Snake segmentation

Hi PZ,

'Tis a great post which demonstrates once more the evo-devo implications of homology, with respect to vertebrae segmentation.

Regards,

John

Hi PZ,

'Tis a great post of yours which demonstrates the evo-devo implications of homology, with this elegant study of vertebral segmentation in snakes.

Regards,

John

You realize, of course, that while you may have explained the 300 vertabrae, you've completely failed to address the 299 obvious gaps.

John Kwok said: Hi PZ, 'Tis a great post of yours which demonstrates the evo-devo implications of homology, with this elegant study of vertebral segmentation in snakes. Regards, John

stevaroni said: You realize, of course, that while you may have explained the 300 vertabrae, you've completely failed to address the 299 obvious gaps.

Was the snake in the garden a corn snake?

Do we associate faster clocks with Satan??

Thanks PZ for a very interesting article. Scientists solving mysteries, it's great.

stevaroni said: You realize, of course, that while you may have explained the 300 vertabrae, you've completely failed to address the 299 obvious gaps.

Reed Braden said: It also doesn't explain how life began, how the universe got here, why the planets rotate [sic] around the sun and why dark ale is better than pale ale. The theory falls short.

Beautiful. I envy your life of constant discovery, PZ.

Reed Braden said:

stevaroni said: You realize, of course, that while you may have explained the 300 vertabrae, you've completely failed to address the 299 obvious gaps.

It also doesn't explain how life began, how the universe got here, why the planets rotate [sic] around the sun and why dark ale is better than pale ale. The theory falls short.

FRANK J Said: So I guess the only thing wrong with evolution is that it “expels” people and leads to Nazism.

PZ's article is part of the amazing current adventure of bringing evolutionary theory down to the molecular level.

That adventure could easily have failed. Snakes could, for instance, have had a genetic makeup that was completely different from other reptiles-- which would have made creationist terms like macro-evolution and "kinds" into terminology at the forefront of science. It just didn't work out that way. Radically different phenotypes have been shown to have similar genetics, with minor mutations in the genetic switches causing most of the differences between them.

PZ's research was a direct test of evolutionary theory, and could have come up with results that falisified a big chunk of that theory. It just didn't, because the data didn't turn out that way.

Frank B,

I guess you know that my comment was sarcasm, but for the benefit of lurkers who might miss it, I do find one "design" argument convincing. Which is that it was not "by accident" that "Expelled" said nothing about what better explains the evidence than evolution, regardless of deserved or undeserved social implications. That IDers chose to avoid one of the best opportunities for them to promote their "theory" speaks volumes. As did the "expulsion" of PZ Myers.

So much of the ID/Creationist propaganda is simply "ATTACK". So "Expelled" attacked. The producers didn't want to talk above their target audience's heads (or above their own heads for that matter), so it made sense not to talk about irreducible complexity. The molecular basis for the development of the vertebrae is way above their heads, so they will stick to probabilities and other standard talking points. Who needs evidence or a science degree or other such sophistries?

Frank B said: The molecular basis for the development of the vertebrae is way above their heads, so they will stick to probabilities and other standard talking points. Who needs evidence or a science degree or other such sophistries?

At any rate, it's another case where we don't need a watchmaker, just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development.

The eagle has earned the reputation as a fearsome predator and some of the reputation is rubbing off on that moth, giving it some protection from other birds.

An Observer said: If eagles and moths were placed together in an enclosed space for a lifetime, and indeed for centuries, there would be no "rubbing" off of defense systems one to the other. That is wishful thinking on the part of a pseudo scientist.

For too long, evolutionist have gotten by with this. It is time for the public to be educated concerning this ridculous claim.

Nor none so dense as those who refuse to learn.

Cleary a literalist. Doesn't understand metaphors.

An Observer said:

The eagle has earned the reputation as a fearsome predator and some of the reputation is rubbing off on that moth, giving it some protection from other birds.

If eagles and moths were placed together in an enclosed space for a lifetime, and indeed for centuries, there would be no "rubbing" off of defense systems one to the other. That is wishful thinking on the part of a pseudo scientist. ... For too long, evolutionist have gotten by with this. It is time for the public to be educated concerning this ridculous claim.

An Observer said: I believe Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?

Maybe the observer would like to know a good example of mimicry concerning butterflies, the Viceroy and the Monarch. The Monarch tastes bad so birds learn to avoid it. The Viceroy, which looks similar, benefits from this. The relative population sizes are important for both species (kinds). Viceroys need a smaller population size to the Monarch, or else the birds will learn the wrong lesson and kill Viceroys and Monarchs. Now this is a probability exercise that Dempski should practise with.

Ravilyn Sanders said: Thank you Observer, I learned something new today. Someday it will come in handy. [RS slips into a day dream of appearing in Jeopardy (link for the benefit of our European friends] RS: I will have Money and Matters for 2000$ Alex. Alex Trbek: This is the currency used in ancient Judea. RS: [buzz] Alex: RS! RS: What is a farthing? Alex: Correct!

Ravilyn Sanders said: Alex Trbek: This is the currency used in ancient Judea. ... RS: What is a farthing? ... Alex: Correct!

An Observer said: This constant vocalizing of evolutionist stating that they are scientist, while creationist and those believing Intelligent Design are not, is totally absurd.

Science is science. It is the interpretation of scientific findings and facts that differ, not the process!

Observer is back, this time to observe... "It amazes me that a human, who has no control over the next breath he or she will or will not take, assumes they have no need for the “Watchmaker”, when what they are really saying is they have no need for God."

In another mis-translation from the King James Bible, the old British quarter-penny dating back to the 13th century (in Britain - not Judea) was used, as it was familiar to the readers.

Incorrect: In another mis-translation from the King James Bible, the old British quarter-penny dating back to the 13th century (in Britain - not Judea) was used, as it was familiar to the readers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_farthing_coin - see http://bible.somd.com/nave/nave1796.shtml for a more detailed explanation.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

An Observer said: I believe Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?

Thank you Observer, I learned something new today. Someday it will come in handy. [RS slips into a day dream of appearing in Jeopardy (link for the benefit of our European friends] RS: I will have Money and Matters for 2000$ Alex. Alex Trbek: This is the currency used in ancient Judea. RS: [buzz] Alex: RS! RS: What is a farthing? Alex: Correct!

Now the next big question is to identify the specific adjustments to the clock — what small shifts in the sequence of various genes lead to the clock running faster or slower? (emphasis mine)

An Observer said: I believe Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that "just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development" will result in not only an orderly universe, but also mankind, who exhibits skills in mathematics, science, language, music and attributes such as language, creativity, love, holiness, and freedom than it does to believe in creation

AND

realizing that very few, if any, who post here are looking for scientific evidence that supports creation,

and FURTHERMORE

because those who believe in creation, do so not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word, I will never-the-less post a link for those who asked.

http://www.icr.org/article/65/

Also, FYI, a The King James Version of the Holy Bible is a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek into English, by English . The word "farthing" was translated from two names of coins in the New Testament:

Quadrans , (a coin current in the time of our Lord, equivalent to three-eights of a cent;

The assarion , equal to one cent and a half,

The 47 translators of the King James Version of the Bible were well established and accomplished scholars. Their knowledge of Hebrew, Latin, Greek and English would put most of us to shame.

very few, if any, who post here are looking for scientific evidence that supports creation,

If you are a Biblical Literalist, please tell me. Did Judas hang himself, or fall down? Which one? Did God create Adam and Eve first or last? Which do you chose? How old is the Earth??? And what do you say to all the ID/Creationists who disagree with you?

Observer gets it wrong again While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that “just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development” will result in not only an orderly universe, ... etc... than it does to believe in creation

An observer said: While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that "just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development" will result in not only an orderly universe, but also mankind... ...those who believe in creation, do so not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word

An observer said: While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe [evolution]

But I wonder if the absence of legs makes this easier? IIRC snakes have a lot more freedom in the number of segments (possibly of various kinds) than some other vertebrates, which suggests that perhaps some constraints are lifted.

Wouldn’t it be “small shifts in the squence of various regulatory regions”? If the mutations in question were in the actual genes, the actual proteins would differ, but since the difference appears to be in the regulation of the genes, the mutations must lie outside of the actual “genes”.

Perhaps when there is some scientific output which validly supports either Creationism or Intelligent Design, you may have your point. If you know of some already, please share it with us.

An observer said: While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that "just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development" will result in not only an orderly universe, but also mankind, who exhibits skills in mathematics, science, language, music and attributes such as language, creativity, love, holiness, and freedom than it does to believe in creation...

realizing that very few, if any, who post here are looking for scientific evidence that supports creation...

http://www.icr.org/article/65/ Mutations are almost always harmful, and one of their consequences is the reduction of their possessor's reproduction potential. ... From all we know about mutations occurring today, they are virtually always harmful or, at best, neutral. .... Therefore, it is not necessary to hypothesize favorable mutations, which would run counter to what we know about mutations.

Wheels said:

And as to the process you claim is the same, ICR does not practice the scientific method. They have a fixed, immutable conclusion around which they shape the interpretations of data. In fact, prospective members must sign a statement of faith which enforces these tenets. This is a violation of the scientific method, in which conclusions must always be revisable in the fact of the facts.

Observer writes... ...those who believe in creation, do so not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word

People here are trying to respond to this Observer character and ask questions as though the Observer character is actually “observing” anything posted here.

However, it doesn’t appear that this troll is reading anything. It is just preaching and quoting from its “holy book”. There are no thought processes going on in its head as it mechanically recites from a script. It may be driven by some kind of guilt and fear that drives it to preach at what it has been told by its handlers is incarnate evil. Quite often these kinds of fundamentalist automatons are preoccupied by their nagging gonads and guilt producing thoughts, and consequently they have absolutely no idea of what is going on in the world around them. Their preaching gives them the illusion of absolving themselves of guilt and punishment by transferring it onto “their enemies”.

Attempting to have any meaningful discussion with this troll will just eat up this thread with inanity. There is no capacity for learning in this troll. It’s already brain dead. Please don’t try to feed it.

The science is more interesting.

An observer said: http://www.icr.org/article/65/

...

Natural selection is an integral part of the current creation model, in which it serves two purposes.

...

The second role played by natural selection is effected when a population encounters a new environment, either through local changes or the movement of the population into a new area. If, within the gene pool of the population, there exist genes that produce characteristics better adapted to the new environment, these genes will, through natural selection, increase in frequency, increasing the fitness of the population as a whole.

...

Thus the genetic variability found in the species P. dardanus provides the potential for coping with different environments, in this case the different distasteful models.

...

What is the source of the variability which enables P. dardanus to mimic the distasteful species with which it is sympatric (occupying the same area)? The creationist recognizes four sources of variability within each baramin (created kind).

...

A second source of variation would be mutations, failures in reproduction to correctly transmit the genetic information. These failures form a continuum from mistakes in the replication of single genes to the loss or gain of whole chromosomes to changes involving whole sets of chromosomes. Recombination, the rearrangement of genetic material through sexual reproduction, provides a third method for individuals within a population to vary, a simple example being the way a child exhibits a combination of the traits of each parent.

...

Evolution

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare.

...

Mutation

...

Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms.

...

Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, which is a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years.

...

Natural selection

...

The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism. This measures the organism's genetic contribution to the next generation.

There is a slowly receding gradient of Wnt/FGF molecules that travels down the presomitic mesoderm, and at the same time, there is a faster oscillation of Notch-related molecules that has the same cycle as the timing of segment formation. Each tick of the Notch clock sets aside the most anterior cells expressing Wnt/FGF, and the go on to form a segment. Wnt/FGF recedes back a little further, and at the next cycle of Notch, the next segment is pinched off, and so on, until the gradient runs out of presomitic mesoderm, and the array of segments is complete.

So what causes the obvious difference of 300 segments vs. 30? There are two simple hypotheses that would fit within the clock and wavefront model. One would be that the wavefront recedes more slowly, or at the same speed but over a longer mass of presomitic mesoderm, allowing more ticks of the oscillator to occur before the wavefront ends at the tailtip. The other is that the wavefront is operating at roughly the same rate, but the oscillator is operating at a much faster rate, partitioning off many more smaller segments. The answer is the latter. The snake clock is running at a much higher speed than the clock in a chicken or mouse, so that over the same relative span of time for segment formation, it counts off many more pulses and triggers many more segments to assemble. The estimates are a little bit complex, because these species all have very different overall times of development, with the snake being slowest overall, so rates had to be normalized to specific developmental events. Among the standard metrics was the number of cell generations during the period of segment formation; about 21 cell generations to make 300 segments in the snake, about 17 generations to make 65 segments in the mouse

Now the next big question is to identify the specific adjustments to the clock — what small shifts in the sequence of various genes lead to the clock running faster or slower?

While it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that “just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development” will result in not only an orderly universe, but also mankind, who exhibits skills in mathematics, science, language, music and attributes such as language, creativity, love, holiness, and freedom than it does to believe in creation.

— An Observer

An observer said: I am not the one you want to hear from, but I can tell you that timing does matter in development. Both evolutionist and creationist realize this.

An observer said: A creationist may discover this same fact and believe that the “clock” was spoken into existence by a Creator. The difference in creation science and evolutionary science is not nearly so great as many would have you believe. ... Rather, it is a process and methodology of study by which we explore the world around us and test different hypothesis. Interpretations are then made from the results of the study.

Observer,

That's *Professor* Myers to you and to me. I believe that the American convention is to use the honorific only in professional correspondence, but this qualifies. (The British one is to use "Professor" as a standard honorific, but "Doctor" only professionally, except, oddly, for medical doctors, who are addressed as "Doctor" socially, even though they do not usually hold a doctoral degree.) Strange are the ways of social conventions.

As to what you say about whether God designed and is driving evolution, there is no way that such an idea can be falsified. No description of the processes of evolution, no matter how exhaustive, could ever eliminate it. No evidence could ever disprove it; no experiment could ever control for it. Since it cannot be tested by observation nor falsified by any evidence, it is therefore outside the purview of science, which essentially consists of those activities. If it is outside the purview of science, it should not be taught as science.

I wonder if you would agree with this argument?

An observer said: ...Science is not a manipulative tool that should be used to prove some preconceived idea of a group of men. ...

Observer wrote:

"A creationist may discover this same fact and believe that the “clock” was spoken into existence by a Creeator."

First, it is unlikely that any creationist will ever discover anything in developmental biology, since for some unknown reaason they almost all steaadfastly refuse to do any real science.

