Troy Britain smacks Casey Luskin

Gerbil misuses his sources?

You'd almost think he was a member of the DI or something.

Glen Davidson

But did he define birds as a separate kind? :p

Sounds like Luskin has the makings of a good(?) lawyer, no? And that period versus the comma trick always comes up when he, and they, try to quote Darwin and the both sides argument.

Luskin doctors a quotation by replacing a comma with a period,..

— Richard B. Hoppe

OT: Talking Points Memo has an article up on the Texas BOE battles that should be of interest to everyone here.

Surprise, surprise, comments are open on Casey's analysis! I dropped a gentle suggestion for a reply to criticism. We'll see if it appears (doubt it) and if Luskin has the little Gerbil balls to reply (also doubt it).

The most interesting thing for me is that they found definitive, unambiguous evidence for a bushy-tailed dinosaur not closely related to the avian dinosaurs, and the inference that most any dinosaur line may have had fuzz or bristly feathers.

And, of course, they named the genus after squirrels.

All connections between creatures is based on agreed, or not, anatomical indicators for heritage and relationship.
In short, educated guessing.

I don't agree there is any reason to see any connection between very unlike creatures commonly called dinosaurs.
There are just kinds.
I don't think there are reptiles or mammals either.
These are man made connections based on the points of like details in unlike creatures.

Dinosaurs were first thought strange new creatures of variety and size and reptile.
There is no reason to say they are reptiles or cold blooded and anyways again its just making biological connections based on a premise of connections being indicated by like details.
A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.
they are just kinds of creatures with like details for like needs in minor ways.
Laying eggs don't identify you any more then it does today with snakes or lizards.

Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now.
if he reclassify's dino's then good.
Yet the whole classification system is wrong because the presumptions were never proven but just presumed.

I don’t think

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Robert Byers said: Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Robert Byers said: Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now.

The most astonishing sentence I've ever seen around here.

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods. Gawd, this is good stuff. Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods. Gawd, this is good stuff. Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

DS said:

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods. Gawd, this is good stuff. Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Way to address the scientific issues, asshole.

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods. Gawd, this is good stuff. Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

How many people beside me think that Steve P. wasn't even aware or either the Luskin article, or the Troy Britain article, until he saw this post, hasn't read either, and couldn't understand either if he did read them?

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP? What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?

Robeert Byers:

You're more honest and less snotty that SteveP. Maybe you can help me by answering these:

If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?

What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable?

What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up?

What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result?

In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Luskin has responded to one of the issues I noted. I'll work on a counter-response when I can.

Troy - thanks for the update.

For folks who don't want to go to the link - Casey's response is to say that he omitted a reference to Caudipteryx because (i) he wasn't comparing the new find to C., but to the other dinosaurs mentioned in the excerpt, and (ii) because C. isn't (in his opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

What a howler. I wonder if it occurred to Casey, as he was writing his response, that he just asserted that an early form of bird had a combination of dinofuzz and true feathers.

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

harold said:

SteveP. said: Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain's done is slap himself silly with a non-take down. Its rhetorical turtles all the way down. Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods. Gawd, this is good stuff. Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said: Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light! BTW, you obviously didn't bother to read Troy Britain's flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Please answer ALL questions or none at all. 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?

harold said: That is a somewhat of a coincidence; in other societies, evolution denial has been associated with communist dictatorship.

Apparently, it was my comment that prompted Luskin to update his post and correct the doctored quote. (Or perhaps mine was just the least objectionable!)

Unfortunately, Casey's response completely missed the point. Originally, I accused Casey of dishonesty in his decision to omit Caudipteryx from the doctored quote. Now it appears that he did so because he truly doesn't understand the evidence. I am reminded of Hanlon's razor.

apokryltaros said:

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Do

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Do remember that Robert Byers is a Compulsive Liar For Jesus who is utterly determined to come up with any statement, no matter how inane, or how false, in order to magically convince us that Evolution is wrong. He does not give a literal damn that his statements make him look like a brain-damaged idiot in the process. Other than as fodder to whine at us about, because we won't take his inanity seriously.

Just for the record, SteveP has used his one comment per thread quota. While I'm not online constantly, as I see more I'll dump them to the BW, so please don't respond to him any more. Thanks!

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His "opinion" isn't worth squat.

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His "opinion" isn't worth squat.

