in-science-growth.html
See what can happen when you quit being an anti-science bigot? Likely you don't.
It is true that I am consistent. I question just about everything in science and history, and consider myself to be a supreme skeptic.
More flattering than considering yourself to be a supreme bigot, I suppose. Not more true, but truth seems to affect you little enough.
The powers that be want us all to blindly accept their contrived account of reality.
And when they have the evidence, who's to object? You, who have no evidence for your claims. Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 October 2011

In reality, there is no pressing educational reason to teach evolutionary biology
I doubt that, but there is a pressing educational reason to teach the honest evaluation of the evidence in schools. Teaching evolution is a crucial part of that, and teaching creationism and trumped-up "critiques" of evolution is inimical to that goal. Glen Davidson

phhht · 8 October 2011

harold said: Note that, as always, the sole purpose here is to deny evolution and call for its censorship.
I'll repeat - I know, ad nauseum - that denial is all Theistoclast has. He has no more evidence for his views on evolution than he does for the existence of his gods.

harold · 8 October 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: If you can deny that the Holocaust happened like AC does, why not evolution? Or, is it the other way around? Quite seriously, this yahoo is from Iran where evolution denialism and Holocaust denialism go hand in hand. Why not indeed? The latter has a moral dimension that the former does not, but, aside from that, it's about the same loathsome abuse of evidence, arguments, and the very conceptions of truthfulness and honesty. Evolution is blamed for all kinds of evils by these clods, without being able to convince anybody who isn't already condemning evolution that it causes much of anything (aside from the evolution of life). I'd be rather surprised, by contrast, if the denial of the evidence of evolution doesn't play a rather direct role in aiding and abetting the Holocaust denialism in the Mideast, including that of this AC bozo. Glen Davidson
Iran does have the misfortune of having a particularly ignorant president. I also find the use of inhumane corporal punishment and a justice system based on sectarian religion to be repugnant. However, I have to partly agree with Joe here. Despite its strange and tragic history, lingering US resentment over the hostage crisis of 1979, and nuclear controversies notwithstanding, the US media stereotypes of Iran are intensely misleading. To some degree they apply to less developed Muslim nations like Somalia, or to Saudi Arabia. Iran does not censor the teaching of evolution and has higher public acceptance of evolution than the US in some polls. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19234639/1613108208/name/Iran+and+Saudi+Arabia+Compared.pdf I am not aware of any individual act of terrorism committed in the western world, including Israel, that involved any Iranian citizen, or even ethnic Persian. Furthermore, modern Iran has not invaded any other sovereign nations since 1979. The US can take a great deal of credit for Iran's backlash to Islamicism, thanks to propping up a regime that created a strong association between secular government and a level of brutality that, overall, was almost certainly worse than what the current Iranian government, repellent as it is, is guilty of.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Dave Lovell said: Regardless of the merits of this book, that statement is undoubtedly false. I think it is not "most" but "almost all". Scientific understanding has come a long way since Darwin's death, but I don't think most evolutionary biologists would object even if Darwinism was replaced with modern ToE. The many things it doesn't yet explain are dwarfed by the huge mountain of things it does. And of course conceding that it explains everything will put them out of a job.
I have noticed how, in response to the creationists and IDers, textbooks on biology are talking more and more about evolution and less about the fundamentals of the life science. If the NCSE had its way, evolution would be the primary component of biology education, and not just the footnote that it used to be. I would remove it altogether.

apokryltaros · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Dave Lovell said: Regardless of the merits of this book, that statement is undoubtedly false. I think it is not "most" but "almost all". Scientific understanding has come a long way since Darwin's death, but I don't think most evolutionary biologists would object even if Darwinism was replaced with modern ToE. The many things it doesn't yet explain are dwarfed by the huge mountain of things it does. And of course conceding that it explains everything will put them out of a job.
I have noticed how, in response to the creationists and IDers, textbooks on biology are talking more and more about evolution and less about the fundamentals of the life science. If the NCSE had its way, evolution would be the primary component of biology education, and not just the footnote that it used to be. I would remove it altogether.
Except that the so-called "textbooks" put out by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents exclude the teaching of any science all together. After all, all creationist-themed "biology textbooks" can be summarized as "GODDIDIT," "Evolutionism is evil," and "scientists are wrong and evil, and hate God because they're wrong and evil."

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

apokryltaros said: Except that the so-called "textbooks" put out by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents exclude the teaching of any science all together.
I don't think so. Since when has Newton's laws of motion been antithetical to creationism and fundamentalism?
After all, all creationist-themed "biology textbooks" can be summarized as "GODDIDIT," "Evolutionism is evil," and "scientists are wrong and evil, and hate God because they're wrong and evil."
I hardly think the mechanism of photosynthesis is disputed by creationists.

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
apokryltaros said: Except that the so-called "textbooks" put out by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents exclude the teaching of any science all together.
I don't think so. Since when has Newton's laws of motion been antithetical to creationism and fundamentalism?
After all, all creationist-themed "biology textbooks" can be summarized as "GODDIDIT," "Evolutionism is evil," and "scientists are wrong and evil, and hate God because they're wrong and evil."
I hardly think the mechanism of photosynthesis is disputed by creationists.
Really? Do you know anything about Henry Morris? Try this. Or maybe this? Or how about this? Maybe you would like a protégé of Morris. How about "the distant starlight problem?" It isn’t just Darwin that you ID/creationists don’t like. You don’t like any science; Newton or otherwise. You may want to quibble over thermodynamics having nothing to do with Newton; but you would be betraying your ignorance of physics and chemistry.

