Some Big News Items

With regard to Darwinius the science community had serious reservations about some of the claims made. What the science community has now isn't a "change of opinion" on Darwinius, but more evidence that their original opinion was correct.

btw, of all the science-blogging articles on this find, I liked Ed Yong's (Not Exactly Rocket Science) post the best (not as informative science-wise as some of the links he provides to Laelaps and The Loom, but very entertaining).

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/everything_changes.php

Daniel J. Andrews said: With regard to Darwinius the science community had serious reservations about some of the claims made. What the science community has now isn't a "change of opinion" on Darwinius, but more evidence that their original opinion was correct. btw, of all the science-blogging articles on this find, I liked Ed Yong's (Not Exactly Rocket Science) post the best (not as informative science-wise as some of the links he provides to Laelaps and The Loom, but very entertaining). http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/everything_changes.php

Dave,

Of the two stories you mention in your latest Panda's Thumb entry, clearly the second is far more important. On a more personal note it is especially so since I was a graduate school colleague of the "discoverer" - or rather re-discoverer (since it was first found during Pemex surveys of the region in the late 1960s) - of the Chicxulub impact site, planetary geologist Alan Hildebrand, and reacted initially to ample skepticism and disbelief as he recounted to me and another fellow graduate student, all of the data he was collecting which pointed to a terminal Cretaceous asteroid impact. Unfortunately for me, I couldn't sustain my skepticism and disbelief once Alan and his colleagues had published their research (A sentiment I wish "scientific creationists" would adopt now that we have overwhelming evidence from virtually every aspect of biology that supports the fact of biological evolution.)

John Kwok said: Dave, Of the two stories you mention in your latest Panda's Thumb entry, clearly the second is far more important. On a more personal note it is especially so since I was a graduate school colleague of the "discoverer" - or rather re-discoverer (since it was first found during Pemex surveys of the region in the late 1960s) - of the Chicxulub impact site, planetary geologist Alan Hildebrand, and reacted initially to ample skepticism and disbelief as he recounted to me and another fellow graduate student, all of the data he was collecting which pointed to a terminal Cretaceous asteroid impact. Unfortunately for me, I couldn't sustain my skepticism and disbelief once Alan and his colleagues had published their research (A sentiment I wish "scientific creationists" would adopt now that we have overwhelming evidence from virtually every aspect of biology that supports the fact of biological evolution.)

Dave Thomas said: Thanks for the inside scoop, John! Say, is there any truth to the rumor that you were there to help Darwin organize his notes on his Beagle voyage? ;-)

Seriously, I wish all "scientific" creationists would have the same reaction I did when I finally read Alan's paper. But they can't since that would run contrary to their religious beliefs and values, not those relevant to science.

The real problem with the blaze of publicity about Darwinius is not that it was described as more closely related to monkeys and apes than to tarsiers and lemurs. It is the irresponsible use of the word "link", which was repeated endlessly and is deeply misleading.

The term “missing link” came into existence in Darwin's day, as opponents argued that there was no fossil connecting humans to (other) apes. The missing link was found in 1891 when Homo erectus was discovered -- and if you don't consider that good enough, then you should agree that it was found in 1924 when Australopithecus was discovered.

There is simply no excuse for scientists or documentary filmmakers exploiting the public's familiarity with the term “missing link” and the confusion about what it is and whether it is still “missing”. Sowing confusion in the public understanding of science is not excused by the need to publicize one's work or make money.

Hi Dave,

I'm sure there are some "glommers" out there, but I agree with you that the two stories show that science can be self-correcting.
I also agree that a weakness of ID is an inability to provide an account of the causal mechanism. But that doesn't mean that ID can't make progress. I think Mike Gene is making a great deal of progress in fleshing out his hypothesis of Front-loaded Evolution:

designmatrix.wordpress.com

What is the significant difference between "front loading" and deism?

Mike Elzinga said: What is the significant difference between "front loading" and deism?

Joe Felsenstein said: The real problem with the blaze of publicity about Darwinius is not that it was described as more closely related to monkeys and apes than to tarsiers and lemurs. It is the irresponsible use of the word "link", which was repeated endlessly and is deeply misleading. The term “missing link” came into existence in Darwin's day, as opponents argued that there was no fossil connecting humans to (other) apes. The missing link was found in 1891 when Homo erectus was discovered -- and if you don't consider that good enough, then you should agree that it was found in 1924 when Australopithecus was discovered. There is simply no excuse for scientists or documentary filmmakers exploiting the public's familiarity with the term “missing link” and the confusion about what it is and whether it is still “missing”. Sowing confusion in the public understanding of science is not excused by the need to publicize one's work or make money.

