Stephen Meyer: workin' in the quote mines

It's the magical creationist ellipsis gambit again, often appearing in the dishonesty institute's fellows, et. al works in place of the actual words. But to the creationist reader, it's unimportant and the criticism is easily dismissed as it's okay when these creationists engage in such "slight-of-text" trickery, for this, as we all know, is their MO/SOP. But care must be taken, as sometimes they omit the tell tale ellipsis as in the quote of Darwin regarding all sides should be heard.

Well, that, and they forgot (yeah) to give us any kind of specific cause for any specific effect, something that could yield a genuine, honest prediction.

Think of it, they're dealing with a 150 year-old problem yet again, with nothing but poof and an utter failure to explain the relatedness of the extant phyla that rose to prominence in the Cambrian. Scientifically, it just reinforces the conclusion that ID is worse than nothing, something that just sucks in meaning and spits out meaningless drivel.

Glen Davidson

"Lord! I am *so* tired [of this]! How *long* can this go on?"

Somewhat surprisingly, the National Review has at times supported evolution. This is despite NR being a conservative publication and even though William F Buckley Jr was an anti-evolutionist (although he rejected YECism). NR's John Derbyshire wrote this article just before the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board court case got underway.

Uncommon Descent has responded to John Farrell's criticism of Darwin’s Doubt, albeit in an indirect way.

Anyone can "prove" anything if he's willing to behave dishonorably. To demonstrate the method, consider this scriptural guide to a holy life -- the first part is from Genesis 19:36, and the part after the ellipsis is from Exodus 22:30

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. … Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Anyone can "prove" anything if he's willing to behave dishonorably. To demonstrate the method, consider this scriptural guide to a holy life -- the first part is from Genesis 19:36, and the part after the ellipsis is from Exodus 22:30 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. … Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep.

eric said: That's amusing. We could turn this into a game: create the most amusing quotemine of the bible using the "Meyer 15 page separation" rule. The online bible users can use an alternate (300 x 15 =) 4500 word separation rule.

Darwin Doubt..s ...Intelligent Design or Darwin.. : .. Exp.os.e... Intelligent Design

Ellipses!!! Covering a 15 page gap without any indication that it even came from a different paragraph! Enough to get you a "fail" on any college paper!

It is indeed fodder for the Quote Mine Project (if I can ever get someone to do the html work again). Anyway, it will go on my blog.

For your information, however, a 15 page ellipsis if far from the record. We once had a 104 page ellipsis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote44

John Pieret said: Ellipses!!! Covering a 15 page gap without any indication that it even came from a different paragraph! Enough to get you a "fail" on any college paper! It is indeed fodder for the Quote Mine Project (if I can ever get someone to do the html work again). Anyway, it will go on my blog. For your information, however, a 15 page ellipsis if far from the record. We once had a 104 page ellipsis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote44

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Anyone can "prove" anything if he's willing to behave dishonorably. To demonstrate the method, consider this scriptural guide to a holy life -- the first part is from Genesis 19:36, and the part after the ellipsis is from Exodus 22:30 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. … Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep.

My favorite quotemine (and it doesn't even involve mangling with ellipses):

The EXACT PHRASE "There is no god" appears TWELVE times in the KJV.

In the NIV, a favorite of many fundies as an 'improved' translation, "There is no god" appears FIFTEEN times.

There is no god. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

Helena Constantine said: I guess that's where Pasiphae got her idea.

Just Bob said: There is no god. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

Suggested theme song: I've been working in the quote mines, all the live long day, I've been working in the quote mines, just to pass the time away...

An intelligent defense of Intelligent Design: An interview with Stephen Meyer http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/08/20/an-intelligent-defense-of-intelligent-design-an-interview-with-stephen-meyer/

FL said: That interview is now online. Merritt cranks it up by saying, "... even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth."

Yeah, I guess it is hard to ignore a large number of people having been fooled by professional con artists. Especially if the size of that group is growing.

(or should that say less than professional?)

FL said: He's right. You won Dover, but now you're losing America.

So an interview by someone with a Masters of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Masters of Theology from Emory University’s Candler School of Theology is supposed to tell us what - that ID has nothing to do with religion...

eric said: We could turn this into a game: create the most amusing quotemine of the bible using the "Meyer 15 page separation" rule. The online bible users can use an alternate (300 x 15 =) 4500 word separation rule.