DS · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: It is true that I am consistent. I question just about everything in science and history, and consider myself to be a supreme skeptic. The powers that be want us all to blindly accept their contrived account of reality.
Actually, no that's not true. You agreed with one and only one paper, the one that documented the limits of selection. That's because it conformed to your preconceptions. You refused to accept the conclusions of any other paper you have ever read, simply because they challenge your misconceptions. You are free to question all you want. You are free to be skeptical all you want. What you are not free to do is to claim that your questioning somehow makes you right. What you are not free to do is just assume that you know more about every subject than every real expert. What you are not free to do is demand that everyone else share your misconceptions. If you spent half as much time being as skeptical of your mystical vitalism crap as you did being skeptical of real science you might actually learn something. Until then, all you are engaged in is mental masturbation. Joe is once again posting off topic nonsense. He should once again be banished to the bathroom wall. Any further response to him by me can be found there.

Kevin B · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Chris Lawson said: A'clast, I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?
"GCSE Biology" By D.G Mackean. I don't have a copy of it at hand now but it was the first edition. He has since added some stuff in the latest edition. However, I do have two reference books on my desk right now. Collins Gem: Basic Facts Biology for GCSE and SCE (ISBN: 0-00-459103-8) Usborne Dictionary of Science - Physics, Chemistry and Biology Facts (ISBN: 0-86020-989-X). The first book makes fleeting references to evolution, natural selection, mutation and variation. The vast majority of it is about biological structures and processs. The second, just mentions "adaptive radiation or evolutionary adaptation" in a sub-section on page 237 about lifestyles and life cycles! That is it. There is also a book called "Ecology" (ISBN: 0746002874). It talks about evolution but also mentions "Darwinism" and even has a section called "Beyond Darwinism". The text on page 31 reads:
"Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately."
That's a fact, jack.
A quick Google does not provide much evidence either way about DG Mackean, but the "Truth in Science" pages quote it explicitly in a paragraph denouncing various textbooks for "Presenting alternatives [to evolution] as purely religious and without scientific merit". The AQA Syllabus for GCSE Biology (AQA is one of the examining boards offering the qualification) can be found at http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4411-W-SP-12.PDF The relevant text is on page 39. In part....
Candidates should be able... to suggest reasons why scientists cannot be certain about how life began on Earth...... Their skills, knowledge and understanding of how science works should be set in these substantive contexts: ..... The theory of evolution states that all species of living things have evolved from simple life-forms which first developed more than three billion years ago....
Whether the Mackean book is adequate as a GCSE textbook is moot; that the GCSE Syllabus has evolution built in is demonstrable. It is also worth remembering that a GCSE is normally taken by students of a wide range of ability at age 16 - the "A level" courses taken at age 17/18, prior to university will have a more systematic approach. It should be noted that the "Collins Gem" books are described on the Wikipedia as a "collection of useful miniature books" and that the third reference is not a biology book, but merely a "dictionary of science".

cwjolley · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
I have noticed how, in response to the creationists and IDers, textbooks on biology are talking more and more about evolution and less about the fundamentals of the life science.
LOL: In the grand scheme of things evolution IS the fundamental of life science. Just because you think that it contradicts a belief in God is not Life Science's problem. It's yours.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Kevin B said:
Atheistoclast said:
Chris Lawson said: A'clast, I find it difficult to believe that a GCSE biology textbook would make no reference to evolution or natural selection. I wonder if you would care to provide a checkable reference to this miraculous book?
"GCSE Biology" By D.G Mackean. I don't have a copy of it at hand now but it was the first edition. He has since added some stuff in the latest edition. However, I do have two reference books on my desk right now. Collins Gem: Basic Facts Biology for GCSE and SCE (ISBN: 0-00-459103-8) Usborne Dictionary of Science - Physics, Chemistry and Biology Facts (ISBN: 0-86020-989-X). The first book makes fleeting references to evolution, natural selection, mutation and variation. The vast majority of it is about biological structures and processs. The second, just mentions "adaptive radiation or evolutionary adaptation" in a sub-section on page 237 about lifestyles and life cycles! That is it. There is also a book called "Ecology" (ISBN: 0746002874). It talks about evolution but also mentions "Darwinism" and even has a section called "Beyond Darwinism". The text on page 31 reads:
"Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately."
That's a fact, jack.
A quick Google does not provide much evidence either way about DG Mackean, but the "Truth in Science" pages quote it explicitly in a paragraph denouncing various textbooks for "Presenting alternatives [to evolution] as purely religious and without scientific merit". The AQA Syllabus for GCSE Biology (AQA is one of the examining boards offering the qualification) can be found at http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4411-W-SP-12.PDF The relevant text is on page 39. In part....
Candidates should be able... to suggest reasons why scientists cannot be certain about how life began on Earth...... Their skills, knowledge and understanding of how science works should be set in these substantive contexts: ..... The theory of evolution states that all species of living things have evolved from simple life-forms which first developed more than three billion years ago....
Whether the Mackean book is adequate as a GCSE textbook is moot; that the GCSE Syllabus has evolution built in is demonstrable. It is also worth remembering that a GCSE is normally taken by students of a wide range of ability at age 16 - the "A level" courses taken at age 17/18, prior to university will have a more systematic approach. It should be noted that the "Collins Gem" books are described on the Wikipedia as a "collection of useful miniature books" and that the third reference is not a biology book, but merely a "dictionary of science".
The Mackean textbook has been revised over the past 20 years. The current third edition probably does include some talk about evolution. Likewise, the syllabus itself has also been revised to make more noises about Darwinism. But I suspect you can still get a top grade in biology without even answering a single question on evolution. It is just not important enough to merit so many marks. I just checked the British Olympiad syllabus: http://www.biology-olympiad.org.uk/british-biology-olympiad/syllabus/ It seems that only 5% of the exam is dedicated to Biosystematics (and even here, evolution is part of the picture). There is a section called "Genetics and Evolution" but it seems heavily weighted to the former (especially population genetics) and not the latter.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