Joe Felsenstein said: Just a quibble and a question:

harold said: That is a somewhat of a coincidence; in other societies, evolution denial has been associated with communist dictatorship.

I have heard people say this, but do not know of a good example. Of course there was bizarre denial of genetics in Russia in the form of Lysenkoism, and in its subject states and in China. And at the end Lysenko was moving toward denial of evolution itself. But generally there was not denial of evolution in the Soviet system or in China (as evolution had the explicit backing of Marx and Engels). People who grew up in those states will tell you they were taught in school about evolution. I don't know about North Korea, but exactly where were these societies in which there was this denial of evolution?

Thanks for the clarification, harold.

I was just trying to imagine what Soviet creationism would have looked like. Maybe like this:

"And zen, comrades, efter he is finish creating plants, ze great Stalin is creating enimals! Glory to Stalin!"

No, as crazy as that system was, that one won't work.

Harold and Joe,

While Lysenko held that evolution occurred, it was a broken caricature of evolution not unlike the way creationists like to accept "micro-evolution" while denying "macro-evolution." Of course, there are huge differences between Lysenko's politically-motivated quasi-Lamarkism and creationism's religiously-motivated claptrap, but for my own part I don't think it's a big stretch to call Lysenkoism anti-evolutionary, especially when one reads Lysenko's tirades against neo-Darwinism and "Morganist metaphysics" as a "foreign reactionary biology hostile to us."

Chris Lawson said: Harold and Joe, While Lysenko held that evolution occurred, it was a broken caricature of evolution not unlike the way creationists like to accept "micro-evolution" while denying "macro-evolution." Of course, there are huge differences between Lysenko's politically-motivated quasi-Lamarkism and creationism's religiously-motivated claptrap, but for my own part I don't think it's a big stretch to call Lysenkoism anti-evolutionary, especially when one reads Lysenko's tirades against neo-Darwinism and "Morganist metaphysics" as a "foreign reactionary biology hostile to us."

I'm only guessing but wouldn't be surprised if I was not too far off target: As long as Lysenko was protected under the wings of Stalin, promising bumper crops, a heretic probably would be facing a Gulag future. Or something along those lines. But it doesn't matter anymore - we have a much closer and bigger problem.

harold said: Most of the major science denial movements of the US (creationism, AGW denial, HIV denial, and cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, even vaccine denial) happen to be bundled into an ideology that also advocates extreme right wing economics and constant war...

Joe, I was not saying that Lysenko was a creationist, but that he was his own kind of anti-evolutionist. The fact that he did not criticise Charles Darwin doesn't change the fact that he fought tooth and nail against the scientific evidence for evolution in order to support his own pseudoscience. And in terms of Special Creation, his work is full of examples...the difference is that he doesn't attribute Special Creation to god or gods, but to himself and his scientific underlings. You can't read Lysenko for more than 5 pages without stumbling across an example of him or his colleagues creating some fantastic new variety of tomato or wheat by magical means. Of course, he doesn't call it magic but that's what it was...and it never seemed to be replicable in independent laboratories or helpful when put into agricultural practice.

And, yes, it is a semantic argument, but I'm explaining why I think it's reasonable to call Lysenko an anti-evolutionist despite him supporting the party line on pre-Mendelian Darwinism. You can disagree, but please don't conflate this with calling Lysenko a creationist. To me it's the same as calling homeopathy anti-chemistry even though homeopaths don't openly deny the existence of molecules.

Chris Lawson said: And, yes, it is a semantic argument, but I'm explaining why I think it's reasonable to call Lysenko an anti-evolutionist despite him supporting the party line on pre-Mendelian Darwinism. You can disagree, but please don't conflate this with calling Lysenko a creationist. To me it's the same as calling homeopathy anti-chemistry even though homeopaths don't openly deny the existence of molecules.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: Most of the major science denial movements of the US (creationism, AGW denial, HIV denial, and cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, even vaccine denial) happen to be bundled into an ideology that also advocates extreme right wing economics and constant war...

I am old enough to remember the Sputnik Surprise which reinvigorated science education in the US in 1957. An ideology which dumbs down science (and expresses a wish to destroy the public school system) seems diametrically opposite to "an ideology that also advocates...constant war...," as the quality of the cannon fodder draftees would decrease.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Chris Lawson said: And, yes, it is a semantic argument, but I'm explaining why I think it's reasonable to call Lysenko an anti-evolutionist despite him supporting the party line on pre-Mendelian Darwinism. You can disagree, but please don't conflate this with calling Lysenko a creationist. To me it's the same as calling homeopathy anti-chemistry even though homeopaths don't openly deny the existence of molecules.

