Musings from the mind of a mouse

Thanks Casey for once again proving that you are either a dishonest charlatan or an ignorant know nothing science wanna be, or both.

Once again, exaptation proves to be a major evolutionary mechanism. Once again, the evolution of a new function for an existing sequence is uncovered. Once again cladistics and parsimony provide a consistent phylogenetic perspective. Once again, GODDIDIT fails completely to explain the pattern seen in nature.

Don't you just love the age of comparative genomics?

"He could get into a running gun battle with a mob from Answers in Genesis, be riddled with bullets, and he'll just point to a nick in his ear and say, "Yeah, so? This one didn't kill me!" and then dismiss all the other wounds because they're so common that no one should care any more. It is truly the logic of immortals."

“He could get into a running gun battle with a mob from Answers in Genesis, be riddled with bullets, and he’ll just point to a nick in his ear and say, “Yeah, so? This one didn’t kill me!” and then dismiss all the other wounds because they’re so common that no one should care any more. It is truly the logic of immortals.”

Tirade?

You mean that squeaking?

Glen Davidson

Paul Burnett said:

“He could get into a running gun battle with a mob from Answers in Genesis, be riddled with bullets, and he’ll just point to a nick in his ear and say, “Yeah, so? This one didn’t kill me!” and then dismiss all the other wounds because they’re so common that no one should care any more. It is truly the logic of immortals.”

"'Tis but a scratch... It's just a flesh wound!" (The Black Knight, Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

The public spokesman for the Discovery Institute has a law degree and a Masters degree (in Science! Earth Science, that is) and thinks he is qualified to analyze papers in genetics and molecular biology, fields in which he hasn't the slightest smattering of background, and he keeps falling flat on his face. It's hilarious!

If Luskin doesn't know what he's talking about, then why don't his comrades-in-arms come to his aid, e.g., Sternberg, Behe, Witt, Wells, Meyer, et. al and correct his errors, show him where he's wrong? Oh, wait, they're all stupid, sorry.

Aside: I still recall when Luskin posted his class notes from college to try to prove that he actually attended class!

Paul Burnett said:

“He could get into a running gun battle with a mob from Answers in Genesis, be riddled with bullets, and he’ll just point to a nick in his ear and say, “Yeah, so? This one didn’t kill me!” and then dismiss all the other wounds because they’re so common that no one should care any more. It is truly the logic of immortals.”

"'Tis but a scratch... It's just a flesh wound!" (The Black Knight, Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

And before Fearless Fosdick there was the father of them all, Dr. Pangloss.

Hey! The image in that cladogram bears a strong resemblance to Luskin. Do you see it? It's the one below and to the right of the Homo sapiens.

Mr Luskin is famous and a great asset to all of creationismdom because he does a great job of analysis of evolutionary biology.
Mr Myers says he is not knowledgable in biological fields because he just got a degree in earthy sciences.
First let this rule RULE in all origin discussions. How many times are creationists told scientists, in their billions, agree with evolution and that should persuade the rest of us!
Indeed evolutionists should only score actual researchers/degree holders when asserting authority.

Yet independent people can study these things too.
Mr Luskin is a intelligent man and so easily can understand the principals here of biological evolutionary claims.
These are weighty subjects.
lets all play by the same rules.

Go play somewhere else Robert. Leave the science to the professionals. Let this rule RULE.

Robert Byers said: Mr Luskin is famous and a great asset to all of creationismdom because he does a great job of analysis of evolutionary biology. Mr Myers says he is not knowledgable in biological fields because he just got a degree in earthy sciences. First let this rule RULE in all origin discussions. How many times are creationists told scientists, in their billions, agree with evolution and that should persuade the rest of us! Indeed evolutionists should only score actual researchers/degree holders when asserting authority. Yet independent people can study these things too. Mr Luskin is a intelligent man and so easily can understand the principals here of biological evolutionary claims. These are weighty subjects. lets all play by the same rules.

Byers wrote: Mr Luskin is famous and a great asset to all of creationismdom because he does a great job of analysis of evolutionary biology.

Think, P.Z., think!!! "Cooption" and "switches" are intelligent tools. Darwinism doesn't switch anything on and off and it doesn't coopt anything. It can't. It possesses no 'abilities'. It has no goals. Mutations are random in relation to function, remember? (tell that to those starving lizards).

Darwinism is all about performing a self-lobotomy. It only works when you stop thinking. Only Darwinism can speak from both sides of its mouth, at once denying intelligence yet in the same breath, utilizes intelligent concepts to get the job done.

Evolution coopted? Evolution switches hox genes on and off? Well, I'll be damned. Evolution is intelligent after all!!!!

P.Z., it's a brave new world where intelligence is not about having a brain stem. Could you possibly wrap your intelligence around that idea?

Steve P. said: Darwinism is all about performing a self-lobotomy. It only works when you stop thinking. Only Darwinism can speak from both sides of its mouth, at once denying intelligence yet in the same breath, utilizes intelligent concepts to get the job done.

RPST said:

Steve P. said: Darwinism is all about performing a self-lobotomy. It only works when you stop thinking. Only Darwinism can speak from both sides of its mouth, at once denying intelligence yet in the same breath, utilizes intelligent concepts to get the job done.

And yet Net contribution of creationism to science = 0 Net contribution of intelligent design to science = 0 Net contribution of goddidit to curing disease, increasing crop yields, inventing the internet, reaching the moon, finding the higgs boson, developing the iphone, reducing emissions from automobiles, or explaining why the sky is blue = 0

I'm currently marking Political Science essays from a group of my Chinese students; Robert, I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but I think they could be more persuasive in constructing a defense of creationism than you.

"because he just got a dgree in earthy sciences." Please see me!

"Please see me, so you too can spell 'degree'." Boy is my face red.

Stevie PP the mindless troll blurts a self refuting piece of crapulence:

"Think, P.Z., think!!! “Cooption” and “switches” are intelligent tools. Darwinism doesn’t switch anything on and off and it doesn’t coopt anything. It can’t. It possesses no ‘abilities’. It has no goals. Mutations are random in relation to function, remember? (tell that to those starving lizards)."

Think Stevie, think!!! INtelligence doesn't need to coopt anything, it can start from scratch. Only evolution is constrained to use what is already there.

How in the world can something that is "random" never switch anything on or off? If it's "random" this would have to happen some of the time. Indeed, the only way to avoid it would be for some "intelligence" to actively prevent this from happening. And of course you have no answer whatsoever for all of the observations that it actually has happened, such as cecal valves in lizards. You just close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout "intelligence" at the top of your lungs, all the while showing a distinct lack of intelligence yourself.

How about poker Stevie? Can you get a royal flush from the deal alone without having to draw any cards? What "intelligence" was involved in that? There is clear molecular evidence that the promoter was coopted by random mutation and took on a novel function. If you want to argue differently you will have to read the paper and come up with a better explanation for the evidence. And of course, as usual, you will have to explain why your "interpretation" is better than the one that the writers, reviewers and editors proposed and why an untrained science illiterate knows better. Until you do, your uninformed opinion is, as usual, completely worthless. Good luck.

Time for another dump to the bathroom wall. It's best to keep Stevie and Bobby isolated from decent society.

Robert, you are right, of course, that PZ is or would be mistaken, in so far as his (counter-)argument was or would be based on an argument from authority. And you are also right, naturally, that laymen can grasp the principles at issue here, and that Luskin's lack of a degree in evolutionary biology consitutes no grounds for a dismissal of his claims.
This argument from authority, however, insofar as one could claim that it was one, was not an essential element of PZ's discussion, it was merely a rhetorical introduction with a few fireworks, fit (or not) for a web discussion. It would serve your cause much better if you would substantially confront and refute PZ's arguments, showing them to be insufficient in the face of the available evidence and as compared with Luskin's argumentation. This is surely why you are confronted with the admitedly unfortunately crass reception here on the Thumb.