cwjolley said: Atheistoclast said:
I have noticed how, in response to the creationists and IDers, textbooks on biology are talking more and more about evolution and less about the fundamentals of the life science.
LOL: In the grand scheme of things evolution IS the fundamental of life science. Just because you think that it contradicts a belief in God is not Life Science's problem. It's yours.
As I say, check the syllabus for the British Biology Olympiad: http://www.biology-olympiad.org.uk/british-biology-olympiad/syllabus/ I estimate that about 5% of the questions are on Evolution.

harold · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
cwjolley said: Atheistoclast said:
I have noticed how, in response to the creationists and IDers, textbooks on biology are talking more and more about evolution and less about the fundamentals of the life science.
LOL: In the grand scheme of things evolution IS the fundamental of life science. Just because you think that it contradicts a belief in God is not Life Science's problem. It's yours.
As I say, check the syllabus for the British Biology Olympiad: http://www.biology-olympiad.org.uk/british-biology-olympiad/syllabus/ I estimate that about 5% of the questions are on Evolution.
Which is fine. That's about the percentage of questions that should be directly about evolution.

stevaroni · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
"Some modern scientists think there are many things about evolution that Darwinism fails to explain adequately."
So? Some - if not all - "modern scientists" think there are many things about physics that the standard model fail to explain adequately. That said, like evolution, physics is hardly a "theory in crisis", and there are about zero physicists who think that Einstein, Newton and hawking were outright wrong. They just think that none of these men had the final, definitive answer about the final, definitive details. There's a big difference. Instead of asking these "modern scientists" whether "there are things about evolution that Darwin fails to explain adequately", why don't creationists ever publish the results for the much more straightforward poll question, "Is evolution basically wrong?" After all, that's what you're impugning, why not just ask the question outright? Oh... yeah.. that's right - because if you did that you'd get a 0% response.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

harold said: Which is fine. That's about the percentage of questions that should be directly about evolution.
I fail to see how all those questions in the sections on cell biology, plant and animal anatomy, and ethology have anything to do with evolution. You really have to stop this nonsense. The study of biology and medicine existed long before the theory of evolution. The idea that evolution is the "cornerstone of biology" is just a feeble attempt to give biology a unifying principle like atomic theory is to chemistry. Do you really suppose that your local dentist has had to study the evolution of teeth in order to practice on you?

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

stevaroni said: After all, that's what you're impugning, why not just ask the question outright? Oh... yeah.. that's right - because if you did that you'd get a 0% response.
I just quoted a statement from an ecology textbook. It was written in the late 80s when Darwinian evolutionism was beginning to unravel thanks to the works of biologists like Michael Denton who proclaimed that evolution was a "theory in crisis". However, the ID movement had not yet really begun. Nowadays, authors are too afraid to tell the truth since they might be accused as crypto-creationists.

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
harold said: Which is fine. That's about the percentage of questions that should be directly about evolution.
I fail to see how all those questions in the sections on cell biology, plant and animal anatomy, and ethology have anything to do with evolution. You really have to stop this nonsense. The study of biology and medicine existed long before the theory of evolution. The idea that evolution is the "cornerstone of biology" is just a feeble attempt to give biology a unifying principle like atomic theory is to chemistry. Do you really suppose that your local dentist has had to study the evolution of teeth in order to practice on you?
Oh, I beg to differ! You have obviously never heard of Democritus and other atomists of the 5th and 6th centuries BCE. You really should read up on the Ionian Greeks and the Heroic Age, which runs from Thales to Democritus. And you should also take a close look at the Hippocratic School of thinking back then. You would be amazed at what they surmised about evolution, human history, and how medicine should be practiced.

harold · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
harold said: Which is fine. That's about the percentage of questions that should be directly about evolution.
I fail to see how all those questions in the sections on cell biology, plant and animal anatomy, and ethology have anything to do with evolution. You really have to stop this nonsense. The study of biology and medicine existed long before the theory of evolution. The idea that evolution is the "cornerstone of biology" is just a feeble attempt to give biology a unifying principle like atomic theory is to chemistry. Do you really suppose that your local dentist has had to study the evolution of teeth in order to practice on you?
One can memorize without full understanding, but a dentist will be more intellectually satisfied dentist, and arguably a somewhat better one, all else being equal, if she or he has some understanding of why humans have the type of teeth they do. Architects and many types of engineers have almost no day to day need to apply the theory of relativity. That doesn't mean that they should be ignorant of it, or that it should be denied.

