Teach the controversy? Or when ID expells... A case of missing links

"Your ignorance is not evidence"

He’s forcefully answering PZM as I type about transitional fossils. PZM just accused Simmons of making stuff up. PZ caught Dr. Simmons over the pakicetus and ambuloucetus (spelling?) fossils. Made him look a little underinformed (especially for someone who wrote a book on missing links.) PZM missed Simmons point - he didn’t have the names handy, but mentioned a recent article in Scientific American which he claimed buttressed his point, the specific names notwithstanding I heard Dr. Simmons’ response; the point is how he made Dr. Simmons look…Dr. Simmons is asking him for reading recommendations and PZ is coming off as more knowledgable in the areas they’re discussing… PZ - challenges that ID has no positive case. PZ blows away SIM on whale fossils. PZ mentions specific “intermediate” whale fossils, SIM is unaware of the names of the 5 to 10 transitionals that is claimed — shame! Frustrating as this is SIM’s area of publication, and SIM brought it up. PZ - “What is difference btw human and chimp brain”, Only difference is in volume, in magnitude. SIM - Produced no serious response to PZ on this. Ooooh. This guy is a medic! He throws in some snip about 180 degrees different between chimps and man. If I had to use this debate to judge the validity of NeoDarwinism, I would be a Darwinist. Simmons is a terrible dissappointment. I shall pass on his books, though they haven’t been on my short list. I’m with you bFast, I was disappointed by Dr. Simmons’ arguments and performance and think PZ easily won the debate. Oh well, hopefully they’ll choose someone else for the anti-Darwin side next time…(Sorry Dr. Simmons!) Good point. If Simmons is going to use whale transitions in anti-darwinian talking points, due diligence requires he be able to express why PZM’s cited examples are insufficient to counter his claim. He seemed to generally hint at lack of blow holes, but wasn’t very forceful. I’m with you bFast, I was disappointed by Dr. Simmons’ arguments and performance and think PZ easily won the debate. The ID movement is wasting its time and resources, in my opinion. This ID vs. evolution fight will never be won with either debates, arguments, brochures, web sites or what have you. The opposition has a propaganda machine that is impervious to this strategy. If public debates and discussions are the best that we can do, I’m afraid we have lost the war before it has even started Education and arguments are nice but they will only be effective after we’re on top, not before. Sorry to sound so negative but that’s the way I see it at the moment. I understood PZ to say that the details evolution of the brain were well known. (Does anyone know of any brain fossils?) “PZ easily won the debate.” Thankfully “winning” a debate does not the truth make. The flat-earthers of old no doubt often “won” debates against the less informed and less debate-able round-earthers. “You must assume Darwinism is true in order to call anything a transitional!” No wonder anti-evolutionists say there are no transitional forms. Myers is lying, of course. He can get away with lying in a public debate because he comes off as being knowledgeable. Like I said previously, we are not going to win this war with honest arguments. If arguments could do it, it would have done it already. The enemy is fighting a political war, not a scientific one. They will lie as often as they have to. They are well equipped for it. Myers is a skilled and consummate liar, in my opinion. the Discovery Institute should put out a transcript of the debate with notes rebutting the lies of the atheist PZ Meyers. In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened. I’m an optimist.

Simmons offered the usual creationist boilerplate, but he made the fatal error of not relying on the strategic buck-passing you see from other IDC advocates. Creationists like talking about all the new scientific evidence that disproves evolution, and how everyone but those close minded Darwinists accepts this new evidence. At the same time, creationists like talking about how any evidence that disputes Darwinism is ruthlessly suppressed before it sees the light of day. Either statement is ridiculous; paired together they’re risible, but creationists seem to have no trouble saying both. I think it’s easier to find a credulous audience if you can talk vaguely about how all this new evidence gathering is done by other people, and all this evidence suppression is done to other people. You can then let your audience fill in the details with visions of industrious ID labs and evil Darwinists trying to shut them down. But if you’re going to write a book about the fossil record and appear on a radio show to discuss it, you have to at least sound like you know what you’re talking about when discussing cetacean lineage. Simmons screwed up everything he talked about, but he screwed up his own putative area of expertise badly enough for some of his own side to recognize it.

Oh, and WAD-
Thanks for another trip down memory hole lane. It's been a lot of fun.

I do have to say "good on you" to PZ Myers for being willing to debate, and taking your claim that the debate topic was changed in the last 90 minutes in good faith, for continuing on with the debate.

Proof that the average nitwit at UD can in fact spot how incompetent the DI actually is. That doesn't bode well for Disco's future of continuing to fleece the flock.

I'm waiting to see how the discovery institute spins this utter IDC failure. Casey "don't show my face" Luskin will be burning the midnight oil tonight.

... ironic how the only missing links are those on uncommon descent

... we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened

I just finished listening to the debate, and there is absolutely no question that PZ Myers won the debate. Some of the comments ("infantile" and "ignorant") were not necessary and out of place, but PZ still clearly won the debate.

Thanks for participating PZ. It is too bad that the debate occurred on the Jeff and Lee program.

Now, if we could get PZ Myers to debate Ann Coulter at St. Cloud State University, it would be much more interesting. In the case of Coulter, she will stoop to using terms like "infantile", "ignorant", and worse--so PZ would feel more at home.

But PZ would be intellectually outgunned by Coulter, in the world of politics and forensics.

Since Coulter approaches the creation-evolution controversy from a right-wing socio-political perspective, maybe PZ and other Pandasthumb's evolutionists could bring Al Frankin up to speed on the evolutionist side of the of socio-political aspects of the evolution disputes, and we could have Frankin v. Coulter, with Gary Eichten or Ira Flatow as debate moderator.

Al Frankin might get a book out of it (akin to Coulters' Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Ronald Numbers or Edward Larson could also act as more neutral debate moderators, depending on their speaking abilities.

I am sure the Stewart Hall (Ritsche) Auditorium would sell out, but the ticket prices might have to be reduced if Simmons is in the debate.

"Myers is lying, of course. He can get away with lying in a public debate because he comes off as being knowledgeable."

Perfect creationist logic. They claim that PZ is lying, but they don't say about what. They don't present any evidence or any refutation, they just make an unsubstantiated claim and pretend that that makes it true. What a bunch of wingnuts.

News flash, making a statement you disagree with is not lying. Making a claim you don't want to believe is not lying. Now making claims about fossils that you know nothing about, now that is lying.