FL said: i...a...m...an...as...s FL

eric said: Yes yes ... the end of evolution is just around the corner.

Yes yes … the end of evolution is just around the corner.

W. H. Heydt said:

FL said: That interview is now online. Merritt cranks it up by saying, "... even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth."

Note that the quote doesn't say 'a growing number of SCIENTISTS embracing [ID}'. The two parts of the claims aren't a valid comparison. So...thank you FL for demonstrating the topic...the problem with quote mining.

Maybe he was measuring the amount of noise coming from the people who push Creationism?

It's amusing that FL refers us to an interviewer whose first sentence is false. Origin of life?

Richard B. Hoppe said: It's amusing that FL refers us to an interviewer whose first sentence is false. Origin of life?

A lot people around here work in coal mines. That is almost as dirty.

Somehow the second line of the song seems appropriate without alteration:

Workin' in a coal quote mine

Goin' down down down

The quote mining is actually more egregious than the review makes it sound. The sentence after the ellipsis, which gives the impression Marshall is quickly handwaving away the fossil record, is not even in the main text; it is from a footnote to a table. Not only does Marshall not handwave away the fossil record, he spends approximately two full pages of text discussing it, the quality of it, what is found in it, and the significance of those findings.

I’ll say this for you: Creationists make fusion researchers look like pessimists.

nasty.brutish.tall said: The quote mining is actually more egregious than the review makes it sound. The sentence after the ellipsis, which gives the impression Marshall is quickly handwaving away the fossil record, is not even in the main text; it is from a footnote to a table. Not only does Marshall not handwave away the fossil record, he spends approximately two full pages of text discussing it, the quality of it, what is found in it, and the significance of those findings.

All these critics are well known evolutionist fighters! Not the same thing as ordinary researchers.
Defining the book by this minor thing makes the point the book is okay.
i like the admittance of the WINDOW PERMITTING to the past is by fossils/geology.
Both evolutionists and Id's are looking through a window unrelated to biological investigation.
Its all fossils in strata and there ain't no more. Without the geology there is no biological evolution conclusions.
So there is no biological investigation based on biology. Just data points and connect away.

That's Byers' one and only for this thread.

Robert Byers, What about finally giving us a full review of an evo-devo (click here) book like Sean B Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? It's a popular level book for the public, something that you stress. You could use this book to show how evo-devo and other evidence depends on fossils as you routinely parrot.......unless evo-devo really doesn't depend on fossils.

Are you ever going to address this Christian link about Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You repeatedly look away and run from this (Byers, click here to see).

When are you going to get around to fully discussing SINE insertions? You could use SINEs to tie in with your wild claim that "genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday" Here's a link to the post about SINEs that you have ignored: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136

FL said: ID explanations for life on earth

All these critics are well known evolutionist fighters! Not the same thing as ordinary researchers.

Exodus 20:9 "Thou shalt...bear false witness."

Exodus 20:9 “Thou shalt…bear false witness.”

FL said: Merritt cranks it up by saying, "... even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth."

Chris Lawson said: Exodus 20:9 "Thou shalt...bear false witness."

FL said: Religion News Service (RNS) journalist Jonathan Merritt very recently interviewed Stephen Meyer, based on Meyer's books Darwin's Doubt and Signature In The Cell. That interview is now online. Merritt cranks it up by saying, "... even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth."

diogeneslamp0 said: The only place you will find "a growing number" of creationists is in the cemetery.

diogeneslamp0 said: FL and Stephen Meyer you should be embarrassed to invoke the "growing number" meme, which has been flogged by creationists for 50 years:

FL said: Religion News Service (RNS) journalist Jonathan Merritt very recently interviewed Stephen Meyer, based on Meyer's books Darwin's Doubt and Signature In The Cell. That interview is now online. Merritt cranks it up by saying, "... even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth."