stevaroni · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I just quoted a statement from an ecology textbook. It was written in the late 80s when Darwinian evolutionism was beginning to unravel thanks to the works of biologists like Michael Denton....
Ummm, yeah. Late 80's, huh? You're talking about 25 years, AC. A quarter century ago Entire branches of science have been invented since then. Plate tectonics was a radical new idea in 1986. Black smokers and vent worms had yet to be discovered. Exoplanets were still theoretical objects. The mass internet was still 10 years away, Hell, Telenet was five years out. Cell phones weighed more than bricks, and my cherished PC-XT clone had a whopping 640K of memory to run it's DOS 3.0. M.C. Hammer was big, parachute pants were cool, and Michael Jackson was still black. The world - especially the world of science - has moved a long, long way in 25 years, AC, and yet evolution soldiers on, with more "missing links" turning up every day. Just how long is it going to take for this "theory in crisis" to crumble already? Better yet - how long is it going to take before people who are paid to get results in the life sciences - people like seed manufacturers and geneticists - decide that it's finally time to stop using the wrong model of how the world works? Funny, that, AC, the people whose livings actually depend on getting this stuff right have been working with this "theory in crisis" for a quarter century, and apparently, it's working for them just fine. It would be as if all the sailors on the high seas have decided to spend the last 25 years using defective paper cutouts of compasses and charts drawn in crayon by epileptic baboons rather than modern GPS units. I call that a theory in crisis.

harold · 8 October 2011

I fail to see how all those questions in the sections on cell biology, plant and animal anatomy, and ethology have anything to do with evolution.
This is a pretty hilarious statement, by the way.

harold · 8 October 2011

Since Joseph Bozorgmehr is here, I'll just bother to note that the "Darwinist orthodoxy" posts and replies to his comments, reviews and even publishes his papers (*note - his two papers in mainstream journals do not contain creationist language*), etc.

Meanwhile, his fellow creationists ban him for advocating rigid dogma that is minimally different from their particular rigid dogma.

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
stevaroni said: After all, that's what you're impugning, why not just ask the question outright? Oh... yeah.. that's right - because if you did that you'd get a 0% response.
I just quoted a statement from an ecology textbook. It was written in the late 80s when Darwinian evolutionism was beginning to unravel thanks to the works of biologists like Michael Denton who proclaimed that evolution was a "theory in crisis".
Quote-mined would be the more appropriate word. ID/creationists are still quote-mining Isaac Asimov and others from back in the 1960s. It’s what you ID/creationists do. Didn’t read any of that Henry Morris stuff, did you.

However, the ID movement had not yet really begun.

And it still hasn't gotten off the ground. Can't even get through the courts. By the way, how is it going over at Uncommonly Dense? Was your knowledge of ID too dazzling for them?

PA Poland · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
stevaroni said: After all, that's what you're impugning, why not just ask the question outright? Oh... yeah.. that's right - because if you did that you'd get a 0% response.
I just quoted a statement from an ecology textbook. It was written in the late 80s when Darwinian evolutionism was beginning to unravel thanks to the works of biologists like Michael Denton who proclaimed that evolution was a "theory in crisis". However, the ID movement had not yet really begun. Nowadays, authors are too afraid to tell the truth since they might be accused as crypto-creationists.
People have been whining that 'Evolution is dying !!!' for almost 150+ years. It is one of the longest-running lies in IDio-creotard rhetoric. Just because someone proclaims something to be 'in crisis' doesn't mean it actually is in reality - after all, you continuously scream that your opinions are relevant .... All of his blubbering 'proofs' about the inadequacy of evolution were shown to be crap decades ago. But, in Denton's second book, Nature's Destiny, not only did he say that evolution is possible, but that it is INEVITABLE - in his view, evolution was hardwired into the fabric of reality. Odd that gibbering IDiots pathologically fixate on his first book, and completely ignore everything he's done since then. The ID (bowel) movement has been going nowhere in academia for thirty years (since gibbering appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity don't go very far in academia). As far as the science behind it, it never got started (since it relies on negative argumentation : since ** I ** can't figure out how this system/protein/whatever arose, no one else can either ! Therefore, we MUST assume it was directly installed by GodMagical Sky Pixies'Intelligent' Designers !!) IDio-creotards are parasites, for they would have NOTHING besides personal incredulity and numerolgy to bamboozle the rubes with if reality-based scientists didn't do and report all the work. Molecular biology was just starting to get going back in the 80s - nowadays, it shows how valid the ToE is better than anything else so far. And blubbering about conspiracies (ie, 'authors dare not question evolution !!') ? It was a lame tactic 30 years ago; it is even lamer now. Invoking it signals desperation and evasion.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

harold said: One can memorize without full understanding, but a dentist will be more intellectually satisfied dentist, and arguably a somewhat better one, all else being equal, if she or he has some understanding of why humans have the type of teeth they do.
Well, perhaps dentists might learn about the genes that affect tooth formation like Msx1, but I hardly think they are going to be "intellectually satisfied" studying the origin of teeth in the fossil record. I doubt this will make them a better dentist. If you find an article about evolution in a dental journal, let me know.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Mike Elzinga said: By the way, how is it going over at Uncommonly Dense? Was your knowledge of ID too dazzling for them?
I have been permanently banned over at UD for comments I expressed over at TalkRat.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

harold said: Since Joseph Bozorgmehr is here, I'll just bother to note that the "Darwinist orthodoxy" posts and replies to his comments, reviews and even publishes his papers (*note - his two papers in mainstream journals do not contain creationist language*), etc. Meanwhile, his fellow creationists ban him for advocating rigid dogma that is minimally different from their particular rigid dogma.
That is certainly true. It is amusing that the creationists can be so brazenly hypocritical and self-righteous. Btw, I am a Neo-Vitalist in reality. I have published 3 articles in mainstream articles - a fourth has just been accepted in another Springer journal. Two more are under review.