Some of the comments (“infantile” and “ignorant”) were not necessary and out of place

I rarely visit Uncommon Descent, so the comments by their regulars on this thread were very interesting to me. Are they usually that honest about their side getting openly whupped? Or was that comparatively rare behavior?

wright: I rarely visit Uncommon Descent, so the comments by their regulars on this thread were very interesting to me. Are they usually that honest about their side getting openly whupped? Or was that comparatively rare behavior?

Are they usually that honest about their side getting openly whupped? Or was that comparatively rare behavior?

I agree with Mr_Christopher. PZ was facing an opponent who was being touted as some sort of "expert", whose arguments displayed a level of unpreparedness and incompetence not usually seen placed on public display. It was quite clear to PZ that Simmons was not only lying but thoroughly ignorant of his topic, and merely pointed it out to him. Keep in mind that Simmons was allowed to change the debate topic on short notice, and they were on a Christian talk radio program that clearly favored Simmons (if you dispute that, you would need to listen to the hosts' reactions to the two call-in questions afterward). Simmons' continued attempts to discredit Darwin's character was infantile (the only canard he didn't use was Darwin as a puppy-beater) and his understanding of what a scientific theory was, the evidence of whale evolution, and the evolution of the brain were all quite ignorant. Indeed, to not call Simmons ignorant would be a disservice, since to do otherwise would be to accept Simmons as an expert on "Darwinism" and the fossil record.

William Wallace : ...Now, if we could get PZ Myers to debate Ann Coulter at St. Cloud State University, it would be much more interesting. In the case of Coulter, she will stoop to using terms like "infantile", "ignorant", and worse--so PZ would feel more at home. But PZ would be intellectually outgunned by Coulter, in the world of politics and forensics.

Thanks for the clarifications, Mr_Christopher and Chanyanov. I suspected that was atypical behavior for pro-ID / Creationist posters in any forum, as the ones who regularly troll on the Thumb are so different.

What was really amazing to me (which, I know, shows how little experience I've had with this kind of mindset) is how compartmentalized the UD posters' thinking was. They critiqued Simmons for his lack of preparedness and ignorance of the subject matter and acknowledged that PZ came out ahead... But they still couldn't or wouldn't reexamine their positions in light of that.

I have my blind spots and cherished preconceptions too. But I've also managed to gain the insight and courage to change some of those over the years. It's difficult to understand the willful ignorance required for people to hold such contrary notions of science in general and evolution in particular.

Wow, if that guy's a SENIOR FELLOW at the Discovery Institute, I'd hate to hear what their other guys sound like.

I mean SERIOUSLY. This guy's a complete moron, in fact he sounded drunk. This is someone whose expertise lets him rise to the level of Senior Fellow in the premiere Intelligent Design promotion agency on the planet?!?!?!

How can ANYONE... ANYONE listen to that and not realize... holy shit, Intelligent Design is a movement made up of drunktards? (Drunktard: people who've willfully shut off so much of their brain that they might as well be drunk.)

And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we have MORE MORE MORE debates? I know ERV called out Behe... I say we hound these guys. No more with this "science isn't done in debate"... let's just trash these drunkards. Rip the guts out of the DI and make even their cronys realize it's a laughingstock.

He was either drunk or a drunktard. I'm not sure it matters which.

I love the UD comments about how "winning" a debate doesn't mean anything. Then why are they so obsessive about setting up debates with "darwinists"? And then hooting and hollering when their bussed-in audiences crown them the winners.

It's funny/sad how UD disappeared that thread.

Contrast that action with how science operates . . . actively trying to find flaws in the others' research, replicating the work to see if the results are consistent, having folks knowledgeable in that field evaluate the findings, and publishing the results for everyone else to take their turn picking apart.

But it's the IDists who are crying "censorship! We've been Expelled!"

"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say."

The commenters on the disappeared thread are like a bunch of rednecked hicks wondering why their truck won't start after having pounded the engine repeatedly with a sledgehammer, and that the guy who suggested that they call someone to tow the truck to a repair shop is lying dead in a ditch, having been shot for suggesting that.

The IDists hoot and holler because they think they have won even if they lost the fight and war. Come on if you say evolution is not a science then there is something wrong with you. As far as proving evolution to be fact science has already prov en it to be a fact and the supporters of ID, and ID really stands for idiotic design, have lost the war and are way too stupid to get it.

I love the UD comments about how “winning” a debate doesn’t mean anything.

But it’s the IDists who are crying “censorship! We’ve been Expelled!”

Flint: As far as I can tell, all of these things are what Jesus would do.

JohnW:

William Wallace : ...Now, if we could get PZ Myers to debate Ann Coulter at St. Cloud State University, it would be much more interesting. In the case of Coulter, she will stoop to using terms like "infantile", "ignorant", and worse--so PZ would feel more at home. But PZ would be intellectually outgunned by Coulter, in the world of politics and forensics.

*rubs eyes* *shakes head slowly* Bloody hell, it really does say that. "PZ would be intellectually outgunned by Coulter." I think there are two possible explanations: either there's some other Ann Coulter, or "unicellular pond life" is spelled "PZ" where William comes from. Anyway, what's the point in discussing ID creationism with Ann Coulter? Her writings on the subject are just a regurgitation of what she was told by Dr Dr Dembski. Give us the engineer, not the greasy rag.

Myers is lying, of course. He can get away with lying in a public debate because he comes off as being knowledgeable.

Like I said previously, we are not going to win this war with honest arguments.

In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened.

Siamang: Wow, if that guy's a SENIOR FELLOW at the Discovery Institute, I'd hate to hear what their other guys sound like. I mean SERIOUSLY. This guy's a complete moron, in fact he sounded drunk. This is someone whose expertise lets him rise to the level of Senior Fellow in the premiere Intelligent Design promotion agency on the planet?!?!?!

William Wallace: Since Coulter approaches the creation-evolution controversy from a right-wing socio-political perspective,

steve s: Imagine the humiliation of Paul Nelson, who actually was demoted from Senior Follow to Fellow, (IIRC), for the crime of spending years never actually doing the several things he said he was going to do.

I have followed, somewhat loosely, the discussion here on PT on the evolutionary theory in biology, and arguments against that theory. I have had the feeling that people on both sides are simply over-reacting.
Also, I have thought that what happened in Dover was an isolated incident that was blown out of proportions in media.

I gladly admit that I am ignorant in many issues. When I first visited the deserts in the western parts of the U.S., I thought, “this looks exactly like the landscapes in those western movies I have seen”. Without realizing it, I had thought that also the landscapes in the movies were part of the fiction. Embarrassingly silly piece of thinking from me.