Front-loaded Evolution isn't a necessarily a theological position. It's the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that the cells were front-loaded with mechanisms, structures and genetic information to make the eventual evolution of metazoa and perhaps intelligent life more probable.

One could be a theist, deist, or an atheist and still accept that hypothesis.

Bilbo -

Can you do me a huge favor and explain to me what "front loading" means in actual molecular detail?

Bilbo said: Front-loaded Evolution isn't a necessarily a theological position. It's the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that the cells were front-loaded with mechanisms, structures and genetic information to make the eventual evolution of metazoa and perhaps intelligent life more probable. One could be a theist, deist, or an atheist and still accept that hypothesis.

And I wouldn't call Mike Gene "lazy."

Wheels said:

Bilbo said: Front-loaded Evolution isn't a necessarily a theological position. It's the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that the cells were front-loaded with mechanisms, structures and genetic information to make the eventual evolution of metazoa and perhaps intelligent life more probable. One could be a theist, deist, or an atheist and still accept that hypothesis.

Rather like the unknown Designer mysteriously tinkering with bacterial to give them a magical flagellum that nature, alone and unassisted, couldn't have provided, except it now all takes place way back when? Seems like simply shifting the terms from "Designer" to "Front-loader."

It’s the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that the cells were front-loaded with mechanisms, structures and genetic information to make the eventual evolution of metazoa and perhaps intelligent life more probable.

Strangely enough Mike Gene now thinks that Nick Matzke et al have provided enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that the bacterial flagellum evolved. I disagree, but Mike knows a lot more than I do.

Bilbo wrote:

"Strangely enough Mike Gene now thinks that Nick Matzke et al have provided enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that the bacterial flagellum evolved. I disagree, but Mike knows a lot more than I do."

So then why is front loading necessary? If the poster child for irreducible complexity can be shown to have evolved by natural means, then no front loading would seem to be necessary for any complex structure. Certainly the same evolutionary mechanisms responsible for the evolution of the flagellum could also produce other biological structures as well.

Bilbo said: Front-loaded Evolution isn't a necessarily a theological position. It's the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that the cells were front-loaded with mechanisms, structures and genetic information to make the eventual evolution of metazoa and perhaps intelligent life more probable. One could be a theist, deist, or an atheist and still accept that hypothesis.

Hi Harold,

First, this is not my hypothesis, it's Mike Gene's. I haven't done any probability calculations, and at this point I doubt that Mike has either. What he has done is demonstrate that there is deep homology for many of the features that are essential to metazoan life. That may not sound like much, but it wasn't too long ago that biologists scoffed at the idea that a designer could somehow front-load ancient cells with the information necessary for metazoa. "It would all be lost over time," they said. Yet we keep finding that it wasn't lost.

So, what nucleotide sequences were front-loaded? The ones that coded for the proteins, RNA, and whatever else would be needed to make evolution of metazoa more probable.

What mechanisms and structures? You'll have to read Mike's book or blog, or ask him yourself:

designmatrix.wordpress.com

harold said: Bilbo - You continue to confuse me.

Strangely enough Mike Gene now thinks that Nick Matzke et al have provided enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that the bacterial flagellum evolved. I disagree, but Mike knows a lot more than I do.

Please answer my other questions first, but this is odd. If even the one whom you designate as an authority on the matter is telling you that the flagellum was not pinned on bacteria by magic, why do you continue to disagree?

Is divine front-loading any different from theistic evolution other than in the timing of when God puts His invisible thumb on the scale? Is this the biological equivalent of big bang vs steady state?

Bilbo said: Hi Harold, First, this is not my hypothesis, it's Mike Gene's. I haven't done any probability calculations, and at this point I doubt that Mike has either. What he has done is demonstrate that there is deep homology for many of the features that are essential to metazoan life. That may not sound like much, but it wasn't too long ago that biologists scoffed at the idea that a designer could somehow front-load ancient cells with the information necessary for metazoa. "It would all be lost over time," they said. Yet we keep finding that it wasn't lost. So, what nucleotide sequences were front-loaded? The ones that coded for the proteins, RNA, and whatever else would be needed to make evolution of metazoa more probable. What mechanisms and structures? You'll have to read Mike's book or blog, or ask him yourself: designmatrix.wordpress.com

Bilbo said:

harold said: Bilbo - You continue to confuse me.

Strangely enough Mike Gene now thinks that Nick Matzke et al have provided enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that the bacterial flagellum evolved. I disagree, but Mike knows a lot more than I do.

Please answer my other questions first, but this is odd. If even the one whom you designate as an authority on the matter is telling you that the flagellum was not pinned on bacteria by magic, why do you continue to disagree?

