Bless their hearts. The Creationists over at Answers in Genesis are working their perfectly designed fingers to the bone. Blowing the Discovery Institute out of the water by not only publishing a for-realsies
science journal (well, at least once), but also performing 'semi-technical' research!
Darwin at the Drugstore? Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria
While its just
adorable to see them working so hard, their crippled understanding of basic science leaves this semi-technical article completely worthless.
Problem #1-- Comparing Chihuahuas to Great Danes
If *I* were designing a similar experiment, I would have used two types of bacteria.
- Bacteria A- susceptible to ampicillin
- Bacteria B- genetically identical to Bacteria A in every way, except resistant to ampicillin
Thus if there is a fitness difference between the two bacteria, I could be 100% sure it was because of the ampicillin resistance, not anything in the genetic background muddling things up.
This is not crazy magic work.
I am not making unreasonable demands.
That is exactly what I do in my experiments. I take a 'white mouse' version of HIV-1, called NL4-3. I chop out a bit of it, and paste in regions from patient samples. All of my viruses are 100% identical,
except for the bit I pasted in, so if there are fitness differences between my viruses, I
know it has to be genetic differences in the bit I pasted in causing the effect.
Yeah. They didnt do that.
They took two kinds of bacteria with the
same species name and compared them. The 'wild type' strain they got from a friggen pond. While that is the cutest thing
ever,
you cant do that. They have no idea what its genome looks like. They dont know if phenotypic differences between the bacteria are because of antibiotic resistance or because of
other genetic differences.
Problem #2-- 'Fitness' doesnt mean what they think it means.
What does it mean to be a 'less fit' variant? When Im competing various viruses against one another, I define 'fitness' as who infects the most cells in a certain environment. Virus A might be a wussy loser on dendritic cells, but a deadly monster on macrophages. Virus B might tear up every cell you feed it, but is easily neutralized by antibodies. 'Fitness' changes depending on the environment, and how you define it, and how you measure it.
This paper defines 'fitness' as 'growth rate and colony "robustness" in minimal media'. Considering Problem #1, we have no idea whether the 'smaller colonies' or a delayed log phase in the antibiotic resistant bacteria are
because of the antibiotic resistance... or something else.
Additionally, their 'growth curve' (Figure 2) is useless. A growth curve with no error bars. A growth curve that shows two types of bacteria reaching an identical stationary phase at the same time. Which leads me to believe that if they had performed this experiment more than once, the error bars of these two bacteria would overlap, ie, there is no significant difference between the growth kinetics of these two bacteria. Just like there is not a growth difference between the bacteria in rich media.
But lets grant their premise. The antibiotic resistant Serratia marcescens is 'less fit' than 'wild type'.
Then why does antibiotic resistant Serratia marcescens makes up 92% of the Serratia marcescens infections in hospitals (according to their paper)?
Because while antibiotic resistant Serratia marcescens might be 'less fit' in 'minimal media', they use ANTIBIOTICS in hospitals. And in the presence of ANTIBIOTICS the ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT bacteria has a clear reproductive advantage: IT DOESNT DIE.
?????????
You have to use an appropriate definition for 'fitness'.
Problem #3-- 'Comparison' does not mean the same thing as 'competition'.
I compare viruses every day. I infect a set number of cells with a set number of viruses, and I count how many cells get infected. Lets say in these mono-infections, Virus A infects 90% of the cells, and Virus B infects 90% of the cells. Are these two viruses equally fit?
Hmm. The key to this game is 'competition'. Throw two kids in a room full of Cheetos, and youre going to have two very obese, very orange children. BUT! Throw two kids in a room with a snack sized bag of Cheetos... one of those kids is going to eat, and one of those kids is going to get a black eye.
To compete viruses, I put the same amount of Virus A
and Virus B onto a set number of cells, and I scream 'FIGHT! FIGHT FIGHT! FIGHT!' Virus A and Virus B have equal 'odds' of infecting cells at that point, so if theyre about the same, they will infect the same number of cells (50/50). However, if Virus A is better in that particular environment, it might infect 90% of the cells, while B dawdles around and can only claim 10%. Its a head-to-head battle for limited resources.
Despite the fact the word 'compete' is uses multiple times in this article, nothing is 'competed' in this article. Two different bacteria are 'compared'. There is a difference.
Look, I know relatively little about bacteria. They arent the 'micro' in microbiology Im most interested in. But I can do a basic PubMed search to find a paper that analyzed the fitness cost of antibacterial resistance in Serratia marcescens the hard way (ie, the
right way):
A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β-Lactamase
Its a little more than 'semi-technical', but they do things right. From their discussion:
Antibiotic resistance that occurs via mutation of an antibiotic target often results in a fitness cost to the bacteria under permissive conditions. This suggests that the removal of antibiotic pressure will reduce the prevalence of resistant bacteria. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is dependent upon a fitness cost that can be overcome or reduced in several ways. First, antibiotic resistance genes are often genetically linked in the form of multi-resistant mobile DNA elements and selection of one resistant determinate can result in the maintenance of other resistance genes by linkage. Second, fitness costs are typically negated by the appearance of compensatory mutations that alleviate the fitness cost while preserving the resistance phenotype. Without a significant fitness cost, there is no selective pressure to drive a loss of the resistance determinant. Finally, multiple routes of resistance can exist and be highly variable with regard to the fitness costs they engender. Therefore, a spectrum of resistant clones can exist; some with no fitness costs or even enhanced fitness under permissive conditions. (references removed for ease of reading-- ERV)
*sigh* Its really, really cute that Creationists are trying to do big-kid research. But 'Darwin at the Drugstore?' is just a friggen mess.
227 Comments
Weaver · 21 July 2008
I have to disagree with one minor point.
It's not "cute" to see them absolutely fail at basic scientific methodology - it's sad and disturbing. It clearly demonstrates that in addition to having no ability to do or evaluate science, they are also unaware of their inability. This more than anything else shows the absolute futility we face trying to use science to demonstrate their stupidity.
You would think they would at least find a tame scientist to do some of the hard stuff for them - stuff like ensuring they only change one variable at a time. I mean, don't they have tons of real, live scientists who believe in their claptrap?
