Activist Attorney Casey Luskin: "there is much positive, research-based evidence for ID"

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

It just depends on the "spin" you put on the data.

Oh, you need an example?

Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome.
Hamdan SM, Richardson CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Replisomes are the protein assemblies that replicate DNA. They function as molecular motors to catalyze template-mediated polymerization of nucleotides, unwinding of DNA, the synthesis of RNA primers, and the assembly of proteins on DNA. The replisome of bacteriophage T7 contains a minimum of proteins, thus facilitating its study. This review describes the molecular motors and coordination of their activities, with emphasis on the T7 replisome. Nucleotide selection, movement of the polymerase, binding of the processivity factor, unwinding of DNA, and RNA primer synthesis all require conformational changes and protein contacts. Lagging-strand synthesis is mediated via a replication loop whose formation and resolution is dictated by switches to yield Okazaki fragments of discrete size. Both strands are synthesized at identical rates, controlled by a molecular brake that halts leading-strand synthesis during primer synthesis. The helicase serves as a reservoir for polymerases that can initiate DNA synthesis at the replication fork. We comment on the differences in other systems where applicable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biochemistry Volume 78 is June 02 2008. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

Similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs. www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design. It just depends on the “spin” you put on the data.

Charlie Wagner said: Oh, you need an example? Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. Replisomes are the protein assemblies that replicate DNA. They function as molecular motors to catalyze template-mediated polymerization of nucleotides, unwinding of DNA, the synthesis of RNA primers, and the assembly of proteins on DNA. The replisome of bacteriophage T7 contains a minimum of proteins, thus facilitating its study. This review describes the molecular motors and coordination of their activities, with emphasis on the T7 replisome. Nucleotide selection, movement of the polymerase, binding of the processivity factor, unwinding of DNA, and RNA primer synthesis all require conformational changes and protein contacts. Lagging-strand synthesis is mediated via a replication loop whose formation and resolution is dictated by switches to yield Okazaki fragments of discrete size. Both strands are synthesized at identical rates, controlled by a molecular brake that halts leading-strand synthesis during primer synthesis. The helicase serves as a reservoir for polymerases that can initiate DNA synthesis at the replication fork. We comment on the differences in other systems where applicable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Biochemistry Volume 78 is June 02 2008. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.

"Niles Eldredge, a wonderful friend and colleague of mine, is talking about those scientists who derive from zoology. He probably refers to the deliberate intellectual activity that reconciles Mendelian stability with Darwinian gradual change and tries to force it into this procrustean population genetics neo-Darwinism.

Francisco Ayala is presenting at the "evolutionary mechanisms session" in Rome. He was trained in Catholicism, Spanish-style, as a Dominican. We were in California at a meeting with Whiteheadian philosopher John Cobb. At that meeting Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism's now dead.

The components of evolution (I don’t think any scientist disagrees) that exist because there's so much data for them are: (1) the tendency for exponential growth of all populations -- that is growth beyond a finite world; and (2) since the environment can’t sustain them, there’s an elimination process of natural selection.

The point of contention in science is here: (3) Where does novelty that’s heritable come from? What is the source of evolutionary innovation? Especially positive inherited innovation, where does it come from?

It is here that the neo-Darwinist knee-jerk reaction kicks in. "By random mutations that accumulate so much that you have a new lineage." This final contention, their mistake in my view, is really the basis of nearly all our disagreement.

Everybody agrees: Heritable variation exists, it can be measured. Everybody agrees, as Darwin said, it’s heritable variation "that’s important to us" because variation is inherited. Everyone agrees "descent with modification" can be demonstrated. And furthermore, because of molecular biology, everybody agrees that all life on Earth today is related through common ancestry, as Darwin showed.

Everybody agrees with ultimate common ancestry of Earth's life, because the DNA, RNA messenger, transfer RNA, membrane-bounded cell constituents (lipids, the phospholipids) that we share – they’re all virtually identical in all life today, it's all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.

The real disagreement about what the neo-Darwinists tout, for which there's very little evidence, if any, is that random mutations accumulate and when they accumulate enough, new species originate. The source of purposeful inherited novelty in evolution, the underlying reason the new species appear, is not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes" - Lynn Margulis

It's worth noting that ID proponents cite innumerable research studies, even when done by pro-Darwin scientists, as presenting research that predicts intelligent design.

— Casey Luskin

Charlie Wagner said: There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design.

what the neo-Darwinists tout

translation from lame-brain into english:

"This is now my strawman, stolen from Lynn Margulis, hope you don't notice."

typical. Standard CW.

We already had this "debate" with Margulis, who is far more intelligent than yourself, Charlie.

She lost.

There may be thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year that do not contradict ID, but there have been none that actually test it.

nor can there be, until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the "Designer".

Go on Charlie, scoot!

Charlie Wagner said: Oh, you need an example? Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

In fact, what Charlie failed to notice, is that if he is going to claim all publications that utilize terms like "designed", or "motor" in them, then we can basically claim the millions of papers that don't use those terms to act as support for there being no designer.

via argumentum ad populum then, there is no designer.

until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the “Designer”.

Paul Burnett said:

Charlie Wagner said: Oh, you need an example? Annu Rev Biochem. 2009 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links Motors, Switches, and Contacts in a Replisome. Hamdan SM, Richardson CC. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Does the term "intelligent design" appear in the article?

Dear Charlie (and Casey Luskin if you happen to read this),

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures, DNA sequence, etc. This is not a "spin" question at all - when you submit a hypothesis-driven biology paper for peer review, the first thing you get grilled on is the mechanism. So...how is the designer working? If there's no mechanism, you're discussing theology.

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not...we'll see.

Charlie Wagner said: There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design. It just depends on the "spin" you put on the data.

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

But how bould you know that?

I wouldn't, until you just told me.

confined to bed and wheelchair

doesn't stop you from looking. Hey, I'll even bet the light is better in your room anyway.

You don't really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

not if he's sane, no.

doesn’t stop you from looking. Hey, I’ll even bet the light is better in your room anyway.

I wasn't trolling for sympathy. It just "struck me kinda funny".
(see Springsteen "Reason to Believe")

And I have one of those "daylight" lamps they sell on QVC!

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem...You go first!

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem...You go first!

So what’s your proposed mechanism?

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

James F said:

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem...You go first!

Primarily, the mechanism of evolution is natural selection and genetic drift, as described in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Check.

Now for ID's mechanism!

"There is much positive, research-based evidence for ID"??? Actually, there is more negative, research-based evidence against ID. Some of the research that Casey Luskin provides is from the Discovery Institute, and the rest from anti-evolution websites. Also, these 'research-based evidence' is the same evidence that has been debunked.

I get news daily on evolution, and none of the news articles indication that they is any real honest research on ID. Actually, there are less reports on ID than about the attacks on the evolution. Luskin and those at Discovery Institute are only damaging Americans understanding of basic scientific concepts.

This is actually a good question. Most research studies are done with SOME conclusions in mind, and which fit in to SOME theoretical framework.

Charlie Wagner said:

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

You don't really expect him to embrace ID, do you? He'd never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn't have tenure, he probably won't get it.

They probably have a theoretical framework but I doubt if it’s darwinism OR intelligent design.

I find that most papers I read nowadays describe the data and their conclusions without ever applying it to the “debate”.

Charlie Wagner said:

So what’s your proposed mechanism?

I can't decide between magic and legerdemain. I tilt towards legerdemain, however!

Paul Burnett said: That's a pretty transparently fallacious game plan, Charlie.

Well Charlie has already given us all a glimpse of his alternative theory. He has after all claimed that all living things are related, just not by descent. Now as soon as he can explain how all living things can be "related" without "ancestors or descendants" then we can evaluate his alternative.

So which is it Charlie, do you agree with Margulis about common descent or not? If not, why do you keep quoting her as an expert as if it somehow gave credence to any alternative? If you do agree with her, what exactly is your problem? What difference does it make how many different mechanisms produce common descent? Until you answer this question no one wll take anythig you write seriously.

Charlie Wagner said: [Well, actually Charlie didn't say anything. He just quoted Lynn Margulis showing why most scientists think she's gone off the deep end, and quotes her as alleging that Francisco Ayala agrees with her about something or other.]

You don’t really expect Richardson to embrace ID, do you? He’d never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn’t have tenure, he probably won’t get it.

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie Wagner said:

Please provide a testable mechanism through which an intelligent agency influences complex biological structures,

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem...You go first!

Charlie Wagner quoted Lynn Margulis: "Everybody agrees: Heritable variation exists, it can be measured. Everybody agrees, as Darwin said, it’s heritable variation "that’s important to us" because variation is inherited. Everyone agrees "descent with modification" can be demonstrated. And furthermore, because of molecular biology, everybody agrees that all life on Earth today is related through common ancestry, as Darwin showed. Everybody agrees with ultimate common ancestry of Earth's life, because the DNA, RNA messenger, transfer RNA, membrane-bounded cell constituents (lipids, the phospholipids) that we share – they’re all virtually identical in all life today, it's all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with." - Lynn Margulis

"Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred. They even know what drives it: the growth of any population of organisms beyond the ability of the environment to support them, the appearance of organisms that have novel genetic traits, and the greater growth of some of those variant organisms leading to changed populations over time - the process known as natural selection. But biologists are still debating the details of how it occurs. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is being continually revised and refined. ... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma." Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin..., Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp. 55-57. Quoted from page 56.