I believe that the original issue that harold and I discussed was whether the Soviet system was creationist, not specifically the thinking of Lysenko. He was certainly anti-rational. But the fact remains that generations of Soviet school children were taught that evolution had in fact happened, and look at the marvelous dinosaurs and mammoths that our glorious Soviet paleontologists have found, and this shows there is a grand law of progress in nature, leading to the evolution of humans, just like the grand laws of progress and change in human society, leading to the glorious deeds of our dear Comrade Stalin. For all of the silliness (and noxiousness) that this involved, I am struck by how far ahead it is of the kinds of creationism that we are facing here. I believe that the Russian Orthodox Church is pressuring the current Russian school system to back away from the straightforward explanation of evolution, which they inherited from the old Soviet curriculum as updated and improved after the fall of Lysenko. And Russia may in fact give in to this pressure and go backwards.

I’m going to note that science denial often has completely non-religious motivations. AGW denial...

harold said: I'm perfectly willing to concede that Lysenkoism wasn't "as bad as" contemporary creationism in its claims (to date, it was far worse in its impact on those who resisted it).

One is reminded of Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who saw no compelling need to protect National Forests and the like--since we were clearly in the End Times.

Chris Lawson said: While Lysenko held that evolution occurred, it was a broken caricature of evolution not unlike the way creationists like to accept "micro-evolution" while denying "macro-evolution."

Pathetic Luskin has changed his tune in light of obviously correct criticism of his lying, quote-mining dreck and the little boy seems to be disturbed by "criticism" and "nasty" comments. I suspect the now thin-skinned Attack Gerbil of the Dishonesty Tute is complaining about people calling him a liar for his lies. Widdle baby Luskin is getting cwanky in his old age.

However, he did update his comment and tried to deflect his obvious misinformation into a "clarification." I'm glad he clarified that he's not merely a pathetic liar but an ordinary liar. Must be tough for old thin-skinned Luskin to actually open up comments on a blog and then deal with what actually comes in. I guess if you lie and people comment that "You lied!" and you're sensitive to that kind of criticism that, well, maybe you should post from a site that doesn't as a rule allow comments. Oh, my bad, you do!

Thanks for the entertainment, Gerb, can't wait for your next misrepresentation!

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His "opinion" isn't worth squat.

Thanks to Lysenko, Stalin purged the Russian academic field of evolutionists, sent them to Siberia he did if he didn't outright kill 'em. Lysenko then was free to destroy the Soviet agricultural program, which Kruschev paid dearly for, as well as the field of biology and evolutionary studies.

Just Bob said: Robeert Byers: You're more honest and less snotty that SteveP. Maybe you can help me by answering these: If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP? What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?

Robert Byers prattled: I see biological abilities must be behind the changes in biology and not slow ponderous evolution.

This off thread from dinosaurs however. Don't blame me.

DavidK said:

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His "opinion" isn't worth squat.

Luskin is hardly a geologist, despite his claims. Yes, he got an M.S. in geology, but that does not make him a geologist. Like a good creationist, he got a degree then morphed into his creationist schtick.

Robert Byers said: I am sure that biology and geology better done by correction on origin issues would...

Scott F said:

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

One of these things is not like the other... Seriously, Robert. Even Big Bird was able to figure this one out. I know what he's trying to say here. But, because of the comments made over the past few days, I'm convinced now that Robert is a Poe. Even Big Bird and Elmo are smarter than this. Even a crow can tell the difference between a reptile and a banana. (Though I'm not convinced that a pigeon could.) No semi-sentient being could possibly be this clueless. At this point, Robert is going beyond Poe-ness and is just plumbing the depths of our credulity. I salute you, sir. You have put on a great show until now.

So, Bobby, why ISN'T there a laboratory of creationist ophthalmology daily finding new creation-inspired cures for your eye problems? If creationists are MORE CAPABLE of doing things like that than 'evolutionist' scientists--WHY AREN'T THEY?

Seems to me like they must be REFUSING to apply their creationary brilliance and insights to finding those wonderful cures. WHY? Are they punishing us all for not being creationists? If so, they're also punishing YOU and THEMSELVES.