Dave Wisker · 21 July 2008
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
Hi Abbie,
What a pathetic excuse for a "scientific" paper. I know I have read abstracts by Intel Science Talent Search semifinalists and finalists who were seniors at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and several Long Island public high schools that were "real" scientific abstracts (though one of my favorite ones was pertaining to behavioral ecology by a New York, NY private school senior).
I wonder how much "science" they had to "copy" from Carl Zimmer's magnificient, recently published book.
Regards,
John
David Stanton · 21 July 2008
What a waste of time. So what if some bacteria have greater fitness than others? All creationists accept "microevolution" (except those that don't).
What could they possibly hope to prove with this nonsense? Are they trying to say that antibiotic resistance could not evolve by selection? Try again. Are they trying to say that antibiotic resistance is intelligently designed? Try again. Are they trying to say that they don't understand science well enough to even formulate a decent hypothesis let alone test it in a scientific manner? Bingo.
Oh well, at least they finally have a "scientific journal" in which to publish their "results". That fact alone should convince someone of something. Maybe that was a requirement for continued funding.
Paul Burnett · 21 July 2008
Anthony Judd · 21 July 2008
J. Biggs · 21 July 2008
I think you give them too much credit for their "research". I admit this research is somewhat more impressive than their previous attempts, but that, to me, is pretty much a condemnation of all their research efforts. Of course the real problem is their presuppositional stance. Due to this stance all results must be made to fit the hypothesis. I find it likely that Gillen et. al. knew that they were setting up the experiment improperly and in a way that would appear to prove their point, as it is well known that antibiotic resistance will often make a microbe less fit under permissive conditions as the article you cited demonstrates. Although the Gillen et. al. article does strengthen what we know about about antibiotic resistant bacteria in a nutrient rich environment, it in no way validates the idea that antibiotic resistance decreases fitness under the right conditions, (i.e. a growth medium containing an antibiotic). It's amazing the lengths to which AiG will go to make Christians look foolish.
ERV · 21 July 2008
Hey, if this were a middle schoolers science experiment, I would be impressed! Most kids dont have the same resources available as the INTEL kids, and without those, my demands are impossible. A little kid doing this research, I think, would show a lot of promise!
But, um, 'Dr. Alan L. Gillen' isnt a sixth grader...
JGB · 21 July 2008
I think jr high science fair is too generous. The kinds of mistakes made are not "technical" errors they are a failure to understand anything at a Freshman biology level. There is a fairly substantial literature already on antibiotic resistance, and at best they approach it like a novel field with all of the technical know how of someone in 1900.
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
Dr. J · 21 July 2008
Cross-posted from ERV:
Abbie, how cute, you treated it like it was real science!
We all know it is really part of an odd publicity scheme...See, we've published in "peer reviewed" journals! Granted, we had to create them ourselves because nobody is going to allow the geology article I checked out - the one about how evidence from granitic rock supports the 6,000 year old Earth - to be published. It doesn't really matter what the articles say so long as they can tell a public that doesn't really understand science that "we" published in scientific journals - just like real scientists.
I thank you for the link as I was thinking about a good way to introduce students in my Ecology and Evolution course to pseudoscience (also a good time to expose them to critical reading) and I'm sure I can find a great article in this "journal".
I wonder if they allow responses/comments on articles, you know, like real journals?
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
ERV · 21 July 2008
The majority of middle schools in this country do not have the equipment or the budget necessary to mirror the methods in Marciano et al. What planet do you all live on?
If a middle schooler made the same comparisons as Dr. Alan L. Gillen (colony size, growth curves) minus the Biblical crap, I would be satisfied. However, I do doubt that a middle schooler would miss the obvious next step, which would be comparing colony sizes and growth curves in the presence of antibiotics.
raven · 21 July 2008
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
stevaroni · 21 July 2008
I can see the complaints from the DI's media division now...
"First, the Evolutionists insist that we do research and publish it for their "review"."
"So we do that, and all they can do is to nitpick it to pieces! Is that what "peer review" means to these people? To overlook the big results and concentrate on parsing every little technical mistake?"
Larry Boy · 21 July 2008
You would think the fact that some colonies are pink and others are tan would be a tip off that there might be more genetic variation between these two strains than just anti-biotic resistance.
*sigh*
oh well.
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
NPD · 21 July 2008
To compete viruses, I put the same amount of Virus A and Virus B onto a set number of cells, and I scream ‘FIGHT! FIGHT FIGHT! FIGHT!’
Man, microbiology is a lot more exciting than I though.
Les Lane · 21 July 2008
Scientific research involves drawing a conclusion after experimentally testing a hypothesis. This study is apologetics. It adjusts results to fit preexisting conclusions.
The fitness effects could easily have led them to suggest an inefficient designer.
J. Biggs · 21 July 2008
raven · 21 July 2008
Paul Burnett · 21 July 2008
sparc · 21 July 2008
Frank J · 21 July 2008
On another thread recently I got into another semantic debate. I tried to say that classic creationism is slightly closer to science than ID, in an ironic contrast to all the spin that ID has devoted to pretending that it is science and not “creationism.” The other “Darwinist” insisted that they were both 0% science. Maybe it’s more like classic creationism is minus 5% science and ID is minus 10% science, but as the AIG paper shows, classic creationists, not IDers, are the ones willing to subject themselves to more critical analysis by making more well-defined testable claims. So by that metric at least, they are “less far” from science than ID is. But I do see the other point too. ID and classic creationism are both “running backwards,” so the fact that one is “closer to the finish line” does not mean that it has any better chance of winning the race.
Nevertheless, while classic creationists occasionally clumsily attempt to do what real scientists do, IDers say and do whatever is necessary to avoid being pinned down on anything, even if it means going in the exact opposite direction that real science needs to go to succeed. IOW, steadily backpedaling from everything except the unfalsifiable “some designer did something at some time” and the long-refuted “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” which conveniently takes the focus off what they – and classic creationists - have to offer in its place.
William · 21 July 2008
'Completely Worthless'? Maybe from a scientific standpoint, but it gives them a 'paper' published in a 'scientific journal', one of their biggest embarrassment points. They're not interested in winning on the science.