Think Stevie, think!!! INtelligence doesn't need to coopt anything, it can start from scratch. Only evolution is constrained to use what is already there.

RPST said: Net contribution of creationism to science = 0 Net contribution of intelligent design to science = 0 Net contribution of goddidit to curing disease, increasing crop yields, inventing the internet, reaching the moon, finding the higgs boson, developing the iphone, reducing emissions from automobiles, or explaining why the sky is blue = 0 Net scientific comprehension of Steve P. = 0

A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution.

Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

Les Lane said: A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution. Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

Why would people assume they know more than scientists?

From the standpoint of those of us who are fluent with at least some of the abstractions this is an obvious violation of common sense. From the standpoint of those who don't deal with abstractions they'll tell you right upfront (examples in this comment train) - scientists are ignoring common sense. There's a divide which can't be crossed w/o basic understanding of science.

Steve P. said: Think, P.Z., think!!! "Cooption" and "switches" are intelligent tools. Darwinism doesn't switch anything on and off and it doesn't coopt anything. It can't. It possesses no 'abilities'. It has no goals. Mutations are random in relation to function, remember? (tell that to those starving lizards). Darwinism is all about performing a self-lobotomy. It only works when you stop thinking. Only Darwinism can speak from both sides of its mouth, at once denying intelligence yet in the same breath, utilizes intelligent concepts to get the job done. Evolution coopted? Evolution switches hox genes on and off? Well, I'll be damned. Evolution is intelligent after all!!!! P.Z., it's a brave new world where intelligence is not about having a brain stem. Could you possibly wrap your intelligence around that idea?

Les Lane said: A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution. Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

And this bears repeating:

RPST said:

Net contribution of creationism to science = 0

Net contribution of intelligent design to science = 0

Net contribution of goddidit to curing disease, increasing crop yields, inventing the internet, reaching the moon, finding the higgs boson, developing the iphone, reducing emissions from automobiles, or explaining why the sky is blue = 0

I've said the same myself, but RPST's is beautifully concise. I might suggest a further equation:

Net POTENTIAL contribution of intelligent design to science (even if we accepted it) = 0.

I think we're dealing with stage 1 of the 4 stages of competence (otherwise known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.) At this stage of competence (prescientific outlook) one accepts what one's told (often negative knowledge) and is confident that other ideas are wrong.

Four Stages of Competence The Four Stages of Learning provides a model for learning. It suggests that individuals are initially unaware of how little they know, or unconscious of their incompetence. ... 1. Unconscious incompetence The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognise their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.

diogeneslamp0 said: Honestly, I don't want Byers to be banned or sent to the BW. He's golden. Byers says the things that creationists really think, but that most of them are too cunning and dishonest to say out loud. But Byers just blurts it out. Like Casey Luskin has spent eight years of his life whining, "ID is not creationism!" But Byers blurts out what creationists really know:

Byers wrote: Mr Luskin is famous and a great asset to all of creationismdom because he does a great job of analysis of evolutionary biology.

Golden. That stuff is worth a lot to our side. He's like a Zen master of creationists. He writes these little Zen koans of anti-science.

Les Lane said: Why would people assume they know more than scientists? From the standpoint of those of us who are fluent with at least some of the abstractions this is an obvious violation of common sense. From the standpoint of those who don't deal with abstractions they'll tell you right upfront (examples in this comment train) - scientists are ignoring common sense. There's a divide which can't be crossed w/o basic understanding of science.

Byers again demonstrates that he is pure gold for rationality. Anyone who has the persistence and reading skills required to extract meaning from his desperately incompetent prose cannot fail to be struck with the other qualities of his mind, or its take on reality.

"Anybody can learn these things and very quick."

No, they can't. I can't, for example. The realms that molecular biochemistry is travelling in today are simply beyond my capacity. If I had a kindly tutor, who would probably have to begin by repairing my mathematical blind spot, I might be able to learn the basics in a few years. But the difference between Byers and me is that I know this, while Byers is the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

But that very obliviousness to his own wretched incapacity is what makes Byers pure gold.

“Anybody can learn these things and very quick.”

Les Lane said: A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution. Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

Robert mumbled mindlessly:

"They just want a sterile investigation of nature that concludes there is a intelligent design and evolution is not accurate to some and maybe more degree."

I couldn't have said it better myself Robert. Of course you really don't realize what a scathing indictment of creationism this is do you? No you don't. More is the pity.

Robert Byers said:

Les Lane said: Why would people assume they know more than scientists? From the standpoint of those of us who are fluent with at least some of the abstractions this is an obvious violation of common sense. From the standpoint of those who don't deal with abstractions they'll tell you right upfront (examples in this comment train) - scientists are ignoring common sense. There's a divide which can't be crossed w/o basic understanding of science.

Oh no. All that is going on is human beings studying information or striving to discover new information and perhaps manipulate it for some gain for mankind. Anybody can learn these things and very quick. "scientists" are just people who did it as kids in their late teens and early twenties and got a degree saying they know this or that. There is no threshold difference between someone applying themselves at 43 to these matters. in fact they most likely would do better then kids who easily are not imaginative or over influenced by grown ups. I have never found any subject in science to be difficult for me or anyone to quickly understand. Just interest and time and information. Nope. you can't cry authority. Scientific theories must be made on the merits of the evidence. Anyone can understand the evidence and agree or disagree whether rightly or wrongly. I would add evolutionary biology is not just about the evidence but about a bigger failing. The methodology behind the claims for evidence. Creationists should be aiming at this and not just the poor merits of the evidence for evolution or any idea of a universe without the fingerprints all over the creation.

harold said:

Les Lane said: A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution. Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

I do strongly agree that creationists make the rhetorical claim that their ideas are common sensical. However. neither post-modern creationism in general nor the specific output of Luskin discussed here remotely resembles common sense. Common sense is basically a vlaid heuristic that often works. Post-modern ID/creationism is a politically motivated and deliberately obfuscating system of science denial, frequently at the expense of internal consistency. Those who embrace creationism actually abandon their common sense - among other things.

SLC said: I can't speak as to biology but in physics, the notion of applying common sense to the theories therein is not possible. Both quantum mechanics and relativity defy common sense and present results that are are totally at odds with common sense. Thus, issues such as the twin's paradox, quantum entanglement, the two slit conundrum, the quantum vacuum, etc. absolutely defy common sense.

harold said:

Les Lane said: A more basic misunderstanding than creationism is the idea that common sense is sufficient to understand science. Most modern scientific advances involve abstract concepts. Creationism employs "common sense" notions as substitutes for the abstractions required to fully grasp evolution. Those who rely on "common sense" are gullible to pseudoscientific ideas in general of which creationism is a specific example.

I do strongly agree that creationists make the rhetorical claim that their ideas are common sensical. However. neither post-modern creationism in general nor the specific output of Luskin discussed here remotely resembles common sense. Common sense is basically a vlaid heuristic that often works. Post-modern ID/creationism is a politically motivated and deliberately obfuscating system of science denial, frequently at the expense of internal consistency. Those who embrace creationism actually abandon their common sense - among other things.

While speaking of things not in accord with common sense, why not mention heliocentrism? How many people could make a good argument for the motion of the Earth?

And I'd also mention the mathematics of infinities.

Dave Luckett said: But that very obliviousness to his own wretched incapacity is what makes Byers pure gold.

Common sense is basically a vlaid heuristic that often works.

And I’d also mention the mathematics of infinities.

"He sneers at the fact that we keep finding conserved elements in the genome, because as we all know, there are lots of conserved elements."