Mike Gene doesn't buy Behe's argument against neo-Darwinism, but Behe's case looks cogent to me. So I continue to believe in magic, as any good hobbit would.

First, this is not my hypothesis, it's Mike Gene's.

no, it's not Gene's either. the concept of front loading is an OLD one, disproved LONG long ago.

Mike's beating a dead horse.

Does he still think that non-coding regions of DNA aren't "junk"? that this is where all the "front loaded" information is?

then that's easy enough to disprove.

here's ONE of thousands of little disproofs of just that (it's a rundown of the arguments against the idea of "useful junk" that are often used to support the idea of frontloading).

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/03/cb130-%E2%80%9Cjunk%E2%80%9D-dna-is-not-really-junk/

there are plenty more if you search this very site (panda's thumb) for "front loading"

In fact, there was an excellent disproof of how the evolution of snake venoms clearly rejects the idea of front loading, by the very person who did the research on the snake venoms.

that's a good one to look for; should pop up from about 3-4 years ago?

I've come to call it "Pant loading" myself, since the arguments involved are so obviously shite.

Wonder if anyone else here is interested in sticking to this thread started by Dave Thomas's excellent news reportage, or must we head senselessly toward another philosophical Mount Doom, beckoned by delusional creo troll hobbits like Bilbo?

John_S said: Is divine front-loading any different from theistic evolution other than in the timing of when God puts His invisible thumb on the scale? Is this the biological equivalent of big bang vs steady state?

So, about nomenclature... when something like D. masillae is uncovered, and its genealogy is still nebulous, how do they decide what to call it? Is it too far back to be included in an already-establish genus? Would it get a name change if its... er... pedigree... turns out to be a surprise?

How's that, John? Back on track? :-)

Ichthyic said: In fact, there was an excellent disproof of how the evolution of snake venoms clearly rejects the idea of front loading, by the very person who did the research on the snake venoms. that's a good one to look for; should pop up from about 3-4 years ago?

My apologies to Dave if I derailed his topic. I won't respond to any more front-loading questions or comments. If you guys want to discuss it some more you'll have to start another thread.

Carl Zimmer wrote an excellent, especially lucid, account of this for Scientific American - if my memory is correct - and a copy of it should be posted over at his blog The Loom:

I was thinking of the work done by Brian Fry?

were you around a few years back when he presented his work on the evolution of colubrid venoms?

We tipped readers off about the find last May, shortly before its widely publicized unveiling

The bigger story now is how so much of the media was irresponsibly caught up in the hype—and why there was a coordinated media effort in the first place. While the fossil is definitely not a fraud, it appears the hype was: the dramatic “missing link” conclusions presented to the public were not present in the scientific paper, having been removed during the peer review process. Our guess is that after paying an undisclosed but presumably significant sum for the fossil, the financial backers are demanding a high return on the documentary and book—hence the hype, such as comments like, “When our results are published, it will be just like an asteroid hitting the earth” (from study coauthor Jens Franzen, via the promotional website). . .

The scientists (who, we recognize, probably disagree with our view as well) believe Ida is actually an ancestor of modern lemurs and lorises. This is quite similar (minus the evolution) to what we said at the time, and what we still believe: that “[n]othing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature

fnxtr said: So, about nomenclature... when something like D. masillae is uncovered, and its genealogy is still nebulous, how do they decide what to call it? Is it too far back to be included in an already-establish genus? Would it get a name change if its... er... pedigree... turns out to be a surprise?

Ichthyic said: Carl Zimmer wrote an excellent, especially lucid, account of this for Scientific American - if my memory is correct - and a copy of it should be posted over at his blog The Loom: I was thinking of the work done by Brian Fry? were you around a few years back when he presented his work on the evolution of colubrid venoms?

Carl relied exclusively, as well as extensively, on Fry's work

ah, that would make sense.

:)

First, this is not my hypothesis, it’s Mike Gene’s. I haven’t done any probability calculations, and at this point I doubt that Mike has either.

What he has done is demonstrate that there is deep homology for many of the features that are essential to metazoan life.

That may not sound like much, but it wasn’t too long ago that biologists scoffed at the idea that a designer could somehow front-load ancient cells with the information necessary for metazoa.

“It would all be lost over time,” they said. Yet we keep finding that it wasn’t lost.

So, what nucleotide sequences were front-loaded? The ones that coded for the proteins, RNA, and whatever else would be needed to make evolution of metazoa more probable.

What mechanisms and structures? You’ll have to read Mike’s book or blog, or ask him yourself:

ME: What is the significant difference between “front loading” and deism?