BULLSHIT. I wrote a whole blog post detailing the 50-year history of creationists and ID proponents invoking the memes "a growing number" and "more and more" scientists who believe in creationism. Creationists like Henry Morris and D. James Kennedy said that over and over for decades, grew old and died. Moreover, I showed quantitatively that, in fact, the number of creationists and ID proponents among credentialed scientists is either flat or slowly decreasing, despite the overall increase in the total number of scientists. Making war against this reality, each decade the creationists and ID proponents inflate their fake numbers of "creationist scientists" which are just increasingly deluded fantasies detached from reality. The only place you will find "a growing number" of creationists is in the cemetery.

Helena Constantine said: Along these lines, isn't there a website of hundreds of quotes over time going back to about 1860 of creationists saying, "Evolution is doomed and will be rejected by science in a few years?"

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Helena Constantine said: Along these lines, isn't there a website of hundreds of quotes over time going back to about 1860 of creationists saying, "Evolution is doomed and will be rejected by science in a few years?"

Here.

The only place you will find “a growing number” of creationists is in the cemetery.

...[E]ven though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it's hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth.

The ID movement attempts to combine Biblical fidelity with scientific rigor, and even though many scientists have criticized the movement as being unscientific, it’s hard to ignore the growing number of people embracing ID explanations for life on earth.

Helluva catch, Doc Bill.

FL,

When you approvingly quoted the Religion News Service article about Intelligent Design, why did you edit out the part about "Biblical fidelity"?

It's all about the science, eh.

diogeneslamp0 said: FL, When you approvingly quoted the Religion News Service article about Intelligent Design, why did you edit out the part about "Biblical fidelity"? It's all about the science, eh.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Helena Constantine said: Along these lines, isn't there a website of hundreds of quotes over time going back to about 1860 of creationists saying, "Evolution is doomed and will be rejected by science in a few years?"

Here.

John Pieret said: It is indeed fodder for the Quote Mine Project (if I can ever get someone to do the html work again). Anyway, it will go on my blog.

If you haven't read Meyer's book yet, you can weigh in by voting for the most thoughtful reviews and by voting down the ad hominem rants by those who haven't read the book.

Doc Bill said: In the category of "How pathetic can you get?" for $500, Alex, comes the Disco Tute's very own John West to moan and grown that poor widdle Stevie Meyer can haz no respects on the Amazon.com book thread. What - did you say Amazon.com? Yes, the ONLY place on the entire internet where Meyer's Hopeless Monster 2 is being discussed, but it gets worse. Virtually none of the discussions are happening on the "positive" reviews, rather the action is happening on the "negative" review threads. But to John West negative reviews and criticism is a Violation of Free Speech, thus, he's urged his little creationist minions to go over to Amazon and vote down the heretics. John sez:

If you haven't read Meyer's book yet, you can weigh in by voting for the most thoughtful reviews and by voting down the ad hominem rants by those who haven't read the book.

What, again? If you haven't read the book yet, go over there and vote down negative comments? I almost feel sorry for the Tooters that their only recourse for "discussion" is to hang around Amazon.com, I mean, it's really sad.

I'm curious. Can anyone find a source in which Meyer reveals what he thinks happened in the history of life? Is he for fiat creation or genotype-tweaking? In either case, how many times, and when? Etc. Does Darwin's Doubt (which I have not yet been able to lay my hands on) say anything along that line?

John Harshman said: ...Darwin’s Doubt ...lay my hands on...

John Harshman said: I'm curious. Can anyone find a source in which Meyer reveals what he thinks happened in the history of life? Is he for fiat creation or genotype-tweaking? In either case, how many times, and when? Etc. Does Darwin's Doubt (which I have not yet been able to lay my hands on) say anything along that line?

harold said: Actual definitive, testable statements of position - Meyer is "better" than that. The pros don't drop easy fly balls. You won't find this guy making a straight-forward, potentially testable statement.

John Pieret said: For your information, however, a 15 page ellipsis if far from the record. We once had a 104 page ellipsis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote44

More interesting is this:It seems to be that he doesn’t challenge the idea that there is common descent by natural means among the vertebrates over the last few hundred million years.

bayilil veren said: More interesting is this:It seems to be that he doesn’t challenge the idea that there is common descent by natural means among the vertebrates over the last few hundred million years.

John West Fails!

After extolling his minions to "vote down" the negative comments on the Amazon dot Com book thread the results have been exactly: ZERO. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

That indicates that Evo Whine and Snooze gets even less hits than we imagined, and those hits are probably from evolutionists, the mighty Darwinian Lobby, scoping them out.