Listening to the provided audio recording of the radio broadcast made me think, “this sounds exactly like they have claimed it to be on PT”.

I do understand someone rejecting the evolutionary theory in biology (or any scientific theory) on religious or philosophical grounds. In fact, I am somewhat interested in finding out the reasoning they apply. I have had rather little luck in this pursue of mine.

Challenging the evolutionary theory on factual grounds is another story. The claims made by Dr. Simmons appeared totally ridiculous even to a layman. I did not expect today claims about the total lack of transitional fossils and about the impossibility of whale evolution, because whales had to move their nostrils from front to top of their heads immediately as they entered water. There are plenty of semi-aquatic mammals living today, and they seem to cope with their nostrils just fine.

Maybe widespread anti-science movements in the U.S. really exist. Or, maybe PT is just a discussion board for people promoting their own ego by fighting and beating imaginary enemies.

Regards

Eric

I will make a prediction.

No one on the ID side will ever come within shouting distance of P Z after this.

Eric Finn: Also, I have thought that what happened in Dover was an isolated incident

I gladly admit that I am ignorant in many issues. When I first visited the deserts in the western parts of the U.S., I thought, “this looks exactly like the landscapes in those western movies I have seen”. Without realizing it, I had thought that also the landscapes in the movies were part of the fiction. Embarrassingly silly piece of thinking from me.

Maybe widespread anti-science movements in the U.S. really exist.

No one on the ID side will ever come within shouting distance of P Z after this.

the evolutionist side of the of socio-political aspects of the evolution disputes

Maybe widespread anti-science movements in the U.S. really exist.

“PZ mentions specific “intermediate” whale fossils, SIM is unaware of the names of the 5 to 10 transitionals that is claimed — shame! Frustrating ”

Since Coulter approaches the creation-evolution controversy from a right-wing socio-political perspective, maybe PZ and other Pandasthumb’s evolutionists could bring Al Frankin up to speed on the evolutionist side of the of socio-political aspects of the evolution disputes, and we could have Frankin v. Coulter, with Gary Eichten or Ira Flatow as debate moderator.

— William Wallace

Frank J: So why bring it up in 2008, only to embarrass oneself? I guess my question is rhetorical, since the obvious answer is that ID tries to have it both ways with everything. And if, in the process of embarrassing oneself, a few juicy sound bites impress the more clueless audience members, I guess they find it worthwhile.

People hear what they wish to hear because they come with their own preconceptions and predilections.

What I heard was five minutes of bitching, whining, and excuse making by PZ before the first debate element was ever developed. This was a classic way of lowering expectations for the debate for his side and introducing ad hominem elements into the discussion, even blaming Simmons when in fact the host was totally responsible. Is PZ Ms. Clinton's long lost scientific brother?

PZ continued from start to finish to inject insults and arrogance into the discussion that Simmons noted and refused to enter into, it's called intellect and civility, two aspects of human character that escape most of evolutions spokespersons.

The so called whale fossils etc. are simply a joke and illustrate the impossibility of constructing such transitions because there is no soft tissue, no DNA, and thus only a smattering of extinct creatures some terrestrial, some aquatic and all living in the same ecosphere where intake of oxygen, eating, elimination,mobility,sensory perception, are quite ubiquitous and require certain elements of similarity and rather striking differences.

PZ as do all evos make a dramatic mistake that is rather striking, namely this: If I begin to understand how something works at a detailed level, I simultaneously understand how it was conceived, developed, and "perfected" to its current stage of operation and function.

Evolutionists are essentially trying to reverse engineer the genomes of organisms:

1) By looking at a sampling of printed reports taken from a document retention file over the entire life of the system and claiming they understand the unique algorithms, instruction sets, and design elements that gave rise to the report.

2) By noting that several payroll system reports that contain certain common data elements and calculated results they conclude that the systems are all related in some hierarchical and nested scheme and probably all descended from an original payroll system.

3) Now that the details of how life actually operates have emerged and those details are totally unavailable to the researchers of scattered historical documents, the requirement is to take the binary representation of the code for say the UNIX operating system (scale and complexity matter) and reverse engineer same back to the initial source code.

4) The discovery that the payroll system is running under UNIX OS is of course rather daunting because now one must discover how such came to be.

5) Worse yet the analogy requires that in reality there was no waterfall design methodology, the entire UNIX system and all applications dependent on it were mere happenstance, undesigned, unplanned, undirected, without goal or purpose as though a random code generator had simply scribed, complied, "ran" and either aborted for OS or compiler violations or looped or perhaps rarely developed a result.

6) ID can attempt a similar task with the advantage that a rational designer will leave consistent clues to their design philosophy, their thought processes, their goals, their intentions, and by various types of "revelation", provide aid to those seeking to understand and reverse engineer the miracles of creation.

Finally, while PZ claims that the ferocious internal debate over evolutionary concepts and mechanisms is transparent the fact is that any attempt to present such to the public and especially students is met with well financed vehement opposition.

Can we please, please, please block this moron?

Finally, while PZ claims that the ferocious internal debate over evolutionary concepts and mechanisms is transparent the fact is that any attempt to present such to the public and especially students is met with well financed vehement opposition.

Uh, Keith,

On the other thread you keep talking about "600 million years," yet keep referencing "true origin," which is a YEC site. That, plus the fact that you keep evading the usual simple questions, tells me that you might not agree with "true origins" any more than you agree with mainstream evolution. Or with Michael Behe, to whom those questions you keep evading refer.

I know that the fans of ID are increasingly postmodern, and can't be bothered with such "minor details" as whether space-time is real or an illusion. But you are talking to us not them, so please answer the questions. If you want to impress the postmodernists, instead of PT lurkers, please take your arguments to Dembski's blog.

Don't you just love how the IDiots take anything that is man made, look at how complex it is and the try to shoe horn in every natural process that is even more complex and simply state "Goddidit", while trying to sound like they actually have a clue as to what they are talking about.

Keith, Keith, Keith. Please face it. You simply can't accept that the whole universe doesn't revolve around the human race. Guess what, it doesn't. It don't care about you, me or any particular piece of the the universe. It simply is. To assume for one split second that some invisible, unknowable, supremely powerful "designer", either poofed the entire universe total formed, or guided and manipulated the universe, JUST so to have the human race emerge is the absolute height of arrogance, pride and vanity. If you are so insecure about yourself, that you require that, thats your prerogative. I personally am able to look at the universe with awe and wonder and realize just how special I am, along with the human race, for the simple fact that frankly the universe doesn't care about me and wouldn't notice if the entire planet self destructed.