Posted May 22nd, 2009 Evolution Coverage 'Over the Top'... Yes, the announcement of Darwinius masillae is important news. But, hasn't the connection of Mankind to the animal world already been demonstrated? NMSR's award for the most over-the-top coverage of the tiny primate Ida goes to Sky News. In an article titled "Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution", Sky News on May 20th reported that "Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. This 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' is described as the "eighth wonder of the world" The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the 'eighth wonder of the world'. They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be 'somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth'. Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin 'would have been thrilled' to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. ..." Source

Dave Thomas said: FWIW, I commented on the Hype angle last May, on NMSR's News Page:

Posted May 22nd, 2009 Evolution Coverage 'Over the Top'... Yes, the announcement of Darwinius masillae is important news. But, hasn't the connection of Mankind to the animal world already been demonstrated? NMSR's award for the most over-the-top coverage of the tiny primate Ida goes to Sky News. ... They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be 'somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth'. Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin 'would have been thrilled' to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. ..." ...

Though the IDiots are making waves in the public schools, they can easily dismiss Darwin & evolution and have a corner on the home-schooling book market (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re/us_rel_home_school_evolution;_ylt=AtEtF.aFZDoF57VyrzahkkGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQwaDc3ZnF1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzA2L3VzX3JlbF9ob21lX3NjaG9vbF9ldm9sdXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDdG9waG9tZS1zY2hv)

Joe Felsenstein said:

Dave Thomas said: FWIW, I commented on the Hype angle last May, on NMSR's News Page:

Posted May 22nd, 2009 Evolution Coverage 'Over the Top'... Yes, the announcement of Darwinius masillae is important news. But, hasn't the connection of Mankind to the animal world already been demonstrated? NMSR's award for the most over-the-top coverage of the tiny primate Ida goes to Sky News. ... They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be 'somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth'. Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin 'would have been thrilled' to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. ..." ...

I'm glad I was unaware of Sky News up until now. I had always thought that there was good evidence for evolution, but according to them until Darwinius came along we knew nothing! An additional outrage is that the book that came out as part of the Darwinius hype was entitled The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor. No one connected with such a title should be allowed to claim to be a scientist or a science journalist. Our “earliest ancestor”? Really? So Darwinius is not descended from any earlier form? It is one of the original forms of life? It, and not a bacterium? It emerged directly from the primordial organic soup (or whatever)? To the credit of most scientists, there was a lot of negative reaction to all the hype and bullshit surrounding The Link. But I wish more of it had explicitly called them on the use the word "Link" and the ridiculous designation of Darwinius as our earliest ancestor.

John Kwok said: Joe, you can blame the scientists involved in describing Darwinius - mostly those from Northern Europe - for creating the hype, including enlisting the writer who write that book. My eyebrows were raised in particular when I heard that one of those involved was none other than the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology's Philip Gingerich, who certainly hasn't done any kind of self promotion for his excellent research on the origins and early history of cetaceans:

Mike,

In Darwinius's case, it was unique because it had been discovered and collected by private fossil collectors, shown to one European paleontologist at Europe's largest gem and mineral and fossil show (I believe that was in Munich; incidentally that show bills itself as the "Tucson of Europe" in recognition of the fact that the world's largest is held from late January through early February of each year in Tucson, AZ, USA.), and that paleontologist then arranged for the skeleton to be purchased and put on display at a Norwegian natural history museum (There's been a longstanding "bone of contention" - to pardon the pun - between professional paleobiologists and commercial fossil collectors and dealers of which the most famous example involved the discovery and excavation of "Sue" the female Tyrannosaurus rex that is now on display at the Field Museum (It was purchased for the Field Museum by McDonald's, and, I might add, I will be viewing tomorrow a special touring exhibition organized by McDonald's at Jersey City, NJ's Liberty Science Center, where it will remain on view through March 14th.).

What I find most especially noteworthy about Darwinius's excellent preservation is that it's from the early Cenozoic Messel lacustrine sedimentary deposits in Germany, which are almost entirely contemporaneous with the vast lacustrine deposits of the Green River Formation in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.). But while that in itself is newsworthy, I agree with many who thought that it should never been the subject of the media hoopla it received last year.

. . . any change of opinions over time means entire disciplines are simply nonsense . . .

John Kwok said: But while that in itself is newsworthy, I agree with many who thought that it should never been the subject of the media hoopla it received last year.

Mike Elzinga said: It wouldn’t surprise me if paleontologists and the rest of the science community are having the same annoying problems with science terms and concepts as the physicists have had with the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Those damned erroneous memes are floating around out there in the public mind; and even members of the science community start subconsciously picking them up. ...

Mike said: "I sometimes feel that I have reached such an advanced state of geezerdom that I am recycling back through childhood memories when I see this stuff."

