Still more fun: Douglas Axe's Crocoduck

And, by the way, there's a good model for how to do research on protein evolution. See here for a review and here for an example.

Thanks for the references Richard.

The creationists have a choice, they can persist in their mischaracterizations and lose all credibility, or they can admit that modern evolutionary biology is a productive field with the real experts making advancements every day while they wallow in ignorance.

Perhaps Ray would like to address the actual science, not his mischaracterizations. Perhaps not. Perhaps Ann would like to explain the methods she used in her "experiments" to reconstruct ancestral character states. Perhaps not.

DS said: Thanks for the references Richard. The creationists have a choice, they can persist in their mischaracterizations and lose all credibility...

Ann Gauger: "The reason for our choice was not ignorance. We knew that the enzymes we tested were modern, and that one was not the ancestor of the other. (They are, however, among the most structurally similar members of their family, and share many aspects of their reaction mechanism, but their chemistry itself is different.) We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible. We reasoned that if these two enzymes could not be reconfigured through a gradual process of mutation and selection, then the Darwinian explanation of gene duplication and gradual divergence to new functions was called into question. Our results indicated that a minimum of seven mutations would be required to convert or reconfigure one enzyme toward the other's function. No one disputes that part of our research. What Paul McBride and others claim is that because we didn't start from an "ancestral" enzyme, our results mean nothing. They say something like, "Of course transitions to new chemistries between modern enzymes are difficult. What you should have done is to reconstruct the ancestral form and use it as a starting point." Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein. Why is that? Because conversions are hard. McBride said as much in his post, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of our results, in the following quote: Mcbride: "Any biologist or biochemist could imagine useful new molecules in a given species that would aid their survival. Little imagination is needed, as many examples are found in other species. A simple example: an enzyme that breaks down cellulose into simple sugars would be immensely beneficial for virtually any heterotroph, yet such cellulases are only found in a handful of organisms, restricted to certain clades. Evolution is not a process that is capable of producing anything and everything, at all times in all species. It is, conversely, a greatly constrained process. A developmental biologist such as PZ Myers knows the minutiae of this constraint in particular models. Much of the process of evolution is guided by purifying selection - pruning those mutants that are at relative disadvantages to the general population - and most of the genomic change that does spread through populations is neutral and escapes selection altogether. Yes, transitioning between different enzyme functions is hard, but this is evidenced by it being relatively uncommon. In a broader sense, and to reiterate, many of the possible variations on life that we could imagine to exist do not exist." The problem then becomes, where did the diverse families of enzymes come from, if transitions are so hard, evolution is so constrained, and selection is so weak? Were the ur-proteins from which present families sprang so different from modern ones, so elastic that they could be easily molded to perform multiple functions? If so, how did they accomplish the specific necessary tasks for metabolism, transcription, and replication? More than that, how did the proteins necessary for replication, transcription, translation, and metabolism arrive at all, if evolution is so constrained? Those processes are much more complicated that a cellulase enzyme. We have ribosomes, spliceosomes, photosynthesis, and respiration. We have hummingbirds and carnivorous plants and even cows who make use of cellulose-degrading symbionts. The things that have not arrived or arrived very rarely, like cellulases, seem trivial by comparison to the things we see around us. Our results argue that only guided evolution, or intelligent design, can produce genuine innovations from a starting point of zero target activity. But McBride argues that we are the product of happenstance. McBride: " Evolution is a process without teleology and long-term targets or goals. Natural selection can provide relatively short-term direction along 'local' fitness gradients, which may be helpful or unhelpful; escapes from selection are also predicted to be important in many evolutionary paths. This could be a problem to neofunctionalisation where teleology is invoked, except that no particular enzymes were ever mandated to evolve. Life would have been different if particular enzymes that do exist had not arisen, but some other suite of enzymes would undoubtedly exist instead had the dice been rolled differently. Life would very much go on. It is a fairly safe conjecture that only a small number out of all the possible enzymes exist, and many of these exist only in small clades in the tree of life. " McBride argues against teleology and opts for chance. He is more sanguine than I about a new "suite of enzymes" evolving, given the apparent difficulty with which they evolve. Life is inherently teleological, and the needs of an organism cannot be met by whatever happens to show up. I would say, rather, that his faith in the unending creativity of evolution, in spite of the limitations of natural selection, the rarity of paths, and the functional needs of organisms, is itself a form of religion. This is an interesting turn in evolutionary thinking. People have been saying for years, "Of course evolution isn't random, it's directed by natural selection. It's not chance, it's chance and necessity." But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it's the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit. All around us we see marvelous examples of successful, even optimal design. If evolution is constrained to just a few paths, and you have to start with the right ancestral form to get anywhere, and fixation of useful new traits happens by accident, how did anything ever happen at all? Were the paths of adaptation "preordained"? Paul's choice of words, not mine. If there are only a few ways to solve any problem set by the needs of the organism because transitions are hard, then either the deck was stacked in our favor, or the process was guided, or we are incredibly lucky. That might be called preordained, I suppose.

FYI, I added the bold, which was Gauger's emphasis, not McBride's. The original McBride quote was in blockquotes and Gauger's emphasis added was in italics.

That's your moment of ZEN, folks.

Steve P. -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

10) Can you please summarize what Axe and Gauger have done in your own words, and explain, in your own words, without cutting and pasting, what it has to do with the theory of evolution?

Get ready, chirping crickets and lonesome howling coyotes, because you're going to be the only ones answering these questions.

Gauger:
"All around us we see marvelous examples of successful, even optimal design."

Well, at least Gauger does not rely on question begging or anything.

We knew that [both] the enzymes we tested were modern, and that one was not the ancestor of the other.

We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible.

What Paul McBride and others claim is that because we didn't start from an "ancestral" enzyme, our results mean nothing.

The problem then becomes, where did the diverse families of enzymes come from...? Those processes are much more complicated that a cellulase enzyme. We have ribosomes, spliceosomes, photosynthesis, and respiration. We have hummingbirds and carnivorous plants and even cows who make use of cellulose-degrading symbionts. The things that have not arrived or arrived very rarely, like cellulases, seem trivial by comparison to the things we see around us.

So many simple questions have been put to you repeatedly, SteveP. Why don't you ever attempt to answer even ONE of them?

(Actually, they're not that many, considering that you're advocating the complete overthrow of most modern life science and the main principles therein.)

We knew that the enzymes we tested were modern, and that one was not the ancestor of the other... We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible.

The problem then becomes, where did the diverse families of enzymes come from, if transitions are so hard, evolution is so constrained, and selection is so weak?

This looks to me like god-of-the-gaps and incredulity, the standard plastic water pistols from the armamentarium of ID proponents. Have I missed something substantial?

SteveP, is that crickets I hear?

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

No answers from you, huh SteveP?

TIme once again for the bathroom wall. Oh well, at least he quoted someone else mangling the science.

Flint said:

This looks to me like god-of-the-gaps and incredulity, the standard plastic water pistols from the armamentarium of ID proponents. Have I missed something substantial?