Second, the real difference is that a scientist will hypothesize a known mechanism to be responsible for the change, one that has been observed in nature and in the laboratory and one for which the mechanism is well known and documented. A creationist will make up some fairy tale for which there is no evidence at all based on some preconceived notion and claim that they have proven something.

Why can't you just accept the fact that the exact same mechanisms of mutation that cause minor "microevolutionary" changes can also be responsible for causing some "macroevolutionary" changes when they happen to occur in important regulatory regions? That would in fact be the point of discovering the molecular mechanism behind these changes. It will undoubdetly be the case that such minor changes are indeed responsible for such changes in morphology as is well documented for other types of change in other organisms. We already know for example that such changes are responsible for the limbless condition in snakes and whales. Why can't you just accept the fact that the same could be true for segmentation as well? Is your god so small that she could not use such mechanisms because it would somehow offend your delicate sensibilities?

Then what exactly does the term “creation science” mean?

An observer said:

Then what exactly does the term “creation science” mean?

I did not coin the term and therefore will not be the one you should ask. It would appear to be a disguishing term used as in opposed to “evolutionary science”. Let me respond to your question with a question? As to what you say about whether accidental events are driving evolution or change over time...

As to what you say about whether accidental events are driving evolution or change over time, there is no way that such an idea can be falsified.

An observer said:

Then what exactly does the term “creation science” mean?

I did not coin the term and therefore will not be the one you should ask. It would appear to be a disguishing term used as in opposed to "evolutionary science".

Let me respond to your question with a question? As to what you say about whether accidental events are driving evolution or change over time, there is no way that such an idea can be falsified.

No description of origin, or how the process of development of a species originated, no matter how exhaustive, could ever be proven. Even the final outcomes are unproven. The process of evolution is limited with many holes, gaps, and questions arising with each new experiment, even with the latest explanation called evo-devo. Since origin cannot be tested by observation nor falsified by any evidence, it is therefore outside the purview of science. If it is outside the purview of science, it should not be taught as science.

There are those who wish to teach our children that the mystery of the origin of matter and life have been discovered and the answer has been found in a term called evolution. This, however, is not provable. What has been proven is that there are life processes which are observable? Should we not teach our children what has been proven and what is provable without leaps made into what a professor or even a doctor believes or hopes to prove?

Big O babbles "Let me respond to your question with a question? As to what you say about whether accidental events are driving evolution or change over time, there is no way that such an idea can be falsified."

An observer said: Discovering the timing of how one species develops is interesting. Mr. Myers suggests:

Now the next big question is to identify the specific adjustments to the clock — what small shifts in the sequence of various genes lead to the clock running faster or slower?

Mr. Myers may discover this at some point. At that time, he will believe that this is "just blind, tiny, incremental change" that resulted in a corn snake. A creationist may discover this same fact and believe that the "clock" was spoken into existence by a Creator.

The difference in creation science and evolutionary science is not nearly so great as many would have you believe.

It was here I got lost. Time became more important and my mental picture deteriorated. I failed to understand, how the overall time of development should matter.

The fgf8/Wnt3a wave front and the Notch-related cyclic clock work together to elegantly generate a precise spatial pattern over time. One way to picture this is to imagine standing at the shore, with waves lapping at the beach; as each wave rolls in, it leaves a little line of sea foam at its farthest reach. The waves are regular and clocklike, and with no other factors involved, would produce that line of sea foam at the same place every time. But now we add another idea: The tide is going out. Each succeeding wave travels a little less far up the beach, and each one leaves its line of sea foam a little farther back toward the sea. Over time, what you'd see is a series of periodic lines of sea foam receding with the ebbing tide. In this example, the ebbing tide is like the receding gradient of fgf8/Wnt3a, while the individual waves are cycles of the Notch-related cyclic genes. Working together, two time-related processes can generate a regular spatial pattern of gene expression.

stevaroni said:

Big O babbles "Let me respond to your question with a question? As to what you say about whether accidental events are driving evolution or change over time, there is no way that such an idea can be falsified."

Huh? Helloooo... Is this thing on? That's the most easily falsified thing of all. All you'd have to do is find a significant discontinuity in the biological record, because big, instantaneous, jumps can't happen by incremental mutation. It's such a Holy Grail of evolution denial that it even has nicknames like "Cambrian Rabbit", "Code rewrite", "Rev 2.0 operating system". It could come from paleontology, it could come from genetics, it could come from comparative anatomy, it could come from lots of possible places. But, um, it's never been found, which is damning for your side, because it should be trivial to locate.

Observer, what do you think about the factual errors in the article you cited as a source for information about mimicry? They're rather important errors.

The majority of mutations do nothing significant and are apparently neutral. Of the minority that do have a discernible effect, even if most of those are harmful, many are not: they confer something which benefits the organism in the context of the environment. Research summarized even in recent posts here on Panda’s Thumb demonstrate that novel mutations can arise that confer benefits; think of bacteria that can metabolize citrate as a source of nutrients.

From all we know about mutations occurring today, they are virtually always harmful or, at best, neutral. Of all of the variations which appear to be true mutations, one can count on one hand the examples that can be considered as possibly beneficial.

Mike Elzinga said: Eric, Maybe this will help. [PZ's article in Seed Magazine]

The simple explanation (there are more complicated interactions that I'll set aside for now) for how these clock molecules work is that they are all transcription factors that exhibit auto-repression. That is, these genes are expressed to make a protein that binds to DNA and binds to its own gene, turning it off. What happens then is that the gene product accumulates, turns off the gene that makes it, and then the protein is slowly degraded by natural cellular processes. When the protein is sufficiently depleted, the gene is released from repression and is expressed again. The cycle continues over and over again.

Henry J said:

But I wonder if the absence of legs makes this easier? IIRC snakes have a lot more freedom in the number of segments (possibly of various kinds) than some other vertebrates, which suggests that perhaps some constraints are lifted.

What came to mind on reading that question is maybe too many vertebra between front legs and hind legs could lead to too much sagging of the spine between the pairs of limbs? (That's just a guess, though.)

My suggestion would be that numerous studies undertaken would support the conclusion that mutations are almost always either neutral or harmful.

My response would be that it will take more than E Coli being able to metabolize citrates to change what man has observed over the last three centuries.

Big O whines... My response would be that it will take more than E Coli being able to metabolize citrates to change what man has observed over the last three centuries.

An observer said: In response to Wheels who seems somewhat sincere in his inquiry: while the Institute for Creation Research states:

From all we know about mutations occurring today, they are virtually always harmful or, at best, neutral. Of all of the variations which appear to be true mutations, one can count on one hand the examples that can be considered as possibly beneficial.

Notice that these two are saying almost the exact same thing.

My response would be that it will take more than E Coli being able to metabolize citrates to change what man has observed over the last three centuries. If you scroll down on the webpage to which I referred, there are numerous references. My suggestion would be that numerous studies undertaken would support the conclusion that mutations are almost always either neutral or harmful.

I do believe that in some cases, even well intended scientist, tend to look for some way to interpret data to prove what he or she has already a propensity to believe. (Probably on both "sides").

One thing that you have to understand is the terminology. What is and isn't classified as a mutation must be taken into consideration.

I think there are probably some very reliable statistics available if one takes the time to search them out, check their sources, and check to learn if there is an agenda involved. Unfortunately, this subject has become so prejudiced by many that all studies cannot be taken at face value.

Or, as I suspect, do you simply not bother to read the detailed replies that people post in response to your nonsensical ramblings, because you believe, and that’s a better way to figure out how things work than by actually going and trying to measure them?

An observer said: The 47 translators of the King James Version of the Bible were well established and accomplished scholars. Their knowledge of Hebrew, Latin, Greek and English would put most of us to shame.

One other point of focus, as long as this pig wrestling is going to continue, get the word “evidence” into the discussion. What constitutes evidence? Pick some examples. The result should be interesting. Avoidance will be the first tack.

Ravilyn Sanders said: Observer, why do you crave to be called a scientist? Why are you so obsessed with the appellation "scientist"?

An observer said: The science is separate from the interpretation of the results.

Mike Elzinga said: One other point of focus, as long as this pig wrestling is going to continue, get the word “evidence” into the discussion. What constitutes evidence? Pick some examples. The result should be interesting. Avoidance will be the first tack.

LOL. Newton didn’t just observe falling bodies, he interpreted that data and came up with a general rule to explain it.

Chuck asks... What does the word “evidence” mean to people who can’t tell the existential difference between a rhetorical argument and a rock lying on the ground?

stevaroni said:

Chuck asks... What does the word “evidence” mean to people who can’t tell the existential difference between a rhetorical argument and a rock lying on the ground?

It means nothing, since creationists resolutely refuse to actually walk over to the rock, pick it up, and measure the damned thing, because their holy book says it's not there.

Actually, they never bothered to read that their holy book never talked about rocks in the first place, and was never meant to be used to examine rocks in the first place, even though they insist on using it for dealing with rocks anyhow.

Anyway, thanks for sharing again, PZ. This is very cool.

An observer said: My response would be that it will take more than E Coli being able to metabolize citrates to change what man has observed over the last three centuries.

My suggestion would be... I do believe that ... I think there are probably some very reliable statistics available if one takes the time to search them out, check their sources, and check to learn if there is an agenda involved.

Science Avenger said:

An observer said: My response would be that it will take more than E Coli being able to metabolize citrates to change what man has observed over the last three centuries.

As Behe has to be reminded from time to time, "impressedness" is not a scientific term.

Speaking of nonscientific terms:

My suggestion would be... I do believe that ... I think there are probably some very reliable statistics available if one takes the time to search them out, check their sources, and check to learn if there is an agenda involved.

But of course neither you nor any creationist is going to take the time to do so. Better to sit back and suggest, believe, and think about what probably might exist. Keeps your dogmas unsullied by reality.

Mike Elzinga said: Mark Hausam would take this to extremes. Somehow he managed to conflate “interpretation” with “evidence”. The fact that different people have different interpretations of his holy book is not evidence that his own interpretation is simply one of many; rather, his “proper interpretation” seems to be “evidence” that everyone else is wrong. (Duh; why were we so ignorant that we missed that?) He, and others of his kind (species?), would then call any evidence presented to him (such as the patterns in the fossil record) as “interpretation”. Yet his interpretations of his bible, using exegesis and hermeneutics, were “evidence” that his bible was true and therefore evolution was false.

I see that my attempt to stand Observer's argument on its head went ignored. Observer, once more: there is no way that the theory that God designed or controls the process of evolution could ever be falsified. No observation could ever counter it. There is no experiment that could confirm or deny it. No matter what material evidence were brought, the argument still stands that God designed and controls the natural processes that produce the evidence.

Why, then, are you averse to the concept of evolution? Like all other natural processes, it can without conflict be said to be the expression of the action of a Creator.

Further, since the existence or actions of a Creator cannot be confirmed or denied by science, they therefore lie outside the purview of science. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds? If not, do you object to the idea that science teachers in the science classroom should teach science and only science? If so, on what grounds?

You see, I suspect that aversion to evolution arises from only one cause: that its necessary implication of common descent, if no other, necessarily contradicts the Genesis account if the latter is taken literally. If this is your actual objection - and I suspect that it is, really, and any quibbling about the evidence is immaterial - then stand by the tenets of your faith, and say so. If it isn't, then say from what cause your aversion does arise, bring forward your evidence, and let it be examined.

You may have more frequent encounters with creationists and less sympathy towards persons like Mark Hausam, than I have. Maybe there are also cultural differences between us, since creationism is not as big a threat to science in Europe (as yet), as it appears to be in the U.S.

Mike Elzinga said: No offense was meant toward you or others of faith who post here. I hope most of us here know the difference.

It means nothing, since creationists resolutely refuse to actually walk over to the rock, pick it up, and measure the damned thing, because their holy book says it’s not there.

— stevaroni

Scientists do use religious terms though, don't they. Though it's usually metaphoric. Think of the "Gaia Hypothesis" or "Y-chromosome Adam" (though since he's our most recent common ancestor by patrilineal descent, he should really be Noah, or Utnapishtim).

You see, I suspect that aversion to evolution arises from only one cause: that its necessary implication of common descent, if no other, necessarily contradicts the Genesis account if the latter is taken literally.

— Dave Luckett

Richard said: Scientists do use religious terms though, don't they. Though it's usually metaphoric. Think of the "Gaia Hypothesis" or "Y-chromosome Adam" (though since he's our most recent common ancestor by patrilineal descent, he should really be Noah, or Utnapishtim).

Richard said: Scientists do use religious terms though, don't they. Though it's usually metaphoric. Think of the "Gaia Hypothesis" or "Y-chromosome Adam" (though since he's our most recent common ancestor by patrilineal descent, he should really be Noah, or Utnapishtim).

Life has two contradictory properties that any theory explaining its origin must encompass: similarities everywhere, and differences separating species.

Eric wrote:

"That includes Mark Hausam, but unlike many others, he did describe in some detail the evidence he thought was supporting his world view."

No he didn't. His only "evidence" was along the lines of: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that's that." Only a real moron, or someone who wanted to be willfully misleading would mistake or represent that as evidence of anything.

The guy was a liar plain and simple. He promised to read books and never did. He promised to present "scientific evidence" and never did. He claimed that no one was ever persuaded to believe in the theory of evolution by scientific evidence and ignored all evidence that that was incorrect. He claimed that his beliefs were based on evidence but was not only ignorant of all the evidence but steadfastly refused to examine any evidence and ignored all evidence presented. (By the way, he did all this after it was patiently explained to him several times what the exact meaning of the term "evidence" was). He also promised to come back and never did. What he did do was preach and invite everyone to join in private conversations which would no doubt consist of more preaching. What he did not do was show the slightest hint of honesty or sincereity.

As far as attacking him when he is not here is concerned, I don't think that using him as an example of a typical fundamentalist constitutes attacking him and even if it does he earned it. And if he wants to defend himself he can always come back. Of course if he does, someone will undoubtedly remind him what his bible has to say about lying.

More on topic, I wonder what explanation he would have for the research in snake development? After all, the bible does have a lot to say about snakes.

Eric Finn said: Flood myths predate the writings in the Bible.

David Stanton said: Eric wrote: "That includes Mark Hausam, but unlike many others, he did describe in some detail the evidence he thought was supporting his world view." No he didn't. His only "evidence" was along the lines of: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that's that." Only a real moron, or someone who wanted to be willfully misleading would mistake or represent that as evidence of anything.