Frank B · 21 July 2008
A close friend of mine is a microbiologist, who was able to induce a methicillin resistant S. Aureus to be resistant to Vancomycin in just two weeks. The cost was apparently high since the strain would promptly lose the trait when removed from the antibiotic rich environment. Front loading, obviously. AIG can build a paper-macha volcano to prove that. : )
JohnW · 21 July 2008
I strongly suspect their methodology was as follows:
1. Determine the conclusion: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have a nasty, nasty mutation, so they're not as good as God's own wild-type.
2. Come up with a possible experimental approach which will show the right conclusion.
3. If the conclusion is wrong, repeat #2 using a less scientifically-defensible approach. Continue as necessary until we get results which agreee with our conclusion.
4. Publish the results. We've shown that antibiotic-resistant bacteria with a nasty, nasty mutation are not as good as God's own wild-type. Hallelujah!
Mike from Ottawa · 21 July 2008
They're all lab coat and no science.
megan · 21 July 2008
I just read the Journal's article on Christian Peer Review and posted some long-winded commentary on it, and the AiG in general on my blog, if anyone's interested (says the relative newbie).
http://jerseydevil77.livejournal.com/24636.html
Paul Burnett · 21 July 2008
Raging Bee · 21 July 2008
It clearly demonstrates that in addition to having no ability to do or evaluate science, they are also unaware of their inability.
It also clearly demonstrates that these hacks are more interested in fake research to reinforce their fake religion than they are in actually, you know, solving real problems or doing something to help real people. Whose money is being wasted on this tripe? And what could real scientists have accomplished with it?
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 July 2008
raven · 21 July 2008
I wouldn't get too worked up about this. The fact that they have to start a fake journal to publish their fake science says a lot about how desperate they are.
Most people of reasonable intelligence will figure it out easily. We are bombarded daily with dubious claims and information from the media, politicians, and especially advertising. Anyone who can't sort the wheat from the chaff in undoubtedly hopelessly confused.
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2008
iml8 · 21 July 2008
dmso74 · 21 July 2008
What amazes me is that these people don't recognize that one of the fundamental tenets of evolution by natural selection is that organisms will become adapted to their CURRENT environment. Organisms that are fit in one environment will be unfit in another- there is no crawl towards a universal higher fitness. On UD, DaveScot suggested that Lenski's newly evolved E. coli are probably less fit in their original environment now, as if this somehow showed that they weren't really "evolving", but going through "trench warfare" or some other Behe-an nonsense. in fact, it would simply show that they were evolving exactly as predicted- towards higher fitness in their current environment.
teach · 21 July 2008
I have to say that as a classroom teacher, I am very excited about this publication. This paper now gives me something for my high school students to critically analyze. Really, really bad attempts at science are never found in a published form - we can now tear this to pieces as an excellent example of why ID fails as science, without having to even bring the religion thing into class.
Thank you so much AiG.
deadman_932 · 21 July 2008
Nice, amusing take-down, Abby. Good on ya and cheers.
And welcome to the dark side, Megan (according to the Creo/IDers).
_Arthur · 21 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2008
Paul Burnett · 21 July 2008
iml8 · 21 July 2008
Frank J · 21 July 2008
deadman_932 · 21 July 2008
I recalled posting on this issue of "antibiotic resistance = loss of fitness" way back about two years ago on AtBC.
This was in response to a creationist citing : http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp .
Anyhoo, the upshot was this:
1. While it is true that in some (perhaps most) organisms that some loss of fitness can be discerned (depending crucially on HOW it is defined) -- ** compensatory mutations can subsequently act to reduce or even negate fitness loss ** (Heavens! More evilushuns!!)
2. In other critters, there appears to be no loss of actual fitness at all
Here's the cites I used way back then:
-------------------------------------
Schrag, S. J., V. Perrot, and B. R. Levin (1997). Adaptation to the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. Proc. R. Soc. London B 264:1287-1291.
"While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution.
This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these gentic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity in experimental animals. "
---------------------------------------
A. I. Nilsson, A. Zorzet, A. Kanth, S. Dahlstrom, O. G. Berg, and D. I. Andersson (2006). Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes. http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/3/544 (on rifampin resistance)
"Conclusions: The fitness impact imposed on E. coli 345-2 RifC by carriage of antibiotic resistance elements was generally low or non-existent, suggesting that once established, resistance may be difficult to eliminate through reduction in prescribing alone."
---------------------------------------
Nagaev, I., J. Björkman, D. I. Andersson, and D. Hughes. 2001. Biological cost and compensatory evolution in fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 40:433-439.
"observation suggests that fitness-compensatory mutations may be an important aspect of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the clinical environment, and may contribute to a stabilization of the resistant bacteria present in a bacterial population."
---------------------------------------
N. Luo, S. Pereira, O. Sahin, J. Lin, S. Huang, L. Michel, and Q. Zhang (2005). PNAS 102: 541-546. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure.
Online at: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/3/541
"The prolonged colonization in chickens did not result in loss of the FQ resistance and the resistance-conferring point mutation (C257-> T) in the gyrA gene.
Strikingly, when co-inoculated into chickens, the FQ-resistant Campylobacter isolates *outcompeted* the majority of the FQ-susceptible strains"
---------------------------------------
Nagaev, I., J. Björkman, D. I. Andersson, and D. Hughes. 2001. Biological cost and compensatory evolution in fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 40:433-439.
"observation suggests that fitness-compensatory mutations may be an important aspect of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the clinical environment, and may contribute to a stabilization of the resistant bacteria present in a bacterial population."
---------------------------------------
An overview is found in:
Andersson, Dan (2006) The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions? Current Opinion in Microbiology Volume 9, Issue 5, October 2006, Pages 461-465
"several processes act to stabilize resistance, including compensatory evolution where the fitness cost is ameliorated by additional mutation without loss of resistance, the rare occurrence of cost-free resistance mechanisms and genetic linkage or co-selection between the resistance markers and other selected markers."
---------------------------------------
Curiously, none of those citations are to be found in that AiG "study," bless their pointy li'l heads.
Cheers!
stevaroni · 21 July 2008
James F · 21 July 2008
Hang on, what is the big deal about a creationist journal? They've had the Creation Research Society Quarterly since 1964 and the Journal of Creation (originally Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) since 1984. Is it just that Ken Ham is getting into the act? Zero science + zero science + zero science is still zero science.