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: Btw, I am a Neo-Vitalist in reality.
Did you become a “Neo-Vitalist” after you learned what vitalism was from people here on Panda’s Thumb? And why the “neo” part? Still haven’t addressed those ignorance of physics and chemistry issues yet? You are certainly obvious in your avoidance of them.

Atheistoclast · 8 October 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Atheistoclast said: Btw, I am a Neo-Vitalist in reality.
Did you become a “Neo-Vitalist” after you learned what vitalism was from people here on Panda’s Thumb? And why the “neo” part? Still haven’t addressed those ignorance of physics and chemistry issues yet? You are certainly obvious in your avoidance of them.
I have always been a vitalist because I believe life is more than just physics and chemistry - which I understand better than you do. I am a "Neo"-vitalist for the saem reason there are Neo-Darwinists around.

cwjolley · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
harold said: Which is fine. That's about the percentage of questions that should be directly about evolution.
I fail to see how all those questions in the sections on cell biology, plant and animal anatomy, and ethology have anything to do with evolution. You really have to stop this nonsense. The study of biology and medicine existed long before the theory of evolution. The idea that evolution is the "cornerstone of biology" is just a feeble attempt to give biology a unifying principle like atomic theory is to chemistry. Do you really suppose that your local dentist has had to study the evolution of teeth in order to practice on you?
You don't appear to understand the difference between the study of biology as a subject and biology itself. There is a difference between debate and the real world. Word games are fine, but they aren't reality. PS, How many questions about Einstein would be on a HS physics test? Only a couple, and yet ...

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I have always been a vitalist because I believe life is more than just physics and chemistry - which I understand better than you do.
That’s called a taunt; and it negates your claim (as do many other things you have said).

dalehusband · 8 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I have been permanently banned over at UD for comments I expressed over at TalkRat.
Which shows that even a broken clock is right once or twice a day. And also that you are an even bigger fraud than most ID promoters. They find you an embarrassment, just as we find your a laughingstock.

stevaroni · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: Well, perhaps dentists might learn about the genes that affect tooth formation like Msx1, but I hardly think they are going to be "intellectually satisfied" studying the origin of teeth in the fossil record. I doubt this will make them a better dentist. If you find an article about evolution in a dental journal, let me know.
Actually, one of the significant issues in modern dentistry is that the evolution of teeth tends to happen relatively slowly ( probably because teeth were an early organ to develop and the genes governing them are deeply interwoven and difficult to modify ) The evolution of the rest of our faces, not so much. Consequently, as humans developed anatomically modern faces and throats capable of speech, we kept the teeth of our ancestors. Big teeth with heavy molars, which no longer fit into smaller jaws. These days packing caveman teeth into modern mouths is significant source of income for your average orthodontist and removing wisdom teeth has bought many a golf-club membership for the worlds' oral surgeons. Contrary to John Morrise's wet dream over at ICR, there's no indication that humans now have smaller mouths because, as children, they now eat softer food than their ancestors did. Mouths don't appear to work that way. It's also somewhat inconvenient for him that the trend to smaller teeth was in play long before historic times, stone age man had small teeth before the accepted date of creation itself. All anatomically modern humans have the same packed mouths, those big-jawed ancestors Morris glibly refers to lived half a million years ago. So if you're a creationist, you were, for some reason created with dentition oversized for you face. By the way, we know that wisdom tooth evolution was affected by changes in the PAX9 gene. Here's a nice fresh paper, one of 6 I found (though I don't know if it's been published in a "Dental Journal") Genetic variation among major human geographic groups supports a peculiar evolutionary trend in PAX9, Paixano et al, 2011, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029280/?tool=pubmed We know that human jaws are smaller due to evolution of a gene called MYH16. (Bradley, 2008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409108/?tool=pubmed) Just two of the 1897 hits that you get when you query the Pubmed database for "evolution teeth". Just "letting you know" Since you sometimes seem to be math-challenged, AC, let me point out that 1897 papers is bigger than zero. Now, I'm not saying that all these papers deal directly with subjects of day to day concern to dentists, but I would hazard that somewhere in that pile there's a little nugget of explanation for Dentist Bob's new Mercedes.

stevaroni · 9 October 2011

stevaroni said: It's also somewhat inconvenient for him that the trend to smaller teeth was in play long before historic times, stone age man had small teeth before the accepted date of creation itself. All anatomically modern humans have the same packed mouths
Oops... should be "It's also somewhat inconvenient for him that the trend to smaller mouths was in play long before historic times, stone age man had small mouths before the accepted date of creation itself."