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers prattled: I see biological abilities must be behind the changes in biology and not slow ponderous evolution.

Then why do you think cows were able to magically hyperevolve into whales within a century of escaping the Ark? Are you aware that this makes you a hypocrite on top of being a liar?

This off thread from dinosaurs however. Don't blame me.

Then show us proof that a t-rex is no more related to a triceratops than to a banana. Or, am I asking too much for you to support your own Bullshit for Jesus?

Robert Byers said: Puppets can be as wrong as anyone! I'm saying the old classification systems are wrong. They were based on ideas of drawing connections because of details shared between different creatures. So egg laying made everyone a bird or reptile. Yet egg laying is just a useful thing that "dinos' or birds or some reptiles equally use. Yet its not to be seen as a trait from common origins or not demanding logically. Dinos never existed but simply the fossils are of creatures with some like features for good reasons in the world they lived in. So a t-rex is unrelated to a triceratops . No relation at all I say. There are only kinds from creation week and no need or evidence for bigger divisions. They are man made things that confuse everything. Any connections made are from contentions of how to group things based on a bigger error that groupings are rightly made on details of like features of minor things. Totally different creatures then are grouped together because of these details. This error also lead to the error of seeing marsupials as different creatures from placentals despite bang on looking alike. The more analysis they do the more confusing it becomes because of the wrong presumptions.

Robert Byers said: Puppets can be as wrong as anyone!

DavidK said: Thanks to Lysenko, Stalin purged the Russian academic field of evolutionists, sent them to Siberia he did if he didn't outright kill 'em. Lysenko then was free to destroy the Soviet agricultural program, which Kruschev paid dearly for, as well as the field of biology and evolutionary studies.

If you believe, as Byers does (if he's not a Poe) that the Bible cannot be in error about anything, and that everything in it that is not specifically tagged as fiction is absolute fact, and, further, that an omnipotent God can do and has done everything and anything necessary for this to be true, then the rest follows.

Yes, I know that's ridiculous. But that means that the sun did indeed stop in the sky for Joshua, which meant that the Earth stopped rotating, and God suspended any and all physical laws necessary to accomplish that - and nobody except the victorious Hebrews noticed, because God didn't let them. The whales hyperevolved from hoofed animals. Bears walked to Australia, mutated into koalas and learned to eat only eucalyptus leaves. There were eight people alive about 2400 BCE, and the dating of the pyramids and Ur and early dynasty China and India is simply mistaken. Anything and everything that humans think about the past that contradicts the Bible's account must be wrong, by definition. Thus, as Byers repeats and repeats until it makes you want to throttle him, we can't know about "origins", except what it says in the Bible.

God can make whatever miracles he needs. God can do whatever he wants. It happened according to God's will, and just because it looks different to us doesn't mean a thing, because we can be in error and the Bible can't be, because the Bible is God's word.

It's no good attempting to counteract this attitude by pointing out its ridiculous incompatibility with observed fact or natural law. It has already answered such objections. The only point of attack is what it says about God. It says he is a racist, genocidal, whimsically insane liar, a sort of cosmic Joker with infinite power, as irrational as he is uncaring.

It truly shocks me that anyone can believe that, and even more, having believed it, to believe that such a thing should be worshipped.

Dave Luckett said: Yes, I know that's ridiculous. But that means that the sun did indeed stop in the sky for Joshua, which meant that the Earth stopped rotating, .....

Joe Felsenstein said:

harold said: I'm perfectly willing to concede that Lysenkoism wasn't "as bad as" contemporary creationism in its claims (to date, it was far worse in its impact on those who resisted it).

I didn't mean to get into the "as bad as" issue with regard to Lysenkoism. It was very bad. My point was only that in regard to common descent, the old Soviet system was way ahead of present-day U.S. creationists. Soviet school children were not taught Special Creation.

Scott F said: Besides, Robert can be quite entertaining, when you don't have to take him seriously any more. You push a button, and out comes more incoherent silliness.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Recall that Casey has an MS in earth science, and is second author on just one publication, a paper that was first-authored by his advisor. See here for more on a Scripps MS as a consolation prize.

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: Caudipteryx...isn't (in (Luskin's) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His "opinion" isn't worth squat.

Meanwhile, back at Evo Whine and Snooze, attack gerbil Luskin is defending himself fiercely in a game of Paper Pong!