Maybe. To me, this looks like a very carefully calculated effort to construct what they hope is as plausible a straw man as needed to fool the layman, used misdirection and doublespeak to bafflegab away the actual theory, and go on to demonstrate that what does not happen is unlikely to happen. Kind of like telling children that Newton claimed we could fly to the moon by flapping our arms. Our experiments have demonstrated that this cannot be done, calling the theory of gravity into serious question! In other words, Gauger and Axe know very well the scam they're pulling.

Mike, I think you're on the right track there. There is always an underlying inability to grasp the notion of evolutionary change. It nearly always gets depicted as some CURRENT organism "evolving" into some other CURRENT organism. God created all the organisms there were and always will be, so what else could evolution BE? So they seem convinced that ONE of these enzymes must be the "common ancestor", could be any of them, so just pick one.

Maybe if you pinned these folks into a corner, they might conceded that, well, yeah, there probably WAS a common ancestor -- but it would have to be "almost just like" all the rest of the family. Nothing new is ever created; the Designer isn't in that business anymore. Since they are doing all this science to demonstrate the necessity of the "theory of poof", a genuine evolutionary hypothesis simply does not fit the model.

Flint, that's exactly what Byers was trying to argue recently with his "a T. rex is no more related to a triceratops than a banana" comment.

Chris Lawson said: Flint, that's exactly what Byers was trying to argue recently with his "a T. rex is no more related to a triceratops than a banana" comment.

Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein. Why is that? Because conversions are hard.

We all know creationists are putting on a show for those who don't know anything about science, detest science, and/or are so religious they'll believe anything fed to them that to them sounds reasonable as long as it doesn't contradict their religious beliefs. And we know they're full of crap, whereas true scientists/investigators can produce tons of evidence and experimental results, but creationists are only after the PR battle, not facts, and people shun reality, it threatens their psychological well being and their dream world. Thus creationists know they have to constantly preach to the choir and make their pseudo-science efforts look like science, that's all.

Everybody knows that “kinds” don’t change into other “kinds.”

Henry J said:

Everybody knows that “kinds” don’t change into other “kinds.”

What if "kind" actually means "clade"? ;)

Flint said: Well, Byers is brain dead, but Douglas Axe is not - he's actually a pretty competent technician, and it's a shame that he seems to have chosen a career of proving that things nobody every claimed happen, are unlikely to have happened. It seems self-evident to me that the reason he keeps doing this even when so many people make clear that testing a theory involves testing what the theory SAYS, is because if he tests what the theory says, he will paint himself into a corner. He knows this. So we get thigh-slappers like this:

Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein. Why is that? Because conversions are hard.

No, the assumption is that these enzymes had a common ancestor. The assumption is that "conversions" do not take place, do not need to take place, and have no reason to take place. Not because they are "hard", but because that's not what the evidence says happens. The assumption is that the theory best fits the evidence because the theory is based on the evidence. Common ancestry does not involve "genuine conversions" from one current enzyme to another. But they just can't let go of their conviction that evolution means "conversion" from one current form to another current form. Even when they are TOLD to start with a common ancestor, they see "assumptions of conversion" in this request. It HAS to be there, otherwise evolution happens! But these people, smart and trained as they are, either will not or can not grasp the theory even when it is explained to them in detail. Instead, they guess why someone might suggest they test the actual theory, and guess WILDLY wrong. And so they spend whole careers demonstrating the impossibility of the nonexistent, and contribute exactly nothing to human knowledge.

Flint said: Mike, I think you're on the right track there. There is always an underlying inability to grasp the notion of evolutionary change. It nearly always gets depicted as some CURRENT organism "evolving" into some other CURRENT organism. God created all the organisms there were and always will be, so what else could evolution BE? So they seem convinced that ONE of these enzymes must be the "common ancestor", could be any of them, so just pick one.

Maybe we can make it easy for them. Can you turn a chimp into a human? No, there are too many changes that need to occur. But, starting with a common ancestor, you can get divergence of two reproductively isolated lineages and presto, chimps and humans. The evidence that this in fact did occur is overwhelming, to deny it is to deny reality.

Now maybe Mr. crocoduck would like to tell us how his "model" represents common descent. Maybe Mr. "can't turn one protein into another" would like to tell us how his model represents an evolutionary hypothesis. Maybe these guys would like to explain why the papers using reconstruction of ancestral character states are published in real journals and their made-up nonsense is not. Maybe they would like to explain exactly who it is they think they are fooling and why they are trying to fool anyone. If they realize that their misrepresentations and distortions are dishonest, shame on them. If they don't realize this, more shame.

Ann Gauger: “The reason for our choice was not ignorance.

We knew that the enzymes we tested were modern, and that one was not the ancestor of the other.

(They are, however, among the most structurally similar members of their family, and share many aspects of their reaction mechanism, but their chemistry itself is different.)

We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible.

We reasoned that if these two enzymes could not be reconfigured through a gradual process of mutation and selection, then the Darwinian explanation of gene duplication and gradual divergence to new functions was called into question.

Our results indicated that a minimum of seven mutations would be required to convert or reconfigure one enzyme toward the other’s function. No one disputes that part of our research.

What Paul McBride and others claim is that because we didn’t start from an “ancestral” enzyme, our results mean nothing. They say something like, “Of course transitions to new chemistries between modern enzymes are difficult. What you should have done is to reconstruct the ancestral form and use it as a starting point.”

Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein.

Why is that? Because conversions are hard.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Flint said: Mike, I think you're on the right track there. There is always an underlying inability to grasp the notion of evolutionary change. It nearly always gets depicted as some CURRENT organism "evolving" into some other CURRENT organism. God created all the organisms there were and always will be, so what else could evolution BE? So they seem convinced that ONE of these enzymes must be the "common ancestor", could be any of them, so just pick one.

It actually involves ignoring the dimension of the past, and we can see this kind of "thinking" in areas other than creationism. Some ideologies depend on it entirely. It would be off-topic and perhaps divisive to suggest examples.

phhht said: Help me out here, folks. I'm not a biologist, so bear with me. You real evolutionists, is the following claim correct?

We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible.

Is "the Darwinian explanation of gene duplication and gradual divergence to new functions" somehow called into question by her results? If so, how?

"Our results indicated that a minimum of seven mutations would be required to convert or reconfigure one enzyme toward the other’s function. No one disputes that part of our research."

So, if you started from the ancestral sequence, probably only three or four changes would be required in each lineage. No one disputes that part either. So why didn't you mention that? And why leave out the part about changes in duplicate gene copies of the ancestral sequence and lack of functional constraint in intermediates?

Scott F said: I really like the analogy of the tree and branch tips. (There are other points that could be made with the analogy, but I think this one is sufficient to the task, and will leave it at that.)

Define “conversion” and define “hard”.

Scott F said: I also am not a biologist, or even a "scientist" by trade. But, I think I can respond.

They did this, at least to my satisfaction. They defined “conversion” as converting from one current enzyme to another current enzyme (which they indirectly regard as the essence of “Darwinian evolution”)

and they define “hard” as extremely unlikely to happen by chance. And they’re right, of course. If you try to force a process that doesn’t happen, to reach a predetermined goal (rather than “any goal that works”), it’s not going to be easy.

Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein. Why is that? Because conversions are hard.

harold said: ... I'm not disputing that they set up a straw man, in fact I noted that several times. What I'm noting is that they have done more than merely set up a straw man. (Axe and Gauger) engage in vague "science-y" sounding language, in an effort to make it look to the naive lay person as if they have a serious scientific point to make. But at the end of the day, it's just completely unoriginal old time creationist argumentation via straw man - "evolution claims (insert absurd straw man), everyone agrees that (absurd straw man) doesn't happen, therefore no evolution", coupled with a general tendency toward vague, dissembling, somewhat evasive language.

Is it out of place to use the drunkard's walk metaphor?

I'm thinking you could emulate this in a graphic and understandable way by having a dozen automobiles start from the same place. Let's give them gas tanks that only hold enough to cover ten miles. Let's further say that ever hour or so, each automobile becomes two, which continue independently.

At every intersection, each driver flips a multi-faced die to determine which direction to take (including the possibility of reverse or standing still.)

After a day or so we note the positions of the autos, and using Axe's methodology, we determine the probability that they all started from the same point by calculating the probability that two will converge in the future to the same location.

This sentence is laced with precisely the false claim that Axe and Gauger are trying to push. The claim is that it’s unreasonable to think that enzyme genes can be the ancestors of other enzyme genes. They’re still trying to push the idea that an enzyme being the ancestor of another biologically active enzyme is “so unlikely” that it can only happen by magic.

But at the end of the day, it’s just completely unoriginal old time creationist argumentation via straw man - “evolution claims (insert absurd straw man), everyone agrees that (absurd straw man) doesn’t happen, therefore no evolution”

Impact of remote mutations on metallo-β-lactamase substrate ... ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ... › Protein Sci › v.14(3); Mar 2005 by P Oelschlaeger - 2005 - Cited by 23 - Related articles This change in specificity occurs even though residue 262 is remote from the active site. ... This observation may assist future drug design. As the G262A and F218Y mutants confer effective resistance to Escherichia ... Keywords: metallo-β-lactamase, metalloenzyme, substrate specificity, enzyme evolution, point mutation ... A secondary drug resistance mutation of TEM-1 ß-lactamase that ... ww.pnas.org/content/98/1/283.full.pdf by V Sideraki - 2001 - Cited by 61 - Related articles Mutants of TEM-1 with increased antibiotic resistance have appeared in response to the ... mutations that extend the substrate specificity of the enzyme. (TEM-20 and .... Go is the free energy change from protein unfolding, m is the slope of a plot of ...

Flint said:

This sentence is laced with precisely the false claim that Axe and Gauger are trying to push. The claim is that it’s unreasonable to think that enzyme genes can be the ancestors of other enzyme genes. They’re still trying to push the idea that an enzyme being the ancestor of another biologically active enzyme is “so unlikely” that it can only happen by magic.

OK, this isn't my reading (and yes, they are ambiguous, and their definitions are not operational definitions). But as I read it, they aren't concerned with ancestor-descendent relationships AT ALL. A "genuine" conversion isn't being either described or tested as a "descent with modification" enzyme. Descent is not a conversion. Morphing from one current version to another is the "conversion" they seem to be describing and testing. And finding out that it doesn't happen. I get two strong impressions from reading this stuff. (1) The notion of "ancestry" doesn't seem to compute. They know the word, but the concept of a distant past just doesn't penetrate; and (2) They visualize the bulls-eyes being drawn before any enzyme was created, and all extant enzymes (and the genes to make them) represent perfect marksmanship.

But at the end of the day, it’s just completely unoriginal old time creationist argumentation via straw man - “evolution claims (insert absurd straw man), everyone agrees that (absurd straw man) doesn’t happen, therefore no evolution”

To me, it seems stone obvious that they do not consider their model a straw man in any way. They struggle with the notion of evolution within a creationist model, and the closest it can be force-fit to is, one current form morphing into another. What else can it BE, considering that there was no distant past, there is no descent with modification, and even if there were, a trial and error process could never hit every bulls-eye dead center, while the Designer never misses. Notice they're not trying to change an enzyme from the current version to another that only needs to do something, anything at all. That might be quite a bit easier. I agree about the languge to some extent. When they talk about the details of their procedures, they seem to me (I'm no biologist either) to be very precise and comprehensive. But when it comes to being careful and precise about exactly which aspect of the theory of evolution they're investigating, then they fail. I think they fail because they take their straw-man version as THE theory, they take it for granted that they understand the theory, they sincerely believe they're testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Now, as to why they don't consult with other researchers, where they might be told they're wasting time trying to disprove something nobody claims, that's another issue. And that's where I think we're mostly focused in this discussion. They HAVE to know they're doing this, they HAVE to know it's a meaningless exercise, they HAVE to be doing it for PR purposes to hornswoggle the ignorati. Right? Right.

raven said:

Impact of remote mutations on metallo-β-lactamase substrate ... ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ... › Protein Sci › v.14(3); Mar 2005 by P Oelschlaeger - 2005 - Cited by 23 - Related articles This change in specificity occurs even though residue 262 is remote from the active site. ... This observation may assist future drug design. As the G262A and F218Y mutants confer effective resistance to Escherichia ... Keywords: metallo-β-lactamase, metalloenzyme, substrate specificity, enzyme evolution, point mutation ... A secondary drug resistance mutation of TEM-1 ß-lactamase that ... ww.pnas.org/content/98/1/283.full.pdf by V Sideraki - 2001 - Cited by 61 - Related articles Mutants of TEM-1 with increased antibiotic resistance have appeared in response to the ... mutations that extend the substrate specificity of the enzyme. (TEM-20 and .... Go is the free energy change from protein unfolding, m is the slope of a plot of ...

Enzymes mutate and evolve to change their substrate specificity all the time. This was known many decades ago It's a huge problem in medicine where drug resistance frequently arises from changes in...substrate specificity of preexisting enzymes. We make new analogs of drugs and reliably, the enzymes mutate again to act on them. It's also a huge problem in agriculture. Whatever pesticides and herbicides are developed, sooner or later, enzymes mutate to detoxify them. Axe and Gauger aren't going to get very far denying what we spend billions of dollars per year trying to keep ahead of, which is evolution to anti-everythings. Which is one of the big differences between science and creationism. Science feeds 7 billion people and helps us live long and healthy lives. Creationism is simply an attack on science for malevolent and evil religious reasons.

apokryltaros said:

harold said: ... I'm not disputing that they set up a straw man, in fact I noted that several times. What I'm noting is that they have done more than merely set up a straw man. (Axe and Gauger) engage in vague "science-y" sounding language, in an effort to make it look to the naive lay person as if they have a serious scientific point to make. But at the end of the day, it's just completely unoriginal old time creationist argumentation via straw man - "evolution claims (insert absurd straw man), everyone agrees that (absurd straw man) doesn't happen, therefore no evolution", coupled with a general tendency toward vague, dissembling, somewhat evasive language.

Would the term you're looking for be "jargon"?

Then you must mean "double-speak"

DS said: (Ax and Gauger) just can't conceive of common ancestry. EIther they honestly cannot, or they are just misrepresenting something that they think that everyone will fall for. The worst part is that they have been told repeatedly that they are misrepresenting the science, they have been shown the real science, yet they persist in their misrepresentations. WHy don't they just read the papers Richard cited above, admit their error and apologize? This is even more stupid then the crocoduck crap. This is like saying "if enzymes changed into other enzymes, why are there still enzymes"?

harold said: Since (Axe and Gauger's) flawed arguments are constructed for reasons of emotional bias, it raises the question - why do they emotionally prefer to believe in a "designer" who aids pathogenic microbes that kill thousands of small children (*traditionally regarded as relatively free of sin even under very harsh interpretations of Christianity*) per year, rather than accept the simple fact that microbes can evolve?