The other clue that this paper is not to be taken seriously - look at the authors' affiliation:
by Dr. Alan L. Gillen and Sarah Anderson, Liberty University
That says all you need to know.
CG · 21 July 2008
Methinks they took 'wild-type' a tad too seriously.
Ray Martinez · 21 July 2008
Why is modern day evolution obsessed with Fundamentalist Young Earth Creationism?
Said obsession betrays the intellectual and scientific weakness of their theory.
Charles Darwin and his "Origin" was a reply to Paley, 1802 and British Natural Theology which controlled Science before he published. BNT accepted the special creation hypothesis-immutable species to explain the existence of species, and they accepted an Old Earth.
YECs accept microevolution like Atheist evolutionism. The confused Fundies are in your camp.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, British Natural Theologian, Paleyan Designist.
iml8 · 21 July 2008
Doc Bill · 21 July 2008
Not obsessed, Ray.
You're simply wrong on all points.
trrll · 21 July 2008
Stanton · 21 July 2008
MPW · 21 July 2008
Hawks · 21 July 2008
There can be value in using strains the way the AiG study did. You don't HAVE to use strains that are identical apart from having/not having resistance. But if you do, you have to have larger sample sizes so that you can draw some sort of statistical inference. The AiG "paper" is left with zero degrees of freedom and it is impossible to calculate the probability that the results acquired were not due to chance alone. Any peer-reviewer would have picked that up.
John Marley · 21 July 2008
Any bets on how long it takes someone to call Abbie "mean" ?
Wolfhound · 21 July 2008
Ray Martinez · 21 July 2008
Ray Martinez · 21 July 2008
MPW · 21 July 2008
Ray Martinez · 21 July 2008
MPW · 21 July 2008
Stanton · 21 July 2008
So, why are we not supposed to point out that Answers In Genesis is trying to create fake credibility?
And what important, irrefutable things have Paleyists been doing to better understand the diversities of life on Earth better than what Evolutionary Biologists are currently doing now? I wasn't even aware that there are any Paleyists still alive to publish anything.
prof weird · 22 July 2008
tresmal · 22 July 2008
It is simply not true that IDers avoid specificity. Take the age of the Earth for example. IDers clearly state that the Earth is exactly 2.250006 by +/- 2.25 by old. Being Real Scientists Doing Real Science Dammit(tm) they are just being meticulous about the use of error bars.
Stanton · 22 July 2008
Dale Husband · 22 July 2008
Dale Husband · 22 July 2008
That was supposed to say, "In any case, it’s not censorship to prove that your claims are nothing more than nonsense dressed up as religious dogmas and THEN toss you out of here!"
Sorry for the rushed editing!
Rolf · 22 July 2008
OMG, we got that idiot Ray Martinez here too. He has been spewing his insane nonsense all over t.o. for many years, and have promised to publish a paper that conclusively will falsify the ToE.
As you will see from what he spews here, it is completely unrelated to whatever the topic may be, science-wise.
I need not delve into that, anyone in doubt may go to t.o. and see for themselves.
There is no use arguing with him. His standard reply is that since you are an evolutionist=atheist=liar, all your arguments are predictable lies, and your disagreeing with him is proof that he is right.
In short, premium grade BW stuff, could automatic Bathroomwalling of his clutter be a solution?
He has made a lot of fuzz lately about having being banned at PT. Now, since we do not want to feed his martyr complex, by all means let him speak his mind, but since he has 0°K to contribute, he should be left talking to the BW and himself. After all, he is his own only 'soulmate', subjectwise.
Flip van Tiel · 22 July 2008
This new Answers journal would seem to offer delicate opportunities for 'Sokal Hoax' type contributions. For a manual on how to do suchlikes see "The parody, annotated" in Sokal, A. (2008). Beyond the hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture (pp. 5-91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Damitall · 22 July 2008
Mr. Martinez holds to the curious position (on record at TalkRational)that, since there is little or no published scientific evidence refuting the Theory of Evolution in its generality, that means that it isn't a scientific theory at all!
Go figure.
Frank J · 22 July 2008
Ian · 22 July 2008
Whassamatter, Ray M.? You hiding out over here because your butt is sore from being regularly kicked in alt.atheism? You should know that over here, they're professional butt-kickers. However bad it is in a.a., it's gonna be worse here. LoL!
iml8 · 22 July 2008
hamstrung · 22 July 2008
Ray,
of this site is censored. But it really does not matter they cannot censor the internet. Google ID in the first 10 hits about 6 are pro-ID. Kids can be taught dogma in school but when they go to the internet they will be able to study both sides of the issue and wonder why the schools are hiding info.
iml8 · 22 July 2008
Wolfhound · 22 July 2008
Some choice tard from Ray Ray:
"As we can see anyone can claim to be a Christian.
Since all Atheists support and defend evolution rabidly this fact says evolution supports the Atheism worldview and the non-existence of God. Since Miller and Collins also rabidly support evolution, that is, the biological origins theory that all Atheists support, this fact disproves their claim of being Christians.
The only thing left for explanation is why they think that they are Christians?
Judas, while betraying Jesus to His enemies kissed Him with Satan inside of him. In type Judas represents and explains anyone who considers them self to be a Christian while siding with Christ's enemies (= Atheists).
We have an explanation as to why Miller and Collins think they are Christians----they are deluded by Satan----the Bible corresponds and explains this ugly reality. This is the only explanation as to how traditional enemies (Christians and Atheists) could co-exist in harmony concerning origin of living things, that is, this is the only way to explain Christians who accept the Atheist explanation and reject the Biblical explanation.
The existence of CEists is massive evidence proving the existence of Satan."
Yup, he's nuckin' futs.
Stanton · 22 July 2008
HamStrung · 22 July 2008
"" A certain someone’s granddaughter, among others, took you to task about this little lie of yours on a previous thread. That you are not afraid of repeating this exact same lie strongly suggests that you have poor reading comprehension skills that are worse than that of a mediocre kindergartner. ""
what in the world are you ranting about??