Fail, West. Again. Loser.

John Pieret said: For your information, however, a 15 page ellipsis if far from the record. We once had a 104 page ellipsis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote44

Doc Bill said: John West Fails! After extolling his minions to "vote down" the negative comments on the Amazon dot Com book thread the results have been exactly: ZERO. Nothing. Zip. Nada. That indicates that Evo Whine and Snooze gets even less hits than we imagined, and those hits are probably from evolutionists, the mighty Darwinian Lobby, scoping them out. Fail, West. Again. Loser.

harold said:

bayilil veren said: More interesting is this:It seems to be that he doesn’t challenge the idea that there is common descent by natural means among the vertebrates over the last few hundred million years.

Someone else said that, and no, it actually isn't very interesting. Here's why... The point of ID/creationism is to sneak sectarian science denial, favoring one narrow religious cult, into taxpayer funded public school science classes. This is generally part of a broader right wing authoritarian social/political agenda. But the key word above is "sneak". The original effort was to get straight post-modern YEC creationism into schools, but when they lost Edwards v. Aguillard they immediately adopted the lame "plausible deniability" ID approach. If you are unfamiliar with any of this, here is a starting point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People. Make sure to read about "cdesign proponentsists". It has frequently been pointed out that evolution deniers don't all say the same thing, but yet they almost all support one another. The rare more honest crackpots who insist on the purity of their own version are isolated; in fact they wind up obsessing here and at other pro-science sites, because this is where they don't get banned. Many creationists are cynical and dishonest. That's a generalization I strongly stand by. They support doing what it takes to get evolution denial into schools. Heck, even "creation science" was massively dishonest. It was post-modern sectarian dogma disguised as science, just not quite as disguised. They support doing whatever it takes to deny, distort, censor, or otherwise interfere with the teaching of sound science in public schools, because science doesn't match their ideology. If that means pretending to only care about "the Cambrian explosion" today to get a foot in the door, that's fine with them.

It gives them some hope that maybe there’s something wrong somewhere in what the “darwinists” say.

Speaking of quote mines, did anyone else spot or notice the gross quote mine in David Berlinski's latest defense of Darwin's Doubt? This should definitely go in the Quote Mine Project. In his feeble attempt to criticize Matzke's devastating review, he quotes Susumo Ohno on whether new proteins or protein families were required in the Cambrian radiation. This is what he shows his audience:

"... [I]t is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes."

The original quote from Ohno's paper:

"Inasmuch as only a 1% DNA base sequence change is expected in 10 million years under the standard spontaneous mutation rate, I propose that all those diverse animals of the early Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago, were endowed with nearly identical genomes, with differential usage of the same set of genes accounting for the extreme diversities of body forms."

Not only did he totally omit the important qualification (in bold) that appears in Ohno's original paper with a period, but he totally ignores the fact that Ohno's words are actually in total agreement with what Matzke wanted to say: No new proteins or families of proteins were required for the phenotypic diversity we see in the Cambrian animals. In other words, no new genes (or proteins) were necessary to explain the diversification of animal phyla in the Cambrian. And yet he says to the gullible that "Susumo Ohno came to a different conclusion".

Do these people have any modicum of respect for their audiences' intellect? Do they think that they write for lobotomized baboons who cannot remember what was said in the beginning of the paragraph?

Rhazes said: Speaking of quote mines, did anyone else spot or notice the gross quote mine in David Berlinski's latest defense of Darwin's Doubt? This should definitely go in the Quote Mine Project. In his feeble attempt to criticize Matzke's devastating review, he quotes Susumo Ohno on whether new proteins or protein families were required in the Cambrian radiation. This is what he shows his audience: "... [I]t is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes." The original quote from Ohno's paper: "Inasmuch as only a 1% DNA base sequence change is expected in 10 million years under the standard spontaneous mutation rate, I propose that all those diverse animals of the early Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago, were endowed with nearly identical genomes, with differential usage of the same set of genes accounting for the extreme diversities of body forms." Not only did he totally omit the important qualification (in bold) that appears in Ohno's original paper with a period, but he totally ignores the fact that Ohno's words are actually in total agreement with what Matzke wanted to say: No new proteins or families of proteins were required for the phenotypic diversity we see in the Cambrian animals. In other words, no new genes (or proteins) were necessary to explain the diversification of animal phyla in the Cambrian. And yet he says to the gullible that "Susumo Ohno came to a different conclusion". Do these people have any modicum of respect for their audiences' intellect? Do they think that they write for lobotomized baboons who cannot remember what was said in the beginning of the paragraph?