And if you still haven't figured it out. There is no god, no designer, nothing. We are own our own. And I feel great about it.

Keith Eaton lied: "6) ID can attempt a similar task with the advantage that a rational designer will leave consistent clues to their design philosophy, their thought processes, their goals, their intentions, and by various types of "revelation", provide aid to those seeking to understand and reverse engineer the miracles of creation."

Stanton: Can we please, please, please block this moron?

Now, if we could get PZ Myers to debate Ann Coulter at St. Cloud State University, it would be much more interesting.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams:

Stanton: Can we please, please, please block this moron?

But . . . but . . . UD deleted its thread devoted to the interview, so where else can Keith go but to a site that doesn't (AFAICT) practice that same type of censorship?

My first memory of Ann of the Long Blonde Tresses was on Geraldo, during the OJ Simpson fiasco/trial. Given the consumate skill and flair with which she incessantly tossed those afore-mentioned tresses, I - perhaps uncharitably - speculated that that might have had something to do with her graduating from Law School.

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

Keith Eaton: People hear what they wish to hear because they come with their own preconceptions and predilections. What I heard was five minutes of bitching, whining, and excuse making by PZ before the first debate element was ever developed. This was a classic way of lowering expectations for the debate for his side and introducing ad hominem elements into the discussion, even blaming Simmons when in fact the host was totally responsible. Is PZ Ms. Clinton's long lost scientific brother? PZ continued from start to finish to inject insults and arrogance into the discussion that Simmons noted and refused to enter into, it's called intellect and civility, two aspects of human character that escape most of evolutions spokespersons.

The so called whale fossils etc. are simply a joke and illustrate the impossibility of constructing such transitions because there is no soft tissue, no DNA, and thus only a smattering of extinct creatures some terrestrial, some aquatic and all living in the same ecosphere where intake of oxygen, eating, elimination,mobility,sensory perception, are quite ubiquitous and require certain elements of similarity and rather striking differences.

PZ as do all evos make a dramatic mistake that is rather striking, namely this: If I begin to understand how something works at a detailed level, I simultaneously understand how it was conceived, developed, and "perfected" to its current stage of operation and function.

Evolutionists are essentially trying to reverse engineer the genomes of organisms:

1) By looking at a sampling of printed reports taken from a document retention file over the entire life of the system and claiming they understand the unique algorithms, instruction sets, and design elements that gave rise to the report. 2) By noting that several payroll system reports that contain certain common data elements and calculated results they conclude that the systems are all related in some hierarchical and nested scheme and probably all descended from an original payroll system.

3) Now that the details of how life actually operates have emerged and those details are totally unavailable to the researchers of scattered historical documents, the requirement is to take the binary representation of the code for say the UNIX operating system (scale and complexity matter) and reverse engineer same back to the initial source code. 4) The discovery that the payroll system is running under UNIX OS is of course rather daunting because now one must discover how such came to be. 5) Worse yet the analogy requires that in reality there was no waterfall design methodology, the entire UNIX system and all applications dependent on it were mere happenstance, undesigned, unplanned, undirected, without goal or purpose as though a random code generator had simply scribed, complied, "ran" and either aborted for OS or compiler violations or looped or perhaps rarely developed a result.

6) ID can attempt a similar task with the advantage that a rational designer will leave consistent clues to their design philosophy, their thought processes, their goals, their intentions, and by various types of "revelation", provide aid to those seeking to understand and reverse engineer the miracles of creation.

Finally, while PZ claims that the ferocious internal debate over evolutionary concepts and mechanisms is transparent the fact is that any attempt to present such to the public and especially students is met with well financed vehement opposition.

Stanton posts rather short blurbs.. guess he's too busy treating his genital herpes.

The results of the special counsel regarding the persecution of the editor who had the nerve to publish the S. Meyers paper in their "peer reviewed journal" is a public record. I can assure you this and a plethora of additional cases of the big science censorship and attack dog mentality will be made very clear to the American public in the coming months.

Frankie Baby it's just so much more fulfilling to destroy your fairyland theory using your own terminology and so called evidence. I keep a pretty open mind as to age arguments because no one has the absolute answer at this point...regardless of what each side argues.

The universe is a display of God's greatness and power and our only claim to significance is the stated Word that we are made in His image and given the privilege of thinking His thought after Him.

Your arrogance and hubris are clearly on display in judging the present state of creation in any authoritative way and passing judgment on God's methods, intentions, designs, trade-offs and such as though you had some special ability to make such determinations, value judgments, and some higher ground to stand on.

One measure of intelligence is whether one exhibits rational behavior, thought , action, and habit in their lives.

Of course, if you prefer unintelligent design, ignorance, stupidity, irrational behaviors (say being an alcoholic and public drunk like Hitchens and Dawkins) have at it ...God certainly has given you the free will to behave accordingly.

Jeez, I would have thought even this group would have noticed the evidence regarding the important functionality of the appendix recently published.......well I'm never surprised by this team.

Finally, I have no way of knowing anything about the thread in question, but the assign of motives by this group has the efficacy of "the 911 attack was an inside job", "Roswell was a big government cover-up and my dog was abducted last week", and "abiogenesis is not part of our theory, but we know its true and by golly someday all our evolutionary biologists working on it will prove it if we can just keep bilking the bucks from the taxpayers we despise, hate, belittle and adjure."

The evo community is a well financed, politically savvy, special interest group that bilks the American taxpayer out of several billion dollars a year in wastrel spending on origin of life studies, bone brushing extinct animals, detecting intelligent signals from outer-space, looking for the wolf that turned into a whale, the feathers on a T-rex, and other such life enhancing activities that contribute so mightily to the well being of the human race.

Of course there are many projects where scientists actually do real science with great outcomes and there we find people of all walks and belief systems.

It's so revealing to me that not one scientist of evo persuasion would consider approaching their work using the methods of evolution to accomplish a goal, no matter how they may rave about genetic algorithms, it all depended on the procedures God claimed for Himself and that He has given to us.

I think, I plan, I reason. I develop a plan, a design cognitively. I use available resources including other intelligent agents like myself to implement my ideas, etc. by imposing them on and through inanimate and sometimes living matter to effect a result. My results are then available for undetermined time periods, without my direct involvement, although I may offer additional refinements and support as necessary to sustain and expand the desired effects.