Luskin smacks with an out-of-date paper from 2000 and is informed that it is out-of-date.

"Don't care! Don't care!" Luskin squeaks, "Published paper! Published paper! Authorities!"

But the best line is this one which is Luskin at his very, very best. Behold in bold:

And what if a fossil has both dino-fuzz and true feathers? Does that imply some that the two structures are related? Without the a priori assumption of evolution, why should it?

Indeed, little gerb! Touche!

Puppets can be as wrong as anyone! I’m saying the old classification systems are correct and they are consistent with modern genetic analysis. They were based on ideas of drawing connections because of details shared between different creatures. So egg laying made everyone a bird or reptile. And egg laying is just a useful thing that “dinos’ or birds or some reptiles equally use. Its seen as a trait from common origins or not demanding logically.

Dinos existed and left the fossils that are of creatures with some like features for good reasons in the world they lived in. So a t-rex is related to a triceratops . Perfect relation i say. There are no kinds from creation week and lots of need and evidence for bigger divisions. They are man made things that explain everything.

Any connections made are from contentions of how to group things based on a bigger error that groupings are rightly made on details of like features of minor things. Apparently totally different creatures then are grouped together because of these details which are called synapomorphies. This also lead to seeing marsupials as different creatures from placentals despite bang on looking alike. The more analysis they do the more confusing it becomes because of the wrong presumptions, that why creationist don;t do any analysis at all.

I guess robert couldnt stay up late enough for his usual late night drive by must have been past his bed time

Joe, I didn't mean to imply that Soviet schools taught anything like creationism, just that Lysenko created his own Stalin-approved brand of anti-evolutionary claptrap. Sorry if my words came across that way.

Doc Bill said: Meanwhile, back at Evo Whine and Snooze, attack gerbil Luskin is defending himself fiercely in a game of Paper Pong! Luskin smacks with an out-of-date paper from 2000 and is informed that it is out-of-date. "Don't care! Don't care!" Luskin squeaks, "Published paper! Published paper! Authorities!" But the best line is this one which is Luskin at his very, very best. Behold in bold: And what if a fossil has both dino-fuzz and true feathers? Does that imply some that the two structures are related? Without the a priori assumption of evolution, why should it? Indeed, little gerb! Touche!

Casey is trying to refute the notion that this dinosaur has intermediate, bird-like features - just as evolution would predict. So he suggests the alternative hypothesis that its a bird with intermediate, dinosaur-like features. I find that quite amusing.

And what if a fossil has both dino-fuzz and true feathers? Does that imply some that the two structures are not related? Without the a priori assumption of creation, why should it?

Doc Bill said: ... But the best line is this one which is Luskin at his very, very best. Behold in bold: And what if a fossil has both dino-fuzz and true feathers? Does that imply some that the two structures are related? Without the a priori assumption of evolution, why should it? ...

I have a feeling that Luskin is cribbing from David Tyler.

It’s important to recognize something. The high quality rebuttals of Luskin, including here, are being done by people who volunteer their efforts. We live in a society in which Luskin is getting a generous salary to do what he does.

A critical point that Luskin illustrates is the “anything to contradict evolution strategy”. I hope everyone notices that. All he is doing is throwing up extremely feeble objections to obvious evidence of evolution in certain particular dinosaur lineages. He proposes no alternatives, and even if we knew nothing about any of the dinosaurs he discusses, the theory of evolution would be more or less just as strongly supported. Everyone who cares about this, please understand this. Creationists are not interested in honestly advocating some well-developed, testable alternative to evolution. Anything that “hurts evolution”, and more broadly, public school science education, is good enough for them.

It's unfortunate, but alas instructive, that certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks... we ARE serious about enforcing the rules of civility. Vigorous presentation of scientific evidence and arguments are welcome. Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies) are not appropriate. I've allowed some of your recent posts because they do make some substantive arguments, which are welcome here. But they also contain comments that are basically false personal attacks. I would like to make clear that if you continue to include the uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

...certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks. ...Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies)...false personal attacks... uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate. [David Klinghoffer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/when_you_cant_a061271.html]

There is something deeply dishonest about this. Can their [Coyne and Garwood's] readers and their students really be so foolish as to fail to understand that they are being hoodwinked? ...Stop trawling the Internet for silly stuff from Pakistan or Turkey, when you've got a very different and serious intellectual and scientific challenge waiting outside your front door. We've talked about academic bullies...the David Coppedge affair... the other face of bullying for Darwin: the refusal to pick on someone your own size even as you go around beating up on "creationists"... [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwins_cowards_1059851.html]

Troy Britain said:

It’s important to recognize something. The high quality rebuttals of Luskin, including here, are being done by people who volunteer their efforts. We live in a society in which Luskin is getting a generous salary to do what he does.