Mark Hausam I can see why the way I have phrased things could lead to the thought that I am appealing to circular reasoning, but that is not in fact the case. What I am saying is that the Bible description of things matches my observations. For example, the Bible teaches that a theistic God exists. Observation and logical deduction also lead to the conclusion that a theistic God exists. The Bible asserts that all human beings are rebels against God and deserve punishment. From knowing myself, I see that I have a tendency to do what I ought not to do. I have disobeyed God. I have a tendency to disobey God as a part of my character. I see that reason leads to the conclusion that a theistic God would be infinitely more important than any finite being, and that a crime against him would be infinitely worse than any other crime. (Remember the analogy with the law court discussed in this context earlier.) Such crime would be utterly shameful and deserve infinite punishment. The Bible doesn’t spell out these arguments, but it asserts these facts, and reason confirms them. (I know, of course, that many would dispute me here. But that is where intelligent conversation can proceed.) With regard to salvation, the Bible teaches that savlation comes to human beings by means of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Reason leads to the conclusion that if someone as guilty and dese4ving of punishment as I am is to be rescued from my deserved fate, it must be in a way that would not pervert justice and thus trivialize my offenses and God’s greatness. My debt to justice must be satsfied in such a way that I can escape. Only if someone capable of paying that debt and yet still being virtuous enough to warrant God’s reward were to take on himself that debt, and I take on his virtue, can such an event occur. Such a person would have to be God. (I know I am going through this rather quickly. More needs to be said to fill out some of the specifics of the argument. Again, that is where intelligent conversation can proceed.) Anyway, the point is that the Bible asserts this way of salvation, and reason confirms it to be the only sort of thing that would work. There is nothing like it in any other worldview. (There are some views that capture some similarities, but nothing that comes close to satisfying all the rational qualifications.) This sort of reasoning is not cirucular reasoning. It is comparing biblical claims to rational observations of the actual state of things. You can disagree about my arguments being sound or my observations being valid, but it is not circular reasoning. You can say I am reading my own expectations into my observations, and in that sense what I am saying is ciruclar, although I will disagree with you. I don’t think I am doing that.

The struggle between herders and farmers is recorded in the fertile crescent (story of Cain and Abel and its analogues in Egypt and Persia) but not in Hindu mythologies.

The ICR is trying to have things both ways by asserting that beneficial mutations are so improbable that we can safely ignore their role in the evolution, thus acknowledging weakly that there are observed instances of beneficial mutations while simultaneously poo-pooing the idea of their importance, reducing them to a triviality and barring them from consideration when examining butterfly mimicry.

Dave Luckett said: I see that my attempt to stand Observer's argument on its head went ignored.

While I agree with your assessment, I would like to point out that he made a genuine attempt. Sorry about the lengthy quotation (August 13, 2007).

Frank J has spent more time looking at their variations on a theme than I have. Most of my own focus has been on their misuses of scientific words and concepts.

— Mike Elzinga

Observer wrote:

"Are you certain, in your own study of genetics and biology that the antibiotic resistant strains we encounter today are all examples of mutations rather than adaptations. Isn’t there some evidence that rather than microbes mutating and becoming resistant, some were already stronger and only the stronger strain survived the antibiotic. These reproduce and an antibiotic-resistant strain is observed. Also, the gene responsible for the resistance may have been there from the beginning but just wasn’t expressed until those with the dominant genes were destroyed. Geneticist are still studying these possibilities in the hope of continuing to battle major infectious diseases."

Nice try, but completely wrong.

Antibiotic re4sistance has been studied extensively. We know when and where the mutations arose and how they confer resistance. We know what mutations are likely to arise in the future and even their potential fitness values in different environments (Genetics 160:823-832, 2002). This is a matter of life and death, so hypotheses have been tested extensively. Your ideas are simply contrary to known facts.

Why can't you admit that some random mutations can be beneficial in certain environments? Why must you persist in the "no beneficial mutations" routine that has been so soundly disproven?

By the way, questioning whether something is a mutation or an adaptation is nonsensical. Adaptions are mutations that have proven successful in a certain environment, no useful distinction can be made between the two. They are simply the same thing before and after selection acts. And there are no "dominant genes" in bacteria, which are haploid. You should learn the basics before questioning the concensus in the field. Perhaps you are not as good at observing as you suppose.

Eric Finn said: Thank you for telling about the experiences you have had. It did help a little, but still I can't fully understand the communities in the U.S. Parents telling the teachers what to teach is a bit alarming.

David Stanton said: Why can't you admit that some random mutations can be beneficial in certain environments? Why must you persist in the "no beneficial mutations" routine that has been so soundly disproven?

Science Avenger said: Welcome to America, where birthing a child gives one the knowledge of how to teach and medicate them as well.

Stanton says... Because Observer was taught that were he admit that he was wrong, he would be obligated to undergo apostasy for having failed to uphold his faith.

Eric Finn said: I am making a bold claim: You are over exaggerating the threat the religious organisations might pose to your elementary education.

I have visited your country a few times. All the people I have met have been very nice. I have met religious people too.

I am making a bold claim: You are over exaggerating the threat the religious organisations might pose to your elementary education.

I am making a bold claim: You are over exaggerating the threat the religious organisations might pose to your elementary education I have little doubt that most here would sincerely hope you are correct. But we have been suckered too many times in the past when we have been complacent. Panda’s Thumb, The National Center for Science Education, and the various Citizens for Science organizations in the various states have been necessary responses to the political activities of these religious fanatics.

Carwalk,

Let me take an educated guess:

(1) Anti-evolution legislation would immediately be enacted in at least forty states.

(2) Public school teachers would immediately begin teaching creationism openly and most would never teach any evolution.

(3) The foundations of science would be attacaked next, leading to at least several generations that were not familiar with the methods of science and ill-prepared to do any scientific research. Medicine and agriculture would probably suffer first, but other fields would quickly follow.

(4) The United States would soon lose what little technological advantage it once may have had in the global marketplace and the problems that were created by short sighted and inappropriate use of technology would go unsolved for many generations.

(5) In the worst case scenario, the world could be plunged into a new dark age, where science would be considered evil and technological innovation would come to a stand still. Of course, the world would then be ruled by religious nutcases who imposed their authoritarian edicts by the sword.

You may call me paranoid, but a quick look at history will confirm that such could indeed happen. If it does, the future of the human race would most likely not be pleasant and might even be over quite quickly. We survived the dark ages once, trying again would be pushing our luck. Reality is like that, you ignore it at your own risk.

More on topic, cool developmental studies like this one would probably not ever be done again. After all, if religious fanatics ran things, why would they want to fund research that provided evidence that the theory of evolution that they hate so much is actuallly correct? Why would they want any science to be done if there was the possibility that it might undermine someone's faith?

An observer said: ICR recognizes the part mutations has played in the processes of life, but does not accept the evolutionist belief that this sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome, that we call a mutation is the solution or reason for the wonderful varieties of lifeforms and species found upon planet earth.

Carwalk is setting off my mutli-named troll spidey sense. Engage at your own risk.

Couple of days behind here but excellent thread. If the Creationist doesn't appreciate the education, I certainly do. Just a comment for Woodsong - "Granted, both slowworms and glass lizards are in the same family (Anguidae), but it begs the question: how many times has this trait evolved?" Anniellidae are also limbless. But have a look at the skinks(Scincidae), especially the Australian skinks. There are a number of genera that contain limbless species. In fact, there are genera where there is a range of limb development among species in the same genus(Lirista, Anomalopus) - strong limbs with toes, very small limbs and toes, hind limbs only with toes, hind limbs no toes and no limbs. There are other similar examples in African and Malagasy skinks. But what about the Pygopid lizards, also from Australia, almost limbless, where the hind limbs are reduced to movable flaps? David G.

This might be a silly question, but earlier discussions on this board talked about the effect of long bodies on legged animals. Could similar mutations produce the long bodies in mammals such as ferrets? What's the ancestry of the mustelidae, and how could that relate to this research?

One thing I will repeat. Most of you already know that I am not and have never claimed to be a scientist. I have no problem with science, but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries. Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

I am reading material that is being presented to students and doing some research into the origin of the materials. Also, I am as well equipped as the general public, and probably better equipped than many, to understand the issues facing educators and parents in regard to a battle that seems to be going on for control over the science curriculum. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know this battle exist. A perusal of The Panda’s Thumb and several other web-sites, reading newspapers, listening to news reports, and attending board meetings is all that is required to learn that there are conflicting opinions.

Concerning the response to Wheels, I asked a question concerning mutation vs. adaptation. I was using the term ‘adaptation’ when defined as an organisms ability to fit into its environment. Perhaps I am wrong here, but I was of the opinion from what science I have studied that organisms are able to adapt using an innate ability to survive aside from mutation. I recall learning that organisms are often equipped with the ability to adapt to a hostile environment. The term is sometimes used in this context.

There are some great web-sites available that teach a lot on the subject, as well as some that require a monetary contribution for membership. I find those interested in medical research to be helpful.

As to the person who was bold enough to judge not only my behavior, but my religion, I would like to respond by asking how you know whether I am Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim? All of these religions teach creation. There are some who are not religious who recognize the work of a creator. How can you be so bold as to suggest that I say and believe what I do out of fear? That comment isn’t worthy of a response other than that I seriously doubt that you know very much about any religions other than the propaganda that is placed on the web by atheist on a regular basis. Perhaps you judge me by your own standard and ‘your religion’ would never allow you to admit evidence of a Creator.

An observer said: Wheels, You are obviously a sincere and thinking person, so I would like for you to consider a few things from a different perspective. ... In reality, this isn't what ICR does at all. ICR recognizes the part mutations has played in the processes of life, but does not accept the evolutionist belief that this sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome, that we call a mutation is the solution or reason for the wonderful varieties of lifeforms and species found upon planet earth.

Simply stated, most mutations are either harmful or neutral.

ICR sees Mimicry as a wonderful example of an intelligent Designer who equips his creation in a unique way rather than a random genetic accident that benefited a species in such a marvelous way.

Why this upsets others truly puzzles me.

Are you certain, in your own study of genetics and biology that the antibiotic resistant strains we encounter today are all examples of mutations rather than adaptations.

Isn't there some evidence that rather than microbes mutating and becoming resistant, some were already stronger and only the stronger strain survived the antibiotic.

Also, the gene responsible for the resistance may have been there from the beginning but just wasn't expressed until those with the dominant genes were destroyed.

Geneticist are still studying these possibilities in the hope of continuing to battle major infectious diseases.

You indicated that you interpreted what I said to mean that 99.9% of relevant scientist are deliberately reaching wrong conclusions. I did not state this, nor do I believe this. What I believe is that evolutionist have just as strong an agenda to attempt to disprove creation as you believe ICR has to prove creation.

When you were in school, I presume you had to "show your work" when you gave an answer to a math question? Why do you think that was? So that your instructor could make sure you had correctly applied the principles you just covered to reach the answer instead of looking the back of the book. When you have hundreds of thousands of people looking over your shoulder and checking your work, it's hard to deliberately fool them on a math test, no? If evolution were as fundamentally flawed as your ICR claims it is, it would be nigh impossible for it to have succeeded so well at explaining things. The ICR has a whole lot of work to do if they want to demonstrate that they have an even better system. So far their work has been deeply flawed and produced nothing usable.

The major difference that I observe is that ICR acknowledges that they are interested in proving creation while evolutionist would have you believe they are only interested in scientific findings and that they would be just as happy to prove creation as they would to prove evolution. NOT TRUE

Worse yet, you acknowledged the ICR's violation of scientific methodology but didn't give any reason why this shouldn't invalidate their position as far as science is concerned. You don't get the luxury of being "for" or "against" a scientific theory when you're doing your scientific work, regardless of your personal opinions on the matter. The work you do must be free of ideological bias that might interfere with your ability to discern the results. You don't perform an experiment to discredit an idea, you work to apply it in a way that can either falsify it or fail to falsify it based on the evidence rather than your tastes.

This is why "experiments" designed by Creationists, such as Steve Austin's attempt to date the Grand Canyon, fail so amazingly. The experimenter's bias influenced the design of the tests in such a way that they produced the apparent result that the experimenter set out to look for. Likewise the recent Creationist "journal" article about the fitness of two strains of bacteria were fatally flawed - scientifically invalid.

I'm extremely disappointed with your answer here.

An observer said: One thing I will repeat. Most of you already know that I am not and have never claimed to be a scientist. I have no problem with science, but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries. Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

Otherwise all you'd be saying is "Teachers shouldn't say that evolution disproves God," which only an -extremely- tiny number of teachers would ever do anyway. Perhaps you'd even go so far as to say "Teachers should make it clear to students that evolution, while true, does not disprove their religious belief in the existence of a God, nor does it support the non-existence of the same." You wouldn't be taking issue with the simple things presented here on Panda's Thumb about scientific findings regarding evolution or disputing the natural process by which mimicry arises. But that's what you did out-of-the-gate in this thread.

I think you're either trying very hard to fool us about your intentions, or you're trying to fool yourself about them.

ragarth said: This might be a silly question, but earlier discussions on this board talked about the effect of long bodies on legged animals. Could similar mutations produce the long bodies in mammals such as ferrets? What's the ancestry of the mustelidae, and how could that relate to this research?

Wheels said: I think you're either trying very hard to fool us about your intentions, or you're trying to fool yourself about them.

If that concern over what is taught in school is that scientific conclusions might change (especially the finer details) after the kid learns them, that's not that big a problem. For example, while in school, I "learned" that amoeba and paramecia are one celled animals, fungi are plants that happen to lack chlorophyll, that the periodic table has 103 elements (the total changes every so often, usually upwards, but once downwards), that Pluto was a planet like the other eight. All those were wrong (or have become so), and I've had to unlearn all those, and it didn't hurt, much.

Henry

Henry J said: All those were wrong (or have become so), and I've had to unlearn all those, and it didn't hurt, much. Henry

Observer wrote:

"I was using the term ‘adaptation’ when defined as an organisms ability to fit into its environment. Perhaps I am wrong ..."

You are indeed wrong. What you are referring to is called physiological adaptation. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is definately not an example of physiological adaptation. It requires specific genes and specific mutations in specific genes. All of this is well documented. You certainly were not clear in your use of the term. In fact, all of your alternative "interpretations" are demonstrably wrong. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of beneficial mutations, just admit it.

You claim that you are well equipped to determine how science should be presented to students and yet your comments betray a profound ignorance of the relevant issues. I would suggest that scientists are the ones best qualified to interpret their own findings and the ones best equipped to determine how they should be presented to students. Teachers can of course be trained to do this correctly, but they are probably best trained by scientists as well. It certainly would not be productive to allow those with a religious agenda the opportunity to force their "interpretation" of the results of science on unsuspecting students.