HamStrung · 22 July 2008
actually ebonics is an alternaive grammar this is taught in many places
and there are many alphabets. ours is not the only one.
you sound very limited in your world view that you did not know these things.
you sound very narrow minded and parochial
Larry Boy · 22 July 2008
Larry Boy · 22 July 2008
HamStrung · 22 July 2008
fnxtr · 22 July 2008
I have a psych prof friend who once explained to me that extreme paranoid delusions are usually internally consistent. So in Ray's mind, he's right. But Ray is not in his right mind.
william e emba · 22 July 2008
Off-topic, but I just got around to doing the Saturday (7/19) NYT crossword puzzle. There was 36 Across: Suffered defeat, 15 letters long, and I was looking at "MET– – – – – – – – –LOO". Hmmm. Normally I'd have to wrack my brain just a wee bit until I figure it out, but in this case, I must say, THANK YOU DOCTOR D!!!!! for making that an easy easy gimme.
Hahahahahaha. You're an inspiration, Dr D. Really.
You may now return to mushing through your more typical totally uneducated creationist drivel.
Raging Bee · 22 July 2008
Is this the same Ray Martinez who was last seen equating science-friendly Christians with Judas' betrayal of Jesus? There's really no need to tolerate him here, any more than we need to invite a raving street-loony to a conference. All he does is argue with the voices in his own head, slavishly follow the Cretinist script no matter what anyone else says, and dumb down every debate he crashes.
Wolfhound · 22 July 2008
J. Biggs · 22 July 2008
stevaroni · 22 July 2008
Frank J · 22 July 2008
Believe it or not, I have to defend Ray and hamstrung:
First, please be nice to Ray. He’s the most honest (if hopelessly compartmentalized) creationist who frequents these sites, and is one of the biggest thorns in the side of the ID scam. While most classic creationists these days pathetically scurry under the big tent, Ray bravely got himself banned from UcD. Give him time and he’ll admit that anti-evolutionists are among the worst culprits when it comes to advocating censorship.
Hamstrung may not admit that, but nevertheless lets it slip above by admitting that students surfing the web can easily access the very misinformation that the DI demands that they be taught in public school science class.
Frank B · 22 July 2008
From the Biblical perspective, it is obvious that Judas was doing precisely what Jesus wanted him to do, to fulfill the prophecy, and both knew it. Judas wanted Jesus to rise up and lead the revolution, but when he refused to and died, Judas was very upset. He would naturally be upset for the part he played. So why do biblical literalists think Judas was a traitor? They are so ignorant about the Bible, as well as everything else.
Going to a pond to culture out some S. marcescens, that's cute, but that is junior high stuff. They chose Serratia because it is so easy to spot and isolate on a culture plate. I wonder if they chose Serratia to begin with, or if they went with it after months of trying everything else.Frank B · 22 July 2008
Did some Biblical Literalist mention Judas? I'm curious, did Judas hang himself or fall down and split open? What does the Bible say?
Judas did what Jesus wanted him to do, to fulfill the prophecy, and both knew it. When Jesus failed to save himself to lead the revolution against the Romans, Judas was naturally upset, especially with the part he played. So why do the Literalists think Judas a traitor? They are so ignorant of their own holy book.
Going to a pond to culture out some S. marcescens, that's cute. But that is junior high stuff. Serratia is easy to spot and isolate. Did they chose it first because it was easy, or did they settle on Serratia after months of trying everything else?
J. Biggs · 22 July 2008
JohnW · 22 July 2008
Frank J · 22 July 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
iml8 · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
Time to BW everything Hamface says.
Ravilyn Sanders · 22 July 2008
Stanton · 22 July 2008
Ray Martinez · 22 July 2008
william e emba · 22 July 2008
hamstrung · 22 July 2008
hamstrung · 22 July 2008
Stanton · 22 July 2008
Stanton · 22 July 2008
Furthermore, HamStrung/bobby/george/jacob/balanced, what alternatives to the Theory of Evolution are there that can produce comparible results?
I mean, why should we be obligated to give attention to alternative hypotheses that have been demonstrated to give absolutely no results? I mean, even the proponents of all of these so-called alternatives have demonstrated that they are not even interested in results. So, please explain why we should waste precious time and resources to teach these demonstratibly useless alternatives in schools.
Stanton · 22 July 2008
fnxtr · 22 July 2008
GuyeFaux · 22 July 2008
Robin · 22 July 2008
Frank J · 22 July 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar:
It pains me to agree with hamstrung, but a lot of misinformation comes up Googling many key words. Even "Evolution" brings up the Conservapedia article 4th from the top! Granted, the top one is the Wikipedia entry, but many students have already been indoctrinated into thinking that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, and Conservapedia is "fair and balanced." So they'll go right to that one. Even if they do check Wikipedia too, it might be too technical, and/or they might prefer the feel-good sound bites of the pseudoscientific alternative.
Either way, students can find more anti-evolution material in a few hours online than any activist dreamed of teaching when they lost "Edwards v. Aguillard" (1987). Which only means that today's anti-evolution activists want something other than access to dissenting viewpoints.
Robin · 22 July 2008
iml8 · 22 July 2008
Stanton · 22 July 2008
David Irish · 22 July 2008
Robin · 22 July 2008
Robin · 22 July 2008
iml8 · 22 July 2008
Wheels · 22 July 2008
Frank B · 22 July 2008
Going to a pond and isolating S. mercescens is really cute, but that is junior high stuff. Now did they properly dispose of the wild Serratia as well as the Meth resistant Serratia? Did they know what they were doing, did they exercise proper precautions? I wonder if AIG started off with Serratia because it is easy to spot and isolate, or if they settled on Serratia after failing with everything else.
Kevin B · 22 July 2008
hamstrung · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
hamstrun · 22 July 2008
Interesting that I can be called a liar but when I call someone who lies a liar I am banned. Not much integrity here
Frank B · 22 July 2008
Thanks J. Biggs for rescuing my comment.
JohnW · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
Frank B · 22 July 2008
"One day all this will be yours, Lad."
"What, The curtains???"
iml8 · 22 July 2008
MPW · 22 July 2008
Michael J · 22 July 2008
I just googled Intelligent Design and only got four out of ten on the first page.
Stanton · 22 July 2008
richCares · 22 July 2008
I just googled also Yahoo'd "ID" as per hamstrung's suggestion. based on what came up hamstrung could not have googled it as it doesn't say what he says it does. he must be just following his pastor's talking points.