I'm with you, old timer, in the feeling of impending obsolescence. Both of us will probably live to see the accomplishments of our offspring demonstrate the same innocence of historic observation as well as the unbidden inspiration of making connections across time and discipline.

Given this, I'll trust that my life has not been in vain. I tried to teach my children well in the small bit of time available. Judging by a conversation I just had with my daughter (35, married, two sons under 12, going to college and teaching elementary school), there is good reason to expect wonderful things to happen.

I keep noticing that when I talk to young people who are trying to understand the world in terms that go beyond fashion and style, I am not only impressed but often enlightened by their insight and probity. They really are making progress, albeit slowly, as generational change seems to an earlier generation.

Joe Felsenstein said: I think it has to do with hype and self-promotion, and maybe a little unconscious blindness to the implications of these terms, and a hesitancy to raise difficult questions, once a blaze of publicity looks possible.

Crudely Wrott said: I keep noticing that when I talk to young people who are trying to understand the world in terms that go beyond fashion and style, I am not only impressed but often enlightened by their insight and probity. They really are making progress, albeit slowly, as generational change seems to an earlier generation.

Mike, lovingly, I suspect, said, "I really didn’t want to retire a second time; in fact, I retired for good quite a bit later than I could have. The old bones needed a rest."

Please indulge me as I chuckle in amusement and endearment. I'd guess that you have retired not to inactivity but to the privilege of taking the earned satisfaction that accompanies satisfaction in a job well done and to the expectation that even greater good can be had in similar efforts.

RHIP. Rank has its privileges, Age and experience. I rather like the arrangement. It allows people like you and I to make a difference. That, from my point of view, is a distinct pleasure. And possibly a necessary component of our kids' future. By extension, the future of all of us.

Amazing how merely being a parent of a teacher can sway the paths of lives.

Er . . . " . . . how being a parent or a teacher . . ."

It's those little mistakes that go unnoticed that bite me.

Bless the Revered Chimp, King of Typos. I am but his shadow.

Crudely Wrott said: Please indulge me as I chuckle in amusement and endearment. I'd guess that you have retired not to inactivity but to the privilege of taking the earned satisfaction that accompanies satisfaction in a job well done and to the expectation that even greater good can be had in similar efforts.

Nice to hear that, Mike. Gives me a welcome measure of confidence, even though I will keep working for the foreseeable future. Rest will come at its leisure.

I wish you could meet my brother. He's not only able to play guitar, he builds them, too.

Play boldly, earnestly, joyously.

I regret I didn't save the discussion I had with Mike Gene many years ago at ARN. That was long before Telic Thoughts, and Mike Gene explained that he was busy developing tools and methods for investigating ID, and that he didn't consider the question of ID a scientific issue. Or words more or less to that effect.

MG doesn't seem to be stupid but it looks like he's got fixated on ID. I consider the idea of front loading an attempt at escaping the problem of the improbability that there might be anything of value in 'mainstream ID'. Front Loading is suffering the same problem as Goddidit.

Rolf Aalberg said: I regret I didn't save the discussion I had with Mike Gene many years ago at ARN. That was long before Telic Thoughts, and Mike Gene explained that he was busy developing tools and methods for investigating ID, and that he didn't consider the question of ID a scientific issue. Or words more or less to that effect. MG doesn't seem to be stupid but it looks like he's got fixated on ID. I consider the idea of front loading an attempt at escaping the problem of the improbability that there might be anything of value in 'mainstream ID'. Front Loading is suffering the same problem as Goddidit.

Rolf Aalberg said: I regret I didn't save the discussion I had with Mike Gene many years ago at ARN. That was long before Telic Thoughts, and Mike Gene explained that he was busy developing tools and methods for investigating ID, and that he didn't consider the question of ID a scientific issue. Or words more or less to that effect. MG doesn't seem to be stupid but it looks like he's got fixated on ID. I consider the idea of front loading an attempt at escaping the problem of the improbability that there might be anything of value in 'mainstream ID'. Front Loading is suffering the same problem as Goddidit.

Mike Elzinga said: Over a year ago I saw a very interesting program on all that, including the issue about private collectors, many of whom don’t know how to collect the information needed to date and categorize fossils.

Rolf Aalberg said: I regret I didn't save the discussion I had with Mike Gene many years ago at ARN. That was long before Telic Thoughts, and Mike Gene explained that he was busy developing tools and methods for investigating ID, and that he didn't consider the question of ID a scientific issue. Or words more or less to that effect. MG doesn't seem to be stupid but it looks like he's got fixated on ID. I consider the idea of front loading an attempt at escaping the problem of the improbability that there might be anything of value in 'mainstream ID'. Front Loading is suffering the same problem as Goddidit.

When I first heard of “Mike Gene” I thought he might have been an “alter ego” of Mike Behe (note the minor “mutation”).