To me, it seems stone obvious that they do not consider their model a straw man in any way.

Flint often proposes a psychological model for creationists. In my paraphrase, he models all creationists as being completely sincere, never consciously using deceptive techniques, and fully believing their own pronouncements, at all times, with no moments of doubt.

I think his model is partly accurate - obviously, creationists do mainly “believe in” creationism at the conscious level - but in some ways oversimplified. It implicitly proposes a dichotomous model of full, sincere, satisfied belief in one’s positions, versus fully conscious outright efforts to deceive.

That isn’t how the human brain always works. Authoritarian minds, for example, don’t necessarily test abstract concepts. They perceive what someone like Flint may perceive as a rational discussion, as a contest of wills. They aren’t concerned that Flint has the “better argument”, because they project their own authoritarian tendencies onto him. They know that they are advocating for an arbitrarily chosen position using every technique necessary, but they perceive “the other side” as doing the same thing.

Pointing out that they use dissembling language and deceptive argumentation techniques, which no reasonable person would deny, is not a statement about their internal cognition, it is a simple factual statement about their behavior.

Flint wrote:

"So I suppose I ask, what does your mind DO when what you KNOW beyond any doubt to be true, simply doesn’t fit any of the available evidence?"

You reject your old hypothesis and construct a new one, then test it rigorously. If you are not willing to do this, then don't bother to look at any evidence. What is the point if you are not going to be honest enough to accept the conclusions? What you can't do is claim to honor the evidence then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. What you can't do is continue to misrepresent the evidence when it has been pointed out to you that your are constructing a straw man. What you can't do is claim that your beliefs are based on the evidence when they are contrary to all of the evidence. That is dishonest, plain and simple. If you choose to do that, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.

DS said: Flint wrote: "So I suppose I ask, what does your mind DO when what you KNOW beyond any doubt to be true, simply doesn’t fit any of the available evidence?" You reject your old hypothesis and construct a new one, then test it rigorously. If you are not willing to do this, then don't bother to look at any evidence. What is the point if you are not going to be honest enough to accept the conclusions? What you can't do is claim to honor the evidence then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. What you can't do is continue to misrepresent the evidence when it has been pointed out to you that your are constructing a straw man. What you can't do is claim that your beliefs are based on the evidence when they are contrary to all of the evidence. That is dishonest, plain and simple. If you choose to do that, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.

Flint said: I guess we're not going to see things the same way here. You must understand that when I say that you KNOW you are right, this is not a conclusion based on evidence, this is a priori knowledge. If evidence conflicts with it, evidence must be poorly observed, or misleading, or incomplete, or based on Wrong Faith. But whatever the problem, it MUST lie with the evidence. It CANNOT lie with you. You KNOW better.

(I once saw a study where students were given math problems and the answers were in the back of the chapter. A couple of those answers were deliberately wrong. Very few students identified this; most of them produced truly creative mangling of the numbers to FORCE them to produce the "right answer" provided. Were these students all "dishonest", or might there be another more appropriate description?)

Now, there are some creationists who will come right out and claim that reality itself as a gigantic fraud, cobbled up by God to test our faith. Those who reject His word in favor of this fraud keep heaven reserved for the truly devout.

But anyway, I see Gauger and Axe trying quite honestly to reconcile their best understanding of evolution with their best understanding of the evidence. And their best understanding of evolution REALLY IS that there is no distant past, no descent with modification, no tree of life. They KNOW this. So they go about diligently testing a version of "evolution" compatible with their beliefs, which can ONLY mean current forms morphing into other current forms. Current forms are all there are, all there ever have been, all there ever CAN be. So what ELSE could evolution be?

At least Gauger and Axe haven't simply decided (like Kurt Wise) that evidence is irrelevant and meaningless. These people are really trying to get the evidence to line up with Truth. The Truth is not negotiable, not tentative, not based on evidence (and not alterable by evidence). But if God is honest, then His works MUST match His word. And since God can't be dishonest in either word or deed, if the two appear to be in conflict then they look for a way to resolve it. The Word can't be doubted, it's clear and unambiguous and means exactly what they are convinced it means. But the Works are messy and complicated and and easy to get wrong or misunderstand. Hey, the entire theory of evolution represents exactly such a misunderstanding. It MUST, else God is lying.

Flint said: At least Gauger and Axe haven't simply decided (like Kurt Wise) that evidence is irrelevant and meaningless.

apokryltaros said: Then you must mean "double-speak"

DS said:

Flint wrote: So I suppose I ask, what does your mind DO when what you KNOW beyond any doubt to be true, simply doesn’t fit any of the available evidence?

You reject your old hypothesis and construct a new one, then test it rigorously. If you are not willing to do this, then don't bother to look at any evidence. What is the point if you are not going to be honest enough to accept the conclusions? What you can't do is claim to honor the evidence then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. What you can't do is continue to misrepresent the evidence when it has been pointed out to you that your are constructing a straw man. What you can't do is claim that your beliefs are based on the evidence when they are contrary to all of the evidence. That is dishonest, plain and simple. If you choose to do that, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Flint said: I guess we're not going to see things the same way here. You must understand that when I say that you KNOW you are right, this is not a conclusion based on evidence, this is a priori knowledge. If evidence conflicts with it, evidence must be poorly observed, or misleading, or incomplete, or based on Wrong Faith. But whatever the problem, it MUST lie with the evidence. It CANNOT lie with you. You KNOW better. (I once saw a study where students were given math problems and the answers were in the back of the chapter. A couple of those answers were deliberately wrong. Very few students identified this; most of them produced truly creative mangling of the numbers to FORCE them to produce the "right answer" provided. Were these students all "dishonest", or might there be another more appropriate description?) Now, there are some creationists who will come right out and claim that reality itself as a gigantic fraud, cobbled up by God to test our faith. Those who reject His word in favor of this fraud keep heaven reserved for the truly devout. But anyway, I see Gauger and Axe trying quite honestly to reconcile their best understanding of evolution with their best understanding of the evidence. And their best understanding of evolution REALLY IS that there is no distant past, no descent with modification, no tree of life. They KNOW this. So they go about diligently testing a version of "evolution" compatible with their beliefs, which can ONLY mean current forms morphing into other current forms. Current forms are all there are, all there ever have been, all there ever CAN be. So what ELSE could evolution be? At least Gauger and Axe haven't simply decided (like Kurt Wise) that evidence is irrelevant and meaningless. These people are really trying to get the evidence to line up with Truth. The Truth is not negotiable, not tentative, not based on evidence (and not alterable by evidence). But if God is honest, then His works MUST match His word. And since God can't be dishonest in either word or deed, if the two appear to be in conflict then they look for a way to resolve it. The Word can't be doubted, it's clear and unambiguous and means exactly what they are convinced it means. But the Works are messy and complicated and and easy to get wrong or misunderstand. Hey, the entire theory of evolution represents exactly such a misunderstanding. It MUST, else God is lying.

dalehusband said:

(I once saw a study where students were given math problems and the answers were in the back of the chapter. A couple of those answers were deliberately wrong. Very few students identified this; most of them produced truly creative mangling of the numbers to FORCE them to produce the "right answer" provided. Were these students all "dishonest", or might there be another more appropriate description?)