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

stevaroni said: Actually, one of the significant issues in modern dentistry is that the evolution of teeth tends to happen relatively slowly ( probably because teeth were an early organ to develop and the genes governing them are deeply interwoven and difficult to modify
Clearly, you have reading comprehension difficulties. I asked for articles on the evolution of teeth in dental journals,read by professional dentists, not ones about anatomy or evo-devo that are read by biologists and evolutionists. Are you at all capable of understanding this distinction?

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

dalehusband said:
Atheistoclast said: I have been permanently banned over at UD for comments I expressed over at TalkRat.
Which shows that even a broken clock is right once or twice a day. And also that you are an even bigger fraud than most ID promoters. They find you an embarrassment, just as we find your a laughingstock.
I am not a biblical creationist. I am a New Age thinker and philosopher...as well as a iconoclastic and idiosyncratic scientist.

dalehusband · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I am not a biblical creationist. I am a New Age thinker and philosopher...as well as a iconoclastic and idiosyncratic scientist.
What you are is a delusional fraud, no matter what your religious label. You are incapable of using reason and attack those who do. You don't have to be a Bible believer to be an idiot.

Chris Lawson · 9 October 2011

Actually, a professional dentist does need to understand some basic evolutionary theory because dentists prescribe antibiotics and therefore need to know about resistance patterns.

(Sorry if this is a duplicate, but the commenting system seems determined to trip me up.)

Chris Lawson · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I just checked the British Olympiad syllabus: http://www.biology-olympiad.org.uk/british-biology-olympiad/syllabus/ It seems that only 5% of the exam is dedicated to Biosystematics (and even here, evolution is part of the picture). There is a section called "Genetics and Evolution" but it seems heavily weighted to the former (especially population genetics) and not the latter.
I have also just checked the British Biology Olympiad website, where its syllabus is available for public perusal. It is true that there is a section called 7. Biosystematics, which does indeed include a bit on "evolutionary and ecological relationships among typical organisms in major groups" and is worth only 5% of the total syllabus weight. However, there is another section, 5. Genetics and Evolution, which is worth 20% of the syllabus. You didn't mention this 20% loading. And you claimed that the section is weighted against evolution when the full list of topics is: variation: mutation and modification; Mendelian inheritance; multiple allelism, recombination, sex linkage; Hardy-Weinberg principle; mechanism of evolution. Of the five topics, three (mutation and modification, mechanism of evolution, and the Hardy-Weinberg principle) are centrally about evolution, and the other two are critical to understanding evolution. You also fail to understand that population genetics is evolutionary theory. To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Population genetics is intimately bound up with the study of evolution and natural selection, and is often regarded as the theoretical cornerstone of modern Darwinism." To quote Wikipedia: "Population genetics is the study of allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow." To quote A.N. Shukla's textbook Population Genetics (2009), "Population genetics also includes the study of the various forces that result in evolutionary changes in species through time." To quote Alan Robert Templeton's Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory (2009), "Population genetics has always played a central role in evolutionary biology as it deals with the mechanisms by which evolution occurs within populations and species..." To quote Warren John Ewes in Mathematical Population Genetics (2004), population genetics "has for many years been crucial to an understanding of evolutionary processes..." Please note that all of these quotations are easily found by searching Google or Google Books and do not, as your own references do, rely on your hugely implausible personal recollection of books that are not available for online verification. Your combination of ignorance + righteous certainty makes you an irritating fool, but your misrepresentation of the Olympiad syllabus means that nothing you say can be trusted.

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

Chris Lawson said: However, there is another section, 5. Genetics and Evolution, which is worth 20% of the syllabus. You didn't mention this 20% loading. And you claimed that the section is weighted against evolution when the full list of topics is: variation: mutation and modification; Mendelian inheritance; multiple allelism, recombination, sex linkage; Hardy-Weinberg principle; mechanism of evolution. Of the five topics, three (mutation and modification, mechanism of evolution, and the Hardy-Weinberg principle) are centrally about evolution, and the other two are critical to understanding evolution.
No. Mutations in genes does not refer to evolution per se. Evolution refers to the change in gene/allele frequencies due to random drift or natural/sexual selection. And for evolutionary theory to have any relevance at all, this means that some allelic frequencies have to increase to the point of fixation. I would argue that the sub-section "mechanism of evolution" is the the only thing related to evolutionary theory as such. Also, the Biosystematics section is itself not weighted entirely to common ancestry. It appear to be more about how to classify animals based on matters of structure and function like the fact that all mammals are grouped together because they all have mammary glands.
You also fail to understand that population genetics is evolutionary theory.
LOL. I have just had a paper accepted on population genetics. Population genetics may include evolutionary mechanisms like positive Darwinian selection, but it equally includes things like size, inbreeding, dominance etc that are just about the dynamics of populations and heredity. Mendel's laws of inheritance are just about biological processes involved in reproduction. Moreover, as selection is typically negative with respect to variation, no positive change often occurs. So, you can have selection, drift, recombination, mutation, migration and so forth but there may still be no evolution. The The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that "allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced." Generally, gene variant frequencies do remain fairly constant. That is anti-evolution, not evolution. If the syllabus wanted to focus on evolutionary theory it would have included the following: 1) Speciation. 2) Adaptation. 3) Phylogenetics. 4) Nested hierarchies. 5) Cladogenesis and punctuated equilibrium. 6) Fossils and paleontology. 7) Gene duplication. 8) Evo-devo. 9) Co-evolution. 10) Directed evolution.

harold · 9 October 2011

The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that “allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.”
Right.
Generally, gene variant frequencies do remain fairly constant.
Sometimes.
That is anti-evolution, not evolution.
Wrong.

harold · 9 October 2011

Suppose I have a deep psychological need to claim that "Pi =3", as stated in the Bible.