Among other things, you did hear about what happened to one Miss Chris Comer last fall, in Texas, about how she was fired from her post as Science Director in the Texas Education Agency for having abused her email by forwarding a message about an anti-Intelligent Design talk by one Barbara Forrest, right?

The militant sectarians who cause all the trouble are influential far out of proportion to their numbers.

More on topic, cool developmental studies like this one would probably not ever be done again. After all, if religious fanatics ran things, why would they want to fund research that provided evidence that the theory of evolution that they hate so much is actuallly correct?

Common descent unites all life on earth, while evolution itself is about constant change; similarities are rooted in our shared ancestry, while differences arise as lineages diverge.

Evolutionary scientists have been telling people til they are blue in the face that if you found a fish that gave birth to a salamander, or a dog that sired a kitten, that would DISCONFIRM evolutionary theory as it stands today, not confirm it.

You claim that you are well equipped to determine how science should be presented to students and yet your comments betray a profound ignorance of the relevant issues.

David Stanton said: In fact, all of your alternative "interpretations" are demonstrably wrong. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of beneficial mutations, just admit it.

You claim that you are well equipped to determine how science should be presented to students and yet your comments betray a profound ignorance of the relevant issues. I would suggest that scientists are the ones best qualified to interpret their own findings and the ones best equipped to determine how they should be presented to students. Teachers can of course be trained to do this correctly, but they are probably best trained by scientists as well. It certainly would not be productive to allow those with a religious agenda the opportunity to force their "interpretation" of the results of science on unsuspecting students.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of beneficial mutations, just admit it.

I have no problem with science, but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries. Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

(Sorry to be so OT, but I couldn't let this one go unchallenged.)

The problem with letting teachers decide what scientific content ought to be taught in grade school is that teachers are in fact the least qualified people to decide what should be taught to students. Studies have shown that K-12 teachers as a group are the least educated professionals, with the lowest test scores (on average) on any test of knowledge, and demonstrably the least knowledge of science.

And the only group with lower test scores than teachers were school administrators!

Admittedly there are outstanding teachers, and I have been fortunate enough to have several of them. But they are the exception. A bell curve will always have exceptional cases in the top 10%. I grant that any teacher reading this blog is one of those outstanding teachers, and I applaud you. And I'm sure that the typical high school science teacher can be quite knowledgeable (mine was voted the best teacher in California). But as a group, they're basic knowledge of science makes teachers (as a group) ill prepared to judge the merits of scientific theories.

As a personal example, my junior high science class was held in a wonderfully well equipped laboratory class room with all the basic tools one could need. What did we do in class? Our "science" teacher had us sit at our desks during class and read Time/Life science books, while he read the sports section of the newspaper. We never once touched any of the scientific tools, nor were we allowed to talk during class to even discuss what we were reading.

I don't have the studies showing the numbers, but I can get them if called on it. I have a resource. My wife is taking courses to qualify to be a teacher so that she can teach reading to struggling students. She has a hard won BS in Biology, and years of personal study of reading theory, so she's no slouch. But that didn't prepare her for learning how to be a teacher. For her master's level class in education research, what was she required to do for one class "research" project? Cut out line drawings of leaves, color them in, paste them on an equally colorful paper basket, and write a page and a half about the experience! In this post graduate level course designed to teach new teachers about educational research, she learned nothing that she had not learned when she was in third grade. And all the other students in the class thought it was a challenging and informative program!!! Remember, these other "students" are your future K-12 teachers.

So no. In general it is a really bad idea to let your typical K-12 teacher decide what science should be taught in grade school.

(Again, my apologies to all those outstanding teachers out there. You are a credit to your profession, and I salute your ability to persevere against incredible odds. I just wish there were more of you, and that the odds you need to overcome weren't so high.)

Observer,

Since you want to decide how science is taught in public schools, (even though you admit that you are not a scientist), how about answering a few questions in order to demonstrate your competence?

(1) How old is the earth and how old is life on earth?

(2) Why are there intermediates between many major groups of organisms in the fossil record?

(3) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities bwetween all living things that corresponds precisely with their thme of apearance in the fossil record?

(4) Why does the corn snake share the exact same developmental genes and regulatory mechanisms, (with minor modifications), as organisms with vastly different morphology?

(5) Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how science should be taught when you don't know the difference between mutation and physiological adaptation or the meaning of the term dominant?

(6) If you get your way and do get to decide how science is taught, how do you think that evolution should be taught in public schools?

You can choose not to answer if you want, but I for one will ignore any further posts you make until you do answer. I suggest others do the same.

An observer said: One thing I will repeat. Most of you already know that I am not and have never claimed to be a scientist. I have no problem with science, but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries. Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

Mike and Scott,

You guys make some excellent points. I couldn't agree more.

For the past ten years I have been teaching summer courses to K-12 teachers in order to increase their knowledge of Biology. Unfortunately, for the past three years the course has been cancelled, since the government no longer funds the program and the teachers often choose not to pay for the courses themselves. So, I agree with Scott that teachers are often underprepared for teaching Biology and I agree with Mike that they need more support to do the difficult job they are asked to do.

Science Avenger,

Thanks for the kind words. I don't remember if it was you, Henry or Frank, but someone suggested that this was the best way to deal with trolls. In this case, it certainly seemed appropriate, even though this guy is, so far at least, more polite than most. He sure seems to want to discuss anything but snake development however.

If you mean the divide-and-conquer approach of asking them questions to reveal just how much fundamental disagreement exists in the big tent of anti-evolution denialism, I believe the credit goes to Frank.

(1) How old is the earth and how old is life on earth?

— David Stanton

Aren't "evolutionists" supposed to be the oppressive ones who want to stifle "academic freedom" and discussion about "strengths and weaknesses?" Isn't it because "evolutionists" are so insecure about their "dying theory" that they react so strongly to the serious threat posed by Creationism; proof that their ideas need serious defending?

Contrast that to the “expelled” academics featured in Stein’s movie, none of whom actually lost their jobs or received institutionalized persecution for their beliefs.

— Wheels

Wheels said: Speaking of free societies for a moment, I'd like to point out how telling it is that we get to have these off-topic bait-taking back-and-forth sessions at all, when any sign of dissent would almost surely disappear from the Uncommon Descent blog no matter how on-topic, sincere, or relevant it might be.

Speaking of free societies for a moment, I’d like to point out how telling it is that we get to have these off-topic bait-taking back-and-forth sessions at all, when any sign of dissent would almost surely disappear from the Uncommon Descent blog no matter how on-topic, sincere, or relevant it might be. Even when things get out of hand here, they’re usually moved to another accessible venue for continuation.

Wheels said: Speaking of free societies for a moment, I'd like to point out how telling it is that we get to have these off-topic bait-taking back-and-forth sessions at all, when any sign of dissent would almost surely disappear from the Uncommon Descent blog no matter how on-topic, sincere, or relevant it might be. Even when things get out of hand here, they're usually moved to another accessible venue for continuation. Likewise, dissenters are not even allowed to work at the Institute for Creation Research. Contrast that to the "expelled" academics featured in Stein's movie, none of whom actually lost their jobs or received institutionalized persecution for their beliefs.

Aren't "evolutionists" supposed to be the oppressive ones who want to stifle "academic freedom" and discussion about "strengths and weaknesses?" Isn't it because "evolutionists" are so insecure about their "dying theory" that they react so strongly to the serious threat posed by Creationism; proof that their ideas need serious defending?

"A “free” society where people are enslaved to bronze age dogma is double talk."

Then work to free them. But do not be surprised if they prefer a comforting slavery. And never, never allow yourself to fall prey to the all-too-tempting reflection that their ideas should be suppressed because they are clearly pernicious, or your ideas should receive preferential treatment because they are clearly superior. The instant you make that easy transition, you're lost; in fact, you've actually joined the enemy.

An observer said: I have no problem with science, but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries. Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

I am reading material that is being presented to students and doing some research into the origin of the materials. Also, I am as well equipped as the general public, and probably better equipped than many, to understand the issues facing educators and parents in regard to a battle that seems to be going on for control over the science curriculum. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know this battle exist.

Observer writes... One thing I will repeat. Most of you already know that I am not and have never claimed to be a scientist.

I have no problem with science,

but rather am concerned with the teaching of and interpretations of, scientific discoveries.

Before you suggest that this should be left entirely to scientist, I will suggest that in a public school and in a free society, educators, parents and the public are interested in how any subject is presented to an impressionable child.

A perusal of The Panda’s Thumb and several other web-sites, reading newspapers, listening to news reports, and attending board meetings is all that is required to learn that there are conflicting opinions.

I asked a question concerning mutation vs. adaptation... Perhaps I am wrong here, but I was of the opinion from what science I have studied that organisms are able to adapt using an innate ability to survive aside from mutation.

Dave Luckett said: "A “free” society where people are enslaved to bronze age dogma is double talk." Then work to free them. But do not be surprised if they prefer a comforting slavery. And never, never allow yourself to fall prey to the all-too-tempting reflection that their ideas should be suppressed because they are clearly pernicious, or your ideas should receive preferential treatment because they are clearly superior. The instant you make that easy transition, you're lost; in fact, you've actually joined the enemy.

Dave Luckett said: "A “free” society where people are enslaved to bronze age dogma is double talk." Then work to free them. But do not be surprised if they prefer a comforting slavery. And never, never allow yourself to fall prey to the all-too-tempting reflection that their ideas should be suppressed because they are clearly pernicious, or your ideas should receive preferential treatment because they are clearly superior.

The instant you make that easy transition, you're lost; in fact, you've actually joined the enemy.

Mike Elzinga said: And to take the free society concept farther, these sectarians never seem to appreciate the fact that they have their freedom to worship as they please guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Observer: If the genes for antibiotic resistance were there from the beginning -put there by the Creator- does that mean God is antipenicillin?

hoary puccoon said: PZ's article is part of the amazing current adventure of bringing evolutionary theory down to the molecular level. That adventure could easily have failed. Snakes could, for instance, have had a genetic makeup that was completely different from other reptiles-- which would have made creationist terms like macro-evolution and "kinds" into terminology at the forefront of science. It just didn't work out that way. Radically different phenotypes have been shown to have similar genetics, with minor mutations in the genetic switches causing most of the differences between them. PZ's research was a direct test of evolutionary theory, and could have come up with results that falisified a big chunk of that theory. It just didn't, because the data didn't turn out that way.

Hoo boy, I mean, ignorance, check, non-sequitors, check, nearly incoherent, check, merrily belting himself upside the face, check, arguing black is white, check, but damn few trolls are so far gone that they have to put in interlinear notes to explain who they're trying to insult.

It is, in a sense, a real privilege to be able to observe so comprehensive an example of demented nuckfuttery.

Gimme a break. So called "molecular analysis" proceeds by grinding up organisms in a food processor and running the guts through the gel electrophoresis machine. Then, they construct some bell curve of charge/mass ratios of the innards and claim "homology" or "relatedness" or some other such Darwinian Jabberwocky based on the similarities of these graphs. Does anybody ever do any controls on this crud? For example, why doesn't PZ or one of his fellow pigeon-toed, white-coated pinheads send out one of their ghouls (graduate students) to dig up his mother and his maternal grandmother and run the same grind up and sort experiment on them to see if those curves look more like each other than those of the different kinds of snakes,

Coming into this thread late, I must say a certain number of the newer (to me anyway) names here exude that rank smell of sockpuppetry.

For those who are concerned about what our kids are to be taught in their biology classes, what would you think about when a kid asks why the body of a human is so much like the body of a chimpanzee, of other apes, and even shares so much with all other living things?

What kind of an answer would you prefer?

* As a matter of science, it has nothing to do with our values as human beings.

* We were purposefully designed by an intelligent designer, for whatever purposes of the designer had in common for all these living things.

* The intelligent designers couldn't do any different within their limitations.

* Those similarities are neither the result of scientific laws, nor do they tell us anything about the purposes or limitations of the intelligent designers, but just happened to turn out that way.

* Or ????

To Wheels:

You are putting words in my mouth and I truly prefer to speak for myself. I did not come up with the 99% statistic, you did. I wondered if you had proof of this at the time, but decided not to dispute it. Now I realize that perhaps you are saying many scientist who are also creationist do not agree with ICR. I am not sure which you intended or where you get your statistics.

It may be that 99% of today's scientist understand that there is an evolutionary aspect in the life process, but I do not believe that 99.9% of relevant scientists are ideologically anti-Creation.

How could ICR or any other group do the damage that you fear when as PROFESSOR Myers and others here often note, "creations are not printed in scientific journals"?

I do not accept all that you state, however, even if your charges were true, your fears are unfounded.

The general public do not use scientific discoveries in daily life. As I understand it, medical doctors and those who work in the field use laboratory findings, not public opinion in developing technologies. What a scientist believes or his knowledge of the Creator will not and historically has not hindered science from any accomplishment.

Actallly, a comprehensive study will prove the exact opposite. While many evolutionist are attempting to prove they do not need a "Watchmaker", many Godly scientist are seeking wisdom and a better understanding with which to solve problems.

Consider the following:

Francis S Collins - physician, geneticist - His genetic research team identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis and he collaborated with others to identify the gene that results in Huntington disease. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

Wernher von Braun was a chief rocket engineer for the German V-2 program in World War II. In the 1960s he was director of the Marshall Space Flight Center and an administrator for planning at NASA headquarters until 1972. He wrote a forward to the 1971 Pacific Press book, Creation: Nature's Designs and Designer in which he says:
Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He is a five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. In a U.S. News & World Report article on creation, he is quoted as saying, "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, "So that's how God did it."

Matthew Maury created the science of oceanography because he believed the Bible when it said there were paths in the seas.

George Berkeley, idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.

George Cuvier created the science of paleontology

James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics, was Christian.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar, Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed.

There would be no need for me to list Mendel Salk, Jenner, Fleming, Pasteur, Long, Pascal, Eddington and the many others as we have all been taught about their accomplishments. These were men of faith as well.

Perhaps you will feel less hostile to men of faith if you consider some of these accomplishments. There isn't time for me to list all that I have.

OOps, I intended to say, The general public do not use scientific facts to make scientifc discoveries in daily life, scientist do that.

Observer, the ICR does the damage that we fear by spreading malicious lies and misinformation, as well as deceiving mindless dupes like you into helping them in spreading malicious lies and misinformation.