No, they were ignorant.

I suppose one can argue that creationists are ignorant, stupid and wicked. And they were all of these things, incorrigibly, by the age of 7.

One can only marvel at the malleability of the infant human mind, that such irrecoverable damage could be done, so that even as educated and competent adults, they STILL can't help being ignorant, stupid and wicked.

We should all be thankful we were fortunate enough to have sane parents. But I find the creationist efforts to rectify the irreconcilable to be fascinating and complex, and I wonder at the layers within the phenomenon of consciousness that result in compartmentalization, rationalization, and doublethink.

Your "who cares WHY people commit crimes, just lock 'em all up" approach doesn't even address the symptoms, much less the problem. As I see it, the problem is the powerful grip superstition has on our minds. So long as people believe in gods, people will doublethink because they must. Anyone who can believe in gods can believe in anything.

Scott F said: That's relatively easy to do with an hypothesis that you came to recently, or late in life, or one that is just a matter of your job, or one that is based solely on reason and evidence. But what if the hypothesis is one that you were "born" into, one upon which your whole life is based, one that your family and everyone you know "knows" to be true, one on which all morality is based, one that required no reason or evidence; and that rejection of that hypothesis would lead to eternal damnation, alienation from friends and family (including possible physical harm, maybe even death), and rejection of all morality? Only a very brave soul would find it possible to "reject your old hypothesis and construct a new one." Even Darwin took decades to come to terms with this decision. [I don't know. Maybe Wallace started from a different place in life, and found the choice easier to make.] It's much "easier" and "safer" to say that the evidence is wrong, that the "others" are wrong. Especially when you, and everyone you know, "knows" without a doubt that you're right. You certainly can "claim that your beliefs are based on the evidence", when it is obvious that "evidence" is what supports your beliefs, and that "lies" is anything that contradicts your beliefs. By definition, your beliefs are based on the evidence. That's the very explicit point of the AiG Statement of Faith. Just look at the very last bullet:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If you are not willing to admit this and change your views to conform to reality, then you are just pretending to value science and evidence and integrity. You are just trying to fool yourself and others in order to maintain your presuppositions.

If the hypothesis was one you were born into, it becomes even more important. If it is one your whole family knows to be true and on which all morality is based, shouldn’t you be sure it is actually correct?

Who am I, as a lowly student, to question the received wisdom contained in this BOOK? (People often attribute more authority and respect to things written in a book. How many times did your mother tell you to never deface a book? Why? Because it’s a book.) It takes some confidence and guts to go to the teacher and tell her that the answer in the book is wrong.

Flint said:

If you are not willing to admit this and change your views to conform to reality, then you are just pretending to value science and evidence and integrity. You are just trying to fool yourself and others in order to maintain your presuppositions.

I agree with this. I'm not trying to say these people are right, I'm trying to understand their thought processes and motivations. My sense is that it's just about as difficult to abandon a devout belief in the creationist god as it is to WILL yourself out of homosexuality. As far as I can tell, for most of these people their god is indelible, foundational to their mental models of the world around them, integrated with all they understand. Just hand-waving this away with "Well, they're dishonest and ignorant" may satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me.

Flint said:

Who am I, as a lowly student, to question the received wisdom contained in this BOOK? (People often attribute more authority and respect to things written in a book. How many times did your mother tell you to never deface a book? Why? Because it’s a book.) It takes some confidence and guts to go to the teacher and tell her that the answer in the book is wrong.

I actually did that several times. I worked the problems as carefully as I could, double-checked my work, and didn't get the "right" answer. At first, I told the teacher "the book got it wrong." Of course, the book was fine, and I did it wrong. Later on, I learned to say "I can't get the book's answer and I've really tried" and the teacher was nice enough to show me what I was doing wrong. As I went through school, my answers differed from the book's answers with depressing regularity, and the book was ALWAYS right. So I have to laugh at someone just high-handedly saying that the students were just all ignorant. And many creationists talk to their god directly and personally, and their god TELLS them they're right. Really, you want a higher authorization than that?

Flint said:

If the hypothesis was one you were born into, it becomes even more important. If it is one your whole family knows to be true and on which all morality is based, shouldn’t you be sure it is actually correct?

Of course. Show me a creationist who is NOT sure he's absolutely correct. This is the point. One of the interesting aspects of not being willing to face up to reality is, it's not possible to REALIZE you're not facing up to reality. You must face up to reality to have this realization in the first place.

Scott F said:

apokryltaros said: Then you must mean "double-speak"

No, I mean doublethink. It's closely related, though.

No one has explicitly mentioned one possible contributory factor to implacable religious conviction, namely mental disorder.

I suspect that for some believers, or perhaps all to some extent, there is malfunction of the cognitive mechanisms which distinguish reality from fantasy. It seems to me that there is a compulsive-obsessive component to this kind of belief. In these ways and others, religious belief appears to be similar to delusional disorders.

SHow me a real scientist who knows that he is absolutely right. Show me one who will not be convinced they the evidence. It doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference between science and fake science. All it takes is a little honesty and an ounce of courage.

No one has explicitly mentioned one possible contributory factor to implacable religious conviction, namely mental disorder.

Flint,

Then indeed we must agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.

Flint said:

No one has explicitly mentioned one possible contributory factor to implacable religious conviction, namely mental disorder.

If you mean, actual organic pathology, then few would agree. There are no misfiring malfunctions of the brain going on here. And if you mean "not rational about certain things", then you condemn us all.

Flint said:

SHow me a real scientist who knows that he is absolutely right. Show me one who will not be convinced they the evidence. It doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference between science and fake science. All it takes is a little honesty and an ounce of courage.

No, I strongly disagree with you here. We're talking about the mental equivalent of neck-stretching or foot-binding as an infant. It is permanent in some cases. It is most emphatically NOT a matter of honesty and courage. Most of these creationist are being as true to their beliefs as they know how, which is the very essence of integity. And when the overwhelming majority is telling you you're wrong and dishonest and being deceitful and you stick to your guns, perhaps to the point of sacrificing any real career prospects, this takes courage. This attitude of "people who don't believe as I do are all liars" does you no credit at all. Flip it around. Could YOU muster the honesty and courage necessary to set science and evidence aside because your god TOLD you to? Could YOU be big enough to recognize that evidence doesn't matter, and science based only on that stuff is the REAL "fake" science? I'm guessing you'd find that prospect perposterous. Who in their right mind would abandon YOUR convictions? Your convictions are RIGHT, they are HONEST, they are COURAGEOUS, they are based on REAL EVIDENCE. Right? Sorry, but these are not "bad people". Deluded, misguided, brainwashed, yes. But if being true to yourself and your convictions is what integrity is made of, Gauger and Axe have no shortage of integrity.

Flint said:

No one has explicitly mentioned one possible contributory factor to implacable religious conviction, namely mental disorder.

If you mean, actual organic pathology, then few would agree. There are no misfiring malfunctions of the brain going on here. And if you mean "not rational about certain things", then you condemn us all.