Charlie Wagner said:

until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the “Designer”.

Would that I could! I'm a paraplegic (fancy word for "cripple") confined to bed and wheelchair. But how bould you know that?

There should be a macro that prevents trolls like Charlie Wagner from posting in the first 50 responses, to derail the topic of threads. No censure required, just prevent him from showing up on the the first page with shit.

Dan said:The question is, why did Charlie quote from Margulis, given that both her statement and her reasoning are opposed to Charlie's position?

...until Charlie stops lying about on his ass and continues his search for the “Designer”.

To which Charlie replied:

Would that I could!

Exactly -- Charlie just admitted that the existence of a "designer" cannot be verified, therefore "intelligent design" is an untestable claim. Case closed.

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you? He’d never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn’t have tenure, he probably won’t get it.

First Charlie says there's plenty of evidence to support ID; then he falls back on the standard excuse for ID's total lack of support in the scientific community. Which is it, Chuckie? Is ID being proven by scientists, or are scientists cowering in bunkers to hide from the black helicopters of Neo-Darwinist Orthodoxy?

(Oh, and you never answered our question about the exact difference between "evolution" and "the neo-Darwinian model.")

Neo-Darwinism has the same problem…You go first!

Scientists have been "goiing first" for about 150+ plus years, as you've already repeatedly admitted in more than one thread here. Your dodge is lame, cowardly, and just plain stupid.

Well, I do recall one paper that was peer reviewed, that by Stephen Meyer of the Dishonesty Institute that was back-doored into that Smithsonian publication by his creationist/DI buddy Richard Sternberg. That seems to be the only way they get peer reviewed papers into print, by deception.

DavidK said: Well, I do recall one paper that was peer reviewed, that by Stephen Meyer of the Dishonesty Institute that was back-doored into that Smithsonian publication by his creationist/DI buddy Richard Sternberg. That seems to be the only way they get peer reviewed papers into print, by deception.

From CW:

You don’t really expect him to embrace ID, do you?

He’d never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn’t have tenure, he probably won’t get it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is utter bullcrap. I know it, you know it, anyone who reads, posts, or lurks here knows it.

Science, simply put, is a method to solve puzzles.
Better ways to solve puzzles will always be supported with grant money.
and better solutions will get published.

If someone made useful contributions to science or industry by bathing in the blood of virgins and getting answers by ouija boards, Microsoft or Google would snap them up and pay them buckets of money in a heartbeat.

If ID had any utility, any at all, drug companies would be funneling money into it by the truckload. Universities that wanted to make a name for themselves would welcome ID researchers with open arms.

Stop saying ludicrous and false things.

Mind you, almost all these papers fall under the heading of reviews, with no original research performed.

again, it needs to be stressed that not only WAS there no research performed, there simply CANNOT be any research performed.

fuck, man, there isn't, and again cannot be, even a hypothesis constructed to test to begin with!

Que Pim Van Meurs with his correct and ever timely statement of:

"ID is vacuous"

EOS

IDiots always put the damn cart before the horse.

find us the designer, FIRST.

then we can talk testable hypotheses.

been waiting for thousands of years now...

There should be a macro that prevents trolls like Charlie Wagner from posting in the first 50 responses, to derail the topic of threads.

I would have sworn CW got banned from here a couple years back.

*shrug*

must have been some amnesty program I missed.

There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers published every year supporting intelligent design. It just depends on the “spin” you put on the data.

wad of id said: There should be a macro that prevents trolls like Charlie Wagner from posting in the first 50 responses, to derail the topic of threads. No censure required, just prevent him from showing up on the the first page with shit.

Frank J said: If you want to see trolls really destroy a forum, check out the two who have infested Talk.Origins.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed* into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. -- Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st Edition, page 490

Charlie Wagner whined: I'm a paraplegic (fancy word for "cripple") confined to bed and wheelchair.

Traffic Demon said:

Charlie Wagner whined: I'm a paraplegic (fancy word for "cripple") confined to bed and wheelchair.

I can't be the only one who took joy in reading that, can I?

Traffic Demon said:

Charlie Wagner whined: I'm a paraplegic (fancy word for "cripple") confined to bed and wheelchair.

I can't be the only one who took joy in reading that, can I?

Frank J said: Actually I find Charlie rather entertaining. If people would ask him to spell out his own alternative "theory" instead of taking his bait...(snip)

Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin…, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp. 55-57. Quoted from page 56.

BTW, a few of you are reading me all wrong.

If you go to my website you'll be better informed about my views.

http://www.charliewagner.net

Charlie Wagner said... I’m a paraplegic (fancy word for “cripple”) confined to bed and wheelchair.

Charlie Wagner said:

Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin…, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp. 55-57. Quoted from page 56.

That quote is 28 years old. I'm sure her thinking on the subject has "evolved" since then.

Charlie Wagner said: BTW, a few of you are reading me all wrong. If you go to my website you'll be better informed about my views.

stevaroni said: What's your explanation for all the physical evidence? And please, only your positive evidence, no Darwin bashing, he's not in the picture anymore, remember?

Stanton said: What is there to read wrong about you? You're just like all of the other evolution-deniers who claim to have the ultimate alternative, but, lack the courage, intelligence or intellectual honesty to actually cough up the alleged alternative.

Stephen Hawking can’t even move his lips anymore. That doesn’t stop him from adhering to the same standards of intellectual honesty.

— stevaroni

Charlie wrote:

"BTW, a few of you are reading me all wrong."

Then by all means, set us all straight. All you have to do is answer my simple question. Do you agree with the person you keep quoting or not? Once and for all, do you or do you not believe that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, (i.e. that common descent is true). Yes or no? No blubbering about the definition of "related". No claims of "related" but not "ancestor" or "descendant". Just a plain simple yes or no answer. After that you can go back to complaining about how misunderstood you are. And please notice that the question does not include any conjecture as to the mechanism of common descent. That is an entirely different question.

BTW, good luck with your medical problems, I for one wish you well.

Charlie Wagner said: BTW, a few of you are reading me all wrong. If you go to my website you'll be better informed about my views. http://www.charliewagner.net

Stephen Hawking can’t even move his lips anymore. That doesn’t stop him from adhering to the same standards of intellectual honesty.

Once and for all, do you or do you not believe that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, (i.e. that common descent is true). Yes or no?

Charlie Wagner said:

Stephen Hawking can’t even move his lips anymore. That doesn’t stop him from adhering to the same standards of intellectual honesty.

Speaking of Stephen Hawking: Hawking endorses Cosmic Ancestry (Panspermia) "Hawking also talked about what humans may find when venturing into space, such as the possibility of alien life through the theory of panspermia, which says that life in the form of DNA particles can be transmitted through space to habitable places. “Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors,” he said." http://www.asuwebdevil.com/node/5745

Charlie Wagner said:

Once and for all, do you or do you not believe that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, (i.e. that common descent is true). Yes or no?

Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes.

Charlie Wagner said:

Once and for all, do you or do you not believe that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, (i.e. that common descent is true). Yes or no?

Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes.

Charlie,

Thank you for responding to my question. I know that it cannot be easy for someone in your condition to respond.

So the answer is no, you completely disagree with the person that you have been quoting as an authority in order to defend your views. Got it.

Now, just so that no one can be accused of misunderstanding you, would you kindly inform us of exactly what you think was the common origin of all living things on earth and kindly present us with the evidence that you have examined in order to come to this conclusion.

Charlie,

Just to be clear here, panspermia cannot be the answer you are looking for. In order for that to be of any relevance, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that all of the colonization events of earth were independant and that they did not share a common ancestor. In other words, "space" is not an "origin". So if your answer is panspermia. please try again.

Would that origin happen to be some kind of Special Creation via the actions of a supernatural agency?

So the answer is no, you completely disagree with the person that you have been quoting as an authority in order to defend your views. Got it.

Now, just so that no one can be accused of misunderstanding you, would you kindly inform us of exactly what you think was the common origin of all living things on earth

and kindly present us with the evidence that you have examined in order to come to this conclusion.

In order for that to be of any relevance, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that all of the colonization events of earth were independant and that they did not share a common ancestor. In other words, “space” is not an “origin”.

Paul Burnett said: While I took no joy in reading it, I did note that diseases and other debilitating conditions are proof of an unintelligent designer, one who is apparently either an incompetent designer, or a malignant designer with a Loki-like twisted evil sense of humor.

Charlie Wagner said:

In order for that to be of any relevance, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that all of the colonization events of earth were independant and that they did not share a common ancestor. In other words, “space” is not an “origin”.