The Nature article does indeed reports that much of the functional genome of the coelacanth has not changed, such that they an enhancer in the region regulating the HoxD cluster was found to be interchangeable with the mouse: "When tested in a transient transgenic assay in mouse, the coelacanth sequence of island 1 was able to drive reporter expression in a limb-specific pattern."

Robert Byers said: Mr Myers says [Luskin] is not knowledgable in biological fields because he just got a degree in earthy sciences.

Dave Luckett said: Byers again demonstrates that he is pure gold for rationality. Anyone who has the persistence and reading skills required to extract meaning from his desperately incompetent prose cannot fail to be struck with the other qualities of his mind, or its take on reality. "Anybody can learn these things and very quick." No, they can't. I can't, for example. The realms that molecular biochemistry is travelling in today are simply beyond my capacity. If I had a kindly tutor, who would probably have to begin by repairing my mathematical blind spot, I might be able to learn the basics in a few years. But the difference between Byers and me is that I know this, while Byers is the very epitome of Dunning-Kruger. But that very obliviousness to his own wretched incapacity is what makes Byers pure gold.

"The paper includes this diagram of the evolutionary relationships of various vertebrate species."

"Here's the original phylogeny from the Amemiya paper."

Jeebus, PZ. If you are going to tout yourself as an educator you should read the frigging paper so that you know what you are talking about, or at least read the figure legend. Figure 1 is NOT a phylogeny. It's the actual data from the sequence alignment in graphical form, not an interpretation or conclusion. The controversy is about the *interpretation* of the short length of the branch (*data*) corresponding to the coelacanth.

But hey, thanks for helping the creationist rubes lie and pretend the actual evidence is nothing more than interpretation. With friends like you we don't need enemies!

I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

Scott F said: And ID? The primary purpose to ID is to try to prove (in a sciency sounding way) that the world is fundamentally irrational and unknowable, so why even bother worrying your little head about it. So, at least in that sense, Science has much more "common sense" going for it than does Creationism.

joaozinho666 said: "The paper includes this diagram of the evolutionary relationships of various vertebrate species." "Here's the original phylogeny from the Amemiya paper." Jeebus, PZ. If you are going to tout yourself as an educator you should read the frigging paper so that you know what you are talking about, or at least read the figure legend. Figure 1 is NOT a phylogeny. It's the actual data from the sequence alignment in graphical form, not an interpretation or conclusion. The controversy is about the *interpretation* of the short length of the branch (*data*) corresponding to the coelacanth. But hey, thanks for helping the creationist rubes lie and pretend the actual evidence is nothing more than interpretation. With friends like you we don't need enemies!

John Harshman said: That's just bizarre What do you think a phylogeny is?

What do you think actual data are?

In order to get Fig. 1 you need to do a phylogenetic analysis, which is not "the actual data from the sequence alignment in graphical form" but an investigation of the implications of the sequence data, given various assumptions about how evolution works.

I have to suppose you don't understand at all how phylogenetic analysis is done.

PZ is exactly right: "These are the relationships determined by comparisons of large portions of the entire genomes of these organisms

— it's a phylogeny based on a large amount of data."

Steve P. said: "Cooption" and "switches" are intelligent tools. Darwinism doesn't switch anything on and off and it doesn't coopt anything. It can't.

RPST said:

Steve P. said: Darwinism is all about performing a self-lobotomy. It only works when you stop thinking. Only Darwinism can speak from both sides of its mouth, at once denying intelligence yet in the same breath, utilizes intelligent concepts to get the job done.

And yet Net contribution of creationism to science = 0 Net contribution of intelligent design to science = 0 Net contribution of goddidit to curing disease, increasing crop yields, inventing the internet, reaching the moon, finding the higgs boson, developing the iphone, reducing emissions from automobiles, or explaining why the sky is blue = 0 Net scientific comprehension of Steve P. = 0

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: Think these guys could make an honest living any other way? They gotta put dinner on the table too!

joaozinho666 -

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the figure, but you're simply wrong when you say that it's not a phylogeny. Here is the description of the figure from the original paper:

"Figure 1: A phylogenetic tree of a broad selection of jawed vertebrates shows that lungfish, not coelacanth, is the closest relative of tetrapods."

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: Think these guys could make an honest living any other way? They gotta put dinner on the table too!

That implies that being paid to replace science with miracles is making an "honest living".

Jedidiah said: I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

harold said:

Jedidiah said: I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

Luskin proudly accepts a generous salary for a fairly leisurely life of what can be described, most generously, as making biased statements about things that he should realize he doesn't understand. If he isn't deliberaely dissembling, and I said "if"', then he's still suffiently lacking in self-awareness and basic respect for others that he should be considered to have major character flaws.

It doesn't matter if he comes across as a nice person or a sincere person. He's paid to make people believe him. What matters is that he completely unqualified to express any opinion in the field of biology and yet he goes merrily on his way doing just that. What matters is that no matter how many times actual experts point out to him that he is wrong he never admits it. What matters is that he deliberately distorts and misrepresents every aspect of actual science in a desperate attempt to discredit that which he doesn't understand. This is blatant dishonesty and blatant disrespect for every real scientist. Luskin is the worst form of charlatan and deep down inside he probably knows it, no matter what else he claims to really believe.

What if I got paid thousands of dollars to say that some economic theory was hogwash. I could stand up an parrot all sorts of economic sounding words and bluster on and on about how all the experts were wrong and how I knew better. If it was pointed out that I wasn't even using the correct terminology, that I obviously had no idea what I was talking about, that I got even the most basic facts wrong, I would at the very least admit my mistakes. I would either shut up or try to become educated so as to acquire the knowledge I pretended to have in the first place. What I would not do is ignore all of the experts, keep up the same litany of transparent falsehoods and keep taking the money. Anyone who behaves like that must certainly know they are full of crap.

Now PZ has pointed out a very particular instance where Luskin is obviously wrong. If he had the guts to come here and admit his error it might salvage some of his reputation. I'm not holding my breath.

Jedidiah said: I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

First, I can outline how we know ID is science. We know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

Jedidiah said: I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

joaozinho666 said:

John Harshman said: That's just bizarre What do you think a phylogeny is?

A description of the relationships between species or other groups of organisms. Figure 1 is a graph of the sequence differences. The scale bar is in substitutions per site, not millions of years.

What do you think actual data are?

In Fig. 1? Amino acid sequences. What do you think the actual data are?

In order to get Fig. 1 you need to do a phylogenetic analysis, which is not "the actual data from the sequence alignment in graphical form" but an investigation of the implications of the sequence data, given various assumptions about how evolution works.

No, the graph shown makes no such assumptions. It would be the same if the person producing it believed that Jesus Christ hand-designed those sequences last Tuesday. By falsely describing it as an interpretation with assumptions, you are allowing creationists to ignore it, which is good for them because they can't explain why Jesus would be so constrained.

I have to suppose you don't understand at all how phylogenetic analysis is done.

That would be very, very stupid of you to suppose.

PZ is exactly right: "These are the relationships determined by comparisons of large portions of the entire genomes of these organisms

Hmmm. That part is exactly right! But I think you know that it wasn't one of the two sentences I had criticised.

— it's a phylogeny based on a large amount of data."

This is wrong. It looks just like a phylogeny, which is a testament to its power. Describing it as a phylogeny denies its power, allowing creationists to ignore it using the old lie, "Same data, just different interpretations."

harold said:

Jedidiah said: I've met Casey before. Had lunch with him a couple times, while we talked about biology and life in general. I completely and utterly disagree with him on pretty much everything related to science and biology- and a good bit of theology for that matter. *But*- I think it unjust to posit moral values to him like "lying" and "dishonesty". He's a nice guy in person. He is genuinely trying, albeit from a completely different worldview then we have. I think it enough for us to keep to the facts and say he doesn't understand the science. We don't need to impugn his moral standing without actual evidence to that fact.