So, can you please provide an explanation of why Intelligent Design "theory" is worthy of being taught to students even though its proponents, including you, have had no motivation to use it in any constructive fashion what so ever ever since its debut over 20 years ago by Philip E. Johnson?

An observer said: Francis S Collins - physician, geneticist - His genetic research team identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis and he collaborated with others to identify the gene that results in Huntington disease. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

An observer said: Francis S Collins - physician, geneticist - His genetic research team identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis and he collaborated with others to identify the gene that results in Huntington disease. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

Stanton,

You are wasting your time if you think this troll is going to respond to any reasonable questions.

Consider the fact that he has posted over 1000 words on this thread without once using the word "snake" in any of his posts. Consider the fact that he has been shown to be completely wrong about every claim he has made and yet he still keeps making them as if he had some credability left. Consider the fact that he claims to be qualified to decide how science should be taught in public schools and yet he can't even hazard a guess as to the age of the earth. Consider the fact that he apparently does not know the plural of "scientist" even though others have used it.

I say ignore him until he answers questions or at least posts something on topic.

An Observer,

While that is a list of many of man's greater people, it has no bearing on this discussion. The last report I read stated that atheism has around the same rate amongst scientists as amongst the general populace. The core of our argument here is that ID/creationism is not science.

The reasoning for this is this: For a hypothesis to be scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be capable of being disproven. You mentioned Mathew Maury, and while their theory was biblically inspired, they followed the scientific method to prove or disprove it. The hypothesis was 'There are roads in the ocean' and the result was, yes, there were. There was the possibility that it would have been disproven through scientific testing. Given this, we can surmise that:

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

And so that leads to this question: If the hypothesis is that an intelligent designer made all life on earth, how do you falsify it. So I ask you this:

How do you disprove the existence of God?

Unless that question can be answered, ID/creationism is nothing other than an evangelistic political ploy.

The general public do not use scientific discoveries in daily life. As I understand it, medical doctors and those who work in the field use laboratory findings, not public opinion in developing technologies.

What a scientist believes or his knowledge of the Creator will not and historically has not hindered science from any accomplishment.

Interesting; a troll who thinks we've never tested human DNA sequences for similarity. "Does anyone ever do any controls" indeed.

Completely off topic, but entirely amusing: About a month ago on PT a poster asked for some clarification on recent findings on the rate on gene origination in drosophila, (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/more-on-the-ori.html#comments) since a naive interpretation of that data seemed to suggest a long divergence time between humans and chimpanzees. The confusion was quickly revealed to results from the difference between changes in the number of genes (what the drosophila study measure) and changes in the sequence of existing genes (what the poster was using to measure the divergence between chimps and humans, according to Bjorn "several hundred genes").

Now over at our favorite collection of Uncommonly Dense people, some one named PaV experienced similar confusion regarding the same study. His behavior brilliantly demonstrates the difference between sincere truth seekers and ... well... creationists. Instead of asking for clarification, PaV has decided to parade his ignorance around while declaring how darn smart he is. In addition to conflating various kinds of genetic change, he throws out an enormously over inflated estimates of the number of new genes added in the human lineage after divergence (1,000 according to him.) For thoroughness in his ignorance he also calls chimps monkeys and puts in a little dig that the ancestors of these fruit flies couldn't possibly have had functional genomes w/o all those modern fly genes doing exactly what modern fly genes do.
(http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-gene-origination-calculation/)

An observer said:To Wheels: You are putting words in my mouth and I truly prefer to speak for myself. I did not come up with the 99% statistic, you did. I wondered if you had proof of this at the time, but decided not to dispute it. Now I realize that perhaps you are saying many scientist who are also creationist do not agree with ICR. I am not sure which you intended or where you get your statistics.

- Greater than the .1% of those scientists are Christians, or Jews, or Muslims. I haven't been able to find exact numbers, but the percentage is probably relatively large. Let's take a very conservative but reasonable estimate and say 40% (a statistic I have seen somewhere relating to the number of Christians in those fields, but I haven't been able to dig it up again).

- Therefore it seems to be that those who are of those religions are not ideologically predisposed to opposing Creation. They may make up a very sizeable, possibly almost a majority, chuck of biologists, paleontologists, et cetra. Thus your asssertion:

... evolutionist would have you believe they are only interested in scientific findings and that they would be just as happy to prove creation as they would to prove evolution. NOT TRUE

It may be that 99% of today's scientist understand that there is an evolutionary aspect in the life process, but I do not believe that 99.9% of relevant scientists are ideologically anti-Creation.

Contrary to that, there is definitely a non-science-based ideology of anti-evolutionism, those who reject the fact of evolution for ideological reasons. Personally I prefer the term "anti-evolutionists" over Creationists for technical, fiddly reasons. However, for the sake of convenience I'll use the latter term interchangeably with "Creationists" in some discussions.

Anyway, what would YOU describe as an "evolutionist?"

How could ICR or any other group do the damage that you fear when as PROFESSOR Myers and others here often note, "creations are not printed in scientific journals"?

I shouldn't have to tell you, somebody who is obviously so concerned about the pedagogical practices of society, what damage a massive and concerted campaign of widespread misinformation can do!

I do not accept all that you state, however, even if your charges were true, your fears are unfounded.

The general public do not use scientific discoveries in daily life. As I understand it, medical doctors and those who work in the field use laboratory findings, not public opinion in developing technologies. What a scientist believes or his knowledge of the Creator will not and historically has not hindered science from any accomplishment.

Actallly, a comprehensive study will prove the exact opposite. While many evolutionist are attempting to prove they do not need a "Watchmaker", many Godly scientist are seeking wisdom and a better understanding with which to solve problems. Consider the following: Francis S Collins - physician, geneticist - His genetic research team identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis and he collaborated with others to identify the gene that results in Huntington disease. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

I'm going to have to call this one as Wheels +1, Observer -1

Wernher von Braun was a chief rocket engineer for the German V-2 program in World War II. In the 1960s he was director of the Marshall Space Flight Center and an administrator for planning at NASA headquarters until 1972. He wrote a forward to the 1971 Pacific Press book, Creation: Nature's Designs and Designer in which he says: Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He is a five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. In a U.S. News & World Report article on creation, he is quoted as saying, "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, "So that's how God did it."

An in regards to Dr. Schaefer's unscientific objections to evolution, Panda's Thumb had already addressed them four years ago. They don't hold up as scientific under scrutiny.

Matthew Maury created the science of oceanography because he believed the Bible when it said there were paths in the seas.

George Berkeley, idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.

Surely you see the common thread here. You're largely just taking a list of theistic people and mentioning notable accomplishments they've made in the sciences without any effort to rigorously support the link between their religious beliefs and their work. In one case you even mention a religious person who explicitly denies the validity of Intelligent Design/Creationism! And you forgot one of my favorite examples, that of Bob T. Bakker. He's a very notable modern paleontologist and a Pentecostal preacher. He not only accepts the reality of an Old Earth and evolution, he not only recognizes their necessity in his work he enjoys teaching about them! His important work as a paleontolist includes advocacy for the idea that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded and quick animals rather than the prevailing view of the time that most were slow, cold-blooded reptiles. His view eventually won out and overturned conventional wisdom, but he did so only with sound science and not appeals to his religious beliefs.

There would be no need for me to list Mendel Salk, Jenner, Fleming, Pasteur, Long, Pascal, Eddington and the many others as we have all been taught about their accomplishments. These were men of faith as well.

Perhaps you will feel less hostile to men of faith if you consider some of these accomplishments.

What I have little tolerance for is people who commit their time and effort towards campaigns of deception and dishonesty in the name of a sectarian ideology, with the aim of overthrowing hard won understanding of the world in which we live by promoting ignorance, misunderstandings, and baseless opposition. The ICR, the Discovery Institute, CARM.org, AiG, and other outlets of anti-evolution and mangled pseudoscience are all demonstrably guilty of this shameful behavior. A prime example of the result of their divisive, bigoted polemics would be the remark you just made. Also: Oy! Debugging my markup errors in these long responses takes nearly as much time as writing them up!

An observer said: What a scientist believes or his knowledge of the Creator will not and historically has not hindered science from any accomplishment.

Stanton said: Observer, the ICR does the damage that we fear by spreading malicious lies and misinformation, as well as deceiving mindless dupes like you into helping them in spreading malicious lies and misinformation. So, can you please provide an explanation of why Intelligent Design "theory" is worthy of being taught to students even though its proponents, including you, have had no motivation to use it in any constructive fashion what so ever ever since its debut over 20 years ago by Philip E. Johnson?

Dave Luckett said: Hoo boy, I mean, ignorance, check, non-sequitors, check, nearly incoherent, check, merrily belting himself upside the face, check, arguing black is white, check, but damn few trolls are so far gone that they have to put in interlinear notes to explain who they're trying to insult. It is, in a sense, a real privilege to be able to observe so comprehensive an example of demented nuckfuttery.

Dave,

I plan to answer your questions. I just saw it, but my last post hasn't appeared, so I am going to wait to see if that post makes it before I write another lengthy answer. It may be tomorrow before I have the time. Check back if you will.

An observer said: Dave, I plan to answer your questions. I just saw it, but my last post hasn't appeared, so I am going to wait to see if that post makes it before I write another lengthy answer. It may be tomorrow before I have the time. Check back if you will.

and it doesn’t offer us the chance to make testable predictions about what else we might find in life that the model of naturalistic evolution can’t explain better and with fewer assumptions

Observer,

Thanks so much for being so polite. Take your time. I'm sure everyone can wait to hear your answers.

You believe that science has “disproved” God.

— Observer

It is as simple as that.

It is over whether children should be taught an atheistic philosophy in the classroom.

An observer said: It is over whether children should be taught an atheistic philosophy in the classroom.

An observer said: You believe that science has “disproved” God.

As for the definition of ‘evolutionist‘, I personally would define the word to mean a person who is more concerned with whether or not life and the many species on planet earth evolved as opposed to being created.

The battle is not over allowing children to be taught science. It is over whether children should be taught an atheistic philosophy in the classroom.

You believe that science has “disproved” God.

I think religions are defined as a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices or organized bodies that have a clear doctrine or set of rules.

Belief in a creator, however, is not a religion in itself.

Henry J said:

But I wonder if the absence of legs makes this easier? IIRC snakes have a lot more freedom in the number of segments (possibly of various kinds) than some other vertebrates, which suggests that perhaps some constraints are lifted.

What came to mind on reading that question is maybe too many vertebra between front legs and hind legs could lead to too much sagging of the spine between the pairs of limbs? (That's just a guess, though.)

Sorry to be such a skeptic, but I rather believe there is a either denial or dishonesty in many of your answers.

It seems you are not able to understand what is being said, OR you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting much of it.

Perhaps some of you honestly want to believe that when you make your interpretations that there is no Creator and you teach that and call it science, that it is really "science" and has nothing to do with creation or the origin of life. Others know better.

Some scientist observe the same occurances as "evolutionist" and conclude, rather than chance blind, tiny, incremental changes that, there is a causative factor that most likely is a Creator. If you are not willing to acknowledge that to a child, how do you call it something other than atheism? Are you willing to say, "We really do not know how life began or what causes the agents to exist that trigger these life processes?" I do not hear anyone here recommending this answer.

There is a difference in interpretation of data and research and the actual data and research. Maybe it is time some of you "admit it".

Frank J said: Above I wrote two comments with my usual “look at the differences!” approach. Most of the time I do that I get one or more “yeah, but look at the similarities!” replies. That’s frustrating because I don’t deny the similarities. I just don’t think it’s worth repeating them ad nauseum.

It seems you are not able to understand what is being said, OR you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting much of it.

Eric Finn said: If the theory of evolution is correct, then at least some different life forms must be connected by common ancestry. It appears now that all life on the planet Earth is connected by common descent. This is a non-trivial observation and is not directly predicted by the theory of evolution. Sorry about stating the very obvious, but I find it curious.

In fact, what evidence does Observer have that his holy book trumps the evidence for evolution?

Mike Elzinga said: Evolution is not “atheistic philosophy”.

Some scientists observe the same occurances as “evolutionist” and conclude, rather than chance blind, tiny, incremental changes that, there is a causative factor that most likely is a Creator.

If you are not willing to acknowledge that to a child, how do you call it something other than atheism?

Are you willing to say, “We really do not know how life began or what causes the agents to exist that trigger these life processes?” I do not hear anyone here recommending this answer.

… a for-real supernatural event ...

As for the definition of ‘evolutionist‘, I personally would define the word to mean a person who is more concerned with whether or not life and the many species on planet earth evolved as opposed to being created.

A scientist is a person who practices science regardless of the outcome and is not opposed to using the word evolved or the word created.

stevaroni Wrote: … a for-real supernatural event …

An observer said: There is a difference in interpretation of data and research and the actual data and research. Maybe it is time some of you "admit it".

David,

Before I answer your questions, I would like to ask you a few, just for you to think about.
How familiar are you with elementary, middle school and high school classrooms, textbooks and curriculums?

Do you teach in elementary, middle or high school?

If you have worked with children, you will be a lot better able to assess me than if you haven’t. I suppose that is your purpose.

I will tell you that I am a teacher and an above average one at that. My evaluations are always excellent. My experience has been in upper elementary and middle school. I do not, however, teach science, so I will have to research much of what you have asked. I can tell you, however, that teachers have state adopted text series, supplemental materials, library resources, and often their own materials from which to draw when teaching students.

When I prepare a lesson, I use the curriculum material selected by our system. It is usually excellent quality and I would suppose that the science material is good as well. That would be my primary source. I am not going to prepare a lesson on everything that you asked, but I will give you a general idea of how I might present the concepts that I feel are relevant. Most of these topics would be incidental rather than the bulk of a lesson. Keep in mind that I do not teach science.

(1) How old is the earth and how old is life on earth?
I expect that the text, if it covered this at all would say give the following information which I would offer to my students:

A dating technique called radiometric dating is used by most scientist to determine the age of the earth. (The amount of time spent on this concept would depend upon the age of the students.) Using this method of dating, scientist estimate the earth to be at least 3.5 billion years old. Scientist say that ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents.

(2) Why are there intermediates between many major groups of organisms in the fossil record?
I cannot imagine this question being a textbook. If so, the answer should be there, however, I personally find in my research that the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows on a quick look at the evidence. I would hope that if a text has this question asked as a fact that can be answered, it would provide not only the answer, but many examples.