Jonas Salk will be always an agent of polio eradication every time an injection or tablet is administered to a child. His ideas and expertise continue long after His direct activities.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Stanton posts rather short blurbs.. guess he’s too busy treating his genital herpes

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

Hmm, I'm thinking of submitting that whole last post from Keith to FSTDT. Anyone want to count up the number of times he contradicts himself? I lost track at about half a dozen.

What Ben said.

Keith Eaton lied: "Jeez, I would have thought even this group would have noticed the evidence regarding the important functionality of the appendix recently published..."

It’s so revealing to me that not one scientist of evo persuasion would consider approaching their work using the methods of evolution to accomplish a goal, no matter how they may rave about genetic algorithms, it all depended on the procedures God claimed for Himself and that He has given to us.

The universe is a display of God’s greatness and power and our only claim to significance is the stated Word that we are made in His image and given the privilege of thinking His thought after Him.

Keith Eaton: Stanton posts rather short blurbs.. guess he's too busy treating his genital herpes.

I think, I plan, I reason. I develop a plan, a design cognitively. I use available resources including other intelligent agents like myself to implement my ideas, etc. by imposing them on and through inanimate and sometimes living matter to effect a result. My results are then available for undetermined time periods, without my direct involvement, although I may offer additional refinements and support as necessary to sustain and expand the desired effects.

The universe is a display of God’s greatness and power and our only claim to significance is the stated Word that we are made in His image and given the privilege of thinking His thought after Him.

Keith being astoundingly ignorant again: It’s so revealing to me that not one scientist of evo persuasion would consider approaching their work using the methods of evolution to accomplish a goal, no matter how they may rave about genetic algorithms, it all depended on the procedures God claimed for Himself and that He has given to us.

Is it just me, or is Keith's entire style of debate the rhetorical equivalent of running into a chess match that he's not even playing in, kicking over the board while yelling, "King me, losers!" and then declaring himself the new chess grandmaster while completely oblivious to the other people in the room just shaking their heads sadly?

The universe is a display of God’s greatness and power and our only claim to significance is the stated Word that we are made in His image and given the privilege of thinking His thought after Him.

Keith Eaton: ... other intelligent agents like myself ...

Hello All, first time poster but long time reader of your excellent site. I would just like to say how much a simple bank employee can learn about science from you guys.Please keep up the great work you are doing in the name of science and for the sake of my young children who I hope will be interested in science too and hopefully not have to read your items ten times before they understand.
I'm sure I will be banned for my next comment but here goes anyway. To the the likes of Keith and Larry who seem to appear here regularly disrupting excellent threads without answering any questions they are posed, if you try to bring your shite to the UK, I will fight you, I will fight you so hard that you will be begging to be allowed to crawl back into your little hole.

@ Neil.

Hehe Fundy bashing sometimes just feels so good don't it? It's so frustrating to try and show them how the world works time after time after time. They are so in lock step with their doctrine that you expect them to pipe up with a "Heil!" at any point. It really is to bad Australia is populated. I would so love to ship people off like this. They can have total control of their government, science and religion without infecting anyone else. We'll start off simple with just the YEC'ers. I'd say it'd take 10-15 years before they were screaming for help or it would make an Orwellian society look pleasant.

Neil: Hello All, first time poster but long time reader of your excellent site. I would just like to say how much a simple bank employee can learn about science from you guys.Please keep up the great work you are doing in the name of science and for the sake of my young children who I hope will be interested in science too and hopefully not have to read your items ten times before they understand. I'm sure I will be banned for my next comment but here goes anyway. To the the likes of Keith and Larry who seem to appear here regularly disrupting excellent threads without answering any questions they are posed, if you try to bring your shite to the UK, I will fight you, I will fight you so hard that you will be begging to be allowed to crawl back into your little hole.

Shenanigans!

Keith is clearly DI Senior Fellow material.

rog: Keith is clearly DI Senior Fellow material.

Mercurious: @ Neil. Hehe Fundy bashing sometimes just feels so good don't it? It's so frustrating to try and show them how the world works time after time after time. They are so in lock step with their doctrine that you expect them to pipe up with a "Heil!" at any point. It really is to bad Australia is populated. I would so love to ship people off like this. They can have total control of their government, science and religion without infecting anyone else. We'll start off simple with just the YEC'ers. I'd say it'd take 10-15 years before they were screaming for help or it would make an Orwellian society look pleasant.

LOL I like that idea, Rrr. Maybe they could pray for it to expand so they don't have to sleep in the church too.

Keith wrote:

"The universe is a display of God’s greatness and power and our only claim to significance is the stated Word that we are made in His image and given the privilege of thinking His thought after Him."

And there you have it folks, the true motivation behind this creobot and all of his mindless blubbering. He simply cannot conceive of any way in which his life has any value or worth unless he was specially made in the image of an all-powerful and all-knowing God. He is simply emotionally incapable of even questioning whether evolution may be real or not because the consequences would be too much for him to bear. He just can't imagine the possibility that he may not be as special or as priviledged as he wants to suppose.

Well those of us who know we evolved feel pretty special anyway. I don't know about you, but being the product of nearly four billion years of evolution makes me pretty darn significant. And if that was the way that God choose to "create us in his own image" then who are we to argue?

I know, psychoanalysis has convinced as many creobots as there are fingers on one foot. But hey, if this guy refuses to answer any of our questions or examine any facts or do any science, what else have we got left? He was amusing for a little while, but hasn't he trashed up enough threads already?

Just one more question Keith, wouldn't you be more proud to have an original thought of your own instead of just "thinking his thought after him"? Maybe not.

I had the feeling that my comment about a "designer" or god would draw him out. It's just like fishing for the "big one". You know if you throw out just the right bait he'll be powerless to resist it.

Yeah, I’m sure it was a real struggle, rising to Senior Fellow with the DI. Reminds me of the joke about what’s wrong with the opposing college: drive past it too slow with the windows rolled down, and they’ll throw a degree in your car.

Bobby:

Yeah, I’m sure it was a real struggle, rising to Senior Fellow with the DI. Reminds me of the joke about what’s wrong with the opposing college: drive past it too slow with the windows rolled down, and they’ll throw a degree in your car.

Maybe the DI would get more respect if they had a football team.

...not one scientist of evo persuasion would consider approaching their work using (evolutionary algorithms) to accomplish a goal.

One measure of intelligence is whether one exhibits rational behavior, thought , action, and habit in their lives.

stevaroni: How not to lie with statistics; Keith Eton and comment #141949 ; 646 words of rant containing exactly 2 actual statements of fact. One of which he got wrong...