Do these people have any modicum of respect for their audiences’ intellect? Do they think that they write for lobotomized baboons who cannot remember what was said in the beginning of the paragraph?

They probably think that they do and they probably do. THey can only fool the ignorant and gullible, that’s their target audience. The educated and informed are forever outside their grasp.

Berlinski's quote actually comes from a different passage in the paper, which had a similar wording to that of the abstract. So, I apologize, he didn't omit anything. But still, Ohno's position in the paper in no way contradicts or invalidates what Matzke had to say. The Cambrian radiation didn't require a new set of proteins or protein families, according to Ohno. Instead, the diversity of body plans or forms arises from the differential expression of the same set of genes. How is it that "Susumo Ohno came to a different conclusion" from that of Matzke's?

This is the passage that Berlinski partially quoted:

"The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can't possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. Rather, it is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes. This is the very reason for my proposal of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. This genome must have necessarily been related to those of Ediacarian predecessors, representing the phyla Porifera and Coelenterata, and possibly Annelida. Being related to the genome - possessed by the first set of multicellular organisms to emerge on this earth, it had to be rather modest in size."

The whole passage tells us that Berlinski's musings about Ohno's usage of the word "endowed" are quite deceptive. Ohno DOES say what he means by "the curious and suggestive word endowed". The genome of the Cambrian animals came from their "Ediacarian predecessors". Ohno's answer also counters another point that Berlinski tried to raise: that the 136 protein families unique to animals "must have arisen throughout the Cambrian era". No, they don't have to. They could have easily arisen at any point in the ancestors of the Cambrian phyla (this could extend the time period to at least 80 million years, if not more). The other point is that these protein families don't necessarily have to have uniquely arisen in the animal lineage. Berlinski tells his gullible audience the following:

"These proteins presumably arose after the last common animal ancestor."

That might be a possibility, but it is no way the only one. In fact, the paper that he cites identified three possible reasons why these protein families might be unique to the animal lineage:

"The remainder comes from families that have a spasmodic distribution because of gene loss, gene invention, or just because the sequence-matching procedures are not powerful enough to detect all homologs."

In other words, we might have had more protein families in common with the other eukaryotes, but they could have been lost in the course of evolution, or the other possibility is that our tools aren't powerful enough to detect the homology. (Note that this paper was published in 2003).

Well of course different anatomies wouldn't necessarily require different proteins. Put a cell type in some part of the body where it wasn't before, or have some part grow more (or less) relative to other parts than it used to, or have some part get absorbed after it grows, or some other change in arrangement or proportions. None of those results would need proteins that weren't already there.

Henry J said: Well of course different anatomies wouldn't necessarily require different proteins. Put a cell type in some part of the body where it wasn't before, or have some part grow more (or less) relative to other parts than it used to, or have some part get absorbed after it grows, or some other change in arrangement or proportions. None of those results would need proteins that weren't already there.

The Cambrian radiation didn’t require a new set of proteins or protein families, according to Ohno. Instead, the diversity of body plans or forms arises from the differential expression of the same set of genes. How is it that “Susumo Ohno came to a different conclusion” from that of Matzke’s?

harold said:

The Cambrian radiation didn’t require a new set of proteins or protein families, according to Ohno. Instead, the diversity of body plans or forms arises from the differential expression of the same set of genes. How is it that “Susumo Ohno came to a different conclusion” from that of Matzke’s?

Taken excessively literally, this statement by Ohno borders on being nonsense. It is certainly true that essentially the same genome is found in all somatic cells of the human body, that organisms with very different morphologies at very different parts of their lifecycle generally have the same genome throughout their lives, and so on. Having said that, different species have different genomes. However, of course, Ohno undoubtedly meant to draw attention to the fact that very minor changes in nucleotide sequence can have very major effects on morphology.