Rather than attack the beliefs, one can say, “See? Your beliefs appear to be built on a foundation of sand. Instead, I offer a better foundation for those same beliefs. [And, oh-by-the-way this foundation has the added benefit of not conflicting with reality.]”

The True Believer rejects the uncertainty, because they know that the uncertainty will (among other things) lead to corruption and damnation. Fear is a great motivator for maintaining Belief.

This is a fascinating discussion, but I think it's missing the point. If creationists were like the Amish, no sympathy would be necessary. They'd be happy believing what they do, and leaving the rest of the world alone. But too many creationists are aggressive about their beliefs, and that kind of behavior isn't worthy of sympathy. Opposition and ridicule are their reward. I don't care if they're sincere, or what goes on in their heads.

For those who want more, I have now responded to Axe's blog post and a new one from Gauger that covers similar territory.

--Paul McBride

Rain comes from clouds? We've just had a week of thunder storms here--so why are there still clouds?

SensuousCurmudgeon said: This is a fascinating discussion, but I think it's missing the point. If creationists were like the Amish, no sympathy would be necessary. They'd be happy believing what they do, and leaving the rest of the world alone. But too many creationists are aggressive about their beliefs, and that kind of behavior isn't worthy of sympathy. Opposition and ridicule are their reward. I don't care if they're sincere, or what goes on in their heads.

dalehusband said:

Flint said: At least Gauger and Axe haven't simply decided (like Kurt Wise) that evidence is irrelevant and meaningless.

Speaking of Kurt Wise, he is referred to by some who support evolution as an "honest Creationist". I can hardly understand why, since he refuses to do science but got a science degree after studying under Stephen Jay Gould. That's not being honest, that's being a double agent. A double agent by definition is not honest; Wise is as much a fraud and a bigot as the rest of those bastards.

apokryltaros said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Flint said: Mike, I think you're on the right track there. There is always an underlying inability to grasp the notion of evolutionary change. It nearly always gets depicted as some CURRENT organism "evolving" into some other CURRENT organism. God created all the organisms there were and always will be, so what else could evolution BE? So they seem convinced that ONE of these enzymes must be the "common ancestor", could be any of them, so just pick one.

It actually involves ignoring the dimension of the past, and we can see this kind of "thinking" in areas other than creationism. Some ideologies depend on it entirely. It would be off-topic and perhaps divisive to suggest examples.

Off the bat, you also have the Global Warming Denialists. Because those who would profit the most from global warming denial and from creationism taught in place of science in schools are major contributors of the Republican Party, you often see American Creationists also being Global Warming Denialists.

John said:

apokryltaros said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Flint said: Mike, I think you're on the right track there. There is always an underlying inability to grasp the notion of evolutionary change. It nearly always gets depicted as some CURRENT organism "evolving" into some other CURRENT organism. God created all the organisms there were and always will be, so what else could evolution BE? So they seem convinced that ONE of these enzymes must be the "common ancestor", could be any of them, so just pick one.

It actually involves ignoring the dimension of the past, and we can see this kind of "thinking" in areas other than creationism. Some ideologies depend on it entirely. It would be off-topic and perhaps divisive to suggest examples.

Off the bat, you also have the Global Warming Denialists. Because those who would profit the most from global warming denial and from creationism taught in place of science in schools are major contributors of the Republican Party, you often see American Creationists also being Global Warming Denialists.

NCSE, among others, has demonstrated how the "thought" of global warming denialists is often the same kinds of deceit and cognitive dissonance one finds in creationists. As a Republican, I abhor the lack of critical thinking about science that is all too evident amongst my fellow Republicans. The Republican Party needs to return to its pro-science roots, which Shawn Otto has noted recently in his book "Fool Me Twice".

One of the most common responses one gets from some of the followers in this movement, when one confronts them with hard evidence that contradicts their claims, is immediate whining about how they are hated and being persecuted. That’s an automatic habit built on years of hearing it being rained down on them from the pulpits and Sunday schools of their churches. They see it because that is how they are taught to see others; it is pure, habitual projections of what has been drummed into them for their entire lives. There is little doubt that they know how to hate others. I can easily find it in a number of the churches in this community and even in some of my more distant relatives who are deeply immersed in this stuff.

SteveP. said: So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

I'm always impressed with how much ignorance and stupidity SteveP. can fit into so few words.

Poor old SteveP. He hasn't got what it takes to participate in the discussion here. He can't address any of the questions, any of the points, any of the analyses of genuine thinkers. Perhaps he can't understand them. Perhaps he hasn't even read them.

All he can manage is nasty, empty provocation.

phhht said: Poor old SteveP. He hasn't got what it takes to participate in the discussion here. He can't address any of the questions, any of the points, any of the analyses of genuine thinkers. Perhaps he can't understand them. Perhaps he hasn't even read them. All he can manage is nasty, empty provocation.

SteveP. said: And the most common response ID gets from evolutionists when the latter are presented with lab work which potentially falsifies their claims is 'ah, they don't understand evolutionary claims' or more nefariously 'they are misrepresenting our claims'.

So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

And consequently, only evolutionists have the wherewithall to falsify their own claims, which they most fortuitously haven't done so far.

Own goals aren't part of the game plan, eh Elzinga?

DS said: It is very telling that instead of defending the misrepresentations and trying to explain why they were legitimate, all he could do was piss and moan about the people who pointed out that they were wrong.

It's the plain idiocy of it that gets me. Axe and Gauger were flailing at a straw man caricature of evolution, using fundamentally false assumptions about it. This was pointed out with breathtaking clarity by Paul McBride, by stating precisely what the theory actually says. And SteveP's take on this? That only "evolutionists" know what the theory says.

Yeah, well. Maybe so. That could conceivably be because they're the ones who study it and try not to misrepresent it.

As a card carrying creationist loon I would still say fossils are not part of biological investigation for relationships, if any, between biological items.
Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details in some fossilized creatures under the terms of birds and dinos.
Its all lines of reasoning and nothing more.
Just because one lays eggs does not make a dino related to a bird or related to a lizard.
Many lizards and snakes don't lay eggs and many do but they are still lizards and snakes.
Laying however does not make a t rex a big bird.
They could, and did, just lay eggs because it suited them. yet this detail and others in which relationship is drawn between birds and dinos is just guessing.
Even if true it still would be guessing based on somebodies classification system.
it was just lack of imagination to figure out the option that having like anatomical details is for like needs and a ceiling to options for biology.
In fact evolutionism is increasingly forced to set limits to options for biological origins and change because of the increasing awareness of how much convergence there is in nature. or as they call it convergent evolution is forcing conclusions of fewer options for how structures and functions in biology work.

its all been a grand error of presumption.

Robert Byers said: its all been a grand error of presumption.

As a card carrying creationist loon I would still say fossils are not part of biological investigation for relationships, if any, between biological items. Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details in some fossilized creatures under the terms of birds and dinos.

Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details

John said:

dalehusband said:

Flint said: At least Gauger and Axe haven't simply decided (like Kurt Wise) that evidence is irrelevant and meaningless.