Why? They could have arrived all at once or over time. I don't see why that's an issue. Maybe the "Noah's Ark" metaphor is appropriate if it refers to DNA potential rather than actual life forms.

Charlie Wagner said:

Once and for all, do you or do you not believe that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, (i.e. that common descent is true). Yes or no?

Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes.

BTW, I forgot, do you think that humans share common ancestors with other primates at least?

Charlie wrote:

"Why? They could have arrived all at once or over time. I don’t see why that’s an issue.
Maybe the “Noah’s Ark” metaphor is appropriate if it refers to DNA potential rather than actual life forms."

Because, if they all came from the same place that would definately not preclude the possibility that they were all derived by common descent - on another planet. Your dismissal of common ancestry is artibrary. Exactly how many colonization events do you propose? Based on what evidence? You are not trying to push baraminology are you?

See Charlie, the thing is that you have claimed that all living things on earth have a common origin, but you have not provided one iota of evidence what that origin might be or even any speculation as to what that origin might be. Until you do, all of the evidence is still perfectly compatible with common descent, no matter what the origin of the first DNA. What prediction can you make that is different from what one would expect if common descent were true?

Remember, you must come with an explanation for the fossil record, the genetic evidence and the developmental evidence that is a better explanation than common descent. Until you do that everyone will completlely ignore you and rightfully so.

Now, if Noah's ark is a metaphor for the potential of DNA, does that potential include the potential for speciation? If so, then common descent becomes almost inevitable. Of course it would be pretty remarkable if that werre so, since the story of Noah's ark predates the discovery of DNA by quite some margin.

Charlie wrote:

"We’re clearly related to primates and probably come from common origins. The nature of that relationship remains unclear."

No it doesn't. The chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. They shared a comon ancestor less that 7 million years. All of the palentological, genetic and developmental evidence is completely consistent with this conclusion. They are related because they shared a common ancestor. You have done absolutely nothing to draw this conclusion into question. Why in the world should anyone prefer the idea that they have a "common origin" somewhere at sometime for some reason for which there is absolutely no evidence?

If common descent is not true, how do you explain the nested herarchy of genetic relationships seen in the primates, including the SINE insertions between humans and other primates? If you have no better explanation, then common descent must be accepted, at least provisionally. Surely you must agree.

Hi everyone,
I have been following this website for about a month now. I'm a recent 'convert' to evolutionary biology (mostly because I'm from the bible-belt) and still have some very basic questions. If anyone could point me towards an article or can give a suitable explanation of how new structures arise from a population I would really appreciate it. BTW I'm no troll in disguise, merely an uneducated bystander. Thanks,
JDM

JDM said: Hi everyone, I have been following this website for about a month now. I'm a recent 'convert' to evolutionary biology (mostly because I'm from the bible-belt) and still have some very basic questions. If anyone could point me towards an article or can give a suitable explanation of how new structures arise from a population I would really appreciate it. BTW I'm no troll in disguise, merely an uneducated bystander. Thanks, JDM

Hawking endorses Cosmic Ancestry (Panspermia)

— Charlie Wagner

Welcome JDM, I am glad to see that you have the courage to follow the evidence.

As for your question, the general answer is the same for genes, structures and developmental pathways. Gene duplication, followed by mutational divergence can produce new information, new genes, new structures and new pathways. This is a common pattern seen over and over again in evolutionary biloogy.

A good general refere4nce to get started is:

The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 434:138-144 (2003)

I am sure that others will have suggestions for other books and articles.

I think it might be more interesting, rather than to study the "proof" of ID, to study the "poof" of ID.

Lynn Margulis wrote:

"...it’s all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with."

Charlie Wagner wrote:

"Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes."

When confronted with the obvious contradiction, Charlie replied:

"I don’t see any disagreement. I agree with everything Margulis said in 2009."

Exactly what part of "one single lineage" did you not understand? Hint: she did not mean "common origin". Of course this is also the guy who claimed:

"BTW, a few of you are reading me all wrong.”

No evidence, no explanation, no consistency, just mindless word games. Even Charlie must have better things to do with his time than this.

Without more access, at least JDM in his springtime bible-belt can read a few abstracts about these interesting structures which surround him.

The floral genome: an evolutionary history of gene duplication and shifting patterns of gene expression

Molecular evolution of flower development

And others with more details.

To DS: Thanks for the article. It is actually in Nature 423 but I ended up finding it. It's very interesting and I would like to see how sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual) would effect the results.

To John Kwok: Thanks for your response as well. I was at the book store a couple of weeks back and picked up Jerry Coyne's book and quickly finished it. I've been meaning to reread it for some clarity. It has been an interesting book in itself and in my personal life (don't go trying to explain evolution to you Christian family after the first read through).

ut William-Adolphe Bouguereau? - good stuff but you’re definitely getting esoteric…I prefer William Godward, or Poynter, or Alma-Tedema.

That's Godward, of course!

Sadly, I think the 'basic' biology, physics and chemistry necessary to understand not only evolution, but also bio genesis is well beyond the scope of most people. Sad, but true.

Since most folks have no way of personally verifying what is what, they must rely on chosen trusted experts.

For evolution endorsers, it's noted scientists and scholars.

For ID folks, it's their pastor.

Net result: Chaos ensues.

Enjoy.

So please explain what you mean by “Noah’s Ark being a metaphor for DNA potential”

DJM,

It's rare for a new structure to arise in a population from nothing (if it ever happens). Instead, an existing structure gets modified, then modified again, to the point that it deserves to be called a new structure. You probably realize this but I'm mentioning it because it causes problems for many creationists who expect completely novel features to be formed.

Unlike you, I grew up surrounded by people who accepted evolution, but I hope you have as much enjoyment finding out about the subtleties and interactions of evolution as I have had.

Charlie Wagner said:

BTW, I forgot, do you think that humans share common ancestors with other primates at least?

We're clearly related to primates and probably come from common origins. The nature of that relationship remains unclear.

Sorry - JDM not DJM

Because, if they all came from the same place that would definately not preclude the possibility that they were all derived by common descent - on another planet. Your dismissal of common ancestry is artibrary.

See Charlie, the thing is that you have claimed that all living things on earth have a common origin, but you have not provided one iota of evidence what that origin might be or even any speculation as to what that origin might be.

This could go on for years (and in fact it already has).

Lynn Margulis wrote: “…it’s all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.” Charlie Wagner wrote: “Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes.” When confronted with the obvious contradiction, Charlie replied: “I don’t see any disagreement. I agree with everything Margulis said in 2009.”

Charlie Wagner said:

Because, if they all came from the same place that would definately not preclude the possibility that they were all derived by common descent - on another planet. Your dismissal of common ancestry is artibrary.

I don't dismiss common ancestry at all. I just don't think there's enough evidence to make the leap from "common origins" (which is well supported) to "common ancestry" which is on less firm ground.

Charlie Wagner said:

Lynn Margulis wrote: “…it’s all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.” Charlie Wagner wrote: “Common ancestor? No. Common origin? Yes.” When confronted with the obvious contradiction, Charlie replied: “I don’t see any disagreement. I agree with everything Margulis said in 2009.”

Good point! I don't think she has empirical evidence for common ancestors. All of the "common ancestors" are hypothetical. Did humans "evolve" from chimps? Do you see my point?

Charlie Wagner said: But I have a hypothesis: What you call evolution is the unfolding of a program (or programs) present in the DNA when it arrived on earth from elsewhere. It is analogous to the unfolding of the program found in the zygote at fertilization.

eric said:

Charlie Wagner said: But I have a hypothesis: What you call evolution is the unfolding of a program (or programs) present in the DNA when it arrived on earth from elsewhere. It is analogous to the unfolding of the program found in the zygote at fertilization.

Easy to check. If you're right, genomes should have in them instructions for their future adaptations. Any citrate-eating gene unready to unfold in regular E. Coli? Nope. Hypothesis disproved.

You fail to realize that the amount of evidence supporting “common ancestry” borders on the obscene.

JDM said: Hi everyone, I have been following this website for about a month now. I'm a recent 'convert' to evolutionary biology (mostly because I'm from the bible-belt) and still have some very basic questions. If anyone could point me towards an article or can give a suitable explanation of how new structures arise from a population I would really appreciate it. BTW I'm no troll in disguise, merely an uneducated bystander. Thanks, JDM

I gave up on t.o after I realized I was getting no where

Here we go again.

Charlie wrote:

"I don’t see any disagreement. I agree with everything Margulis said in 2009.”

Then Charlie wrote:

"I don’t think she has empirical evidence for common ancestors. All of the “common ancestors” are hypothetical. Did humans “evolve” from chimps? Do you see my point?"

So you agree with her when she claims that there is a single lineage but not only don't you think that that is not correct but you also don't think that there is any evidence for that. Fine, whatever. I just hope you don't agree with anything I write at that rate.