David Fickett-Wilbar · 22 July 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar · 22 July 2008
Paul Burnett · 22 July 2008
Slightly off-topic, but Dr. William A. Dembski (yes, the Dembski we love to hate) recently attended a faith-healing "event." A long report is at
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=westm&date=080722
It's a good demonstration of the complete insanity out there in the faith community. It contains several comments from Dembski on the event. A bit long and theologically tedious...but wonderfully illustrative of the utter whackos who are fleecing the flocks of the deluded faithful.
rog · 22 July 2008
Hamstrung,
Be honest now.
Have you used any of the following names on Pandas Thumb?
hamstrung, bobby, george, jacob, balanced
rog
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
Nothing Hammie-bobbie the troll has said has been on topic. Can we just dump the whole thing to the toilet as his posts deserve?
fredgiblet · 23 July 2008
Frank J · 23 July 2008
Ravilyn Sanders · 23 July 2008
Frank J · 23 July 2008
Robin · 23 July 2008
HamStrung · 23 July 2008
You are a crackpot! HE is the one that brought kintergardend into this as some kind of distraction. Maybe he is still in that level. Maybe that is why he is obsessed by it.
Find comfy stop under the bridge and stay there.
Raging Bee · 23 July 2008
Ray: the only reason we "can't refute you" is because you've had absolutely nothing of any substance to say here from day one. You're really no better than a bratty kid on a sugar high shouting gibberish and crowing about how the grownups can't keep up with him. This is typical of the transparently infantile behavior of the entire creationist movement.
Go back to the kiddies' table, Ray. You have no place here.
Stanton · 23 July 2008
Stanton · 23 July 2008
DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
J. Biggs · 23 July 2008
John Kwok · 23 July 2008
Hi all,
I will note that British filmmaker Matthew Chapman has advocated in his book, "40 Days and 40 Nights" (His memoir of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial) devoting ample time in the classroom in "dissecting" Intelligent Design creationism alongside genuine science (An argument which, I believe, would have mystified his notable ancestor, Charles Darwin.).
I still stand by what I wrote in the concluding paragraph to my Amazon.com review of Chapman's book:
"Chapman concludes '40 Days and 40 Nights' on a most idiosyncratic, personal note, and one that he has alluded to ever since the very first page of his memoir. He contends that we should allow creationism into the science classroom, so that it can be 'dissected', in much the same fashion as it was during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, by allowing teachers to 'explore the limitations of faith through the revelatory methods of science', and resulting in 'verdicts' identical to Republican Federal Judge Jones' conclusion that Intelligent Design wasn't scientific. Emotionally, it is a sentiment that I found myself quite unexpectedly, at first, to be in complete agreement. However, on second thought, I concur with Ken Miller's observation that introducing Intelligent Design into science classrooms would be a 'science stopper'. It would conflate most students' understanding of what exactly is the difference between religious faith and science, though I suppose that some truly gifted students, like those attending prominent American high schools such as Alexandria, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, and New York City's Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School, might readily understand and appreciate these distinctions. And yet I am inclined to agree more with the harsh view articulated by distinguished British paleontologist Richard Fortey in his essay published in the January 30, 2007 issue of the British newspaper Telegraph, contending that it is an absolute waste of time arguing with Intelligent Design advocates, and that they ought to be dismissed as 'IDiots'; by extension, so would be the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution in a science classroom. I would rather see talented students from Thomas Jefferson, Bronx Science and Stuyvesant engage themselves fruitfully in genuine scientific research of the highest caliber, than in trying to understand the metaphysical, religious nonsense known as Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism. I think, in hindsight, so would Charles Darwin."
Moreover, I think a truly gifted science teacher need not make an "argument from authority" in explaining why AiG's version of "scientific creationism" is pseudoscientific nonsense; all he/she would have to do is to explain the logic of scientific discovery, by noting how the "methodological naturalism" of the scientific method has served both science and Western Civilization well since its inception in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Regards,
John
Paul Burnett · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
Robin · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
Dale Husband · 23 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2008
Robin · 23 July 2008
Kevin B · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
Wheels · 23 July 2008
DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 23 July 2008
Ebonics was originally conceived as a comparative pedagogical tool, whereby (for example), the topic-comment sentence "My sister, she tall" would be compared with the more standard "My sister is tall." It never intended to teach classes in AAVE or to suggest that students could get by not knowing standard American English.
(The topic-comment sentence is one consistent peculiarity of AAVE along with the copula &c.)
Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2008
Eric Finn · 24 July 2008
Robin · 24 July 2008
iml8 · 24 July 2008
Frank J · 24 July 2008
RW · 24 July 2008
Leaving Batman aside for awhile and returning to the subject of AIG's 'science' journal. There is a rumor that a contest has been started to see who can slip a fake paper into their new journal.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/14/caught-in-the-act
I hope this isn't true, and is just another example of creationist misinformation and paranoia. Attempts to publish a bogus paper plays into the hands of the anti-science crowd. They desperately seek examples of 'evolutionist' hoaxes. Let's not give them any ammunition. Everything we do as science should be honest and forthright.
karl · 24 July 2008
Can anyone come up with a good analogy as to what this experiment is trying to claim?
My take:
Some godless person states you can get across the ocean faster in a nice ocean liner instead of a speed boat. And then you try to prove this claim wrong by throwing an ocean liner and a speed boat into a crowded harbor and see how long it takes the big, hard-to-navigate ocean liner to cross the harbor as compared to the nimble power boat. Gosh. The power boat threads its way through the harbor rather quickly. Therefore a power boat can cross an ocean faster.
Raging Bee · 24 July 2008
It occurred to me that Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker was a pretty good metaphor for the sociopathic, chaos sewing mentality of the Discovery Institute fellows as well as that of their slobbering trolls who show up here on Panda’s Thumb.
Makes sense to me. A lot of these creationists really don't seem to WANT our godless secular society to function at all. They'd rather destroy the whole thing, and plunge all of us into a new dark age of deprivation and ignorance, than see their obsolete little worldview endangered, or admit that their little religion isn't as necessary as they want us to think it is. That's the appeal of all those apocalyptic fantasies: destroying everything else to make ourselves feel relevant again.