...not one scientist of evo persuasion would consider approaching their work using (evolutionary algorithms) to accomplish a goal.

... despite the fact that a Google search readily produces 1,620,000 hits on the term in a mere .14 seconds - many of which contain solid examples of something Kieth says never happens. And one of which he got right...

One measure of intelligence is whether one exhibits rational behavior, thought , action, and habit in their lives.

Though ironically, he doesn't seem to have been able to actually apply this one.

I keep a pretty open mind as to age arguments because no one has the absolute answer at this point…regardless of what each side argues.

— Keith Eaton

Neil: Hello All, first time poster but long time reader of your excellent site. I would just like to say how much a simple bank employee can learn about science from you guys.Please keep up the great work you are doing in the name of science and for the sake of my young children who I hope will be interested in science too and hopefully not have to read your items ten times before they understand. I'm sure I will be banned for my next comment but here goes anyway. To the the likes of Keith and Larry who seem to appear here regularly disrupting excellent threads without answering any questions they are posed, if you try to bring your shite to the UK, I will fight you, I will fight you so hard that you will be begging to be allowed to crawl back into your little hole.

Keith bleated: People hear what they wish to hear because they come with their own preconceptions and predilections.

I must have missed something. This thread discusses a missing link and comments that were removed from the UD web site. By all appearances because UD advocates were disappointed by what they themselves called a lost debate. How does Keith explain that in light of his statement regarding preconceptions? ID proponents heard the same thing we heard Keith.

What I laugh about is when a band of biblical illiterate atheists and agnostics attempt to assert what peoples faith means to them, how they relate to the Bible, what values are paramount, and the state of their existence,life , etc.

Here is a band of godless wire-heads who can count their friends on one hand, their bank account in roman numerals not including c or m, their interests outside the narrow bounds of cynicism end with an occasional crossword, and spend their entire lives kissing up and saying yes-sir to accomplished people like me.

You have no idea how utterly I hold you in derision, snicker at your little tight-butt remarks, trying so desperately to impress each other, gain someones approval, God knows it wouldn't be from the normal segment of society.

Pity is the only adequate feeling and I actually can't quite muster it up.

Oh and socks do come in colors other than white!

On that note, I think it’s a safe bet that if Keith is not a troll, he’s of the new age “mind so ‘open’ that the brains fall out” POV.

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

desperation is a stinky cologne...

(a tip of the hat to Mr. Benson)

Keith Eaton: You have no idea how utterly I hold you in derision, snicker at your little tight-butt remarks, trying so desperately to impress each other, gain someones approval, God knows it wouldn't be from the normal segment of society. Pity is the only adequate feeling and I actually can't quite muster it up.

I repeat, can we please please please ban this moron?

You have no idea how utterly I hold you in derision, snicker at your little tight-butt remarks, trying so desperately to impress each other, gain someones approval, God knows it wouldn’t be from the normal segment of society.

Stanton: I repeat, can we please please please ban this moron?

I just realized what was missing from the troll posts:

The constant repetition of "I love it so!"

I figure it's for posts from people like Keith Eaton that my computer mouse was intelligently designed with a scroll wheel. If I need to brush up on goopy illogic, faux-pedantic gibberish, or pre-adolescent swipes (..."kick some evolander butt"...comes to mind), I can scan the latest KEaton comedy post and reload. If not, a few spins of the scroll wheel and I'm on to a post that actually makes sense or teaches me something new,

It seems to me that blogs are a version of Speakers Corner at Hyde Park--if you want to listen to (and maybe even engage) the guy with the tinfoil hat wearing Twinkie filling as sunscreen, you can stop and have a try. If not, you can just walk down a little further. It's not like a debate where there's only one microphone.

And although I don't personally know any of the posters on this site, I'm fairly confident that few or none of them fit the profile of folks who "spend their entire lives kissing up and saying yes-sir to accomplished people like me". There don't seem a lot of "yes-men" (or "yes-women") in this group.

Jackelope King said:
Now how about them answers? You’ve had almost four days now. Are they really that tough?"

Damn straight.
The easiest thing in the world to make a ID proponent SQUIRM and WRIGGLE and generally just soil their underwear is to ask them about how ID qualifies as a scientific theory. Worked with RealPC, worked with avocationist and it's working sweetly with some mysterious person called "Admin" on a creationist site in NZ called Christiannews. Guaranteed fun for all the family.

"But PZ would be intellectually outgunned by Coulter, in the world of politics and forensics."

The biggest thing PZ would have to worry about in debating Coulter is being outmanned. :-)

Forget outgunned.

Keith Eaton busts his gut with:

"People hear what they wish to hear because they come with their own preconceptions and predilections."

And let me guess... you're above all that?

"What I heard was five minutes of bitching, whining, and excuse making by PZ before the first debate element was ever developed. This was a classic way of lowering expectations for the debate for his side and introducing ad hominem elements into the discussion, even blaming Simmons when in fact the host was totally responsible. Is PZ Ms. Clinton’s long lost scientific brother?"

??? Any specific statements stick in your craw?

"PZ continued from start to finish to inject insults and arrogance into the discussion that Simmons noted and refused to enter into, it’s called intellect and civility, two aspects of human character that escape most of evolutions spokespersons."

Simmons was arrogant and ignorant. I can understand why you'd be upset that PZ pointed out the obvious.

You are arrogant and ignorant too.

"The so called whale fossils etc. are simply a joke and illustrate the impossibility of constructing such transitions because there is no soft tissue,"

Why is soft tissue necessary? Certainly it would be a bonus if it were available, but soft tissue doesn't get preserved and rarely leaves fossils of any kind. Why you think thats funny, I have no idea.

Remarkably, forensic artists can reconstruct what a person looked like from their skeletons. I realize this is not quite the same thing, but I don't see why soft tissues are necessary. Do you suppose skeletons evolve, but not soft tissues, or vice versa? Your claim that illustrating such transitions are impossible because of lack of soft tissue is simply arbitrary. With respect to whale evolution, there are number of unmistakable features, such as the rotation of the nostrils to the top of the head. Why do you suppose soft tissues would be needed to confirm that? Do we need fossilized whale mucous membranes in order to make this deduction?

"no DNA, and thus only a smattering of extinct creatures some terrestrial, some aquatic and all living in the same ecosphere where intake of oxygen, eating, elimination,mobility,sensory perception, are quite ubiquitous and require certain elements of similarity and rather striking differences."

Funny how those similarities can be arranged in a nested hierarchy as well as sequenced in time.