So I guess you think that this is just her opinion. Do you agree that this is her opinion, is that the sense in whch you agree with her. Come now Charlie, just read my posts. I presented the evidence for common descent. In fact, I have provided you with hundreds of references over the past few months. You have not addressed any of this evidence. You cannot now claim that it does not exist! Of course it exists, whether Margulis is aware of it or not, whether you agree with her or not, whether you know anything about it or not. It exists and you cannot explain it.

I already told you Charlie, humans did not evolve from chimps. They share a common ancestor with chimps more recently in the past than they do with any other primate. What part of hierarchy of nested genetic similarity is unclear ot you? What part of shared SINE insertions don't you understand? If there was no common ancestor, how can you explain this evidence? How can a common ancestor ever be anything but hypothetical? How would we recognize it even if we were looking at the fossil? There are plenty of intermediate forms, that means there had to be a common ancestor. Why is that so hard to understand?

Let me make this simple for you. My cousin and I are related, this can be shown by genetic similarity. Whether you can find our grandmother or not, whether you can find any of our other relatives or not, we are still related, and not because we both came from outer space.

Charlie wrote:

"What you call evolution is the unfolding of a program (or programs) present in the DNA when it arrived on earth from elsewhere. It is analogous to the unfolding of the program found in the zygote at fertilization."

Well Charlie, if there was a single colonization event of the earth by this magical DNA 3.5 billion years ago, then common descent must be true and your "hypothesis" makes exactly the same predictions as evolutionary theory. Try again. Also, as Eric pointed, this idea is triviallly easy to falsify since it is nothing more than the old frontloading nonsense.

"Show me one common ancestor (either extant or extinct) That is NOT hypothetical. Just one."

Actually we have written records of many, including:

Species in the domesticated mustard family

All modern domesticated dogs

We also have some very good evidence for which species were ancestral to whole groups such as:

Galapagos finches

African cichlids

Hawiian drosophila

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have presented Charlie with all of this evidence multiple times, how insincere of him to claim that it does not exist. Oh well, at least he agrees with Margulis that common descent is real.

Charlie Wagner said:

You fail to realize that the amount of evidence supporting “common ancestry” borders on the obscene.

OK, time to put up. Show me one common ancestor (either extant or extinct) That is NOT hypothetical. Just one.

JDM said: If anyone could point me towards an article or can give a suitable explanation of how new structures arise from a population I would really appreciate it.

JDM said: Hi everyone, I have been following this website for about a month now. I'm a recent 'convert' to evolutionary biology (mostly because I'm from the bible-belt) and still have some very basic questions. If anyone could point me towards an article or can give a suitable explanation of how new structures arise from a population I would really appreciate it.

The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards. That's important. This is more than a simple quantitative change, but is actually an observed qualitative change in a population, the appearance of a new morphological structure. Evolution created something new, and it did it quickly (about 30 generations), and the appearance was documented. It's still just a lizard, but we expected nothing else — and it's now a lizard with novel adaptations for herbivory.

Charlie Wagner said: OK, time to put up. Show me one common ancestor (either extant or extinct) That is NOT hypothetical. Just one.

Charlie Wagner said: But I have a hypothesis: What you call evolution is the unfolding of a program (or programs) present in the DNA when it arrived on earth from elsewhere. It is analogous to the unfolding of the program found in the zygote at fertilization.

Oh yea, I almost forgot, my mother is a common ancestor of myself and my four brothers. Nothing hypothetical about her at all.

Sorry Charlie, Starkist only wants tuna that tastes good. You don't cut the mustard.

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share a common ancestor dating back around 7 million years, an observation that is supported by genomic comparisons as well as comparisons of mitochondrial DNA.

So, during the time we've been amused by Charlie throwing his feces at us from his cage, has anybody discovered any positive evidence for ID?

Didn't think so.

Let's go, the zoo's closing soon.

Charlie Wagner said:

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share a common ancestor dating back around 7 million years, an observation that is supported by genomic comparisons as well as comparisons of mitochondrial DNA.

So you say. But you cannot demonstrate any actual examples. The alleged common ancestor is purely hypothetical.

Charlie Wagner said:

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share a common ancestor dating back around 7 million years, an observation that is supported by genomic comparisons as well as comparisons of mitochondrial DNA.

So you say. But you cannot demonstrate any actual examples. The alleged common ancestor is purely hypothetical.

Charlie wrote,

"So you say. But you cannot demonstrate any actual examples. The alleged common ancestor is purely hypothetical."

We have provided you with dozens of examples, even though one is all you asked for. How about if you provide us with evidence of magic DNA descending to earth from outer space? How about telling us where it came from, when and where it arrived, what the original sequence was? Is it "purely hypothetical"?

Exactly what would you accept as evidence anyway? Would you like me to produce a proto-chimp named Agnes and demonstrate that she was the one who gave rise to some of the individuals in a population, some individuals of which eventually gave rise to a lineage eventually leading to modern humans? Would that satisfy you? Because if it would, we will eventually probably have that sort of evidence. We can get DNA from ancient samples you know.

Why do you demand such an unreasonable burden of proof for something that is completely reasonable and consistent with all of the available evidence and yet place no burden of proof whatsoever on your panspermia nonsense? Why should anyone take such a hypocritical double standard seriously?

Look, quite honestly you have demanded evidence and we have providded it. You have demanded examples and we have provided them. I notice that you still have not addresed any of that evidence by the way. All you have is the argument: "I don't want to believe it, therefore it can't be true, therefore I won't accept any evidence and I will always demand more evidence regardless".

Here's a news flash for you Charlie, my mother is not hypothetical, she is a common ancestor, she exists. deal with it.

DS said: Charlie wrote, "So you say. But you cannot demonstrate any actual examples. The alleged common ancestor is purely hypothetical." Exactly what would you accept as evidence anyway?

Paul wrote:

"DS, what Charlie is saying is “You weren’t there and didn’t see it happen, so you have no proof it happened.” Standard creationist response."

That is exactly why we provided Charlie with examples where there are written records of the ancestry of new species. There were eye witnesses, he just ignored that. I can provide birth certificates for my brothers if it will help. Of course then he will probably demand video of each birth, then of each conception. Meanwhile, evidence for the "hypothetical" magic DNA hypothesis remains as elusive as the details of the hypothesis.

Oh well, maybe some day Charlie will be able to see the SINEs of common ancestry.

I think Charlie is saying that we have not "shown" him the common ancestor between Chimps and Humans, not that common ancestors in general don't exist.

Charlie, what is a "hypothetical" common ancestor? How would such a creature differ from an "extant or extinct" common ancestor? What proof do you require that a particular set of bones is a "common ancestor"?

For example, both my cousin and I can name our parents, and they can name our grandparents. One of those eight grandparents was a "common ancestor". Unfortunately, she died, was cremated, and her ashes scattered on the waves. We can infer that our common ancestor existed, but we cannot "show" her to you. We can't even show you a picture, because she was very camera shy. Would you therefore conclude that my cousin and I do not share a common ancestor and are not related? If so, why?

If you do not conclude that my cousin and I are not related, if you agree that my cousin and I share a common ancestor even though we cannot "show" her to you, what about my second cousin and our great grandparent? What about my third cousin and our great-great-grandparent? How many generations must pass before you begin doubting that I share a common ancestor with some other living person?

Also, what I've come to understand recently is that Evolution doesn't talk about "individual" ancestors. Evolution is not about "individuals", but about "populations".

For example, let's say that my last name is Mackenzie. I meet another person with the last name of Mackenzie. I know (for arguments sake) that many hundreds of years ago, all of the Mackenzie's that ever existed at that time, lived in a tiny village in some obscure corner of Scotland. I can therefore conclude with a high degree of confidence that this other Mackenzie is "related" to me, and that we share a common "ancestor", or more precisely, a common "ancestry". Can I point to the precise male individual who sired both our lineages? No. But I can be pretty certain that both my ancestors and his ancestors lived in this tiny village, and (knowing human nature) that they most likely interbred between then and now. We two came from the same small population of individuals, whether we came from the same individual or not.

Does this help clarify what it means for two populations to share a common "ancestry" or "ancestor", evolutionarily speaking?

Charlie Wagner said:

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share a common ancestor dating back around 7 million years, an observation that is supported by genomic comparisons as well as comparisons of mitochondrial DNA.

So you say. But you cannot demonstrate any actual examples. The alleged common ancestor is purely hypothetical.

For example, both my cousin and I can name our parents, and they can name our grandparents. One of those eight grandparents was a “common ancestor”. Unfortunately, she died, was cremated, and her ashes scattered on the waves. We can infer that our common ancestor existed, but we cannot “show” her to you. We can’t even show you a picture, because she was very camera shy. Would you therefore conclude that my cousin and I do not share a common ancestor and are not related? If so, why?

Next thing you know, Chuckie will be asking us to "show" him the curvature of the Earth. As the comment above highlights, his blithering about a "hypothetical" common ancestor is starting to verge on Last-Thrusday-ism. Sorry, Chuckie, but labelling centuries of scientific findings and reasoning "hypothetical" does not make it less real; it only proves you're a lying, obscurantist twit desperately looking for excuses to ignore and avoid the truth.