I have the same opinion of Luskin that I had before, but your comment did have an.impact -whoever you are, I now consider you a fairl y poor judge of character. Luskin proudly accepts a generous salary for a fairly leisurely life of what can be described, most generously, as making biased statements about things that he should realize he doesn't understand. If he isn't deliberaely dissembling, and I said "if"', then he's still suffiently lacking in self-awareness and basic respect for others that he should be considered to have major character flaws.

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

It's very difficult for us to determine whether creationists really believe the falsehoods that come out of their mouths. Many people insist that most people deceive themselves first, before they deceive others.

This was the crux of Joe Felsenstein's criticism of my recent long comment at the CSI thread about Dembski's probability calculations. I said that any ID creationist who claims Dembski ever computed the probability of any evolutionary process, is lying; Dembski computes the probability of randomly scrambling sequences, and calls it the probability of natural selection, so he lied. Joe F said it's not constructive for me to accuse me of lying, because creationists deceive themselves.

I just find this hard to believe. It's true that almost all creationists have near zero reading comprehension. They usually don't understand the quotes from science articles that they quote mine.

It's clear that Luskin in particular has near zero reading comprehension. Remember the time he couldn't understand the paper about Tiktaalik because Niel Shubin used the word "eponymous"-- so he accused Shubin et al. of trying to conceal the truth? There are countless examples showing that Luskin cannot understand sentences with dependent clauses. His reading comprehension is still at See Dick Run. Run, Dick, Run.

However, even allowing for near zero reading comprehension, there is still an X factor that can't be attributed to stupidity. It takes some brains to dig up quote mines with which to deceive people. You have to use your brain, your cunning, to cut up a quote, to snip off the start of a sentence, snip off the end of a sentence, and insert an ellipsis (or maybe no ellipsis) in place of words in the middle you cut out, to reverse the meaning of the sentence. That takes brains.

Remember when Luskin wrote "Science and Human Origins" and tried to claim that the evidence of human chromosome 2 (apparently a fusion of ape chromosomes 2a and 2b) actually DISPROVED human evolution? Remember that? That wasn't just stupidity. It took cunning for him to quote mine those genetics papers.

Remember how Carl Zimmer tried to dig up the sources that Luskin was quoting, and no ID proponent would fork over the source of his quotes? In a published book they were touting? And when Zimmer finally dug up the source of the quotes for Luskin's "refutatation" of the fusion of chromosome 2, his sources actually said the opposite?

I dare you to read Zimmer's takedown of Luskin's quote mine on the topic of chromosome 2 fusion and tell me that his behavior doesn't take cunning.

And when Luskin "responded", he of course never admitted he was wrong, or that his quote, that the took out of context and snipped up, generated a false impression. No, in his response, Luskin just claimed that it was OUR fault for not understanding Luskin's real point. Luskin's real point, you see, was that Jesu-- I mean, the Intelligent Designer, can create human chromosomes which APPEAR to be fusions of ape chromosomes, if that's what Jesu-- I mean the Intelligent Designer wants to do. The Intelligent Designer can do whatever the hell he wants to do, including creating the appearance of evolution.

I also dare you to read this mini-debate between Luskin and myself on the topic of Junk DNA. I tell him that no geneticist ever said non-functional DNA (Junk) was equal to non-coding DNA. To "rebut" me, Luskin copies over a dozen quotes from various people, journalists, reporters, historians-- sentences that do have the word "non-coding" in them and maybe the word "Junk" in them-- but the sentences never equate Junk to non-coding DNA. So it's proving me right, right? So sure, Luskin has nearly zero reading comprehension. But his "rebuttal" and attack on me was in fact copied from a rebuttal he'd issued a year before to another blogger-- but it was full of second person pronouns: "You say", "You write", etc. referring actually to another blogger a year ago, calling us both "you"-- and that guy's ideas Luskin also misrepresented.

Yes, creationists including Luskin have near zero reading comprehension. But all their errors point in the same direction. And I do think it takes brains and cunning to concoct fake quotes and doctored quotes.

So it's not all stupidity. There's another X factor that can't be explained by stupidity.

I call them liars-- a lot. I get banned from all the creationist websites because I PROVE they are liars-- I PROVE it by comparing their words against the sources they're citing, and then tell me, "You're uncivil. You're engaging in personal attacks!" and then they ban me.

When you compare their words against the sources they cite, it makes them look dishonest, so they say I'm engaging in "personal attacks" and they ban me.

But if the X factor is not lying, what IS it, then? Stupidity can't explain all of it. Yes, they're stupid, but what's the X factor beyond stupidity?

The X factor-- I call it lying. If you think I'm "uncivil", then what do YOU call the X factor? You can't just say they're stupid. It takes brains to snip up a quote and doctor it with ellipses.

John Harshman said: The scale isn't in terms of sequence differences but number of reconstructed substitutions, which would be considerably more than any observed sequence differences.

That figure is indeed a description of the relationships among species.

You're correct in this case.

So where in Figure 1 are the amino acid sequences? There aren't any. This is not a graphical representation of the data.

It's the result of a phylogenetic analysis.

If you will look at the figure legend, the assumptions are stated: "The Bayesian tree was inferred using PhyloBayes under the CAT + GTR + Γ". That last set of cryptic letters are the evolutionary assumptions. CAT is a complicated model that assumes the probability of particular amino acids varies among sites;

GTR is a general time-reversible model that assumes the probabilities of transitions are equal in both directions;

gamma (that last symbol) is a function describing the distribution of evolutionary rates among sites.

All these are assumptions and incorporate parameters estimated from the data. Jesus doesn't enter into it.

Then you are very, very confused. You said a) the figure isn't a phylogeny, b) that a phylogeny is an estimate of relationships among taxa, and c) that PZ was correct when he called it an estimate of relationships but d) incorrect when he called it a phylogeny. Can you resolve the inconsistency?

I truly have no idea what you mean by that.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

Les Lane said: Why would people assume they know more than scientists? From the standpoint of those of us who are fluent with at least some of the abstractions this is an obvious violation of common sense. From the standpoint of those who don't deal with abstractions they'll tell you right upfront (examples in this comment train) - scientists are ignoring common sense. There's a divide which can't be crossed w/o basic understanding of science.

Oh no. All that is going on is human beings studying information or striving to discover new information and perhaps manipulate it for some gain for mankind. Anybody can learn these things and very quick. "scientists" are just people who did it as kids in their late teens and early twenties and got a degree saying they know this or that. There is no threshold difference between someone applying themselves at 43 to these matters. in fact they most likely would do better then kids who easily are not imaginative or over influenced by grown ups. I have never found any subject in science to be difficult for me or anyone to quickly understand. Just interest and time and information. Nope. you can't cry authority. Scientific theories must be made on the merits of the evidence. Anyone can understand the evidence and agree or disagree whether rightly or wrongly. I would add evolutionary biology is not just about the evidence but about a bigger failing. The methodology behind the claims for evidence. Creationists should be aiming at this and not just the poor merits of the evidence for evolution or any idea of a universe without the fingerprints all over the creation.

Robert pleas explain SINE insertions in your own words. You have studied this right? It's so easy anyone could do it right? Even if you have never bothered to study this before it should only take you a few days right? Until you can do this you will just have to admit that you don't know anything at all and all of your bluff and bluster is just so much hot air. There are more things in biology and chemistry than are dreamt of in your philosophy, or your puny little bigoted mind.

Wait, what???? Did one anti-science person just lambaste another anti-science person?