"PZ as do all evos make a dramatic mistake that is rather striking, namely this: If I begin to understand how something works at a detailed level, I simultaneously understand how it was conceived, developed, and “perfected” to its current stage of operation and function."

You'll have to explain where PZ did this.

"Evolutionists are essentially trying to reverse engineer the genomes of organisms:

1) By looking at a sampling of printed reports taken from a document retention file over the entire life of the system and claiming they understand the unique algorithms, instruction sets, and design elements that gave rise to the report.

2) By noting that several payroll system reports that contain certain common data elements and calculated results they conclude that the systems are all related in some hierarchical and nested scheme and probably all descended from an original payroll system."

That assumes nested hierarchies are inevitable.

They are not.

Furthermore specific nested hierarchies can be tested. If we deduce from the fossil record, certain taxa are related through descent via modification, that can be tested by comparing the genomes of existing members of these taxa.

"3) Now that the details of how life actually operates have emerged and those details are totally unavailable to the researchers of scattered historical documents, the requirement is to take the binary representation of the code for say the UNIX operating system (scale and complexity matter) and reverse engineer same back to the initial source code."

Um no. We can use current genomes to verify propose evolutionary relationships.

"4) The discovery that the payroll system is running under UNIX OS is of course rather daunting because now one must discover how such came to be."

Simple. Its because Windoze sucks.

"5) Worse yet the analogy requires that in reality there was no waterfall design methodology, the entire UNIX system and all applications dependent on it were mere happenstance, undesigned, unplanned, undirected, without goal or purpose as though a random code generator had simply scribed, complied, “ran” and either aborted for OS or compiler violations or looped or perhaps rarely developed a result."

This is a rather clumsy attempt to bring in IC.

This brings to mind two possibilities.

1. Organisms and their environments are analogous to computer programs. (OS's are just computer programs too.)

2. Organisms and their environments are not analogous to computer programs since organisms reproduce and adapt
to changing environments and each other.

If its OK with you, I choose #2

6) ID can attempt a similar task with the advantage that a rational designer will leave consistent clues to their design philosophy, their thought processes, their goals, their intentions, and by various types of “revelation”, provide aid to those seeking to understand and reverse engineer the miracles of creation.

Finally, while PZ claims that the ferocious internal debate over evolutionary concepts and mechanisms is transparent the fact is that any attempt to present such to the public and especially students is met with well financed vehement opposition.

Stuart Weinstein, you are a wonderful representative for ID.
Please keep posting.
:)

Oh, and by the way.......

What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID?

Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming?

Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes).

If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

(Oops, that's what I get for posting too fast.)

Sorry Stuart.
The above posting was, of course, meant for Keith.
Apologies.

I’ll hazard a guess that he only thinks people should keep an open mind on topics where the facts contradict his beliefs.

— Bobby

“no DNA, and thus only a smattering of extinct creatures some terrestrial, some aquatic and all living in the..."

Well, this is technically correct. After all, we don't have any DNA samples from the intermediate forms and we probably never will. However, we do have lots of DNA from extant Artiodactyls and Cetaceans. What that DNA tells us is that Cetaceans are descended from terrestrial Artiodactyl ancestors. Funny, that's exactly the same answer we get from the fossils.

And it's not just casein or mitochondrial or ribosomal sequences that give this answer either. There are shared retrotransposition events that definitatively show that not only are Cetaceans derived from Artiodactyls but that the hippopotamus is the closest living relative to the Cetacea. These characters give us a robust data set that is unlikely to have any problems with homoplasy and that once again gives us the exact same answer as the fossils and all of the other genes as well. For details, go to the Molecular Genetics section in the Talk Origins archive and look up the article on plagarized errors. Really, this is some of the best evidence we have for evolution.

As for Keith, I suggest that no one respond to his insults, or anything else he cares to write, untill he has responded to Nigel's questions. It would be nice if he would respond to mine as well, but you can't have everything. I'm sure that everyone looking in has realized that all he has are insults, so much more the pity.

As for Keith, I suggest that no one respond to his insults, or anything else he cares to write, untill he has responded to Nigel’s questions.

— David Stanton

Google cache of the UD thread in case any tried to doubt the quotes from the thread.

From now on my similar questions will be preceded by “Nigel wants to know…” They’ll still be evaded, but at least I can finally expect some help from my side. ;-) Anyway, let’s all apply David’s suggestion to every anti-evolutionist who shows up here and on Talk Origins.

David's plan isn't hard to pull off. Just copy/paste your favorite list of unanswered/unanswerable questions for creationists and save it for a later date. One of the things I've learned from the Internet is that the only sure way to drive trolls off is repetition, and the only sure way to confound irrational folks like ol' Keith is with questions which they seem unwilling (or perhaps even incapable) of answering. If you combine both, you get trolls who get bored by being unable to anger people and the irrational forced to face the shortcomings of their position.

I lurked back when the Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank was still posting, and he seemed to be a master of this strategy, keeping an impressive store of unanswered questions for creationists/IDists/Teach the Controversy-ists/Teach the Weaknesses-ists. My favorites were always the "why should your opinion of religion matter to me any more than my pizza guy's?" (Sidetrack: does anyone have any of Lenny's old question lists hanging around? I found his 30+ questions for Sal Cordova here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/wingnuts_in_ful.html#comment-95327

That, however, has thus far been all I could find.)

Perhaps now would be a good time to assemble a list of unanswered questions, including Nigel's questions, Lenny's pizza guy, perhaps in a separate post somewhere. Then it's just a matter of bookmarking, copying/pasting your favorite, and asking our friends like Keith, Sal, ABC/Larry, FL, etc. when we can expect answers.

I think he was a recovered alcoholic of some sort. I don’t remember the thread(s).

The infamous Mark Hausam often used the excuse that he couldn’t answer everyone in order to get out of answering anyone.

— Mark Hausam

Perhaps now would be a good time to assemble a list of unanswered questions...

— Jackalope King

D'Oh!

The quote in Comment 142,065 is from "Mike Elzinga," not "Mark Hausam."

Wow, the quality of cdesign proponentsist comments here sure has gone down -- WAY down -- since the Dover smackdown. We used to get people trying really hard to advance a lot of truly science-y-sounding arguments in support of ID; now all we get is some twit complaining of "ad-hominem" attacks while alluding to "genital herpes."

What the Hell's happened here? Have all the intelligent creationists given up and/or gone elsewhere, leaving only the true know-nothings to keep up the cheering section? Or have creationists in general simply melted their brains rather than face reality?