(3) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities bwetween all living things that corresponds precisely with their thme of apearance in the fossil record?
I am glad you are not a language teacher. (joke)

Would this not be material for a college course in evolution of the species? If, in fact, there is a hierarchy of genetic similarities between all living things that corresponds precisely with their time of appearance in the fossil record, would this not be the factual material that would be taught within either a paleontology class or a genetics class rather than the 'why' question that you pose? The 'why' would be taught in an origins or evolution class perhaps. Rather than pose this question as a fact, perhaps it would be a good time to give examples?

(4) Why does the corn snake share the exact same developmental genes and regulatory mechanisms, (with minor modifications), as organisms with vastly different morphology?
One answer would be that the corn snake was designed in the way as those other organisms. It would be a good time to show those similarities.

(5) Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how science should be taught when you don’t know the difference between mutation and physiological adaptation or the meaning of the term dominant?

Here is a big misunderstanding on your part, David, and many others here. First, I do know those things, and secondly I do not think that I, alone, am qualified to determine the science curriculum. I believe that the science curriculum should contain as much information as students are able to comprehend at the level each concept is introduced. I believe that science involves much more than evolution and I believe that student's questions should be answered in an intellectually honest manner. When professors make statements like the one made on this post, I think they have crossed the line from teaching science and have begun teaching their opinion. Parents, educators, and the community do have a right to have a voice as to what is taught in our PUBLIC schools.

(6) If you get your way and do get to decide how science is taught, how do you think that evolution should be taught in public schools?

Having explained this repeatedly, will it really do any good to do so again? Science should be taught. If the terminology includes evolution as a life process, teach what is factual and leave out the leaps and opinions of what a person has decided might explain something in a way that satisfies them. Let’s have no more Haeckle’s Illustrations, Piltdown Man lies, or Lucy fantasies. If one is not willing to do that, then include all widely accepted explanations as a possibility.

An observer lied: Having explained this repeatedly, will it really do any good to do so again? Science should be taught. If the terminology includes evolution as a life process, teach what is factual and leave out the leaps and opinions of what a person has decided might explain something in a way that satisfies them. Let’s have no more Haeckle’s Illustrations, Piltdown Man lies, or Lucy fantasies. If one is not willing to do that, then include all widely accepted explanations as a possibility.

An observer said: Wheels, It appears to me that you have switched your original argument of

and it doesn’t offer us the chance to make testable predictions about what else we might find in life that the model of naturalistic evolution can’t explain better and with fewer assumptions

to arguing that historically scientist faith has in no way hindered them from achieving or contributing to the field of science and to mankind.

As for the definition of ‘evolutionist‘, I personally would define the word to mean a person who is more concerned with whether or not life and the many species on planet earth evolved as opposed to being created.

And yes, you could also say that a ‘creationist’ is more concerned with the opposite. A scientist is a person who practices science regardless of the outcome and is not opposed to using the word evolved or the word created.

A very brief study of terminology now used will show you that many processes we have studied for years have new terminology to describe them. The word evolved has been substituted for the words adapted and emerged.

The battle is not over allowing children to be taught science. It is over whether children should be taught an atheistic philosophy in the classroom.

You believe that science has “disproved” God.

What you want to claim as proof does not meet the criteria for many people and we feel it should not be taught to our children as a proven fact.

If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you and your party to provide the positive evidence that supports your alternative position.

...the new religion of atheism should be kept out of the classroom...

As for your example of stem cell research, the argument here has nothing to do with the scientific research, but the destroying of the human embryo. Your anger here is misdirected.

Wheels said:

An observer blithered: ...the new religion of atheism should be kept out of the classroom...

Firstly, I don't think atheism is a religion... (snip)

"If atheism is a religion, then 'off' is a television station, 'I do not have a car' is a brand of car, and 'bald' is a hair color."

But there are religions that are atheistic. I think it's important to classify atheism for what it is: a statement about the number of gods one believes in. It's not necessarily an absence of religion.

Wheels said: But there are religions that are atheistic.

Stephen Wells said: Interesting; a troll who thinks we've never tested human DNA sequences for similarity. "Does anyone ever do any controls" indeed.

I'm not too familiar with Jainism myself. I did give other examples in the post, which you snipped.

HR Pufnstuf said:

Stephen Wells said: Interesting; a troll who thinks we've never tested human DNA sequences for similarity. "Does anyone ever do any controls" indeed.

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? Well, you do add detergent to some of the samples and call it DNA, right, and the then compare the results. I've tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts. Methinks the results are just made up to conform to expectations so the hunchbacks can advance their careers.

David, Before I answer your questions, I would like to ask you a few, just for you to think about. How familiar are you with elementary, middle school and high school classrooms, textbooks and curriculums?

Wheels,

I do understand that you are saying that even though you believe God has been disproved "evolution" (as a science) is not against God. That is true because evolution is a process and is not human. People are capable of being for or against something. Think about that!

The term itself is now being brought into question with you not happy at all with my answer to the question that you asked. The term has come to mean different things to different people and therefore may have different definitions depending on the context. The definition I gave certainly applies, but I acknowledge there are other definitions given when used in different context.

When anyone dares go against the flow here, they are attacked rather viciously. It is always the same argument - creation and intelligent design are not science and evolution is. When I suggested that science is science whether the person practicing it is a creationist or evolutionist, that was not well received.

Also, I dared suggest that even evolutionist are crossing over into the field of religion when they begin to decide whether or not there is a God who began the processes they discover. While some say that it is fine to believe whatever you choose, just don't take it into the classroom, those same people do not want that standard applied to evolution because "'Evolution, has been proven. Now lets close the case."

I say, teach whatever can be examined, produced in a lab, shown by repeat studies and observations, but do not close the number of conclusions that one might make from those observations. Take a good look at the number of times words and terms such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'it is believed', 'the possiblity of', 'likely' and 'this suggest' has to be used when teaching science, especially the evolution of the species. This is not wrong, it just isn't consistent with the "closed case" argument.

My final statement is this. Never underestimate students or even the American people. Just because a person does or does not have a degree in science does not mean they are not capabale of thinking. If there is no evidence of a Creator, people will not believe there is a Creator. On the other hand,....

I have given enough time to this. I am sorry I offended you Wheels. It was never my intention. Thankfully, I am not easily offended.

Observer,

I will be more than happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer mine. You have already had more than a day and have continued to post off-topic nonsense, so obviously time is not really the issue. You need not give a lengthy reply, one line responses will suffice. You need not spend a lot of time doing research, your opinion will be fine.

You claimed to be qualified to determine how science should be taught in public schools. I am simply trying to assess your level of scientific knowledge and/or your committment to other religious positions with respect to the findings of science. Since you teach children, I assume that you agree that a good factual knowledge of the subject matter is important. Frankly, some of your comments have betrayed a profound ingorance of the basics of genetics and evolution. I'm sure we can agree that someone who doesn't know the science is not qualified to determine how to teach the science.

Oh, by the way, the plural of "scientist" is "scientists". Teachers should also try to be grammatically correct.

Observer,

Sorry about that. I didn't read the rest of your post after the first part, I ignored it as I said I would.

I will give a more detailed response to your answers later. However, as you yourself admit, you know nothing about science. You are completely unqualified and lack even the most basic knowledge required. Your answers come from a creationist playbook. I don't want you to teach my children, or any others. If you really want to teaach that nonsense, do it in sunday school.

I would suggest that you read the article on snake developmental genetics and comment about the topic of this thread. If you are not qualified to do that either, then just go away.

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? ... I’ve tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts.

An observer said: It is always the same argument - creation and intelligent design are not science and evolution is. When I suggested that science is science whether the person practicing it is a creationist or evolutionist, that was not well received.

If you really want to teaach that nonsense,

However, as you yourself admit, you know nothing about science. You are completely unqualified and lack even the most basic knowledge required.

At any rate, it's another case where we don't need a watchmaker, just blind, tiny, incremental changes to the machinery of development.

An observer said: Wheels, I do understand that you are saying that even though you believe God has been disproved "evolution" (as a science)

An observer said: Wheels, I do understand that you are saying that even though you believe God has been disproved "evolution" (as a science) is not against God. That is true because evolution is a process and is not human. People are capable of being for or against something. Think about that!

The term itself is now being brought into question with you not happy at all with my answer to the question that you asked. The term has come to mean different things to different people and therefore may have different definitions depending on the context. The definition I gave certainly applies, but I acknowledge there are other definitions given when used in different context.

When anyone dares go against the flow here, they are attacked rather viciously.

It is always the same argument - creation and intelligent design are not science and evolution is. When I suggested that science is science whether the person practicing it is a creationist or evolutionist, that was not well received.

Also, I dared suggest that even evolutionist are crossing over into the field of religion when they begin to decide whether or not there is a God who began the processes they discover. While some say that it is fine to believe whatever you choose, just don't take it into the classroom, those same people do not want that standard applied to evolution because "'Evolution, has been proven. Now lets close the case."

I say, teach whatever can be examined, produced in a lab, shown by repeat studies and observations, but do not close the number of conclusions that one might make from those observations. Take a good look at the number of times words and terms such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'it is believed', 'the possiblity of', 'likely' and 'this suggest' has to be used when teaching science, especially the evolution of the species. This is not wrong, it just isn't consistent with the "closed case" argument.

My final statement is this. Never underestimate students or even the American people. Just because a person does or does not have a degree in science does not mean they are not capabale of thinking. If there is no evidence of a Creator, people will not believe there is a Creator. On the other hand,....

I have given enough time to this. I am sorry I offended you Wheels. It was never my intention. Thankfully, I am not easily offended.

Scott said: (Sorry to be so OT, but I couldn't let this one go unchallenged.) The problem with letting teachers decide what scientific content ought to be taught in grade school is that teachers are in fact the least qualified people to decide what should be taught to students. Studies have shown that K-12 teachers as a group are the least educated professionals, with the lowest test scores (on average) on any test of knowledge, and demonstrably the least knowledge of science. And the only group with lower test scores than teachers were school administrators! Admittedly there are outstanding teachers, and I have been fortunate enough to have several of them. But they are the exception. A bell curve will always have exceptional cases in the top 10%. I grant that any teacher reading this blog is one of those outstanding teachers, and I applaud you. And I'm sure that the typical high school science teacher can be quite knowledgeable (mine was voted the best teacher in California). But as a group, they're basic knowledge of science makes teachers (as a group) ill prepared to judge the merits of scientific theories. As a personal example, my junior high science class was held in a wonderfully well equipped laboratory class room with all the basic tools one could need. What did we do in class? Our "science" teacher had us sit at our desks during class and read Time/Life science books, while he read the sports section of the newspaper. We never once touched any of the scientific tools, nor were we allowed to talk during class to even discuss what we were reading. I don't have the studies showing the numbers, but I can get them if called on it. I have a resource. My wife is taking courses to qualify to be a teacher so that she can teach reading to struggling students. She has a hard won BS in Biology, and years of personal study of reading theory, so she's no slouch. But that didn't prepare her for learning how to be a teacher. For her master's level class in education research, what was she required to do for one class "research" project? Cut out line drawings of leaves, color them in, paste them on an equally colorful paper basket, and write a page and a half about the experience! In this post graduate level course designed to teach new teachers about educational research, she learned nothing that she had not learned when she was in third grade. And all the other students in the class thought it was a challenging and informative program!!! Remember, these other "students" are your future K-12 teachers. So no. In general it is a really bad idea to let your typical K-12 teacher decide what science should be taught in grade school. (Again, my apologies to all those outstanding teachers out there. You are a credit to your profession, and I salute your ability to persevere against incredible odds. I just wish there were more of you, and that the odds you need to overcome weren't so high.)

Once more, I did not complain about PROFESSOR Myers brief lesson on the corn snake. I complained about his comment:…

Even if laws should be successfully passed that make it illegal to express a different opinion than Professor Myer’s, there will always be those who continue to fight for the right to disagree publicly.

Wheels,
I see that I do owe you and apology. There are so many post here that it is hard for me to keep track of all of them and I even having trouble finding all of yours, but here is what happened:

Something that you said, and I cannot find it at the moment, caused me to think that you believe evolution has disproved God. When I stated that, you replied with, "I do?".

I am very sorry to tell you that in my haste I read it as, "I do."

Are you able to forgive me when I tell you that I am sincerely sorry. I truly thought you were saying that you do believe that, although were not advocating the teaching of it.

Observer,

As I said, I will address your responses later. For right now though let me just say that everything you wrote was absolutely wrong once again. And I didn't ask for you to recite what "scienist" believe. I asked for your opinions.

For example, the earth is not 3.5 billion years old. The earth is approximatlly 4.5 billion years old. Life on earth is 3.5 billion years old. Why can't creationists ever keep this straight?

You are completely unqualified to determine how any science should be taught. Why do you think that teaching social studies to sixth graders somehow qualifies you to do this? Why do you think that science is a democracy? Why do you think that you are more qualified than those that have earned the right?

By the way, I hope you are not an English teacher either. The plural of post is "posts". This sort of error has been pointed out to you enough times so that it is certainly not just a typo.

And no you didn't criticize the article on snakes. That is the point. You haven't discussed the article at all. You are completely off-topic. No one cares how you would teach science, hopefully you will never get the chance.

An observer said: Sorry to be such a skeptic, but I rather believe there is a either denial or dishonesty in many of your answers.

An observer said: It seems you are not able to understand what is being said, OR you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting much of it.

An observer said: Perhaps some of you honestly want to believe that when you make your interpretations that there is no Creator and you teach that and call it science, that it is really "science" and has nothing to do with creation or the origin of life. Others know better.

An observer said: Some scientist observe the same occurances as "evolutionist" and conclude, rather than chance blind, tiny, incremental changes that, there is a causative factor that most likely is a Creator. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SLIGHTEST SPECK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS BELIEF IN OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS

An observer from an alternate universe said: Some scientist observe the same occurances as "evolutionist" and conclude, rather than chance blind, tiny, incremental changes that, there is a causative factor that most likely is a Creator Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you are not willing to acknowledge that to a child, how do you call it something other than atheism?

An observer said: Are you willing to say, "We really do not know how life began or what causes the agents to exist that trigger these life processes?" BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SLIGHTEST SPECK OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY GOD IS INVOLVED IN ANY WAY I do not hear anyone here recommending this answer.

I will tell you that I am a teacher .... I do not, however, teach science

I am very sorry to tell you that in my haste I…

Mike Elzinga said:

I am very sorry to tell you that in my haste I…

It is doubtful that it was “haste”. More likely it was religious zeal. Several people pointed that out to you. I would strongly suggest that, before you make any more comments here, you go back over this entire thread and read and reread every post until it sinks in what a complete ass you have made of yourself. You are no credit to religion; or teaching for that matter.