Tenncrain said: Hmm, it was only last fall that Byers admitted that genetics was not his thing (link here). Surely, all these months are enough time for most people to at least try to learn more about fused chromosomes, transposons such as SINE and LINE insertions, endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), redundant broken genes, and so on. Surely, one can at least attempt to demonstrate that these items falsify common descent, even if this goes against what the scientific consensus feels the evidence supports. However, as we know, Byers is not 'most people'

Which is valid if the sequences are the result of a common intelligent Designer…

diogeneslamp0 tried to communicate: Joe F said it’s not constructive for me to accuse me of lying, because creationists deceive themselves.

diogeneslamp0 said: The X factor-- I call it lying. If you think I'm "uncivil", then what do YOU call the X factor? You can't just say they're stupid. It takes brains to snip up a quote and doctor it with ellipses.

Doc Bill said:

Which is valid if the sequences are the result of a common intelligent Designer…

Try substituting Flying Pink Magical Unicorn for "Intelligent Designer" just for variety. Or invoke Last Thursdayism just to change it up a bit. And you wonder why we call IDiots idiots. Oh, pardon me, was I being uncivil?

I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively.

joaozinho666 said:

Doc Bill said:

Which is valid if the sequences are the result of a common intelligent Designer…

Try substituting Flying Pink Magical Unicorn for "Intelligent Designer" just for variety. Or invoke Last Thursdayism just to change it up a bit. And you wonder why we call IDiots idiots. Oh, pardon me, was I being uncivil?

Bill, perhaps you should reread my comment. I'm pointing out that the assumptions used to analyze the data mathematically are valid whether one is testing an evolutionary hypothesis or an ID hypothesis with a single designer. I'm not saying that the data make any sense at all in the context an ID hypothesis. I'm trying to point out that lying IDiots are trying to avoid the empirical predictions of their hypotheses, and PZ and Harshman are unwittingly helping them to do so.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

I'm gasping in astonishment! Oh well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

diogeneslamp0 said: Yes, creationists including Luskin have near zero reading comprehension. But all their errors point in the same direction.

Luskin is a bottomless fount of stupidity on EVERY topic of science.

Just look at this post by Luskin at ENV where he blathers stupidly about "information theory" which he doesn't understand and makes outright false statements about.

The idiot is trying to say that CSI is a better measure of Shannon information, but he clearly has NO idea what Shannon information is, and describes in in ways that are simply false.

1. Idiot says that Shannon information is HIGHER for random sequences (this is true of Kolmogorov information, which Luskin has said in the past is the same as Shannon information.)

2. Idiot cites Jack Szostak's 2007 paper on "functional information" as a better measure of information than Shannon. Idiot does not realize that NATURAL SELECTION INCREASES SZOSTAK'S FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION.

3. Idiot says that creationist "Stephen C. Meyer follows this [Szostak's 2007] approach, writing in a peer-reviewed scientific paper", referring to Meyer's now-infamous 2004 paper in the PBSW (which was retracted by the journal), used the same approach as Szostak. Note Szostak's paper is 2007, Meyer's is 2004, and Idiot is saying that Meyer in 2004 was using AN EQUATION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DEFINED YET.

Now you might just say: Oh well, Luskin is not very bright!

But then look at the title he gave to this proof of his arrogance and narcissim.

He called it "The Evolution-Lobby's Useless Definition of Biological Information".

How can this lawyer who clearly cannot comprehend even SIMPLE math describe the GENIUS, the FOUNDER of information theory, Claude Shannon's equations as a "Useless Definition"?

It's incalculable arrogance and egomania.

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

The x-factor you may be looking for is "emotional investment". Creationism is based on faith, not evidence, and faith is a somewhat powerful emotion that gives people the strength to endure all sorts of reality-based slings and arrows. Faith can provide enough courage to heal the sick and fly airplanes into buildings. When a person invests so much time and energy into such an emotion, I think that the emotion becomes the raison d'etre for living.

Coupled with that faith is a need to belong to a group, any group. By co-opting sciencey terms a creationist will feel that they belong to the science group (c.f. Byers) and yet maintain their faith.

JimNorth said: Faith can provide enough courage to heal the sick ...

joaozinho666 said:

Doc Bill said:

Which is valid if the sequences are the result of a common intelligent Designer…

Try substituting Flying Pink Magical Unicorn for "Intelligent Designer" just for variety. Or invoke Last Thursdayism just to change it up a bit. And you wonder why we call IDiots idiots. Oh, pardon me, was I being uncivil?

Bill, perhaps you should reread my comment. I'm pointing out that the assumptions used to analyze the data mathematically are valid whether one is testing an evolutionary hypothesis or an ID hypothesis with a single designer. I'm not saying that the data make any sense at all in the context an ID hypothesis. I'm trying to point out that lying IDiots are trying to avoid the empirical predictions of their hypotheses, and PZ and Harshman are unwittingly helping them to do so.

"Here’s the title for a paper Casey wrote: ZEAL FOR DARWIN’S HOUSE CONSUMES THEM: HOW SUPPORTERS OF EVOLUTION ENCOURAGE VIOLATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE "

"Zeal for your house will consume me" is a quote from Jesus, about God the Father. What Casey is basically implying there is that evolutionists think Darwin is God- not just a prophet.

"What more do you need, J-Boy?"

I'd start with not calling me J-Boy.

Jedidiah said: "What more do you need, J-Boy?" I'd start with not calling me J-Boy.

I think Doc Bill needs either a cold shower or a trip to the bathroom wall. Or both.

John Harshman said: I think I can safely say that nobody here gets your point.

Please explain.

Are you perhaps some kind of transformed cladist?

How is calling Fig. 1 a phylogeny helping IDiots?

How do assumptions about the nature of evolutionary transitions fit a design hypothesis,

...except to the extent that any possible data fit a design hypothesis given an omnipotent and capricious designer? And if that's the case, what empirical predictions can their hypotheses possibly make?

luskin has been down this path before on the issue of the human/chimp/gorilla tree, where his wordy arguments ultimately relied on a subtle insistence that ANY genes that disagreed with the calculated phylogeny rendered that phylogeny impossible. although it represents a refusal to acknowledge the obvious mechanisms by which genes can defy the larger pattern, this seems to have become a very useful crutch in terms of the ratio of what he can claim compared to how much integrity he needs to concede. clinging to that one plausible-sounding tool of the impossible single gene relationship doesn't seem to require much reality-suppressing mental anguish, compared to the number of "winning" claims he is able to generate from it

joaozinho666 said:

John Harshman said: I think I can safely say that nobody here gets your point.

I'm having trouble believing you. I think that you are more intelligent than that. Doc Bill, not so much...

Are you perhaps some kind of transformed cladist?

No, I'm a molecular geneticist who finds that PZ sucks at educating the public. Your hypersensitivity and evasions suggest that you agree to at least some extent.

How is calling Fig. 1 a phylogeny helping IDiots?

Because it's a perfect tool for educating the public about the sequence evidence, and the IDiots have chosen to fix their attention on it, serving it up on a platter. It's a hanging curve ball and you're whiffing at it.

How do assumptions about the nature of evolutionary transitions fit a design hypothesis,

I didn't claim that they did, and I think you know that. I pointed out that none of the analytical tools that were applied to the data--the basis of your silly claim that Fig. 1 is an interpretation--preclude the use of the graphed data in Fig. 1 to test any sort of IDcreationist hypothesis.

...except to the extent that any possible data fit a design hypothesis given an omnipotent and capricious designer? And if that's the case, what empirical predictions can their hypotheses possibly make?

Precisely! But PZ and you are pissing away this perfect tool for a public political debate by calling the data interpretation, which is precisely what they want you to do.