Perspect Biol Med. 2005 Summer;48(3):362-71.

Was Darwin a creationist?
Cosans C.

Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA. philoanat@aol.com

Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.

Let me make this simple for you. My cousin and I are related, this can be shown by genetic similarity. Whether you can find our grandmother or not, whether you can find any of our other relatives or not, we are still related, and not because we both came from outer space.

I see Chuckie/realpc is falling back on the Gish Gallop: make one batch of incoherent BS arguments; then, when all of them are clearly and conclusively refuted, just ignore all the responses, change the subjects, and spew out a whole new batch of BS. There's really no point in arguing with trolls like this -- they're uneducable, and they're not really here to engage with others. Their only goal is to hog attention, clog up every forum they can with their nonsensical worldviews, and pretend they're debating their betters as equals.

We’re talking about PHYLOGENETIC ancestry not familial ancestry. One form “evolving” into another.

Yes, dumbass, and the logic of the paragraph you quoted applies to BOTH forms of ancestry. That was the point of the paragraph. And your refusal to see this obvious point only further proves how cowardly and stupid you and your fellow obscurantists really are.

Charlie Wagner said: Perspect Biol Med. 2005 Summer;48(3):362-71. Was Darwin a creationist? Cosans C. Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA. philoanat@aol.com Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.

Charlie, can you name a _single one_ of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents?

I'm guessing you can't. You certainly don't have any of their remains or any physical evidence of their existence.

I guess you're not actually related to anyone else on earth. Your ancestors are only hypothetical.

That's a relief.

Charlie wrote:

"We’re talking about PHYLOGENETIC ancestry not familial ancestry. One form “evolving” into another."

First, we weren't. You demanded an example of one ancestor that was not hypothetical, I provided one. You never said anything about PHYLOGENETICS. Hey man, if all you want to do is play word games then learn to play a little better.

Second, As Raging Bee has already pointed out, there is no difference between the two. The underlying concepts are the same, the methods are the same and the conclusions are the same in both cases. In fact, phylogenetic descent of different species MUST occur by exactly the same mechanism as individual descent. Of course it can get a lot more complicated than that, but that is what it ultimately comes down to.

Third, we have given you dozens of examples of documented PHYLOGENETIC ancestry. You have completely ignored all of these examples. Why should anyone pay any attention to you at all if all you do is act like a petulant child and treat others disrespectfully?

Now, PUT UP OR SHUT UP, I believe that was the phrase you used. Do you have any evidence for your panspermia nonsense or not? Do you even have any testable hypothesis? Do you have any explanation for the evidence that has been presented for common descent or not? If not, kindly piss off.

1. No. He was not a creationist.

Charlie Wagner said:

1. No. He was not a creationist.

Indeed... "Owen found it especially ironic that while Darwin criticizes fundamentalists for believing God created each individual species, Darwin himself argues in the Origin's concluding chapter that God created the first one to twelve living things upon which natural selection acted."

Charlie,

You had your chance. You had many chances. You have fooled no one. Changing the subject is not going to work. One last time - PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

DS said: Charlie, You had your chance. You had many chances. You have fooled no one. Changing the subject is not going to work. One last time - PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Charlie Wagner said:

Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin…, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp. 55-57. Quoted from page 56.

That quote is 28 years old. I'm sure her thinking on the subject has "evolved" since then.

JDM said: (don't go trying to explain evolution to your Christian family after the first read through)

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?

Charlie Wagner said:

You fail to realize that the amount of evidence supporting “common ancestry” borders on the obscene.

OK, time to put up. Show me one common ancestor (either extant or extinct) That is NOT hypothetical. Just one.

The Evolution 2009 logo is inspired by Moscow's claim to evolutionary fame, Tragopogon miscellus, or Moscow salsify. This unassuming wildflower is a polyploid hybrid of T. dubius and T. pratensis, which arose when the parent species were introduced to the Palouse in the early Twentieth Century, and was first recorded in Moscow by Marion Ownbey in 1950.

Charlie Wagner said: Perspect Biol Med. 2005 Summer;48(3):362-71. Was Darwin a creationist? Cosans C. Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA. philoanat@aol.com Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.

Charlie Wagner said:

1. No. He was not a creationist.

Indeed... "Owen found it especially ironic that while Darwin criticizes fundamentalists for believing God created each individual species, Darwin himself argues in the Origin's concluding chapter that God created the first one to twelve living things upon which natural selection acted."

Charlie Wagner said: [Something about Darwin, nothing to do with the topic of the thread or the topic which he brought up and was challanged on]

1. You changed the subject. The truth or falsity of your new claim has no bearing on the truth or falsity of your last claim.
2. Your new claim isn't true.
3. The truth or falsity of your new claim has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the modern theory of evolution. In other words, you may misrepresent and slander Darwin until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change the facts you're uncomfortable with.

Did humans “evolve” from chimps? Do you see my point?

Darwin… in a letter to botanist J.D. Hooker: “But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.”

Charlie Wagner the lying delusional troll said:

I just e-mailed Dr. Richardson and asked him if he was aware that his article was being cited as supporting intelligent design creationism here. If anybody hears a loud BOOM from the direction of Harvard, this might explain it. Or not…we’ll see.

You don't really expect him to embrace ID, do you? He'd never get another paper published or another dime in grant money. And if he doesn't have tenure, he probably won't get it. ""Strong I am with the Force, but not that strong.", - Yoda

Well Charlie has had his chance, he did not put up - therefore he should shut up.

Anyway, I have seen the light . I now believe that everything that Charlie claimed is absolutely true. Funny, it has lead me to accept the John Kwok hypothesis. The first terrestrial DNA was seeded on earth by a Klingon battle cruiser captained by Worf (serial number CW666). It time-travelled backwards to about 3.65 billion years ago, (they can do that you know, you just have to use the old slingshot technique first performed by Captain Kirk), and expelled Archean-like DNA near an oceanic thermal vent. Actually, it was refuse that was dumped that contained excrement of the Klingon equivalent of cockroaches, that's where the DNA really came from. After that, all the species that have ever lived on earth evolved by random mutation and natural selection, so common descent is true. See, that scenario is completely consistent with all of the evidence and all of Charlie's claims as well. Of course I have absolutely no evidence for the first part of this, it's all pure conjecture. But then again, that's all Charlie ever had. I defy him to disprove the Kwok hypothesis.

Hey I never noticed before, Kwok starts with the same letter as Klingon! Coincidence?

Charlie Wagner, cowardly obscurantist troll, said: Perspect Biol Med. 2005 Summer;48(3):362-71. Was Darwin a creationist? Cosans C.

DS said: Well Charlie has had his chance, he did not put up - therefore he should shut up. Anyway, I have seen the light . I now believe that everything that Charlie claimed is absolutely true. Funny, it has lead me to accept the John Kwok hypothesis. The first terrestrial DNA was seeded on earth by a Klingon battle cruiser captained by Worf (serial number CW666). It time-travelled backwards to about 3.65 billion years ago, (they can do that you know, you just have to use the old slingshot technique first performed by Captain Kirk), and expelled Archean-like DNA near an oceanic thermal vent. Actually, it was refuse that was dumped that contained excrement of the Klingon equivalent of cockroaches, that's where the DNA really came from. After that, all the species that have ever lived on earth evolved by random mutation and natural selection, so common descent is true. See, that scenario is completely consistent with all of the evidence and all of Charlie's claims as well. Of course I have absolutely no evidence for the first part of this, it's all pure conjecture. But then again, that's all Charlie ever had. I defy him to disprove the Kwok hypothesis. Hey I never noticed before, Kwok starts with the same letter as Klingon! Coincidence?

Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are? Almost as if they felt threatened by more and more people losing their faith in evolietion.

(There - that's set the cat among the pigeons.)

Why don't the IDers simply post their 10-50-100 reasons ID might be true (ala Luther on the church doors) and let the rest of the world take a crack at them. Ain't that kinda like science? OTOH, its never really been about science, has it? There's a boatload of cash in them thar fringies. Hmmm. I feel a performance art project coming on.

Charlie W - isn’t it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?

Isn’t it strange how juvenile these creationists are?

Chuckie seems to have completely given up on this thread, and now he needs novparl's help just to whine. That's pathetic.

novparl wrote:

"Charlie W - isn’t it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?"

Yea, we're really abusive. This guy demands that we put up or shut up, we put up, he ignores it. We then ask him to put up or shut up and he ignores that as well. Then he tries to change the subject, again. And all this after he was caught in a tansparent falsehood that he never did accepted responsibility for. Yea, the "evilutionists" are the ones behaving badly here. Once again the moral highground is flooded.

News flash novparl, if you claim you have a hypothesis, fail to provide that hypothesis, fail to provide evidence for that hypothesis and fail to explain all of the available evidence you will rightly be ridiculed. If you demand examples, then ignore the examples, then claim that no one has provided any examples, you will rightly be ignored.