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: It wouldn’t surprise me if paleontologists and the rest of the science community are having the same annoying problems with science terms and concepts as the physicists have had with the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Those damned erroneous memes are floating around out there in the public mind; and even members of the science community start subconsciously picking them up. ...

I don't think the problems have anything to do with paleontologists misunderstanding terms like “missing link” or “our earliest ancestor”. I think it has to do with hype and self-promotion, and maybe a little unconscious blindness to the implications of these terms, and a hesitancy to raise difficult questions, once a blaze of publicity looks possible.

Rolf Aalberg said:

When I first heard of “Mike Gene” I thought he might have been an “alter ego” of Mike Behe (note the minor “mutation”).

Right, but has it ever been established beyond reasonable doubt that Mike Gene is not Behe?

If you find a new species, and you have poor data on its genealogy, you go with whatever morphology you can obtain. If it fits in an extant genus, you put it there. If it does not, you describe a new genus for it. One of the fish species I described is now in its fourth genus thanks to DNA. The other three genera were preDNA.

The amazing thing is that there are still ID supporters.

— Ron Okimoto

Jim Thomerson said: If you find a new species, and you have poor data on its genealogy, you go with whatever morphology you can obtain. If it fits in an extant genus, you put it there. If it does not, you describe a new genus for it. One of the fish species I described is now in its fourth genus thanks to DNA. The other three genera were preDNA.

Rolf Aalberg said:

When I first heard of “Mike Gene” I thought he might have been an “alter ego” of Mike Behe (note the minor “mutation”).

Right, but has it ever been established beyond reasonable doubt that Mike Gene is not Behe?

Mike Elzinga said: It wouldn’t surprise me if paleontologists and the rest of the science community are having the same annoying problems with science terms and concepts as the physicists have had with the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Those damned erroneous memes are floating around out there in the public mind; and even members of the science community start subconsciously picking them up. In addition, scientific colloquial shop-talk gets picked up by reporters who then add their own colloquial understanding to their writing. It’s not only annoying, but any attempts by the occasional scientist who campaigns for proper usage often gets him treated as being pedantic. I’m afraid that the same concepts that apply to evolution also apply to scientific language; some undesirable mutations manage to survive and propagate.

The editorial cartoon in today's Seattle Times 3/7/10 pretty much summarizes the IDiots/DI's stance on science. I think it's too early to for the link to be published.

The left had column:

Scientific Theorists:

* Galileo

* Newton

* Darwin

* Einstein

The right hand column:

Conspiracy Theorists:

* The moon landing was a fake.

* Evolution is bunk.

* Global warming is a hoax.

And in the center a person (teacher most likely) pointing to either side, saying:

"Children, one idea's as good as another."

That's what the DI means by free speech and teach the controversy. I suspect there'll be some letters about that from the Dishonesty Institute here in Seattle.

David Utidjian said: Is there a good reference work on the definitions, concepts, and their correct usage?

See, over the course of my life I have changed my mind, corrected myself, shifted my point of view, incorporated new knowledge and, did I say changed my mind? I did? Well, then. What the hell could I know?

Thanks John and Jim.

Frank J said:

The amazing thing is that there are still ID supporters.

— Ron Okimoto

What is an "ID supporter" anyway? Aside from the professional ID promoters themselves (aka DI perps) and a few new-agey odd birds, everyone who raves about ID is some sort of Biblical creationist, YEC or OEC variety. It's funny how the supporters can clumsily confuse ID with creationism and the DI perps dummy up and look the other way. But when anyone who dares to criticize ID dares to equate it with "creationism" the DI goes hysterical. The DI uses double standards for everything else, so why should this be an exception?

fnxtr said:

See, over the course of my life I have changed my mind, corrected myself, shifted my point of view, incorporated new knowledge and, did I say changed my mind? I did? Well, then. What the hell could I know?

Depending on which party you belong to, you're either "coming to a deeper understanding of the issues", or "flip-flopping".

Mike,

A thousand thank yous. That first link is excellent... a good starting place for me.

-DU-

Jim Thomerson, posted 3/07/10 8:12 AM If you find a new species, and you have poor data on its genealogy, you go with whatever morphology you can obtain. If it fits in an extant genus, you put it there. If it does not, you describe a new genus for it. One of the fish species I described is now in its fourth genus thanks to DNA. The other three genera were preDNA.

Henry J said:

Jim Thomerson, posted 3/07/10 8:12 AM If you find a new species, and you have poor data on its genealogy, you go with whatever morphology you can obtain. If it fits in an extant genus, you put it there. If it does not, you describe a new genus for it. One of the fish species I described is now in its fourth genus thanks to DNA. The other three genera were preDNA.