Indeed. There's not much justice in the fact that Luskin is living comfortably spewing his nonsense working to make people ignorant, while I am underemployed (very lately) and living in a house that is in foreclosure. Hell, the way things are going I am going to be struggling to pay for internet access pretty soon.

A critical point that Luskin illustrates is the “anything to contradict evolution strategy”. I hope everyone notices that. All he is doing is throwing up extremely feeble objections to obvious evidence of evolution in certain particular dinosaur lineages. He proposes no alternatives, and even if we knew nothing about any of the dinosaurs he discusses, the theory of evolution would be more or less just as strongly supported. Everyone who cares about this, please understand this. Creationists are not interested in honestly advocating some well-developed, testable alternative to evolution. Anything that “hurts evolution”, and more broadly, public school science education, is good enough for them.

Hear, hear!

diogeneslamp0 said: I was posting over at ENV, pounding on Casey's nonsense with detailed information on feathered dinosaurs. Here is the fantastically arrogant and hypocritical response from John G. West.

It's unfortunate, but alas instructive, that certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks... we ARE serious about enforcing the rules of civility. Vigorous presentation of scientific evidence and arguments are welcome. Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies) are not appropriate. I've allowed some of your recent posts because they do make some substantive arguments, which are welcome here. But they also contain comments that are basically false personal attacks. I would like to make clear that if you continue to include the uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

Let's review what I did that was so bad.

...certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks. ...Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies)...false personal attacks... uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

Now this is from ENV, a blog where David "Darwinists are Nazis" Klinghoffer recently wrote:

So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate. [David Klinghoffer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/when_you_cant_a061271.html]

And another recent post by David "Darwinists are Nazis" Klinghoffer is subtly titled "Darwin's Cowards", illustrated with a photo of a mouse hiding in a log. Attacking Coyne and Garwood:

There is something deeply dishonest about this. Can their [Coyne and Garwood's] readers and their students really be so foolish as to fail to understand that they are being hoodwinked? ...Stop trawling the Internet for silly stuff from Pakistan or Turkey, when you've got a very different and serious intellectual and scientific challenge waiting outside your front door. We've talked about academic bullies...the David Coppedge affair... the other face of bullying for Darwin: the refusal to pick on someone your own size even as you go around beating up on "creationists"... [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwins_cowards_1059851.html]

So far as I know, comments have never been enabled for any post by David "Darwinists are Nazis" Klinghoffer. What courage! What manliness! What honesty!

harold said:...assuming prior possession of a bachelor’s degree or higher in a biomedical or biomedical-related science that covered pre-requisites...

Troy Britain said:

harold said:...assuming prior possession of a bachelor’s degree or higher in a biomedical or biomedical-related science that covered pre-requisites...

Thanks for the suggestion, unfortunately in my case that assumes too much, as I have only a high school diploma and a couple of Jr. college classes under my belt. I am a long time small printing press operator and thus on paper (get it?) am only a semi-skilled laborer (my twenty years of CvE wars experience not withstanding). That is to say, I am in the unenviable position of having many of my blog articles complimented by and linked by actual scientists and science educators but lacking any letters myself am unable to gain employment as either of those (or much of anything else beyond ditch digging). But enough of the pity-party for me...

Robert Byers said: i think coming from a stance of a creator with a single idea or equation for sight would better bring sight healing THEN a evolutionary idea of randomness acting over millions years and creating eye types and concepts without number. [...] This off thread from dinosaurs however. Don't blame me.

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: i think coming from a stance of a creator with a single idea or equation for sight would better bring sight healing THEN a evolutionary idea of randomness acting over millions years and creating eye types and concepts without number. [...] This off thread from dinosaurs however. Don't blame me.