But then again, look who I'm talking to. You have behaved exactly the same way many times.

novparl the brain-dead whining troll said: Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are? Almost as if they felt threatened by more and more people losing their faith in evolietion. (There - that's set the cat among the pigeons.)

Charlie Wagner said:

Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin…, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp. 55-57. Quoted from page 56.

That quote is 28 years old. I'm sure her thinking on the subject has "evolved" since then.

novparl said: Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?

"Chuckie seems to have completely given up on this thread, and now he needs novparl’s help just to whine. That’s pathetic."

I disagree. A good w(h)ine is always best when shared with others.

Sorry.

Dan said:

novparl said: Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?

Charlie asked a question about species ancestors, and several PT regulars answered him. Then Charlie brought up irrelevant speculations about Darwin's personal thinking. I admit that Charlie is being underhanded, but I don't see anything I'd call abuse.

Stanton said:

Dan said:

novparl said: Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?

Charlie asked a question about species ancestors, and several PT regulars answered him. Then Charlie brought up irrelevant speculations about Darwin's personal thinking. I admit that Charlie is being underhanded, but I don't see anything I'd call abuse.

Dan, do realize that novparl cares absolutely nothing about fairness, or even discussion (something that he is incapable of participating in, in fact). All novparl cares about is playing the martyr card in order to antagonize people.

Actually, it was refuse that was dumped that contained excrement of the Klingon equivalent of cockroaches, that’s where the DNA really came from.

As I've said before, I don't see myself as a martyr. Unlike you cry-babies, I'm quite used to noisy arguments. As more than half of Gringos don't believe in evo-nonsense (sadly they usually believe in Christo-nonsense), I'm not sure that you can be in the majority and a martyr.

What is interesting is that the penny never drops. Your Freudian infantile rage ought to work. But it doesn't. Yet you so want it to work.

Now I brace myself for the 4letter words I use myself.

novparl said: As I've said before, I don't see myself as a martyr. Unlike you cry-babies, I'm quite used to noisy arguments. As more than half of Gringos don't believe in evo-nonsense (sadly they usually believe in Christo-nonsense), I'm not sure that you can be in the majority and a martyr. What is interesting is that the penny never drops. Your Freudian infantile rage ought to work. But it doesn't. Yet you so want it to work. Now I brace myself for the 4letter words I use myself.

novparl said: Unlike you cry-babies ...

I'm quite used to noisy arguments.

novparl said: As I've said before, I don't see myself as a martyr.

Now I brace myself for the 4letter words I use myself.

Oh, and please explain to us why Charlie Wagner doesn't deserve a harsh response to the fact that he made inane, reality-inconsistent claims, and not only did not follow through with supporting his claims, but attempted to change the subject in order to distract from the fact that he was incapable of supporting his inane claims.

Talk about cry babies. Novparl has contirbuted absolutely nothing to the discussion. All he has done is to cry crocodile tears over how someone who hijacked the thread, spewed his nonsense all over, refused to present any evidence, refused to acknowledge any evidence, tried to change the subject shamelessly, then ran away without even an apology, was treated.

Well novparl, would you like to defend the panspermia hypothesis? Would you like to provide the details for us? Would you like to explain the available evidence for common descent? Would you like to tell us how many peer reviewed papers support ID? That was the original topic of the thread you know? If not, then kindly go elsewhere and complain to someone who cares.

Almost forgot, here are some four letter words for you:

crap
barf
poop
bird
dogs
pigs

There, consider yourself martyred.

Oh, and please explain to us why Charlie Wagner doesn’t deserve a harsh response to the fact that he made inane, reality-inconsistent claims, and not only did not follow through with supporting his claims, but attempted to change the subject in order to distract from the fact that he was incapable of supporting his inane claims.

Glen Davidson said: Worse, according to him, he has the science education that should have given him the ability to do so, if he had any inclination to deal honestly with others.

Dan - you love me? Sorry, I'm homophobic.

Everyone - there are over 100 million krazy kreos in the US. How you gonna convert all of them? By converting one foreigner? That's even stupider than the 100 monkeys nonsense.

A non-martyr.

newspeak (how apropos):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

are you going to defend Charlie's panspermia so-called theory, or not? We're waiting. Where did the DNA come from? How long ago? What were the first organisms? Where was the front-loading hidden? Why can't we see it? How did the original organisms know we'd eventually create nylon for the hidden front-loaded ability to take advantage of?

I dare you to drop the personal issues and address the evidence. Now.

novparl said: Dan - you love me? Sorry, I'm homophobic.

Everyone - there are over 100 million krazy kreos in the US. How you gonna convert all of them? By converting one foreigner? That's even stupider than the 100 monkeys nonsense.

novparl said: Dan - you love me? Sorry, I'm homophobic. Everyone - there are over 100 million krazy kreos in the US. How you gonna convert all of them? By converting one foreigner? That's even stupider than the 100 monkeys nonsense. A non-martyr.

So, are you going to defend this panspermia thing, or just blither, newspeak?

fnxtr said: So, are you going to defend this panspermia thing, or just blither, newspeak?

As I've pointed out before, the word love doesn't occur in evolution.

Re: survival of the fittest. I've discovered what Darwin meant about "savages". Simple. He felt sorry for them dying out, but taught that it was inevitable (wrong!) and was good for progress. See chapter 3 of your Bible. Also HG Wells's "Anticipations". The same argument is used to defend the mass murders under atheistic communism.

Have an angry day.

novparl said: As I've pointed out before, the word love doesn't occur in evolution.

Just when I think novparl can't get any more asinine and incoherent, he comes back and does just that...

As I’ve pointed out before, the word love doesn’t occur in evolution.

Humans evolved from lower animals, and we have longstanding concepts of love. Therefore novparl is demonstrably wrong. Again. Also, a good many of the lower animals show behaviors that can easily be interpreted as "love," whether or not they use the word themselves.

...The same argument is used to defend the mass murders under atheistic communism.

And as we all know, only atheistic communists commit mass murder. Right?

Have an angry day.

Nah, we'll just leave the anger to you -- you clearly have enough of it to keep yourself warm for the rest of your so-called life. Enjoy. And besides, we don't need the anger; we're better able to live and enjoy life on its own terms than you are.

novparl said: As I've pointed out before, the word love doesn't occur in evolution.

Re: survival of the fittest. I've discovered what Darwin meant about "savages". Simple. He felt sorry for them dying out, but taught that it was inevitable (wrong!) and was good for progress. See chapter 3 of your Bible. Also HG Wells's "Anticipations".

The same argument is used to defend the mass murders under atheistic communism.

Dan said: If you think that you're going to convince or "convert" anyone by trumpeting your misconceptions about evolution, that just means you're wrong twice.

Novparl,

So the answer is no. You have no intention of contributing anything helpful at all to this thread. You have no examples of scientific journal articles that support ID. You don't even have any intention of defending panspermia. All you are trying to do is make personal attacks and question Darwin's character, the same nonsense that CW was reduced to in the end. Got it. I'm so angry I could yawn.

DS said: I'm so angry I could yawn.

novparl said: The same argument is used to defend the mass murders under atheistic communism.

fnxtr said: So anyway about Casey Luskin... clueless, or cunning, do you think? Or just suffering cognitive dissonance?

novparl said: Now I brace myself for the 4letter words I use myself.

DS said: I'm so angry I could yawn.

Dan! You're so brilliant! You should take over from Jon Stewart.

Richard Simons (aren't you the Canadian?) - if Stalin didn't believe in evolution, what did he believe in as "Genesis"?
What did they teach in his musea of atheism? Since you can't do science without evolietion, the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb.

Novparl the non-nonpareil & non-martyr (amartyr?).

HI, I finally finish all the thread, was long. Usually when I found this types of threads about cretionism-evolution I only read the first posts and leave.
That´s beacause too often there's a lot of attacks, name calling, insults and most important: No one answers the direct questions of previous posts. This thread was the exception.

So it's nice to see that in very few posts that charly guy was insulted. He had all his post answered with no exceptions. The tone of the replies were corteus (Yes I know some weren't, but when the guy is so stubborn and elusive you can´t help people get angry).

For this guy novparl
God, did you take the time to read all the thread?, it's a long one, did you consider all that was said here?, I doubt it. I guess you red the first an last post and start to talk. Of all of the people here (including charly, that at least stood in the general subject) you are the only one saying air and nonsense not even related to the topic.

For the rest: you have been very patience, you've responded to everything that has been posted here, but this guy novparl haven´t said a single word that is worth to answer. So just let him be....... his attacks are not worth your time

2nd part of the post
Novparl, did you check any of the links people post? there were pro creationism and con. Did you check even one of the sveral names that were posted here?.
Now you used word gringo, probably you're from Mexico. Where there's no controversy at all (As in the rest of the civilized planet). There's a clear church-state division, federal goverment decides the school curriculum and CAN'T teach any religion in any public school, catholic church accepts evolution. So it will be very uncommon that in case you're mexican you defend creationism.

Your idea of "curteus" is bizarre.