John Kwok · 24 July 2008
John Kwok · 24 July 2008
stevaroni · 24 July 2008
David Stanton · 24 July 2008
Well I took a look at the paper and now I get it. I guess what they are trying to claim is that the evolution of antibiotic resistance is not an example of a beneficial mutation. Right, they certainly proved that. Now all they have to show is that antibiotic resistance arose and was maintained before the use of modern antibiotics and they might have some kind of point to make.
Seriously, what else can they do? What kind of experiment could they perform in order to show that there are no beneficial mutations? How could they perform an experiment to demonstrate that GODDIDIT? What real hypothesis could they possibly test in any sort of rigorous way? Man, they are stuck between a rock and a dumb place. It will be interesting to see how long this "journal" lasts.
I did find some interesting comments in the article about peeer review. It states:
"We find that peer review is rooted in several Christian virtues . . . and accountability."
Yea, right. I wonder who they get to "peer review" this crap? If they want accountability they should really have gone to someone who woud not have let nonsense like this be published anywhere. I suppose they could always redefine "peer" to mean anyone as ignorant as the authors, but of course no real scientist would be fooled by that.
Paul Burnett · 24 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2008
David Stanton · 24 July 2008
Wait, I got it. How about infecting people with antibiotic sensitive and antibiotic resistant bacteria and seeing how many the doctor can save. That should prove that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. More people will die from the antibiotic resistant bacteria if the doctor uses antibiotics, so how could that be beneficial? Really, that is about the line of reasoning they have already used. Now if their human subject review board is on the same level as their peer review board, I'm sure we'll be seeing this experiment reported in the journal real soon.
Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2008
Saddlebred · 24 July 2008
Robin · 25 July 2008
John Kwok · 25 July 2008
Hi all,
I know this is off-topic, but I'd like to note the passing of a college classmate, computer scientist Randy Pausch, who was well-loved by his students and colleagues, and highly respected as both an educator and researcher in computer science:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25848017
I honestly don't think I know of any Intelligent Design advocate or other creationist teaching at a college or university who was as well loved or as respected as Randy was.
Sincerely yours,
John
Science Avenger · 25 July 2008
That's alright, what's one more dropped name between acquaintances?
John Kwok · 25 July 2008
Science Avenger · 25 July 2008
John Kwok · 25 July 2008
Science Avenger · 25 July 2008
John Kwok · 26 July 2008
Science Avenger · 26 July 2008
Jesus John, I didn't realize one snark was going to cause you to go right off the rails and make a complete fool of yourself. People in glass houses...
John Kwok · 26 July 2008
John Kwok · 26 July 2008
I am in need of a spell checker here (Just kidding). Here's the corrected version of part of my last post:
If anyone needs to take a look at a glass house, then it isn’t me. Take a good hard, look at yours next time.
IMHO, unless proven otherwise, you are still a sanctimonious sarcastic scumbag.
John
P. S. Maybe you might learn a few things if you start reading some of the best posts written by David Levin, Rob Ross, Carl Flygare, Stephen Haines, Mary Endress, and yes, even yours truly, over at Amazon.com. But I strongly doubt it since you think you’re so great.
P. P. S. This is a recent rebuttal to a creationist posting in the comments thread after my Amazon.com review of "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul". You should read especially both David Levin's and Rob Ross' comments. Nothing you've written, either here or at your blog, has come close to their excellent thought so eloquently stated.
Dear Tom,
To paraphrase Lamarck, God is an unnecessary hypothesis since he/she/it is not directly observable by rational means. Moreover, I concur with Ken Miller in believing that God works only through natural laws. That interpretation truly makes the most sense if you think of God is an omniscient entity; otherwise, to assert - as Intelligent Design creationists and other creationists do - that God must somehow have a direct role in the "design" of nature, merely belittles our perception of God into an entity that's a mere ever-present, ever-acting, cosmic tinkerer.
As a former scientist I concur with David Levin's remarks. How do you test scientifically something that is supernatural? You simply can't. Not only does it violate the very foundations of science - which, I might add, is exactly what the Discovery Institute has sought since the mid 1990s, and especially, as expressed in its notorious "Wedge Document" - it is merely something that can not be analyzed using centuries-old well established scientific methodology. If, for the sake of argument, we were to follow the Discovery Institute's advice to forsake "methodological naturalism", then we would run the risk of transforming science from an internationally accessible rational enterprise to one that is as much the victim of the whims of political happenstance as much of the social sciences, humanities and arts are (Ironically the very critics of so-called "political correctness" from those who call themselves fellow conservatives are frequently also supporters of Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism.).
Why change something - science - that has worked so well on behalf of humanity for centuries, fostering an international climate of cooperation and tolerance amongst those in the scientific community? Personally I think that is a more important question than the ones you are raising and a question which the Discovery Institute continues to ignore.
Respectfully yours,
John
Science Avenger · 26 July 2008
John Kwok · 27 July 2008
Science Avenger · 27 July 2008
I'm a sanctimonious sarcastic scumbag for accusing you of being a namedropper, and you prove it by referring to a friend "well known to those of us here at PT"? You're priceless John, get therapy.
RW · 27 July 2008
As someone who enjoys both of your posts I wish you would find somewhere else to have a pissing match.
John Kwok · 27 July 2008
fredgiblet · 27 July 2008
James F · 27 July 2008
I don't want to further derail the thread, but I'd like this to end, too. Randy Pausch's passing is a newsworthy item and it was hardly gratuitous for John to mention that they were classmates; ScienceAvenger could have complained about name dropping on another post, it's his own personal annoyance with John's style. If PT had a private message function it would be handy for things like this. Meanwhile, it was out of line for John to call ScienceAvenger an IDiot (fightin' words in these parts!) and a scumbag. The dialogue has just degenerated from there.
I sincerely hope you guys can call a truce and use your ammo for the creationists! Peace to you both.
John Kwok · 27 July 2008
James F · 27 July 2008
Malcolm Kass · 28 July 2008
What's funny is that the vast majority of hard scientists and engineers would probably agree with everything you wrote and that evolution is far more legitimate than the other current offerings, then view (probably secretly) the evolutionary biology and creationism share one trait, both are 100% completely worthless.