No-one listens.

So, I go get a PhD in math, behaving "as if" Pi = 3.14..., in order to get my degree.

Or I publish some minor math papers that don't directly mention pi.

Or both.

Then I say, "I'm an expert mathematician, and I say that pi = 3, I claim that mathematical definitions of pi are not the 'true' definition", whatever.

So what? I'm wasting my time. Pi doesn't equal three.

eric · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: No. Mutations in genes does not refer to evolution per se. Evolution refers to the change in gene/allele frequencies due to random drift or natural/sexual selection. And for evolutionary theory to have any relevance at all, this means that some allelic frequencies have to increase to the point of fixation. I would argue that the sub-section "mechanism of evolution" is the the only thing related to evolutionary theory as such.
You are, I assume, not opposed to the 20% of the test that you claim is not evolutionary but we do? I don't see any real issue here. You are complaining about a label when you appear to have no issue with content.

Chris Lawson · 9 October 2011

You claim that the topic "mutation and modification" is not about evolution.

You claim that "The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that 'allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.'” Since I note that you are quoting here, let me continue the same quote. "Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, 'overlapping generations', random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these 'disturbing influences' are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature." As a published author on the subject of population genetics, I can only assume that your decision to only quote the first part is a premeditated choice. Let me put this plainly: you read the definition of the HW equilibrium and you made up an untruth about it being "anti-evolution".

Quite frankly, the Bathroom Wall is where you belong for each and every post you submit. Not because I disagree with your opinion, idiotic as it is, but because you make up bullshit at every opportunity for the sole purpose of derailing threads. As someone who is here to learn useful and interesting information, I am tired of your high-volume white-noise schtick fouling up near every damn thread.

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

harold said:
The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that “allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.”
Right.
Generally, gene variant frequencies do remain fairly constant.
Sometimes.
That is anti-evolution, not evolution.
Wrong.
Sorry. But stasis is not evolution. If allelic frequencies are essentially stable, which they are in all species, then we can infer that there is a distinct lack of evolutionary change. Also, I should point out that purifying/negative selection is not an evolutionary mechanism in the sense that selection acts against variation. Adaptation works when selection promotes certain mutations in response to environmental pressures.

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

Chris Lawson said: You claim that the topic "mutation and modification" is not about evolution.
Er...no. Mutation and variation are due to imperfections in the replication system - that a feature of DNA and genetics. Evolution may require mutations, but it is about the promotion of variations through their natural selection. This is why we see a sub-section called "mechanism of evolution" that presumably covers this.
You claim that "The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that 'allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.'” Since I note that you are quoting here, let me continue the same quote. "Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, 'overlapping generations', random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these 'disturbing influences' are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature." As a published author on the subject of population genetics, I can only assume that your decision to only quote the first part is a premeditated choice. Let me put this plainly: you read the definition of the HW equilibrium and you made up an untruth about it being "anti-evolution".
The HW equilibrium model assumes stability in allelic frequencies. It then allows for violations/disturbances due to migrations, gene conversion and so on. These are not evolutionary processes as such because they don't necessarily represent adaptations that lead to fixation. It is just part of the ebb and flow of population dynamics.

DS · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Chris Lawson said: You claim that the topic "mutation and modification" is not about evolution.
Er...no. Mutation and variation are due to imperfections in the replication system - that a feature of DNA and genetics. Evolution may require mutations, but it is about the promotion of variations through their natural selection. This is why we see a sub-section called "mechanism of evolution" that presumably covers this.
You claim that "The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that 'allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.'” Since I note that you are quoting here, let me continue the same quote. "Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, 'overlapping generations', random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these 'disturbing influences' are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature." As a published author on the subject of population genetics, I can only assume that your decision to only quote the first part is a premeditated choice. Let me put this plainly: you read the definition of the HW equilibrium and you made up an untruth about it being "anti-evolution".
The HW equilibrium model assumes stability in allelic frequencies. It then allows for violations/disturbances due to migrations, gene conversion and so on. These are not evolutionary processes as such because they don't necessarily represent adaptations that lead to fixation. It is just part of the ebb and flow of population dynamics.
You can see my response to this crap on the bathroom wall. Needless to say, it is compete and utter horse pucky. Add population genetics to the list of things that Joe is completely ignorant of. Richard, None of the crap that Joe has posted is even remotely on topic for this thread. Please banish him to the bathroom wall once again.

Chris Lawson · 9 October 2011

One last comment, seeing as Joe has a homozygous inability to talk straight...
Atheistoclast said: If allelic frequencies are essentially stable, which they are in all species...
Zounds, this isn't even remotely true. Check out the variations in allele frequency in ABO blood type in different ethnicities (see here). 100% of Bororo people have type O blood, while only 9% of Grand Andamanese are type O, to choose two extreme examples. All of this variation evolved (yes, evolved) since humans split from our common human gene pool in Africa 50-100,000 years ago.