Well: I think this is an exceedingly interesting comment, and far less off topic that it may appear at first glance. One can see hints of two very powerful myths in those lines from Byers, and I wonder how much of the behavior usually interpreted as "malevolence" on the part of creationists is actually a side effect of those myths. Of course, this consideration does not apply to stances of not-so-randomly mutated punctuation marks. The first myth is the well known Plato's allegory of the cave: what we perceive as factual reality is but a shadow of the actual, spiritual, world. Besides, there are "true ideas" that are the essence of things: "the idea of the tree" in Plato or "a single idea of sight" for Byers, or again the "archetypal dinosaur" for Luskin; feathers and fluff in different lineages of organisms are not a consequence of common descent, but simply different shadows of the same true, ethereal, essential idea of dinosaur. The second myth at work here is the 19th century mechanistic view of the world. So we have nothing less than an "equation of sight" (other that the lensmaker's formula, that is) that describes "with numbers" the very idea of sight. The preconception that every aspect of reality can be described through some sort of equation that admit a limited set of solutions is probably at the root of the very resistance to the concept of "the evolutionary idea of randomness". Ironically, both this myths have long been exposed and nobody, in the scientific community, any longer accepts the world views those ideas imply. Yet, these ideas have a strong connection to authoritarianism and ID is linked to an authoritarian world view as well, as others noted in previous comments. And please: do not object that it can not be so because Plato wrote about the cave in his "The Republic"...

SteveP. said: Now I understand why you didn't answer Luskin directly at ENV when you had the chance. Its not that you didn't have the balls. You didn't have the letters! That is a tough spot to be in. sorry for your light luggage.

Troy Britain said:

harold said:...assuming prior possession of a bachelor’s degree or higher in a biomedical or biomedical-related science that covered pre-requisites...

Thanks for the suggestion, unfortunately in my case that assumes too much, as I have only a high school diploma and a couple of Jr. college classes under my belt. I am a long time small printing press operator and thus on paper (get it?) am only a semi-skilled laborer (my twenty years of CvE wars experience not withstanding). That is to say, I am in the unenviable position of having many of my blog articles complimented by and linked by actual scientists and science educators but lacking any letters myself am unable to gain employment as either of those (or much of anything else beyond ditch digging). But enough of the pity-party for me...

Also, why do you avoid pointing out what Troy Britain allegedly got wrong in his criticism of Casey Luskin's inane anti-evolution essay?

Your accusation that Troy Britain lacked testicles makes you look maliciously petty.

Robert Byers said: this is why so few so easily and quickly discovered the laws of physics. Newton /Einstein.

apokryltaros said: Also, why do you avoid pointing out what Troy Britain allegedly got wrong in his criticism of Casey Luskin's inane anti-evolution essay? Your accusation that Troy Britain lacked testicles makes you look maliciously petty.

Troy Britain said:

harold said:...assuming prior possession of a bachelor’s degree or higher in a biomedical or biomedical-related science that covered pre-requisites...

Thanks for the suggestion, unfortunately in my case that assumes too much, as I have only a high school diploma and a couple of Jr. college classes under my belt. I am a long time small printing press operator and thus on paper (get it?) am only a semi-skilled laborer (my twenty years of CvE wars experience not withstanding). That is to say, I am in the unenviable position of having many of my blog articles complimented by and linked by actual scientists and science educators but lacking any letters myself am unable to gain employment as either of those (or much of anything else beyond ditch digging). But enough of the pity-party for me...

Troy Britain said:

SteveP. said: Now I understand why you didn't answer Luskin directly at ENV when you had the chance. Its not that you didn't have the balls. You didn't have the letters!

Sorry, I don't follow. I saw what Luskin wrote and thought that it would make a good thing to blog about, so I did. That's what bloggers do. Where do balls or letters, or a lack of either come into it?

apokryltaros said:

Troy Britain said:

SteveP. said: Now I understand why you didn't answer Luskin directly at ENV when you had the chance. Its not that you didn't have the balls. You didn't have the letters!

Sorry, I don't follow. I saw what Luskin wrote and thought that it would make a good thing to blog about, so I did. That's what bloggers do. Where do balls or letters, or a lack of either come into it?

SteveP is verbally attacking you because he thinks you missed an opportunity to directly attack Luskin in a debate, nevermind that the majority of professional Intelligent Design proponents scrupulously and unscrupulously avoid any and all opportunities for fair debates. That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda's Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

apokryltaros said: That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda's Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

Troy Britain said:

apokryltaros said: That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda's Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

Yeah, I figured as much...