Engineering are developing the tools and mechanisms of our modern society. We power your homes, we build your buildings, we are the foundation of society. While scientifically correct, evolutionary biology gives society nothing more than cute 1 hr discovery channel specials. Instead of pursuing this worthless endeavor, why don't you use your collect brainpower to actually improved society. Cheaper/greener forms of energy, healthier foods, cleaner air, instead of what can be only accurately described as nothing more than a "hobby". In sum, what's the point? Are creationists individuals with such poor mental ability to handle scientific topics? Are evolutionary biologists who they are vs being chemists/physicists/engineers because they are incapable of dealing with the intellectual tasks of differential equations/thermodynamics/quantum physics? I know this sounds harsh, but deal with the realities that w/o the theory of evolution, our society would exactly be as it is currently. (Do you think there were not athiests b4 Darwin?) Then think about physics.
The true "killer" of evolution isn't from the ID or creationists. Actually, this debate has helped evolution's cause for now the theory is top-of-mind in our non-scientific populace. The dagger that would kill evolution would be if people were more knowledgeable in the sciences, esp. the hard sciences of physics and chemistry, the sciences that supply the framework of our civilization. Then evolution would just fade away, not from challenges of how legitimate evolution is, but from disinterest as people would be working on more important things.
Stanton · 28 July 2008
Stanton · 28 July 2008
I forgot to ask you...
Since it is of far greater importance to build things with engineering, so much so that studying life and the mechanics of how life changes with each generation are so superfluous so as to be utterly useless, what should we do with all of the things we have studied through the help of such a useless topic as evolutionary biology? Should we burn down all of the natural history museums and gather up all of the fossils of everything, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and other unpronouncible things and make quicklime? Because using engineering to build a house is of so much greater importance than figuring out how to feed its occupants, should we stop growing crops and livestocks altogether? How do you propose engineering, physics and chemistry be used to cure disease and thwart bacteria and other pathogens? How do you think people make chemicals like human growth hormone and insulin today?
hoary puccoon · 29 July 2008
The weird thing about Matthew Kass's post is that it actually demonstrates not how useless evolutionary theory is-- but how far evolution has moved from testable theory into the realm of proven fact.
I'm using fact here to mean things so established that it isn't necessary to understand the scientific theory behind them in order to use them; as people can drive cars without understanding the principle of the internal combustion engine.
So farmers piously intone in Sunday school classes that the bible is literally true and evolution is "just a theory." Then they stand around the church parking lot talking about hybrid seeds and animal breeding programs and the problem of insects "developing" (i.e., evolving) resistance to pesticides-- without understanding that they are working on the premise that evolution is an unquestionable fact!
hoary puccoon · 29 July 2008
Sorry, Malcolm Kass. My point stands.
Kyla · 30 July 2008
So, I've been reading and trying to desperately understand. Me thinks I will take some science classes next semester and study. I think the problem with all the ID people is they are really dumb and poorly educated, as am I. However I would like to get to the point in my education to understand the majority of what has been written here and be able to finally have the tools to defend my belief in Darwin theory of evolution.
Damian · 30 July 2008
t_p_hamilton · 30 July 2008
David Stanton · 30 July 2008
Malcolm,
If you think that evolutionary biology is so worthless, don't study it! It's as simple as that. But don't try to tell professional scientists what they should and shouldn't study. That's just pointless.
The fact is that our understanding of evolutionary biology has revolutionized our world. Not only the way we view the world and our place in it, but also how we solve our problems as well. I guess you are the kind of guy who would tell Galileo not to look through a telescope because he couldn't possibly learn anythng important. I guess you would tell Pasteur not to play with mold because it was a waste of time. I guess you are the kind of guy who would say something like: "That's great Pavlov, now if you could just get it to lick stamps".
The fact is that modern agriculture, medicine, forensics and countless other fields depend critically on scientific knowledge of evolution. If you don't want to know those things, fine. If you think that making things is the only useful human endeavor why don't you complain about all of the money spent on the arts or on space exploration. Let me guess, you're against those too. Oh well, at least you think that some science is useful. I guess that puts you ahead of most creationists.
hoary puccoon · 30 July 2008
Kyla--
There are a lot of good, popular books on evolution. Steven Jay Gould wrote hundreds of essays in Natural History Magazine which have been collected into books. Some of these would be "The Panda's Thumb" (which inspired the title of this blog) and "The Flamingo's Smile."
A book which is really a giggle and makes some interesting points about sexual selection is "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation." (I can't remember the real name of the author.)
If these books seem too much like jumping in in the middle, Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" has an overview of how various life forms are related, with lots of information about current issues in evolution. (And, by the way, nothing about atheism.)
There are also subtopics you may find interesting, like the evolution of Homo sapiens. Donald Johanson's ghost-written pop books "Lucy" and "Lucy's Child" give a real feel for how paleontology actually works-- including, unfortunately, the in-fighting. James Watson's "Double Helix" is a quick read about how the structure of the gene was discovered, although I found Horace Freeland Judson's "The Eighth Day of Creation" (horrible title! It's nothing to do with creationism) more informative and interesting. Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" explains the basics of the current, hot field, evo-devo (developmental evolutionary biology.)
And, of course there's always Charles Darwin. As long as you keep in mind that scientists do not treat ANYBODY's theory as holy writ, and that a lot has been discovered in the 149 years since the first edition of The Origin of Species, Darwin's plain, straight-forward English presents his theory in a comprehensible way.
Finally, of course, there are Internet sites that cover basic issues in evolution in short, concise write-ups.
I've done this off the top of my head, so it's probably full of errors, but perhaps others can add different or better sources. But I must say, it was popular science literature like the books above, along with magazines like Natural History and Natinal Geographic which took me from "believing in" evolution in some rather vague way to having a clear idea of how overwhelming the evidence is in favor of evolution, and how valuable the theory has been for guiding research for the last century and a half.
Especially convincing for me was the way in which totally unexpected discoveries like the structure of DNA and the geology of plate tectonics, which Darwin could never have predicted, fit in perfectly with evolutionary theory. It's like some long running detective series with plot twists that Darwin never imagined coming winging in out of the blue-- and fitting in perfectly with the basic theory.
Kyla, I really hope you have fun with these books, or other good, popular accounts about evolution. I know I have.
John Kwok · 30 July 2008
Henry J · 30 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 August 2008
Eric Finn · 1 August 2008