Chris Lawson · 9 October 2011

Umm...apologies to any other Joes.

stevaroni · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said: I asked for articles on the evolution of teeth in dental journals,read by professional dentists, not ones about anatomy or evo-devo that are read by biologists and evolutionists.
Of course you did. Like generations creationists before you, you are careful to always insert needless quantifiers so you can come back later and hyper parse perfectly useful answers.
Are you at all capable of understanding this distinction?
Sure I am. In fact, I expected you to whine about a distinction without a difference instead of addressing the actual underlying facts. I even added the line...

Now, I’m not saying that all these papers deal directly with subjects of day to day concern to dentists, but I would hazard that somewhere in that pile there’s a little nugget of explanation for Dentist Bob’s new Mercedes.

specifically because I knew you would concentrate on semantics and avoid any actual substance. Sadly, you don't even weasel well. See: "Wisdom teeth: mankind's future third vice-teeth?" in the January 2010 issue of Medical Hypothesis, a journal targeted squarely at clinicians. The money quote

The third molar teeth (wisdom teeth) represent the last eruption of the teeth in the human dentition. Throughout evolution, the mandible has had a tendency to decrease in size; the third molar teeth are often impacted, resulting in incomplete tooth eruption that often causes clinical pericoronitis, dental caries, and pericemental abscess. Therefore, the wisdom teeth are often extracted. Moreover, wisdom teeth are often removed for clinical orthodontic treatment.

Hmmm... Dental caries, abscess, orthodontic treatment.... sounds like bread and butter dental issues in a clinical trade publication to me. That took about 20 seconds to find on PubMed. Also see: "Genes affecting tooth morphogenesis" - Orthodontic Craniofacial Resources, Nov 2007 "Exclusion of coding region mutations in MSX1, PAX9 and AXIN2 in eight patients with severe oligodontia phenotype" - Orthodontic Craniofacial Resources, Aug 2006 "A novel nonsense mutation in PAX9 is associated with marked variability in number of missing teeth" - European journal of Oral sciences, Aug 2007 "Upper airway obstruction and craniofacial morphology". Otolaryngol head neck surgery Jun 1991 Seriously, Dude. You don't even weasel well. If I can offer some suggestions, there are three things you should keep in mind 1) The Internet exists, Google exists. Fact checking is just a click away. If you're going to make shit up at least make up shit that people can't check with three mouse clicks. 2) Know your enemy. Check out PubMed. Even if actual fact is your sworn enemy, it's a fascinating resource. 3) About that inability to weasel, I know this guy that can probably help you out with a genetic algorithm...

Atheistoclast · 9 October 2011

stevaroni said:
See: "Wisdom teeth: mankind's future third vice-teeth?" in the January 2010 issue of Medical Hypothesis, a journal targeted squarely at clinicians.
Yes. I forgot about the evolutionist claim that wisdom teeth are vestigial. Seems this garbage has now permeated into the medical literature.
"Genes affecting tooth morphogenesis" - Orthodontic Craniofacial Resources, Nov 2007 "Exclusion of coding region mutations in MSX1, PAX9 and AXIN2 in eight patients with severe oligodontia phenotype" - Orthodontic Craniofacial Resources, Aug 2006
Nothing to do with either evolution or dentistry.
"A novel nonsense mutation in PAX9 is associated with marked variability in number of missing teeth" - European journal of Oral sciences, Aug 2007
Ditto.
"Upper airway obstruction and craniofacial morphology". Otolaryngol head neck surgery Jun 1991
Ditto.
Seriously, Dude. You don't even weasel well.
Understand the difference between evolution, morphogenesis and dentistry.

Doc Bill · 9 October 2011

Ditto.
Ah, the old Behe Defense: "These zhournals of which you speek, not good enough."

bigdakine · 9 October 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Chris Lawson said: You claim that the topic "mutation and modification" is not about evolution.
Er...no. Mutation and variation are due to imperfections in the replication system - that a feature of DNA and genetics. Evolution may require mutations, but it is about the promotion of variations through their natural selection. This is why we see a sub-section called "mechanism of evolution" that presumably covers this.
You claim that "The Hardy–Weinberg principle (part of the syllabus) states that 'allelic frequencies in a population remain constant— in equilibrium — from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.'” Since I note that you are quoting here, let me continue the same quote. "Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, 'overlapping generations', random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these 'disturbing influences' are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature." As a published author on the subject of population genetics, I can only assume that your decision to only quote the first part is a premeditated choice. Let me put this plainly: you read the definition of the HW equilibrium and you made up an untruth about it being "anti-evolution".
The HW equilibrium model assumes stability in allelic frequencies. It then allows for violations/disturbances due to migrations, gene conversion and so on. These are not evolutionary processes as such because they don't necessarily represent adaptations that lead to fixation. It is just part of the ebb and flow of population dynamics.
You are truly pathological. Selection itself violates the conditions for the HW equilibrium to be reached. So does drift and both mechanisms can lead to fixation. The HW equation doesn't *allow* squat. Its primary use is as a pedagogical tool.

Richard B. Hoppe · 9 October 2011

Man, I can't stay off the Web for one day without coming back to an Atheistoclast mess again. I'm not going to wade through all the comments to send stuff to the BW. While there are some real good comments rebutting Atheistoclast's ignorance and dissembling, this thread has wandered far from the original topic and I'm closing it. Thanks for your participation, folks.