I think the most likely explanation is that, like most creationists, he forgot that his imaginary god is supposed to have a problem with bearing false witness.

I say, teach whatever can be examined, produced in a lab, shown by repeat studies and observations, but do not close the number of conclusions that one might make from those observations.

Teacher: The area of a 2 x 3 rectangle is 6 square units. The area of a 5 x 12 rectangle is 60 square units. The areas of a 3 x 5 rectangle is 15 square units. Student: How do we figure out the area of a rectangle that you didn't tell us about? What about rectangles with non-integral sides? What about other shapes? Teacher: I could tell you, but that would "close the number of conclusions" that you might make. The area of a ...

Mike Elzinga said:

I think the most likely explanation is that, like most creationists, he forgot that his imaginary god is supposed to have a problem with bearing false witness.

It is truly bizarre. I know people from such sects who will blatantly deny having done something that everyone around them has observed them doing. One teacher I know denies proselytizing to his students and denigrating other religions of the students in his class even though students have recorded this and it has been played back to him. Go figure.

Observer,

Please note that I asked for your opinions, not what scientists believe, not what it says in textbooks and not what should be taught to grade-schoolers.

(1) How old is the earth and how old is life on earth?

Wrong, the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Life on earth is 3.5 billion years old. The point is that this is consistent with descent with modification and inconsistent with any literal interpretation of the Bible.

(2) Why are there intermediates between many major groups of organisms in the fossil record?

Wrong. There are thousands of examples of intermediates in the fossil record, you really should familiarize yourself with them. Once again, the point is that this is consistent with descent with modification and inconsistent with any literal interpretation of the Bible.

(3) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between all living things that corresponds precisely with their time of appearance in the fossil record?

Wrong. This is the lesson that the past thirty years of genetic research have shown us. If you are not familiar with this evidence then you really are not entitled to have an opinion about anything in modern evolutionary biology. Once again, the point is that this is consistent with descent with modification and inconsistent with any literal interpretation of the Bible.

(4) Why does the corn snake share the exact same developmental genes and regulatory mechanisms, (with minor modifications), as organisms with vastly different morphology?

Wrong. Common design as an explanation will not work here, since as I pointed out, the snake has a very different morphology and there is no logical reason whatsoever why it should share the same developmental mechanisms as other animals with vastly different morphology. Now I suppose you could say that God can do anything she wants, but that really wouldn't be a testable scientific hypothesis now would it. And why did God choose the one answer completely consistent with descent with modification and inconsistent with any literal interpretation of the Bible?

(5) Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how science should be taught when you don’t know the difference between mutation and physiological adaptation or the meaning of the term dominant?

Wrong. You obviously do not know these things and you are obviously not qualified to teach science let alone determine how it should be taught by others. If you knew the definitions of these terms, why did you use them incorrectly?

(6) If you get your way and do get to decide how science is taught, how do you think that evolution should be taught in public schools?

Wrong again. If you don't know the basic facts, why should you get to decide how they are taught? Why are all your misconceptions completely consistent with creationism?

You have ignored all of the facts of science, yet arrogantly assert that you are the best qualified to decide how science should be taught. Well I teach the teachers and I can tell you that you wouldn't come close to even passing my introductory biology course. However, my qualifications are not the issue here. You are the one who made the claims about your competence. You have been proven wrong.

I would suggest that if you can't make an on-topic post that you go away. I certainly can't see any point in responding to any of your nonsense further.

Well, remember John Freshwater.

An observer said: Wernher von Braun was a chief rocket engineer for the German V-2 program in World War II. In the 1960s he was director of the Marshall Space Flight Center and an administrator for planning at NASA headquarters until 1972. He wrote a forward to the 1971 Pacific Press book, Creation: Nature's Designs and Designer in which he says: Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.

David Grow said: Anniellidae are also limbless. But have a look at the skinks(Scincidae), especially the Australian skinks. There are a number of genera that contain limbless species. In fact, there are genera where there is a range of limb development among species in the same genus(Lirista, Anomalopus) - strong limbs with toes, very small limbs and toes, hind limbs only with toes, hind limbs no toes and no limbs. There are other similar examples in African and Malagasy skinks. But what about the Pygopid lizards, also from Australia, almost limbless, where the hind limbs are reduced to movable flaps?

Study of the genus to date shows that as the limbs are reduced both in length and in the number of bones, the trunk increases in both length and the number of bones (Fig. 1). This general change is due to the fact that as the limbs are reduced, walking and running become less important and slithering with the body becomes more important. In the case of Lerista, this means a shift from moving on the surface to "swimming" beneath the surface. The big change comes at a stage of about three digits on each limb. Above this point, surface locomotion with limbs is paramount and below this point, subsurface locomotion with the body becomes increasingly important.

Ragarth said: This might be a silly question, but earlier discussions on this board talked about the effect of long bodies on legged animals. Could similar mutations produce the long bodies in mammals such as ferrets? What’s the ancestry of the mustelidae, and how could that relate to this research?

David Stanton said: For example, the earth is not 3.5 billion years old. The earth is approximatlly 4.5 billion years old. Life on earth is 3.5 billion years old. Why can't creationists ever keep this straight?

I'm sorry to come late to the conversation, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.

I understand everything written, the simple difference in the 'ticking' of the the segmental clock causing the increased generation of partitions of the mesoderm and also then spinal vertebrae.

But what happens to the organs, the blood vessels, the nerves, reproduction system, etc? Surely there must be a mechanism/genes to enable them to elongate and arrange themselves properly within the extended shape?

If we increase only segments of the snake, wouldn't we then have portions of the snake without skin/nerves/vessels/organs, etc, as nothing but the segment generation was increased? Wouldn't additional gene mutation/modification (e.g. nerve/vessel/muscle plan of body) need to accompany the change in the segmental clock in order for the animal to be make sense (rather than bits of spine sticking out, or a longer body segment with nothing in it)?

Avonwatches said: I'm sorry to come late to the conversation, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. I understand everything written, the simple difference in the 'ticking' of the the segmental clock causing the increased generation of partitions of the mesoderm and also then spinal vertebrae. But what happens to the organs, the blood vessels, the nerves, reproduction system, etc?

Surely there must be a mechanism/genes to enable them to elongate and arrange themselves properly within the extended shape?

If we increase only segments of the snake, wouldn't we then have portions of the snake without skin/nerves/vessels/organs, etc, as nothing but the segment generation was increased ?

Wouldn't additional gene mutation/modification (e.g. nerve/vessel/muscle plan of body) need to accompany the change in the segmental clock in order for the animal to be make sense (rather than bits of spine sticking out, or a longer body segment with nothing in it)?

Stanton said: Do you have pictures of these "industrial sized" blenders, and gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometer machines that you use? Why would we need to use the whole corpse when only a small tissue sample, or even a blood sample, would suffice? Are you doing a western blot or a southern blot? Or, can you even distinguish between DNA and protein?

HR Pufnstuf said:

Stephen Wells said: Interesting; a troll who thinks we've never tested human DNA sequences for similarity. "Does anyone ever do any controls" indeed.

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? Well, you do add detergent to some of the samples and call it DNA, right, and the then compare the results. I've tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts. Methinks the results are just made up to conform to expectations so the hunchbacks can advance their careers.

stevaroni said:

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? ... I’ve tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts.

Wow, you must have a seriously tolerant garbage man and homeowners association.

But seriously, you're babbling crap here. DNA testing and sequencing is conceptually trivial to quality check. All you have to do is run the same sample several times and see if you get the same results. It's especially convincing if you create standard calibration samples and test them across various technologies. The solution space has so many possible degrees of freedom (billions) that if you do this several times with a non-trivial sample and you get consistent results, it's a dead-solid lock that the measuring equipment works. Why do people go through these lengths? I'd love to say it was for science, but the biggest application of can-you-prove this is probably in law. DNA has been used in court trials for two decades now, with all kind of money riding on the results. Scientists are good at peer review, but nobody does "show me" like lawyers who have technicians on the witness stand under oath and get to probe for weakness, real or perceived, all day long. If there wasn't a boatload of data to show that DNA testing is consistent and reliable, rest assured, you'd know it by now.

I don't know what you've been "testing", but I'm mighty glad we don't share an apartment.

HR Pufnstuf said: Well, all I see are spots! It doesn't prove a blamed thing!

HR Pufnstuf said: Yeah, consistent and reliable, consistent and reliable at bamboozling the jurors. Like the pagan shamans of old, the priests of the religion of evolutionism deploy bafflegab to manipulate the masses. Lawyers pay for this service in order to win cases.

HR Pufnstuff is a boring, stupid troll for him to suggest to us that his pastor allows him to grind up corpses in his church basement for the amusement of children.

Can we please have the administration flush all of his posts?

Stanton said: HR Pufnstuff is a boring, stupid troll for him to suggest to us that his pastor allows him to grind up corpses in his church basement for the amusement of children. Can we please have the administration flush all of his posts?

Robin said:

Stanton said: HR Pufnstuff is a boring, stupid troll for him to suggest to us that his pastor allows him to grind up corpses in his church basement for the amusement of children. Can we please have the administration flush all of his posts?

I'm just going to cite Poe's Law here.

HR Puffernutter wrote:

"Well, all I see are spots! It doesn’t prove a blamed thing!"

You forgot to open your eyes dimwit! Exactly what were you doing when you "done" the probes anyway?

Man, the creationists must be desperate to stop us from discussing snake development. As soon as one is shown to be clueless and disappears, an even more ignorant one pops up.

So let's hear it retard. Do you have anything intelligent to say about snake development or not? If not, find some place else to display your ignorance. Or do the spots on the snakes confuse you as well?

I sure hope you are never diagnosed with any genetic diseases, otherwise those spots might come back to bite you worse than any snake would. But don't worry, I's sure some patient genetic counselor will explain all of those pesky little spots to you. Ihe point is that you ignore all of modern genetics at your own risk.

If you are by chance trying to parody an ignorant creationist, please stop. Beleive me, you can never write anything so stupid that we will not think that some creationst really believes it.

HR Pufnstuf said: Well, all I see are spots! It doesn’t prove a blamed thing!

Stanton said: HR Pufnstuff is a boring, stupid troll for him to suggest to us that his pastor allows him to grind up corpses in his church basement for the amusement of children. Can we please have the administration flush all of his posts?

HR Pufnstuf said:

Stanton said: HR Pufnstuff is a boring, stupid troll for him to suggest to us that his pastor allows him to grind up corpses in his church basement for the amusement of children. Can we please have the administration flush all of his posts?

Like the great evolutionists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot before him, Stanton wants not only to censor those who utter uncomfortable truths but to completely erase them from the historical record. Why don't you go flush yourself down the momory hole?

prof weird said: -informative post above-

Does the body (snake body) have to ‘know’ genetically where the muscles/nerves are/will be [...]

HR Pufnstuf said: Oh, yeah, I've done all of the molecular probes and looked at the similarities and differences in the spots the evolution books call DNA, RNA, protein and whatever else the Darwiniacs think proves men came from monkeys and monkeys came from lizards. Well, all I see are spots! It doesn't prove a blamed thing!

Dansays... I’ve looked at many books. All I see are spots! They don’t prove a blamed thing! I’ve looked at many works of art. All I see are spots! They don’t prove a blamed thing! I’ve looked at the stars. All I see are spots! They don’t prove a blamed thing!

Should somebody bother asking who has claimed that monkeys came from lizards? :p

HR Pufnstuf said:

stevaroni said:

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? ... I’ve tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts.

Wow, you must have a seriously tolerant garbage man and homeowners association.

Well, I do the experiments in the church basement to show the kids how stupid the religion of evolutionism really is. The pastor takes care of the issues related to garbage disposal.

Seriously, why are any of you responding as though HR Pufnstuf actually believes anything he’s been posting?

To continue with Stevaroni's comment; after his basement demonstration does Pufnstuf take the boys aside and warn them not to let evil witches take their magic flutes? And how does Pufnstuf explain Lancelot Link? And finally just what kind of "stuf" has he been "pufn"?

tresmal said: To continue with Stevaroni's comment; after his basement demonstration does Pufnstuf take the boys aside and warn them not to let evil witches take their magic flutes? And how does Pufnstuf explain Lancelot Link? And finally just what kind of "stuf" has he been "pufn"?

Speaking of HR Pufnstuf (and I wonder if he knows Laura Brannigan, another figure from the 70's who hasn't been around lately...)

Anyhow, the New York Times has an interesting article on the psychology of internet trolling in their weekend magazine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Login is required, but it's just an e-mail address and username.

Admittedly, it's about the subset of trolls that seek to do actual damage - I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools - and mercifully that's a level beyond our local trolls, who usually don't get past lurking in the shadows, trying to derail things by making the kind of pigheaded arguments most of us left behind in 5th grade.

Still, it's an interesting insight into the "If I can't be part of the solution, I can sure get in the way" mindset of most of our trolls, many of which seem to be more genuinely interested in picking a fight more than they are of promoting ID.

I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools

An observer said:

I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools

I suppose if one believes that we all evolved from a single cell with no purpose, it is easy to adapt this mindset. On the other hand, if we are created by a loving God who designed us with a purpose, we will not look upon any fellow man as a useless fool just because he disagrees with us.

An observer said: Steve, Just to keep your readers well informed and to make sure that all understand, could you elaborate on this comment?

I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools

I suppose if one believes that we all evolved from a single cell with no purpose, it is easy to adapt this mindset. On the other hand, if we are created by a loving God who designed us with a purpose, we will not look upon any fellow man as a useless fool just because he disagrees with us.

An observer said:

I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools

I suppose if one believes that we all evolved from a single cell with no purpose, it is easy to adapt this mindset. On the other hand, if we are created by a loving God who designed us with a purpose, we will not look upon any fellow man as a useless fool just because he disagrees with us.

Facts tell us, unfortunately, that many children raised by Islamic terrorist are taught to kill. Many of these children will become terrorist themselves. I do not associatic atheistic Darwinist with terrorism, but I am beginning to associate atheistic Darwinist with intolerance.

I am not Islamic and my faith teaches that I am to love others and treat them as I want to be treated. That means even when we disagree, I should do so with respect.

The point I would like to make to Steve and a point that I think should be considered is this. A person who disagrees with another is not a "useless fool".