Speaking of Kurt Wise, he is referred to by some who support evolution as an "honest Creationist". I can hardly understand why, since he refuses to do science but got a science degree after studying under Stephen Jay Gould. That's not being honest, that's being a double agent. A double agent by definition is not honest; Wise is as much a fraud and a bigot as the rest of those bastards.

Kurt Wise doesn't engage in the obfuscations, omissions, lies, theft and character assassinations of critics that are the modus operandi of the Dishonesty Institute's pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers. In that sense - and that sense alone - he should be viewed as a "honest creationist".

Robert Byers said: As a card carrying creationist loon I would still say fossils are not part of biological investigation for relationships, if any, between biological items, even though that is bat shit insane. Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details in some fossilized creatures under the terms of birds and dinos. Genetic analysis has confirmed that the relationship is in fact real. Creationism is all faulty lines of reasoning and nothing more. The fact that one lays eggs does makes a dino related to a bird and related to a lizard. Many lizards and snakes don't lay eggs and many do but they are still lizards and snakes just as birds are still related to dinosaurs. Laying however does not make a t rex a big bird, it simply demonstrates that it is related. They could, and did, just lay eggs because it suited them. yet this detail and others in which relationship is denied between birds and dinos is just ignoring all of the evidences. SInce it is consistent with all of the evidence, it still would not be just guessing based on somebodies classification system. It would be based on sound phylogenetic principles. it was just lack of imagination to deny the option that having like anatomical details is for like ancestry and a ceiling to options for biology. In fact creationism is increasingly forced to set limits to options for biological origins and change because of the increasing ignorance of how much convergence there is in nature. or as they call it convergent evolution is forcing conclusions of fewer options for how structures and functions in biology work. SO creationism is just based on ignorance and nothin else. its all been a grand error of presumption.

DS said: "Our results indicated that a minimum of seven mutations would be required to convert or reconfigure one enzyme toward the other’s function. No one disputes that part of our research." So, if you started from the ancestral sequence, probably only three or four changes would be required in each lineage.

So.… evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

SteveP. said: And the most common response ID gets from evolutionists when the latter are presented with lab work which potentially falsifies their claims is 'ah, they don't understand evolutionary claims' or more nefariously 'they are misrepresenting our claims'.

So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

Nope. Gauger and McBride said they understood the flaw in their reasoning

Rolf said:

As a card carrying creationist loon I would still say fossils are not part of biological investigation for relationships, if any, between biological items. Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details in some fossilized creatures under the terms of birds and dinos.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that it is impossible to draw any conclusions about relationship between makes of cars by studying wrecked cars in a junkyard. Are you capable of understanding the analogy and what it means? That there most likely are distinct, identifiable features linking different makes/models together? Like my old 2000 Audi A3 to my newer 2007 A3?

Case in point are these conclusions about connecting birds and dinos because of some like details

Right, therefore we can't connect you with your parents because of some dubious not even visible details. Right?

FIngerprints ain't alive. You cant use em to study anything aliving. Its something different. just a case of wrong suppositions. They are just snapshots of someone who was once putting their fingers there at a moment in time and now is not.

Same thing with DNA fingerprints they ain't alive either so they are just wrong claims as evidences. cant draw conclusions on relationships from DNA its all false assumptions and not biological evidence. its atomic and unproven just like fossils is just rocks

Robert Byers, please tell us why we have to assume that you are an authority of science who can determine what is and is not science, even though you speak such blatantly stupid lies over and over again?

A logical error. One can’t study biology looking at rocks. Its something different.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

That fact is glaringly obvious when all an ID/creationist (e.g., you) can do is throw feces. You couldn’t even understand, let alone pass, a simple concept test about entropy. You would like to forget that, but we haven’t. Really pissed you off, it did. That’s why you keep coming back to throw more feces. Now get lost.

Steve P. -

When you don't even answer a question on a test, you still get a grade - zero.

Here are some more questions you can't seem to answer.

Part A

1) Since you're so in love with Axe and Gauger's research, demonstrate that you have a clue what they did by describing their experiment and conclusions in detail. No need to criticize. Just explain what they actually did. Use any source material you need.

Part B

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

paumcb12 said:

Nope. Gauger and McBride said they understood the flaw in their reasoning

AXE! --Paul McBride

Here are some more questions for Steve P. (even if he doesn't have the guts or brains to answer):

1) WHat would one expect to see if two chromosomes fused? What telomeric sequences would be expected? What centromeric sequences would be expected?

2) What do we observe in human chromosome two? Is it what one would expect to see if two chromosomes fused since humans and chimps last shared a common ancestor?

3) Why is the telomere in the center of human chromosome two degenerate? Is this expected if it is the result of a chromosomal fusion?

4) Why do humans and chimps have exactly the same genes in exactly the same positions on all of the chromosomes (i.e. synteny)?

5) Why are humans and chimps the most closely related species genetically for both mitochondrial and nuclear genes?

6) Why do humans and chimps share many unique SINE insertions?

7) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity in primates that is the same for chromosomes, mitochondrial genes, nuclear genes and SINE insertions?

8) Why do you think that the claim that modern chimps cannot turn into modern humans is a real scientific hypothesis?

I predict that Steve will not answer any of these questions. I predict that he will do nothing but throw out meaningless personal insults and completely avoid all of the real scientific issues. In other words, he will engage in exactly the same dishonest tactics as those he seeks to defend.

What I'd like to hear about is, if the great similarity between humans and chimps is due to "intelligent design" ...
Does that mean that there is a common purpose behind the design of humans and chimps?

I know that if the similarity is due to common descent, or any other purposeless natural regularities, or even if it is due to random chance, that means nothing at all. But if it was purposefully done, well doesn't that mean that we should tell our kids that they were purposefully designed to be like chimps?

SteveP. said: 'doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity'.

DS said: FIngerprints ain't alive. You cant use em to study anything aliving. Its something different. just a case of wrong suppositions. They are just snapshots of someone who was once putting their fingers there at a moment in time and now is not. Same thing with DNA fingerprints they ain't alive either so they are just wrong claims as evidences. cant draw conclusions on relationships from DNA its all false assumptions and not biological evidence. its atomic and unproven just like fossils is just rocks

Robert Byers said: Makes of cars or biology relationships are neither the results of biological investigation if the fossils are the claim for evidence. They are just snapshots of a biological item/data point at a moment in time. Ond can make conclusions upon this data but don't say its biological evidence. Evolutionists say and think it is. A logical error. One can't study biology looking at rocks. Its something different.

SteveP. said: Retirements's getting to you Elzinga. I never took the test. THAT obviously pissed YOU off to no end. You keep reminding me of it every chance you get. Do you honestly believe bringing up the subject over and over is going to compel me to collapse into a heap of shame? How does that saying go 'doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity'. But if your retirement plan is to invest a lot of time and effort in trying to snag a gotcha moment......

DS said: WHy don't they just read the papers Richard cited above, admit their error and apologize? This is even more stupid then the crocoduck crap.

Robert Byers said: Makes of cars or biology relationships are neither the results of biological investigation if the fossils are the claim for evidence. They are just snapshots of a biological item/data point at a moment in time. Ond can make conclusions upon this data but don't say its biological evidence. Evolutionists say and think it is. A logical error. One can't study biology looking at rocks. Its something different.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b said:

Robert Byers said: Makes of cars or biology relationships are neither the results of biological investigation if the fossils are the claim for evidence. They are just snapshots of a biological item/data point at a moment in time. Ond can make conclusions upon this data but don't say its biological evidence. Evolutionists say and think it is. A logical error. One can't study biology looking at rocks. Its something different.