Go back and look at the figure from a didactic POV. It includes ONLY the organisms an uneducated layperson (the target of the IDiots) is concerned about. There's nothing superfluous. It's an absolutely perfect point of entry to the sequence evidence, and Luskin has already called attention to it. I don't think I could find a better example, and here it is being served up on a platter. But you and Doc Bill seem to put your tender egos far above thinking about public education strategies.

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

You are right. But ALL Creationist claims and the writings based on those claims are much the same way, including most of your lame comments around here. If you had any sense of integrity you would not be a "Paleyan Creationist" (what does that even mean?) because there is simply no reason to be one. But you clearly do not. You are an extremist who backstabs even people like Casey Luskin who would make great allies of yours. And that means no one should trust or respect you on any level.

snaxalotl said: luskin has been down this path before on the issue of the human/chimp/gorilla tree, where his wordy arguments ultimately relied on a subtle insistence that ANY genes that disagreed with the calculated phylogeny rendered that phylogeny impossible. although it represents a refusal to acknowledge the obvious mechanisms by which genes can defy the larger pattern, this seems to have become a very useful crutch in terms of the ratio of what he can claim compared to how much integrity he needs to concede. clinging to that one plausible-sounding tool of the impossible single gene relationship doesn't seem to require much reality-suppressing mental anguish, compared to the number of "winning" claims he is able to generate from it

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

You are right. But ALL Creationist claims and the writings based on those claims are much the same way, including most of your lame comments around here. If you had any sense of integrity you would not be a "Paleyan Creationist" (what does that even mean?) because there is simply no reason to be one. But you clearly do not. You are an extremist who backstabs even people like Casey Luskin who would make great allies of yours. And that means no one should trust or respect you on any level.

A backstabbing charge presupposes that I and Luskin are on the same side.

We are not on the same side. I am a Paleyan Creationist/IDist and he is a Discovery Institute IDist. The latter does not base its claims on Paley 1802, but mainly on the claims of Behe and Dembski. Both Dembski and Behe accept Darwin's main claim (natural selection) to exist in nature, as well as microevolution and conceptual existence of macroevolution and common descent. I, like Paley, reject the concept of evolution existing in nature; species remain immutable because Naturalism assumptions, interpretive philosophy, and Darwinian evolution are completely false.

So, Luskin and company are on your side and in your bed, not mine in any way, shape or form. Just be glad that you're on top.

John Harshman said: No hypersensitivity, no evasions, and certainly no agreement.

It's just that you suck at educating the public.

It's completely unclear what you want PZ to do and what errors he's made.

But that has nothing to do with what PZ is talking about.

But that isn't what the DI is talking about, it wasn't what the original paper was about, and it wasn't what PZ's complaint was about. Why should every post be about creationism?

Further, calling the tree in Figure 1 "graphed data" is just absurd.

The tree is an estimate of phylogeny given various assumptions about the evolutionary process.

While I'm not quite sure what you mean by "an interpretation", the tree is an inference from the data.

I don't recall anyone calling the data interpretation, so you are complaining about a nonexistent error.

Again, no idea what you think ought to be done or what the problem is. I hypothesize that you may be saying we ought to be hyping this tree as evidence for common descent. Is that it?

But why must every discussion be for the purpose of convincing creationists that there is common descent?

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

You are right. But ALL Creationist claims and the writings based on those claims are much the same way, including most of your lame comments around here. If you had any sense of integrity you would not be a "Paleyan Creationist" (what does that even mean?) because there is simply no reason to be one. But you clearly do not. You are an extremist who backstabs even people like Casey Luskin who would make great allies of yours. And that means no one should trust or respect you on any level.

A backstabbing charge presupposes that I and Luskin are on the same side.

Let's see - Luskin's masters want to replace reality-based science and evolution with willful ignorance and endless bleatings about the Xtian Magical Sky Pixie; YOU want to replace reality-based evolution and science with willful ignorance and different endless bleatings about the SAME Xtian Magical Sky Pixie. You, the IDiots and creationuts are on the same side, Ray; you are merely on different teams. Since you have the same goal, differences in rhetoric and approach are irrelevant. You and the IDiots are like two rabid dogs after the same bone - you spend as much time biting and scratching at each other as you pursuing your goal. Loons can always recognize how silly and ridiculous the rantings of OTHER loons are, but are unable to recognize how stupid and ridiculous they themselves are.

PA Poland said:

We are not on the same side. I am a Paleyan Creationist/IDist and he is a Discovery Institute IDist. The latter does not base its claims on Paley 1802, but mainly on the claims of Behe and Dembski. Both Dembski and Behe accept Darwin's main claim (natural selection) to exist in nature, as well as microevolution and conceptual existence of macroevolution and common descent. I, like Paley, reject the concept of evolution existing in nature; species remain immutable because Naturalism assumptions, interpretive philosophy, and Darwinian evolution are completely false.

In other words, you are all deranged f*ckwits, but they accept a bit more of reality than you do. One reason Dembski and Behe accept natural selection to exist in nature is BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN NATURE; one would have to be mind-numbingly STUPID to claim it doesn't exist. The claim is so ludicrous that it would drive most of their paying imbeciles away. Another reason is by accepting the reality of natural selection they have more things to misrepresent and lie about. All the sciency-sounding terms they throw around can sound impressive to anyone ignorant of the last half century of biological discoveries.

Reality-based folk have known that species are mutable for centuries Ray. If you weren't so willfully stupid, you'd realize that immutability has testable effects. IF living things were truly immutable, there would be no birth defects (caused by mutations). No drug resistant bacteria. No herbicide resistant plants. No insecticide resistant bugs. No new variations in anything. There would be no such thing as mutagens, and radiation would have no long term effects. Examination of REALITY shows that birth defects and variations occur. Bacteria evolve drug resistance at an alarming rate. Weeds become immune to herbicides, and new pesticides have to be developed because all the old ones stop working because the insects evolved resistance. Many chemicals are known mutagens, and radiation causes mutations.

PA Poland said: Now Ray farts out one of his homophobic parting insults before he runs away, screaming of his victory :

So, Luskin and company are on your side and in your bed, not mine in any way, shape or form. Just be glad that you're on top.

No Ray - creationuts, IDiots and theoloons like yourself are all in the same cesspit, and all of you are pretending that it is the OTHER guy that stinks.

No Ray - creationuts, IDiots and theoloons like yourself are all in the same cesspit, and all of you are pretending that it is the OTHER guy that stinks.

diogeneslamp0 said: However, in this case Luskin is NOT constructing a phylogeny by aligning a single gene. I don't know what that would produce.

Rather, he is arguing that the PRESENCE or ABSENCE of a single gene should be used to form a phylogeny. PRESENCE or ABSENCE of a single gene is basically one bit of information, YES or NOW-- perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 times less information that you would get by aligning a single gene.

Lawyer Luskin's argument is to stand in the laboratory door and order the scientists: "Stop looking at so much data, you guys! Use less data! Use less data!"

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

joaozinho666 said:

It's crystal clear that you tacitly conceded my point about the graph in Fig. 1 being analogous to claiming that a Michaelis-Menten graph isn't data because it doesn't include the spec readings.

No, you can't take absence of comment as agreement. No, a Michaelis-Menton graph isn't data, though it may contain data. Any curve fit to the data is certainly not data. Figure 1 contains no data.

That could be, but I was under the impression that I was discussing this with people who view themselves as sophisticated enough to educate the public here.

So you agree that you are very poor at communicating? I'm sure you can learn, and I suspect a big part of it is that you aren't really trying to communicate but are mainly interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points.

It's completely unclear what you want PZ to do and what errors he's made.

Accepting an opponent's dishonest framing for starters.

What dishonest framing?

PZ isn't talking about the right thing.

Who are you to decide what PZ should be talking about?

Why should any intelligent person who purports to educate the public accept the framing of a liar like Luskin?