Sounds like a highly mobile fish species. (I.e., not like the square kinds that get served in fast food places because they're easier to catch than the fish-shaped kinds.) Henry J

"Welcome to Judy Dench's Fish'n'Chips: now free of Mad Fish Disease!"

Why do you think that the ID perps “dummy up.” ID was and is a creationist scam. They only pushed it because Scientific Creationism fell on its face.

— Ron Okimoto

David Utidjian said: Mike, A thousand thank yous. That first link is excellent... a good starting place for me. -DU-

It’s the hypothesis that there was a one time event at the origin of life, and that...
Bilbo, pray, what do you mean by "origin of life"?

harold said: Bilbo - You continue to confuse me. ... If even the one whom you designate as an authority on the matter is telling you that the flagellum was not pinned on bacteria by magic, why do you continue to disagree?

Henry J said:

Jim Thomerson, posted 3/07/10 8:12 AM If you find a new species, and you have poor data on its genealogy, you go with whatever morphology you can obtain. If it fits in an extant genus, you put it there. If it does not, you describe a new genus for it. One of the fish species I described is now in its fourth genus thanks to DNA. The other three genera were preDNA.

Sounds like a highly mobile fish species. (I.e., not like the square kinds that get served in fast food places because they're easier to catch than the fish-shaped kinds.) Henry J

Recently at the BioLogos website, I ran into Mike Gene, who claimed that he “accepted” evolution, but found his reasoning quite inane and implausible.

Karen S. said:

Recently at the BioLogos website, I ran into Mike Gene, who claimed that he “accepted” evolution, but found his reasoning quite inane and implausible.

Yeah, a nice assortment of whack-a-doodles are posting there now, including Gregory. I have just about given up posting there because when I try to defend myself (after getting attacked) my posts get deleted. It's basically UD all over again.

Frank J said: Often at this point someone chimes in to remind me that the earliest ID promoters (e.g. "Pandas" authors) were "Scientific" Creationists, and specifically "heliocentric YECs." But the ID leadership soon included mostly OECs, including at least one who conceded common descent. Then it became one big happy tent, with even geocentrists and flat-earthers welcome.

I wouldn't get too excited about the "expert panel" agreeing that the KT impact wiped out the dinosaurs. All the participants were already committed to the impact hypothesis years ago, and nothing new or original is in that paper--it's just rehashed from older papers. Most notably, there are no vertebrate paleontologists or other experts on terrestrial animals in the "experts." The VP community is nearly unanimous in disagreeing with the "impact did it all" hypothesis, because there are far too many features of the terrestrial record that CANNOT be explained by the impact, but are more compatible with a gradual change possibly triggered by the Deccan traps and/or the major regression of the late Cretaceous. That "expert" paper may seem impressive until you realize that the major symposia at the Geological Society of America last fall were all arguing AGAINST the importance of the impact and FOR the Deccan trap model. Or see the experts (paleontologists specialized in nearly every taxon involved) who contributed to MacLeod et al. (1997) were unanimous that impact explained almost no extinctions in the marine realm except for a few plankton. As usual, beware of splashy highly-publicized papers on a controversial topic published in Science with no rebuttal attached. In six months' time, there will be plenty of papers that refute every point of that paper. (For more details, see my book "After the Dinosaurs", Chap. 2, or "Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs," Chap. 5).

fnxtr said: So, about nomenclature... when something like D. masillae is uncovered, and its genealogy is still nebulous, how do they decide what to call it? Is it too far back to be included in an already-establish genus? Would it get a name change if its... er... pedigree... turns out to be a surprise?

Is it possible that the shock waves from the impact radiated out, then focussed on the opposite side of the globe and caused the Deccan Traps, or does the timing rule (or something else) this out?

Richard Simons said: Is it possible that the shock waves from the impact radiated out, then focussed on the opposite side of the globe and caused the Deccan Traps, or does the timing rule (or something else) this out?

John Kwok said: I'll let Don Prothero answer this, since he has access to the most current information, but I believe that the Deccan Trap eruptions began prior to the K/T impact. But I will also observe that those who are most resistant to the asteroid impact hypothesis for the terminal Cretaceous mass extinctions are vertebrate paleontologists (which, I might add, is Don Prothero's specialty)

Richard Simons said: Is it possible that the shock waves from the impact radiated out, then focussed on the opposite side of the globe and caused the Deccan Traps, or does the timing rule (or something else) this out?