@ Dan. Looked up the links. Irrelevant opinions, as usual. Where does the word l-o-v-e occur in either the Origin (Die Entstehung der Arten - sounds more fascist in German) or Descent (Die Abstammung des Menschen)? - Krakpotkin for Cricesake.

Check out p. 201 of the Descent (1871). He wants to wipe out not just "savages" but the other apes. Which takes us back to the familiar question - why didn't the apes die out? Adolf Darwin seems to think they will.

I look forward to your explosions of rage. Novparl the non-martyr.

Hector - you're stupid. I could be from ANY part of Latin America. In fact I'm European.

Novparl the non-martyr.

Bizarre. I really think he's losing it completely. This is descending into gibberish.

novparl said: @ Dan. Looked up the links. Irrelevant opinions, as usual.

novparl said: if Stalin didn't believe in evolution, what did he believe in as "Genesis"?

What did they teach in his musea of atheism?

Since you can't do science without evolietion,

the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb.

novparl said: @ Dan. Looked up the links. Irrelevant opinions, as usual. Where does the word l-o-v-e occur in either the Origin (Die Entstehung der Arten - sounds more fascist in German) or Descent (Die Abstammung des Menschen)? - Krakpotkin for Cricesake.

Check out p. 201 of the Descent (1871). He wants to wipe out not just "savages" but the other apes.

Which takes us back to the familiar question - why didn't the apes die out?

Adolf Darwin seems to think they will.

I look forward to your explosions of rage dissection of my displays of stupidity. Novparl the liar and non-martyr complex.

novparl: all the "explosions of rage" seem to be coming from you. Your last few posts contain nothing but name-calling and incoherent non-arguments about irrelevant issues. You're starting to sound like a stressed-out child who's been kept up way past his bedtime. Does your mother know you're posting babyish drivel here?

Stanton said: Where does the word "evolution" or the phrase "descent with modification" turn up in Mein Kampf?

Stanton said:

the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb.

Not all science (such as Atomic Physics) revolves around Evolution, but all Biology revolves around Evolution.

eric said:

Stanton said:

the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb.

Not all science (such as Atomic Physics) revolves around Evolution, but all Biology revolves around Evolution.

Stanton, While you are right, the YEC community paints with a fairly broad brush. I'd bet anyone who is convinced that nuclear half-lives are constant counts as a "Darwinist" in their eyes. So in that respect Novparl is at least correctly representing the standard YEC position, which is that evilution infects all of science.

Stanton said:

eric said:

Stanton said:

the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb.

Not all science (such as Atomic Physics) revolves around Evolution, but all Biology revolves around Evolution.

Stanton, While you are right, the YEC community paints with a fairly broad brush. I'd bet anyone who is convinced that nuclear half-lives are constant counts as a "Darwinist" in their eyes. So in that respect Novparl is at least correctly representing the standard YEC position, which is that evilution infects all of science.

According to Nonpareil, the fact that the Nazis spoke German is evidence that "evilution" infects all science and is fascist, apparently.

Wrong again. The pt I've made several times is that most bio textbooks devote only modest space to evolietion. Sadly, I didn't put it in your baby-English.

If anyone dares to look up the Descent (part of your holy writings) it's chapter 7 on infidels.org. Surely you shd know the sacred canon better?

Another question for ya to distort - why are so few evolutionists female? Is it because biology faculties are full of macho men on patrol for dissidents? Are they put off by Ueberlebung des Staerksten (S of the F)?

To self: show restraint. We have to be better than they are.

Fortunately, in this case, that's not hard.

(and that wasn't restraint. Oh dear, oh dear. I'm a bad person.)

Most lower-secondary bio textbooks, meant for average achievers, devote only modest space to evolution. College level textbooks in, oh, biology, biochemistry, paleontology, genetics, zoology and many other life sciences, devote much space to it, because a thorough grounding in the Theory of Evolution is essential to actual practice of the science involved.

Thank you again, novparl, for demonstrating the level of your reading in biology.

Rather a higher proportion of biologists are female than of physicists or mathematicians, I believe. The question is an important one, and the imbalance needs addressing. But if there is a genetic, rather than a cultural or learned component to it, (which is by no means to be assumed, nor accepted as immutable in any case) the cause would be found in the study of evolutionary psychology, not by invoking a myth about ribs and apples.

Where did I say about ribs and knowledge fruit (not apples - careless)? I wrote clearly of (probable) machismo. Shows the level of your study skills.

Some interesting reading on Stalin. Lysenko! Of course! But Lamarckianism is a theory of EVOLUTION. The class struggle! Yes, of course! Stalin wd see that as more important than evolution. -- Wikipedia says Lysenko was discredited in 64 - so what did they teach 64-90? Did no Russian biologists achieve anything without Darwinism? And where did men come from? (Marx was an atheist - not a YEC!) Have found the Great Soviet Ency. on line in Russian - no problema, have been reading Russian since '69, will check out Evo article later.

Catch ya later. 12:10 Brittime.

novparl said: Charlie W - isn't it strange how abusive these evolietionists are?

novparl said: The pt I've made several times is that most bio textbooks devote only modest space to evolietion. Sadly, I didn't put it in your baby-English.

Matthew 5:3 said: Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

novparl said: Wrong again. The pt I've made several times is that most bio textbooks devote only modest space to evolietion. Sadly, I didn't put it in your baby-English.

If anyone dares to look up the Descent (part of your holy writings) it's chapter 7 on infidels.org. Surely you shd know the sacred canon better?

Another question for ya to distort - why are so few evolutionists female? Is it because biology faculties are full of macho men on patrol for dissidents? Are they put off by Ueberlebung des Staerksten (S of the F)?

Some interesting reading on Stalin. Lysenko! Of course! But Lamarckianism is a theory of EVOLUTION.

The class struggle! Yes, of course! Stalin wd see that as more important than evolution. -- Wikipedia says Lysenko was discredited in 64 - so what did they teach 64-90?

Did no Russian biologists achieve anything without Darwinism?

And where did men come from? (Marx was an atheist - not a YEC!)

Have found the Great Soviet Ency. on line in Russian - no problema, have been reading Russian since '69,

will check out Evo article later.

So now that Nonpareil has taken over this thread in order to start up with his usual nonsensical attempts at character assassination of Charles Darwin, can we please just kill this thread?

Post 200

Why do you spend so much time trying to refute my truthful remarks with your bizarre lies, if it annoys you so much?

The existence of the Great Sov. Ency. can be easily proved by the link in Wikipedia. But I know you won't look it up because you hate truth. Please name a female evolietionist of the prestige of Dawkins/Jones/Gould.

No-one cares what you think, newspeak, including whether you think you've won some imaginary argument or not. You are an idiot and an asshole. Go away.

novparl said: Please name a female evolutionist [spelling corrected] of the prestige of Dawkins/Jones/Gould.

Hey novparl,

I'll extend to you the same challenge that DS posed to Charlie Wagner. Can you disprove KRID (Kwok -Roddenberry Intelligent Design) as a valid hypothesis? I think that would be hard to do, simply because I have established already that there is ample more proof for Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design Creationism.

Until then....

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

So instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we'd have the Flying Gagh Monster?

Dan said:

novparl said: Please name a female evolutionist [spelling corrected] of the prestige of Dawkins/Jones/Gould.

Lynn Margulis

eric said:

Dan said:

novparl said: Please name a female evolutionist [spelling corrected] of the prestige of Dawkins/Jones/Gould.

Lynn Margulis

Jane Goodall

novparl wrote:

"But I know you won’t look it up because you hate truth."

Hey dude, read the Maynard Smith book yet? No? Then quite projecting your inadequacies onto others.

Oh yea, almost forgot:

Barbara McClintock (won the Novel prize don't you know).

How about you novparl, can you name a female scientist as famous as Dawkins who supports ID? How about even one paper published in the peer reviewed literature that actually supports ID? Still waiting.

Did you mean Nobel prize?

Yea, Nobel, that's it. Well, it was a novel experience for her.

novparl said: Richard Simons (aren't you the Canadian?) - if Stalin didn't believe in evolution, what did he believe in as "Genesis"? What did they teach in his musea of atheism? Since you can't do science without evolietion, the Soviets can't've done any science and never had the H-bomb. Novparl the non-nonpareil & non-martyr (amartyr?).

Richard Simons said: Stalin sent Vavilov, one of the foremost geneticists and one of the first people to study the evolution of crops plants, to prison in Siberia (along with many other biologists with similar views) because he would not agree that the theory of evolution was wrong. Soviet scientists did not have any success using the official alternative to evolution asw a guide to plant breeding. That is why so many died in the Ukrainian famine.

Stanton said:

Richard Simons said: Stalin sent Vavilov, one of the foremost geneticists and one of the first people to study the evolution of crops plants, to prison in Siberia (along with many other biologists with similar views) because he would not agree that the theory of evolution was wrong. Soviet scientists did not have any success using the official alternative to evolution asw a guide to plant breeding. That is why so many died in the Ukrainian famine.