I'm assuming that by "differential expression" Ohta was referring to changes in regulatory sequences. That's what would alter expression patterns. Two things are important here: first, changing expression wouldn't take all that many mutations; second, it could happen gradually, with many mutations of small effect, each advantageous in itself, for which an obvious mechanism is increasing specificity and strength of binding at transcription factor binding sites.

harold said:

Do these people have any modicum of respect for their audiences’ intellect? Do they think that they write for lobotomized baboons who cannot remember what was said in the beginning of the paragraph?

They probably think that they do and they probably do. THey can only fool the ignorant and gullible, that’s their target audience. The educated and informed are forever outside their grasp.

I'm not sure what baboons did to deserve this insult, but they write for committed self-brainwashed authoritarians who demand that the propaganda they consume match their biases and wishes, whatever level of distortion must be applied to do so. If their target audience was solely the educationally deprived in Appalachia and similar regions, they would not have as much fund-raising.

Just got Darwin's Doubt from the library. And I'm quite unable to find any real acknowledgment that anything happened between the end of the Ediacaran and the start of the Atdabanian, which is a period of around 20 million years, and during which quite a bit happens. No wonder Meyer calls the Cambrian explosion quick and mysterious: he cuts a giant slice out of the middle.

It also appears that the small, shelly fauna appears only in one endnote, and that's attached to text that makes it seem as if it's an Ediacaran phenomenon.

John Harshman said: I'm assuming that by "differential expression" Ohta was referring to changes in regulatory sequences.

John Harshman said: Just got Darwin's Doubt from the library. And I'm quite unable to find any real acknowledgment that anything happened between the end of the Ediacaran and the start of the Atdabanian, which is a period of around 20 million years, and during which quite a bit happens. No wonder Meyer calls the Cambrian explosion quick and mysterious: he cuts a giant slice out of the middle. It also appears that the small, shelly fauna appears only in one endnote, and that's attached to text that makes it seem as if it's an Ediacaran phenomenon.

Keelyn said:

harold said:

Do these people have any modicum of respect for their audiences’ intellect? Do they think that they write for lobotomized baboons who cannot remember what was said in the beginning of the paragraph?

They probably think that they do and they probably do. THey can only fool the ignorant and gullible, that’s their target audience. The educated and informed are forever outside their grasp.

I'm not sure what baboons did to deserve this insult, but they write for committed self-brainwashed authoritarians who demand that the propaganda they consume match their biases and wishes, whatever level of distortion must be applied to do so. If their target audience was solely the educationally deprived in Appalachia and similar regions, they would not have as much fund-raising.

harold, I don’t mean to detract from the thread topic, but whoa! LOL. I mean really, this has to stop! I live in middle of Appalachia and I think we are getting a bad rap. Now I will admit that this is not the center of enlightenment, and I know that it is not the most education prioritized spot in American (sigh), and yes we are pretty deep with Sunday fundie Bible bangers, and I know the area has a reputation of being generally populated by one-tooth stump-jumping hillbillies who can’t add more than two single digits on paper (let alone in their heads) and get a correct answer, but actually there are a lot of smart, very well educated people in Appalachia. Not everyone in Appalachia is a “lobotomized baboon.” Texas and Louisiana, for example, fare no better. I lived five years in the southern portion of Maine (8th grade through 12th) and the educational system up there sucks just as bad as it does here. I admit that public education in this area is well below the standard I would like – and that concerns me, because my daughter is in the public school system here – but, there are a lot of people working very diligently to improve that condition.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a phylogeneticist and a systematist. But if there's any difference (you could make the argument that one is a subset of the other), I'm probably the former rather than the latter.

Rhazes said: ... Joe, Have you read Darwin's Doubt? If not, are you planning to do so anytime soon? ...

Ohta? or Ohno? I know Tomoko Ohta -- she is an eminent Japanese theoretical population geneticist who is famous for her work on slightly deleterious mutants as an explanation for protein substitution and polymorphism. But I suspect you meant the late Susumu Ohno.

Rhazes said: Berlinski's quote actually comes from a different passage in the paper, which had a similar wording to that of the abstract. So, I apologize, he didn't omit anything.

Joe,

I sent you the relevant passages from the book.