What framing did PZ accept? You still, after all this time, haven't made that clear.

If you insist on calling it a phylogeny, it's also a phylogeny in the mind of any intelligent Designer. It's still a graph of the data either way.

It isn't a graph of the data. I insist on calling it a phylogeny because that's what it is; ask any systematist. (You could ask me, for example.) But phylogenies aren't in the minds of intelligent designers; phylogenies are by definition hypotheses of evolutionary relationships.

No, your calling it a phylogeny of ORGANISMS is the inference. At best it's a phylogeny of a limited sample of sequences, and still just data. You might recall that there are professional disagreements about whether the length of the branch leading to the coelacanth (the data) was properly interpreted by the authors. But I think your ego is clouding your memory.

You keep introducing new claims without making sense of the old ones. Yes, there's a limited sample of sequences. Is there a reason to believe that the phylogenies of these sequences are not representative of the phylogeny of the organisms? If not, you are making empty objections. Yes, the disagreement is about the lengths of the branches, and it's the first time you've mentioned that either. It's well known in systematics that estimates of topology are more robust than estimates of branch length. What is your point?

The data are sequences. You called it a phylogeny of ORGANISMS. That's interpretation. You can't teach laypeople about this if you can't grasp this distinction, man!

Is that what you were complaining about? It's the first time you've mentioned it. And yes, it's a phylogeny of species; it's common practice to take individuals as exemplars of species and sequences as exemplars of genomes. Again, you seem only to be attempting to score a cheap point in some imagined game.

Again, no idea what you think ought to be done or what the problem is. I hypothesize that you may be saying we ought to be hyping this tree as evidence for common descent. Is that it?

Yes, but note that your hypothesis means that you were indeed lying when you claimed to have NO idea, Dr. Pedantic.

Again you accuse me of lying. And you don't even tell me whether my hypothesis was right.

But why must every discussion be for the purpose of convincing creationists that there is common descent?

It's not about every discussion, it's about this one, because scientists have utterly failed to spotlight the sequence evidence to date. Here, Casey Luskin is spotlighting it for you but falsely reframing it, and you and PZ are accepting Luskin's false framing.

You really need to explain what you're talking about. What have scientists not done that they should have? How is it relevant to the point PZ was trying to make? Or why was his point the wrong point? You need to do much better. I have a few guesses about what you might be talking about, but no more than that. And it's your fault for being unwilling or unable to make sense.

Ray Martinez said: A backstabbing charge presupposes that I and Luskin are on the same side. We are not on the same side. I am a Paleyan Creationist/IDist and he is a Discovery Institute IDist.

The latter does not base its claims on Paley 1802, but mainly on the claims of Behe and Dembski. Both Dembski and Behe accept Darwin's main claim (natural selection) to exist in nature, as well as microevolution and conceptual existence of macroevolution and common descent.

I, like Paley, reject the concept of evolution existing in nature; species remain immutable because Naturalism assumptions, interpretive philosophy, and Darwinian evolution are completely false.

So, Luskin and company are on your side and in your bed, not mine in any way, shape or form. Just be glad that you're on top.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: I am a Paleyan Creationist who has read Luskin extensively. The first and only thing I notice about his Discovery Institute apologetics is the fact that they are literally filled with cheap lawyer rhetoric from top to bottom. Said rhetoric, of course, insults intelligence. Of course Luskin has a law degree and is a lawyer. His writings will never stand up to scrutiny. Luskin, like all illegitimate axe-grinding revisionists, only understands the temporary here-and-now "success." I predict future historians and scholars will dismiss and disregard everything he writes.

You are right. But ALL Creationist claims and the writings based on those claims are much the same way, including most of your lame comments around here. If you had any sense of integrity you would not be a "Paleyan Creationist" (what does that even mean?) because there is simply no reason to be one. But you clearly do not. You are an extremist who backstabs even people like Casey Luskin who would make great allies of yours. And that means no one should trust or respect you on any level.

A backstabbing charge presupposes that I and Luskin are on the same side.

Let's see - Luskin's masters want to replace reality-based science and evolution with willful ignorance and endless bleatings about the Xtian Magical Sky Pixie; YOU want to replace reality-based evolution and science with willful ignorance and different endless bleatings about the SAME Xtian Magical Sky Pixie. You, the IDiots and creationuts are on the same side, Ray; you are merely on different teams. Since you have the same goal, differences in rhetoric and approach are irrelevant. You and the IDiots are like two rabid dogs after the same bone - you spend as much time biting and scratching at each other as you pursuing your goal. Loons can always recognize how silly and ridiculous the rantings of OTHER loons are, but are unable to recognize how stupid and ridiculous they themselves are.

We are not on the same side; the lawyer (and the rhetoric he uses to defend Dembski) is on Darwin's side. ALL of his efforts presuppose Darwinian concepts to account for a majority of phenomena EXCEPT IC systems and other ultra-complex contrivances. By your logic "a Creationist is a person who readily accepts Darwin's main conceptual claims." It can't get anymore absurd. Creationists reject said claims, they do not accept.

Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time. Like yourself and ALL other Atheist-Evolutionists, I accept causation mutual exclusivity. Since the lawyer and Dembski reject mutual exclusivity....guess what?

PA Poland said:

We are not on the same side. I am a Paleyan Creationist/IDist and he is a Discovery Institute IDist. The latter does not base its claims on Paley 1802, but mainly on the claims of Behe and Dembski. Both Dembski and Behe accept Darwin's main claim (natural selection) to exist in nature, as well as microevolution and conceptual existence of macroevolution and common descent. I, like Paley, reject the concept of evolution existing in nature; species remain immutable because Naturalism assumptions, interpretive philosophy, and Darwinian evolution are completely false.

In other words, you are all deranged f*ckwits, but they accept a bit more of reality than you do. One reason Dembski and Behe accept natural selection to exist in nature is BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN NATURE; one would have to be mind-numbingly STUPID to claim it doesn't exist. The claim is so ludicrous that it would drive most of their paying imbeciles away. Another reason is by accepting the reality of natural selection they have more things to misrepresent and lie about. All the sciency-sounding terms they throw around can sound impressive to anyone ignorant of the last half century of biological discoveries.

Said comments admit the lawyer and Dembski accept natural selection (Darwin's main theoretical claim). These persons, therefore, CANNOT be real Creationists---which, of course, makes them happy. They're quite satisfied to be in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. The fact shows just how deluded these "scholars" actually are. They'd rather be seen with Darwin and Dawkins than ArchDeacon Paley.

Reality-based folk have known that species are mutable for centuries Ray. If you weren't so willfully stupid, you'd realize that immutability has testable effects. IF living things were truly immutable, there would be no birth defects (caused by mutations). No drug resistant bacteria. No herbicide resistant plants. No insecticide resistant bugs. No new variations in anything. There would be no such thing as mutagens, and radiation would have no long term effects. Examination of REALITY shows that birth defects and variations occur. Bacteria evolve drug resistance at an alarming rate. Weeds become immune to herbicides, and new pesticides have to be developed because all the old ones stop working because the insects evolved resistance. Many chemicals are known mutagens, and radiation causes mutations.

Note that our Evolutionist invokes phenomena that is NOT the main object of explanation in the Creation/Evolution debate. That main object is sexually reproducing animal species, not bacteria or antibiotic resistance. Natural selection is a short list of truisms explained to act as causing evolutionary change and eventually to have produced new species. Theobald calls the same an "explanatory mechanism." The explanation of these truisms defies reality, sound logic and common sense. No such phenomenon exists in nature producing adaptation or species to exist.