No, I did not read the NYT article. I do not wish to register there.

Believe it not, even with the ridicule and insults that I get here, and even when I believe you to be wrong, I do not think of any of you as useless fools. I think you are intolerant, but not useless or worthless.

Also, I am not trying to "pick a fight". I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

An observer blithered: Facts tell us, unfortunately, that many children raised by Islamic terrorist are taught to kill. Many of these children will become terrorist themselves. I do not associatic atheistic Darwinist with terrorism, but I am beginning to associate atheistic Darwinist with intolerance.

I am not Islamic and my faith teaches that I am to love others and treat them as I want to be treated. That means even when we disagree, I should do so with respect.

The point I would like to make to Steve and a point that I think should be considered is this. A person who disagrees with another is not a "useless fool".

No, I did not read the NYT article. I do not wish to register there.

Believe it not, even with the ridicule and insults that I get here, and even when I believe you to be wrong, I do not think of any of you as useless fools. I think you are intolerant, but not useless or worthless.

Also, I am not trying to "pick a fight". I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

An observer said: The point I would like to make to Steve and a point that I think should be considered is this. A person who disagrees with another is not a "useless fool". No, I did not read the NYT article. I do not wish to register there.

stevaroni said: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Login is required, but it's just an e-mail address and username. Admittedly, it's about the subset of trolls that seek to do actual damage - I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools - and mercifully that's a level beyond our local trolls, who usually don't get past lurking in the shadows, trying to derail things by making the kind of pigheaded arguments most of us left behind in 5th grade.

An observer said: I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

An observer said: Also, I am not trying to "pick a fight". I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

Observer asked... Just to keep your readers well informed and to make sure that all understand, could you elaborate on this comment? I assure you, you will want to strangle some of these useless fools

On the other hand, if we are created by a loving God who designed us with a purpose, we will not look upon any fellow man as a useless fool just because he disagrees with us.

Observer,

I already explained to you exactly why all of the evidence favors evolution and none of the evidence favors creationism. If you want someone to consider the possibility of creation you will have to explain all of the eivdence. I notice you never responded to my critique of your answers. Why is that?

You can start with the paper on snake development that you have been ignoring for a week now. Please tell us, what is the creationist interpretation for the genetic and developmental evidence? When you are done with that, there is a new thread on the genetics of snake fang development. You can move on to that after you finish explaining the current article.

If you are unwilling or unable to address the evidence, then of course no one is going to be convinced of anything but your lack of sincerity.

Oh, by the way, if you are going to try to argue with someone, it would at least be polite to read the posts that are written in response to you and respond without misrepresenting them. I don't think that anyone buys your excuse about misreading the punctuation in a post of several hundred words, none of which could be interpreted in the way that you described, especially after your error had been pointed out to you multiple times.

David Stanton said: Observer, I already explained to you exactly why all of the evidence favors evolution and none of the evidence favors creationism. If you want someone to consider the possibility of creation you will have to explain all of the evidence.

Observer said that Creationists don’t care about evidence whatsoever.

"...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day."

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

An observer said: Steve, I knew you were not talking about me. It never even occurred to me that you were. I also suspected that you were using the "strangling useless fools" comment to emphsize just how much you disagree with them. I disagree with a lot that media prints and sometimes I get angry, too.

And Stanton, you said:

Observer said that Creationists don’t care about evidence whatsoever.

Not exactly. In fact, I think that there is evidence all around. I see it every day and even on the post of professor Myers. You must have misinterpreted something that I said.

because those who believe in creation, do so not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word

As a Christian, and I am a Christian, knowing Him is the one truth that is overwhelming. Timothy said it this way:

"...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day."

however, I had not mentioned that here.

Actually, I believe that creation points to a Creator in so many ways it would probably be impossible to list them all. Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. Perhpas we sometimes get so involved in the scientific details of how creation now functions that we miss the awesomeness of the Creator.

I apologize for offending all of you here who did not wish me to intrude into your world. I believe Psalm 33:6-9

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

I hope you will forgive my intrusion.

Observer,

Your "intrusion" is most welcome. What is not welcome is going to a science blog site, claiming to have evidence and not presenting any, ignoring evidence that is presented and quoting the Bible in place of evidence.

Most of the people you are preaching to are probably much more familiar with the Bible than you are. For example, you claim to believe in Jesus but for some reason want everyone to believe in creation as well. Well the Bible is quite clear on this point. Belief in Jesus is all that is important. Why does it matter to you what anyone believes about anything else? And, if it does really matter, why do you refuse to do the one thing that would convince anyone of anything and discuss the evidence? I'm still waiting for you to prove that you even read my response to your ideas about science. Once again, I see no evidence of that.

By the way, scientists (plural) are not just concerned with how the natural world now functions. Many are working daily in order to more fully understand the past history of life on earth. Simply assuming that none of them knows anything is just arrogance. I'm sure your Lord and savior would not approve of that attitude.

Actually, I believe that creation points to a Creator in so many ways it would probably be impossible to list them all.

Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees. Perhaps we sometimes get so involved in the scientific details of how creation now functions that we miss the awesomeness of the Creator.

I apologize for offending all of you here who did not wish me to intrude into your world. I believe Psalm 33:6-9 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth…For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. I hope you will forgive my intrusion.

Observer--

Since it's obvious this thread is not getting back to snake segmentation, I'd like to add two points on the history of science.

1. The bible, taken with word-for-word literalism, was dead as a science text before Charles Darwin was born. The two schools of thought (both supported by the last of the true, scientific creationists) before "On The Origin of Species" were known as uniformitarianism and catastrophism. These two competing schools both had some solid science behind them, and aspects of both uniformitarianism and catastrophism are now incorporated into modern evolutionary theory. So much for scientists rejecting creationism out of hand. It never happened.

2. The fundamentalist movement, insisting that the bible was literally, scientifically true, was a late 19th century reaction to Darwin's theory of evolution. When you complain that scientists refuse to consider creationism, you have your facts precisely backwards. It is the creationists who reject the theory of evolution out of hand. Scientists have already incorporated everything useful that came out creationist science into modern evolutionary theory, as well as considering all scientific work on its merits, without regard for the personal religious beliefs of the scientists who performed it-- which, ironically, is one of the reasons the theory of evolution is so strong.

As far as modern "scientific creationism" is concerned, I looked into it closely and respectfully in 1983 while doing graduate work in the sociology of science. I was, frankly, disgusted by the obvious, blatant misstatements made by the so-called scientific creationists. I formed the opinion then that "scientific" creationism was nothing but a cynical bunko scheme designed to strip the wallets of the true believers, while laughing at them behind their backs. As a result of organizations like the Discovery Institute, my opinion has of the whole creationist--ID movement has only gotten worse in the ensuing quarter century. The entire movement seems riddled with the cruelest contempt for sincere Christians. With people like Dembski, it seems to be a game to express themselves so that the scientists know they are lying but their Christian "flock" doesn't catch on.

Observer, you wanted us to look closely at the creationist claims. I have done so. Others here, like Mike Elzinga and David Stanton, have looked at creationism more closely than I have. If you don't like our conclusions, so be it. But don't think that we have rejected creationism out of ignorance. A large proportion of the posters here know considerably more about creationism than you know about evolution.

In fact, I think that there is evidence all around. [Presumably to support creation]

Actually, I believe that creation points to a Creator in so many ways it would probably be impossible to list them all.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;

I formed the opinion then that “scientific” creationism was nothing but a cynical bunko scheme designed to strip the wallets of the true believers, while laughing at them behind their backs. As a result of organizations like the Discovery Institute, my opinion has of the whole creationist–ID movement has only gotten worse in the ensuing quarter century.

The entire movement seems riddled with the cruelest contempt for sincere Christians.

If you don’t like our conclusions, so be it. But don’t think that we have rejected creationism out of ignorance. A large proportion of the posters here know considerably more about creationism than you know about evolution.

re: quotemining

It's possible that the creationists might not understand the issue. Their education, such as it is, is in theology. Even the rank and file take a theological approach to issues. And what is theology if not organized quotemining? To settle a doctrinal issue you study the bible looking for quotes that at appear to bear on the matter. Of course those quotes that support your preferences are a bit more reliable than those that don't. The better educated among them may also extend their searches to accepted commentaries (Augustine, Aquinas et al.)

When confronted with evolution what are they going to do? Weigh the evidence? Probably never occurred to them. No they are going to search the literature. They are going to apply the same methods that they apply to their own doctrines. Since they are projecting a theological worldview onto science, and since theology is one long argument from authority, it makes sense to them that they can destroy evolution by undermining Darwin's credibility. Now to us that makes as much sense as trying to destroy the internet by going after Samuel Morse, but it makes sense to them. They just might not understand the objections to quotemining.

That said all the rest of their tactics is just lying for Jesus. For it is written that those doing the Lord's work are exempt from the Lord's laws.

stevaroni wins the thread-

"You have done this exclusively in philosophical terms, arguments that have no physical aspect whatsoever. The word adults use for this is “belief”.

What you have pointedly not done, nor has any YEC to date, done, is actually put something one the table that we can examine objectively. The word adults use for this is “evidence”.

There is a world beyond what we believe, or desire, or hold dear. There is a world where we talk about what we can actually determine by proof. The phrase adults use for this concept is “reality”."

Brilliantly said.

SWT said:

HR Pufnstuf said:

stevaroni said:

Well, what sort of tests would these be? You throw some cadavers in industrial-size food processors and run the innards through the gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry machines? What does that do? ... I’ve tried similar experiments at home and got nothing. It is still just guts.

Wow, you must have a seriously tolerant garbage man and homeowners association.

Well, I do the experiments in the church basement to show the kids how stupid the religion of evolutionism really is. The pastor takes care of the issues related to garbage disposal.

So am I the only one who laughed out loud at this? I mean really ... my church can't even afford a decent spectrophotometer, let alone both a spectrophotometer and gel electrophoresis! Seriously, why are any of you responding as though HR Pufnstuf actually believes anything he's been posting? I would think that this post removes any doubt that he's been trolling.

stevaroni said:

Seriously, why are any of you responding as though HR Pufnstuf actually believes anything he’s been posting?

Sympathy. He hasn't been right since that whole affair with Witchipoo, Jimmy and the Magic flute back in the 70's. Personally, I think he got a bad rap - he was just an elected official trying to keep his island together, he didn't need all that drama. Still, I think it permanently damaged his faith in humanity. He was never quite the same dragon after that. I blame the flute, and I'm pretty sure the Banana Splits were pulling the strings. (For anybody who didn't grow up in the states in the late 70's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._Pufnstuf)

HR Pufnstuf--

Huh. I don't buy it. Pretending Russia was taken over by "Darwinists" is just too much irony. I'll bet you're perfectly aware of the whole Lysenko tragedy in the Soviet Union, when millions of people starved to death because political ANTI-"Darwinists" took over the government.

Plus, writing a bunch of ungrammatical babble with a technical term like "gel electrophoresis" stuck in the middle of it? Really.

If you want to make it as a stand up comic, honey, you have GOT to get better material.

HR Pufnstuf said:

SWT said: So am I the only one who laughed out loud at this? I mean really ... my church can't even afford a decent spectrophotometer, let alone both a spectrophotometer and gel electrophoresis!

Well, my church has a bond program. That means we can afford anything we want.

HR,

Yea, naming yourself after a cartoon character is the way to get respect around here. Watch your step, the Darwin police can find you!

You can get some respect by answering the questions I asked Observer. Of course, his answers didn't have the desired effect due to his complete lack of knowledge. I'm sure a cartoon character who mutilates corpses in church basements can do much better. Or maybe you could just describe for us how that gel electrophoresis experiment works. Or you could actually make an on-topic post and discuss the paper on snake development. That would certainly be a step up from bornagain77.

Why do these people think than displaying their ignorance and arrogance will accomplish anything? Too bad this guy/girl/thing didn't spend more time watching the Discovery channel and less time watching cartoons.

An observer said: I am not Islamic and my faith teaches that I am to love others and treat them as I want to be treated. That means even when we disagree, I should do so with respect. The point I would like to make to Steve and a point that I think should be considered is this. A person who disagrees with another is not a "useless fool".

Also, I am not trying to "pick a fight". I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

There is no reason to think of creation as a plausible possibility from a scientific standpoint - that’s the misunderstanding you seem not to be able to face. Creation has no value from a scientific standpoint because there is nothing to evaluate scientifically.

Political Darwinism was called communism there, in most of Western Europe it is called Social Democracy and in America it is called liberalism. This movement is based on a bottomless hatred of Christianity and is dedicated to the complete extermination of Christians.

SWT said: Oops, posted to soon ...

An observer said: Also, I am not trying to "pick a fight". I would be so pleased and it would be worth all the insults and ridicule if just one person here would begin to think in terms of creation as a very plausible possiblity. I believe that once you realize that it IS very possible, you will be able to recognize the evidences.

Don't forget that PvM (a member of the PT crew) started as a YEC -- on further consideration of the evidence, he rejected the YEC position.

Facts tell us, unfortunately, that many children raised by Islamic terrorist are taught to kill.

I’ve noticed that nobody even responds to Christians using explicitly Christian aliases, such as bornagain77. Those who use secular pseudonyms such as “Observer” reach people.

This movement is based on a bottomless hatred of Christianity and is dedicated to the complete extermination of Christians. This is why so many of us hide behind aliases. We don’t want to be tracked down if Darwinists actually obtain power.

So, I went that route and named myself after my favorite TV show when I was a kid.

Henry J said:

There is no reason to think of creation as a plausible possibility from a scientific standpoint - that’s the misunderstanding you seem not to be able to face. Creation has no value from a scientific standpoint because there is nothing to evaluate scientifically.

Also, "creation" by itself just means "cause to exist", and without additional assumptions not essential to that concept, it does not exclude evolutionary processes as the method of causation. Which means it's not actually an alternative, since "alternative" implies incompatibility. Henry

…in America it is called liberalism. This movement is based on a bottomless hatred of Christianity and is dedicated to the complete extermination of Christians. This is why so many of us hide behind aliases. We don’t want to be tracked down if Darwinists actually obtain power.

Mike writes... Wow, it looks like PuffOnStuff has a lot to be afraid of.

But, you’ll notice the one thing the “evil Darwinists” don’t seem to do is censor HR.

Mike Elzinga said: Wow, it looks like PuffOnStuff has a lot to be afraid of. Doesn’t he know that some of the Liberal Darwinist moderators on this board know from whence he is posting and can track him down, despite his disguise, and do evil to him? You know they will.