I thought Vavilov was sent to his death in Siberia because a) he wouldn't denounce/renounce Mendelian Genetics, and b) he was unable to produce his promised super-crops as fast as Lysenko allegedly could.

Richard Simons said: I always thought it was basically about evolution. However, in either case, the disagreement was about the ability to make genetic changes to populations through non-lethal exposure to adverse conditions as was promulgated by Lysenko.

John Harshman said:

eric said:

Dan said:

novparl said: Please name a female evolutionist [spelling corrected] of the prestige of Dawkins/Jones/Gould.

Lynn Margulis

Jane Goodall

Maeve Leakey

Henry J said: So instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we'd have the Flying Gagh Monster?

John Kwok said: He's accused me of being "childish" for believing in Klingon Cosmology.

mrg said:

John Kwok said: He's accused me of being "childish" for believing in Klingon Cosmology.

The reply is: "I may be silly -- but at least it's on purpose." This always goes right past them: "C'mon, guys, it's not that subtle." MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Well, this is more like it. Some names instead of abuse. Of course, none of the names are up there with SJGould (gentleman) & Dicky Dawkins (stanton-level bigot).
Jane Goodall is a zoologist. She has little to say on evolution. Quack's suggestion of Joan Roughgarden is typical. She's a he. You can't change sex. I'd explain, but you wdn't understand it.

Google references:

Redface Dawkins 2,200,000
SJ Gould 1,200,000 (!)
Jane Goodall 835k
B. Rosy Grant 270k
Barbie McClintock 230k (Novel prize)
Lynn Margulis 115k
Maeve Leakey 13k (!)

Well, sincere thanks to all. At last some concrete facts (even if wrong). We'll joust again on another thread. Muchas gracias, hombres. (sic)

novparl,

You seem to have igored my contribution. Barbara waas definately a female. Got any examples of female scientists supporting ID yet? Must be a pretty sexist bunch if they don't let girls play. Looks like I will have to heap more abuse on you. Here a some more four letter words for you:

goat
dawg
cows
hoof
herd
and the ever popular - yawn

DS said: novparl, You seem to have ingored my contribution. Barbara waas definately a female. Got any examples of female scientists supporting ID yet? Must be a pretty sexist bunch if they don't let girls play. Looks like I will have to heap more abuse on you. Here a some more four letter words for you: goat dawg cows hoof herd and the ever popular - yawn

Stanton,

Of course you are correct on all counts. Only a really desperate troll would dismss a Nobel winning scientist because she did not get enough hits on google! Especially when she won the Noble prize decades before the internets were invented by G.W. Bush.

As for banning trolls, this guy has absolutely failed to even attempt to provide even one reference from the peer reviewed literature in support of ID. Everyone can see that his desperate attempts at character assasination, martyr complex, crocodile tears, demands for others to read references when he is unwilling to do so and appeals to popularity contests (where he is the sole judge of criteria) are nothing more than a vain attempt to deflect the discussion away from the main point of the thread - that ID has not been, is not now and never will be science. He could be banned, but why not let him go on proving the point in his own inevitable style?

Besides, I've got lots more four letter words for him if he ever shows his face again.

novparl said: Well, this is more like it. Some names instead of abuse. Of course, none of the names are up there with SJGould (gentleman) & Dicky Dawkins (stanton-level bigot). Jane Goodall is a zoologist. She has little to say on evolution. Quack's suggestion of Joan Roughgarden is typical. She's a he. You can't change sex. I'd explain, but you wdn't understand it. Google references: Redface Dawkins 2,200,000 SJ Gould 1,200,000 (!) Jane Goodall 835k B. Rosy Grant 270k Barbie McClintock 230k (Novel prize) Lynn Margulis 115k Maeve Leakey 13k (!) Well, sincere thanks to all. At last some concrete facts (even if wrong). We'll joust again on another thread. Muchas gracias, hombres. (sic)

Stanton said:

Richard Simons said: I always thought it was basically about evolution. However, in either case, the disagreement was about the ability to make genetic changes to populations through non-lethal exposure to adverse conditions as was promulgated by Lysenko.

You mean like being able to magically grow wheat from barley seeds or planting wheat three feet deep so that they could develop super-strong root systems?

novparl said: Well, this is more like it. Some names instead of abuse. Of course, none of the names are up there with SJGould (gentleman) & Dicky Dawkins (stanton-level bigot). Jane Goodall is a zoologist. She has little to say on evolution. Quack's suggestion of Joan Roughgarden is typical. She's a he. You can't change sex. I'd explain, but you wdn't understand it. Google references: Redface Dawkins 2,200,000 SJ Gould 1,200,000 (!) Jane Goodall 835k B. Rosy Grant 270k Barbie McClintock 230k (Novel prize) Lynn Margulis 115k Maeve Leakey 13k (!) Well, sincere thanks to all. At last some concrete facts (even if wrong). We'll joust again on another thread. Muchas gracias, hombres. (sic)

If you google "Beatles" you get 53 million hits. If you google "Jesus Christ" you get 42 million hits. By the reasoning used by novparl, the Beatles are more "prestigious" than Jesus Christ. Terrific.

Of course, the real point is that no ID supporter has ever even published any evidence in support of ID, let alone won the Noble prize. I wonder why?

DS said: If you google "Beatles" you get 53 million hits. If you google "Jesus Christ" you get 42 million hits. By the reasoning used by novparl, the Beatles are more "prestigious" than Jesus Christ. Terrific.

Of course, the real point is that no ID supporter has ever even published any evidence in support of ID, let alone won the Noble prize. I wonder why?

Stanton said: The Beatles could have told you that even before Al Gore invented the Internet.

novparl said: [with formating improved] Google references: Redface Dawkins 2,200,000 SJ Gould 1,200,000 (!) Jane Goodall 835k B. Rosy Grant 270k Barbie McClintock 230k Lynn Margulis 115k Maeve Leakey 13k (!)

• novparl cannot correctly format at list
• novparl cannot spell names correctly
• novparl has been proved wrong, but s/he refuses to admit it ... instead s/he tries to change the subject
• novparl confuses quality of science with number of Google references

Nov: Since you can’t do science without evolietion, the Soviets can’t’ve done any science and never had the H-bomb.

Well, up to Faraday, they probably would have referred to themselves as "natural philosophers" as opposed to "moral philosophers", which is why a doctorate in a science is still called a PhD. The term "science" in its current meaning did not become current until about 1840. Before that, it meant something like "deep but practical knowledge". I believe the word "scientist" was first coined in 1830 or so.

Natural and moral philosophers. And then, of course, there were the unnatural and immoral ones...

I suggest we adjourn to another thread. I haven't time to correct your misreadings of my plain English. Except one:

Actually there are 184 million (supposedly) refs to Jesus.

The difference between the Beatles and Jebus is that the Beatles certainly existed, and said almost everything attributed to them.

novparl said: I suggest we adjourn to another thread. I haven't time to correct your misreadings of my plain English. Except one: Actually there are 184 million (supposedly) refs to Jesus. The difference between the Beatles and Jebus is that the Beatles certainly existed, and said almost everything attributed to them.

novparl said: Well, this is more like it. Some [facts] instead of abuse.

novparl said: Dicky Dawkins ... Redface Dawkins ... B. Rosy Grant ... Barbie McClintock

novparl said: I suggest we adjourn to another thread.

Novparl,

You can run away to whatever thread you want. However, if you continue to make such transparently fallacious arguments, no one will pay any attention to you anyway.

What in the world do google hits have to do with scientific validity? Why cares about who is and who is not prestigious? Why do you think that the number of google hits obtained (by whatever search parameters you decide on) is of any relevance whatsoever? Why do you think that a hit on google is more prestigious that a Nobel prize? My simple point was that this is entirely nonsensical. Apparently you didn't get that point either.

DS said: Novparl, You can run away to whatever thread you want. However, if you continue to make such transparently fallacious arguments, no one will pay any attention to you anyway.

What in the world do google hits have to do with scientific validity? Why cares about who is and who is not prestigious? Why do you think that the number of google hits obtained (by whatever search parameters you decide on) is of any relevance whatsoever? Why do you think that a hit on google is more prestigious that a Nobel prize? My simple point was that this is entirely nonsensical. Apparently you didn't get that point either.

Check out Foot soldiers who lack vision. The evos are fighting among themselves!

(Jebus - is a reference to the Simpsons.)

novparl,

Google "evolution" and you get 190 million hits. Google "creationism" and you get only 3 million hits. Evolution is 60 times more prestigious that creationism, WOW.

Here are some more four letter words for you:

here

some

more

four

word

The evos are fighting among themselves!

Naa, evos are very conformist. Otherwise they get shouted at. See thread.

Dan 787 m.
DS 287m
Stanton 18m
Jebus 600k
Jebus Price (my personal savourer) 160.

Must go now. Got Mehican flu.

Oh f---. I forgot about the formatting again.

novparl said: Check out Foot soldiers who lack vision. The evos are fighting among themselves!

Brilliant putdown! I'm destroyed!