PA Poland said: Now Ray farts out one of his homophobic parting insults before he runs away, screaming of his victory : So, Luskin and company are on your side and in your bed, not mine in any way, shape or form. Just be glad that you're on top. No Ray - creationuts, IDiots and theoloons like yourself are all in the same cesspit, and all of you are pretending that it is the OTHER guy that stinks.

The sexual metaphor employed perfectly depicts the situation that the lawyer and Dembski are in. Two "Christian/IDists" who accept Atheist-Materialist Darwin's main claim are in that exact position. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

John Harshman said: No, a Michaelis-Menton graph isn't data, though it may contain data.

Any curve fit to the data is certainly not data.

Figure 1 contains no data.

So you agree that you are very poor at communicating?

I'm sure you can learn, and I suspect a big part of it is that you aren't really trying to communicate but are mainly interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points.

Who are you to decide what PZ should be talking about?

What framing did PZ accept?

It isn't a graph of the data. I insist on calling it a phylogeny because that's what it is; ask any systematist. (You could ask me, for example.) But phylogenies aren't in the minds of intelligent designers; phylogenies are by definition hypotheses of evolutionary relationships.

Yes, there's a limited sample of sequences.

Is there a reason to believe that the phylogenies of these sequences are not representative of the phylogeny of the organisms?

If not, you are making empty objections.

Yes, the disagreement is about the lengths of the branches, and it's the first time you've mentioned that either. It's well known in systematics that estimates of topology are more robust than estimates of branch length. What is your point?

Yes, but note that your hypothesis means that you were indeed lying when you claimed to have NO idea, Dr. Pedantic.

Again you accuse me of lying.

And you don't even tell me whether my hypothesis was right.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

joaozinho666:

Your complaint is simply bizarre. That is a diagram illustrating the phylogenetic relationships between the illustrated species. It shows much more, as well, but I'm not addressing the details here, only the broad notion that a single measure of the presence or absence of a single gene could supercede the conclusions derived from a larger data set.

Going off at length on the other issues in the diagram would not improve the discussion at all, but would instead distract from the point I was making. I can tell you as an educator and as someone who argues with creationists all the time that adding an assortment of tangents is NOT helpful at all.

joaozinho666 said:

John Harshman said: No, a Michaelis-Menton graph isn't data, though it may contain data.

You're not making any sense. On the off chance that you are, what data might it contain? When wouldn't it contain data? Limit yourself to the primary literature.

Any curve fit to the data is certainly not data.

You're reaching, as no one to my knowledge publishes the curve fit without the data points in the primary literature.

Figure 1 contains no data.

So graphs aren't data?

So you agree that you are very poor at communicating?

No.

I'm sure you can learn, and I suspect a big part of it is that you aren't really trying to communicate but are mainly interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points.

You mean like your "So you agree that you are very poor at communicating?" above? Or should I reply to a snide "I'm sure you can learn" with "So that I can be unemployed as a scientist like you?" I wouldn't go that low.

Who are you to decide what PZ should be talking about?

It was a direct response to your question.

What framing did PZ accept?

That points about the coelacanth would invalidate the whole phylogeny.

It isn't a graph of the data. I insist on calling it a phylogeny because that's what it is; ask any systematist. (You could ask me, for example.) But phylogenies aren't in the minds of intelligent designers; phylogenies are by definition hypotheses of evolutionary relationships.

There's nothing hypothetical about Figure 1.

Yes, there's a limited sample of sequences.

Then any claim that it is a phylogeny of taxa is an interpretation.

Is there a reason to believe that the phylogenies of these sequences are not representative of the phylogeny of the organisms?

I don't have one, nor does Luskin.

If not, you are making empty objections.

My objection is that you are mistaking the label for the thing.

Yes, the disagreement is about the lengths of the branches, and it's the first time you've mentioned that either. It's well known in systematics that estimates of topology are more robust than estimates of branch length. What is your point?

That you've lost sight of the difference between data (the length of the branch in Fig. 1) and interpretation.

Well, "I hypothesise that you mean…" is a direct contradiction of, "I have no idea what you mean," is it not?

And you don't even tell me whether my hypothesis was right.

Now you're delusional. You asked, "I hypothesize that you may be saying we ought to be hyping this tree as evidence for common descent. Is that it?" and I replied, "Yes, but note…" and you don't understand that "Yes" was a direct reply to "Is that it?"

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine that; a totally ignorant evo makes the most stupid comment imaginable proving that he is totally ignorant and uneducated and his fellow evos remain completely silent!

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine that; a totally ignorant evo makes the most stupid comment imaginable proving that he is totally ignorant and uneducated and his fellow evos remain completely silent!

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine that; a totally ignorant evo makes the most stupid comment imaginable proving that he is totally ignorant and uneducated and his fellow evos remain completely silent!

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Factually wrong, Ray. Fuzzy logic explicitly permits a variable to take on values of true and not-true at the same time. Sorry, buddy, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine that; a totally ignorant evo makes the most stupid comment imaginable proving that he is totally ignorant and uneducated and his fellow evos remain completely silent!

Pz Myers said: Your complaint is simply bizarre. That is a diagram illustrating the phylogenetic relationships between the illustrated species.

It shows much more, as well, but I'm not addressing the details here, only the broad notion that a single measure of the presence or absence of a single gene could supercede the conclusions derived from a larger data set.

Going off at length on the other issues in the diagram would not improve the discussion at all,

...but would instead distract from the point I was making. I can tell you as an educator and as someone who argues with creationists all the time that adding an assortment of tangents is NOT helpful at all.

joaozinho666 said: I can tell you as a scientist (only included in response to your pompous "as an educator") that my complaint is that you are letting Luskin take YOU off on a tangent. YOU are failing to focus on the fact that he chose to argue about a beautiful, fundamental compilation of data that are important to laypeople on the fence. Let me repeat that for you in another way so that you and Harshman can't feign misunderstanding: I am criticizing your lack of focus--you are chasing tangents by responding to Luskin's IDiocy instead of leveraging his spotlight to educate.

John Harshman said: Feel free to post the response you think PZ should have made to Luskin. It would be an education for us all, and might even tell us just what your point is supposed to be.

joaozinho666 said: It's fine up through "immortals." From there I would write, We can deal with the specific case Luskin misrepresents later. We are more interested in this bit about the bigger picture: "Once again, such similarities of sequence and function could be explained by common design and don't necessarily tell us much about common descent." We hereby cordially invite Casey Luskin to offer his common design explanations for the DIFFERENCES shown in Figure 1, which he conveniently includes in his tirade. Luskin also writes, "…let's first look at the standard vertebrate phylogeny, shown in the Nature paper:" Yes, let's look. Unfortunately for Luskin, even the scale bar shows us that it's not simply a "standard vertebrate phylogeny." The scale bar tells us that the lengths of the horizontal lines represent actual data that Luskin can't explain: the lengths are shown on a scale of "substitutions per site," that is, differences. In other words, this is a representation of the data. While Luskin might whine that some of the assumptions made in processing the data are based on evolutionary parameters, every one of those parameters should have some counterpart in his common design hypothesis, explaining when, why, and how his Common Designer changed them. Vague blubbering about "similarity" is a cowardly dodge. How does Luskin explain the differences that are quantitated in Figure 1? Luckily, the program to which the data were fed (PhyloBayes) is extremely customisable, so we welcome Casey's detailing of which parameters should be adjusted and why, so that we may test the same sequence data against his hypothesis. Or could it be that Luskin is tacitly conceding common descent of all the vertebrates? In that case, we welcome him to the side of sanity and request that he allows us to watch and eat popcorn while he explains this to his fans and bosses at the DI.

In case it wasn't clear already, that was me.

Doc Bill said:

Jedidiah said: "What more do you need, J-Boy?" I'd start with not calling me J-Boy.

Fortunately, I'm not you, J-Boy.