Just to point out for lurkers what is well known by most posters here, but fossils are not the only evidence of evolution, since there are multiple independent lines of evidence, such as dna and morphology, which independently converge on common descent as the best explanation for the diversity of life. I believe Darwin relied primarily on evidence such as geological distribution of species and domestic breeding rather than fossil evidence to develop his theory. Having said that, the trolls post here because they get a rise out of the community; personally I think the trolls' posts should be mostly ignored and removed to the Bathroom Wall.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b said: I believe Darwin relied primarily on evidence such as geological distribution of species...

I should've said geographical rather than geological.

SteveP. said: Retirements's getting to you Elzinga. I never took the test. THAT obviously pissed YOU off to no end. You keep reminding me of it every chance you get. Do you honestly believe bringing up the subject over and over is going to compel me to collapse into a heap of shame? How does that saying go 'doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity'. But if your retirement plan is to invest a lot of time and effort in trying to snag a gotcha moment......

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

That fact is glaringly obvious when all an ID/creationist (e.g., you) can do is throw feces. You couldn’t even understand, let alone pass, a simple concept test about entropy. You would like to forget that, but we haven’t. Really pissed you off, it did. That’s why you keep coming back to throw more feces. Now get lost.

John said: Say Stevie Pee, it wouldn't just happen to be you, Steve Proulx, infesting Carl Zimmer's latest blog over at The Loom now, would it? You seem to delight in taunting Mike, me, and whomever else suits your fancy. Right? What's the matter? Textile business in Taiwan is so good that you have time to stop by HuffPo and now, The Loom, too?

John said:

SteveP. said: Retirements's getting to you Elzinga. I never took the test. THAT obviously pissed YOU off to no end. You keep reminding me of it every chance you get. Do you honestly believe bringing up the subject over and over is going to compel me to collapse into a heap of shame? How does that saying go 'doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity'. But if your retirement plan is to invest a lot of time and effort in trying to snag a gotcha moment......

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: So.... evolutionary claims are so hard to understand that only evolutionists understand them.

That fact is glaringly obvious when all an ID/creationist (e.g., you) can do is throw feces. You couldn’t even understand, let alone pass, a simple concept test about entropy. You would like to forget that, but we haven’t. Really pissed you off, it did. That’s why you keep coming back to throw more feces. Now get lost.

Say Stevie Pee, it wouldn't just happen to be you, Steve Proulx, infesting Carl Zimmer's latest blog over at The Loom now, would it? You seem to delight in taunting Mike, me, and whomever else suits your fancy. Right? What's the matter? Textile business in Taiwan is so good that you have time to stop by HuffPo and now, The Loom, too?

dalehusband said:

John said: Say Stevie Pee, it wouldn't just happen to be you, Steve Proulx, infesting Carl Zimmer's latest blog over at The Loom now, would it? You seem to delight in taunting Mike, me, and whomever else suits your fancy. Right? What's the matter? Textile business in Taiwan is so good that you have time to stop by HuffPo and now, The Loom, too?

You could at least provide a link to that blog for us to see, John.

DS said: Is he actually trying to discuss science there, or is he just doing his chimp imitation, throwing feces and calling everyone a poo poo head? I don't think that Carl is going to be as tolerant of his shenanigans as they are here. I guess, when you don't understand science, won't learn any science and can't discuss any science, the only thing you have left is to be an obnoxious ass and try to defend other lying charlatans who don't understand science any better than you do. Oh, and then call everybody a meanie for pointing out that you haven't got a clue. Of course Stevie Pee Pee could just answer the questions. Even simple yes/no answers would do. But then I guess everyone would see that he knows nothing. Why these guys think that ignorance is a convincing argument I'll never know.

Carl threatened to ban me for saying "sick son of a bitch."

diogeneslamp0 said: Carl threatened to ban me for saying "sick son of a bitch."

John said:

DS said: Is he actually trying to discuss science there, or is he just doing his chimp imitation, throwing feces and calling everyone a poo poo head? I don't think that Carl is going to be as tolerant of his shenanigans as they are here. I guess, when you don't understand science, won't learn any science and can't discuss any science, the only thing you have left is to be an obnoxious ass and try to defend other lying charlatans who don't understand science any better than you do. Oh, and then call everybody a meanie for pointing out that you haven't got a clue. Of course Stevie Pee Pee could just answer the questions. Even simple yes/no answers would do. But then I guess everyone would see that he knows nothing. Why these guys think that ignorance is a convincing argument I'll never know.

It's actually his chimp imitation. Carl has been overly generous to bz and several others for posting what should be BW comments IMHO. (Carl has deleted a couple of mine when he thought I crossed over the line, and he refuses to allow me to use the term "mendacious intellectual pornographer" as an apt definition for exactly what Klinghoffer, Luskin, Sternberg and their fellow DI IDiots do for a living.) The only time Steve has acted with some restraint is over at HuffPo, merely as a "cricket" to warn James Shapiro that I'm realy BAAAAAD, but in a surprisingly polite way.

John said:

John said:

DS said: Is he actually trying to discuss science there, or is he just doing his chimp imitation, throwing feces and calling everyone a poo poo head? I don't think that Carl is going to be as tolerant of his shenanigans as they are here. I guess, when you don't understand science, won't learn any science and can't discuss any science, the only thing you have left is to be an obnoxious ass and try to defend other lying charlatans who don't understand science any better than you do. Oh, and then call everybody a meanie for pointing out that you haven't got a clue. Of course Stevie Pee Pee could just answer the questions. Even simple yes/no answers would do. But then I guess everyone would see that he knows nothing. Why these guys think that ignorance is a convincing argument I'll never know.

It's actually his chimp imitation. Carl has been overly generous to bz and several others for posting what should be BW comments IMHO. (Carl has deleted a couple of mine when he thought I crossed over the line, and he refuses to allow me to use the term "mendacious intellectual pornographer" as an apt definition for exactly what Klinghoffer, Luskin, Sternberg and their fellow DI IDiots do for a living.) The only time Steve has acted with some restraint is over at HuffPo, merely as a "cricket" to warn James Shapiro that I'm realy BAAAAAD, but in a surprisingly polite way.

Speaking of Stevie Pee, where the heck is he? Stunned perhaps that I've exposed him as Steve Proulx?

John said: Bingo, there's a Steve Proulx in Taiwan who is a marketing director for a textile firm: http://tw.linkedin.com/pub/steve-proulx/29/90a/879 I think it's quite probable that Stevie Pee IS Steve Proulx.

dalehusband said:

John said: Bingo, there's a Steve Proulx in Taiwan who is a marketing director for a textile firm: http://tw.linkedin.com/pub/steve-proulx/29/90a/879 I think it's quite probable that Stevie Pee IS Steve Proulx.

Good work, John (Kwok, I assume)! I wonder if we should contact his employer and tell them what he does in his spare time? It would certainly be embarrassing for them to know it! I will not publish the specific information about the company here for fear of violating the rules of this forum, but I will make it available to others who ask, including you.