Charles Darwin would be considered a racist if he lived today, therefore species don't evolve.

George Washington would be considered a racist if he lived today, therefore America doesn't exist.

You wear white socks, therefore species don't evolve.

I was impressed by Dr. Simmons argument that babies star breathing within 1 minute from being born, which cannot happen by darwinist chance. What darwinist explanation is there for the mechanism by which human babies start to breathe ?

That's no monkey trick ! /Loki

Arthur,

And there ain't no ratio that can be produced in offspring by pure Mendelian probability either.

Seriously, there is indeed a good physiological explanation for why infants are able to breathe shorthy after birth. There is also an evolutionary explanation, it goes like this: those that didn't aren't.

Arthur said: I was impressed by Dr. Simmons argument that babies star (sic) breathing within 1 minute from being born, which cannot happen by darwinist chance.

Dear Sir, It is very hard to decide where to start in responding to a question (statement) like this. 1). Are you suggesting that there is no biological regulatory mechanism that would induce a neonate to start breathing air on its own? Maybe there is some divine interaction here? 2). Next, are you suggesting that the mechanism in question cannot be passed on from the parent(s) of that offspring. 3). This question just needs to be asked – What in the world is “darwinist chance” and what does that have to do with the induction of breathing in a neonate?

Honestly Arthur – there are so many things wrong with your statement one doesn’t know where to start. You seem to be really impressed by someone else’s communication infidelity; and, by passing on that statement it shows not only a lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is and says, but also a basic lack of Biology and Physiology. I thought this guy that impressed you was an M.D.

Arthur said: What darwinist explanation is there for the mechanism by which human babies start to breathe ?

Again, the question must be clarified – Are you asking for the evolutionary development of the portion of the brain (The Brain Stem) that controls respiration (and other autonomic functions)? Or are you asking how the Brain Stem actually controls and stimulates breathing through its carbon dioxide (in a healthy body) drive? Or, finally, how that part of the brain is stimulated as a neonate transitions from its mothers oxygen supply to air? Please clarify – and it would be helpful if you would use more concise terms and avoid words like “darwinist.” They are not helpful in clarifying your requests for information.

Arthur said: That’s no monkey trick !

Finally you conclude with this gem. Again, what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that simian neonates don’t start breathing when they are born? What about other mammals? How about birds or reptiles? Really Arthur, what are you suggesting here – or did you think that you actually stumped someone?

For those who don't care for audio, I thought so much of PZ's opening statement that I transcribed it on my blog. Time permitting I'll go through the whole debate.

And Dr. Simmons knows that a newborn's' heart go from 3-chambers circulation, to a full 4-chambers human heart, shortly after birth, most of the time.

Isn't that a marvel of God ?

_Arthur: And Dr. Simmons knows that a newborn's' heart go from 3-chambers circulation, to a full 4-chambers human heart, shortly after birth, most of the time. Isn't that a marvel of God ?

Isn’t that a marvel of God ?

ben:

Isn’t that a marvel of God ?

If you choose to believe so. What does that belief have to do with science?

And Dr. Simmons wrote a book showing how ignorant Charlie Darwin really was; imagine, Darwin never took Biology courses, and didn't even knew what DNA was!

Nowadays, even schoolchildren know that, even in Florida !

Did everyone miss the /loki at the end of _Arthur's first post?

fnxtr --- What does /loki signify?

David B. Benson: fnxtr --- What does /loki signify?

...a tongue-in-cheek parody of a viewpoint opposite your own which is responded to by persons of your own viewpoint as if the parody was a real argument. ... Named for the deceptive Norse god Loki.

— Talk Origins Jargon File

Drats, fnxtr, you've given the game away!

dhogaza:

I think he was a recovered alcoholic of some sort. I don’t remember the thread(s).

You're thinking of the dude who posts as bornagain77 over at UD. He's one of their leading intellectuals ... :)

The creationist troll most recently using the pseudonym of _Arthur asked the most howlingly ignorant question: "And Dr. Simmons knows that a newborn's' heart go from 3-chambers circulation, to a full 4-chambers human heart, shortly after birth, most of the time. Isn't that a marvel of God?

D’Oh! The quote in Comment 142,065 is from “Mike Elzinga,” not “Mark Hausam.”

I was impressed by Dr. Simmons argument that babies star breathing within 1 minute from being born ... explanation is there for the mechanism by which human babies start to breathe ?

stevaroni: By the way, what is a "monkey game"? Sounds kinda kinky.

If I need to brush up on goopy illogic, faux-pedantic gibberish, or pre-adolescent swipes (…”kick some evolander butt”…comes to mind), I can scan the latest KEaton comedy post and reload.

— Jackstraw

Keith Eaton: The results of the special counsel regarding the persecution of the editor who had the nerve to publish the S. Meyers paper in their "peer reviewed journal" is a public record. I can assure you this and a plethora of additional cases of the big science censorship and attack dog mentality will be made very clear to the American public in the coming months.

If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time?

For example, I suspect that much if not all of what is covered in Barbara Hagerty’s Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom at NPR will be covered in the film the evos are so keen on preemptively discrediting. (I have intentionally avoided watching the trailer) [emphasis added].

If an evo is able to explain why he thinks microevolution has no bounds, I’m willing to listen.

William wrote:

"If an evo is able to explain why he thinks microevolution has no bounds, I’m willing to listen."

Well, I don't know what an "evo" is, but I am an evolutionary biologist, so I guess I could give it a try.

Microevolution has no bounds, in the sense that just about any sequence can be produced eventually in small increments. There is no theoretical reason why cumulative selection cannot produce just about any result that is possible, eventually.

However, as Glen correctly points out, this does not mean that microevolution has no limits whatsoever. The changes that occur are limited by historical contingency for one thing. For example, there is evidence that the basic genetic tool kit for animal development arose early in the evolution of life and that everything since then has been just elaborations and variations on the general theme. Now, every organism that evolves must start out with these basic mechanisms in place. That definately limits the types of organisms that are likely to arise and therefore explains why certain types of organisms have not evolved.

Still, that leaves a lot of room for lots of things that can evolve. So now we have the results of over 600 million years of animal evolution that has produced everything from sponges to mammals. Most of the animals are based on a segmental body plan and all of them have the same basic complement of hox genes.

So, microevolution is indeed limited in some important ways, but it is definately not limited in the sense that it could not produce the diversity of life we see, given sufficient time.

If an evo is able to explain why he thinks microevolution has no bounds, I’m willing to listen.