There may be some strong circumstantial evidence pointing to potential regional differences in the timing of the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. CUNY invertebrate paleobiologist John Chamberlain and several of his graduate students have looked at patterns of extinction in marine sharks in North America, and have noted that those furthest away from the Chicxulub impact site were more resistant to extinction than those in close proximity. Chamberlain, in collaboration with his graduate student Matthew Garb, and American Museum of Natural History curator of invertebrate paleontology Neil Landman (who is the principal investigator on this research), have discovered that, in coastal New Jersey waters, a "typical" benthic marine invertebrate fauna dominated by Cretaceous bivalves and ammonites apparently persisted for possibly up to tens of thousands of years after the terminal Cretaceous impact. Whether this is an isolated episode in the early Cenozoic Northern Hemisphere or one that could be documented elsewhere, say, for example, at the classic Stevns Klint Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary site in Denmark, will require further investigation by invertebrate paleontologists and biostratigraphers.

Crudely Wrott said:

fnxtr said: Depending on which party you belong to, you're either "coming to a deeper understanding of the issues", or "flip-flopping".

I had my tongue deep in my cheek when I wrote that, Fnxtr.

Now, pardon my density, but who are John and Jim?

Donald Prothero said: I wouldn't get too excited about the "expert panel" agreeing that the KT impact wiped out the dinosaurs. All the participants were already committed to the impact hypothesis years ago, and nothing new or original is in that paper--it's just rehashed from older papers....

Hey there, I noticed your blog and I thought I would take a look, pretty catchy name. I see that you are under the belief that the earth is millions, possible billions of years old. I was wondering if this is true then how does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics play into your theory. No doubt you are not ignorant of the scientific law of entropy. No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is
moving from a state of order to a state of chaos. Now I think the point definitely needs to be emphasized that this is a law of
science! The 2nd law of thermodynamics. For anything to become a law of
science it must be proven without any contradictory evidence. There are only
about 6 laws of science that exist.Now this is a law of science (remember I am OCD so this
is probably going to be repeated like 10 more times). Everything is getting
worse. Do you see where the contradiction lies now? Evolution teaches that
everything is getting better, that our world started out a barren wasteland with
poisonous gases and all these things and it is getting better. Yet a law of science
proves the very opposite is true. The Bible says the very same thing, so the only
place that contradiction lies, is the theory of evolution and a law of science.

Chris Sanford said: Hey there, I noticed your blog and I thought I would take a look, pretty catchy name. I see that you are under the belief that the earth is millions, possible billions of years old. I was wondering if this is true then how does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics play into your theory. No doubt you are not ignorant of the scientific law of entropy. No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is moving from a state of order to a state of chaos. Now I think the point definitely needs to be emphasized that this is a law of science! The 2nd law of thermodynamics. ...

fnxtr said:

Crudely Wrott said:

fnxtr said: Depending on which party you belong to, you're either "coming to a deeper understanding of the issues", or "flip-flopping".

I had my tongue deep in my cheek when I wrote that, Fnxtr.

Of course you did, CW, I was also being flippant. :-)

Now, pardon my density, but who are John and Jim?

John Kwok and Jim Thomerson helped explain taxonomic nomenclature. There's a mouthful.

Dave Thomas said: Everybody else, please DNFTT. It's got some reading to do first, anyway. Dave

JW: I wonder whether they would still support the Dishonesty Institute if the DI engaged in any activities indicative of supporting some ongoing genocide elsewhere around the globe:

Chris Sanford said: Hey there, I noticed your blog and I thought I would take a look, pretty catchy name.

Dave Thomas said:

Chris Sanford said: Hey there, I noticed your blog and I thought I would take a look, pretty catchy name. I see that you are under the belief that the earth is millions, possible billions of years old. I was wondering if this is true then how does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics play into your theory. No doubt you are not ignorant of the scientific law of entropy. No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is moving from a state of order to a state of chaos. Now I think the point definitely needs to be emphasized that this is a law of science! The 2nd law of thermodynamics. ...

No doubt you are ignorant of the fact that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing.

It isn’t past tense. Kenyon and Thaxton are still fellows at the Discovery Institute. Kenyon is no longer a senior fellow.

— Ron Okimoto

Hey there, I noticed your blog and I thought I would take a look, pretty catchy name. I see that you are under the belief that the earth is millions, possible billions of years old.

— Chris Sandord

fnxtr said:

See, over the course of my life I have changed my mind, corrected myself, shifted my point of view, incorporated new knowledge and, did I say changed my mind? I did? Well, then. What the hell could I know?

Depending on which party you belong to, you're either "coming to a deeper understanding of the issues", or "flip-flopping".

Frank J said: So 4.3 billion and 4.7 billion are just as wrong as "5 minutes."

Chris Sanford said: Some stuff

Dave Thomas said:

Donald Prothero said: I wouldn't get too excited about the "expert panel" agreeing that the KT impact wiped out the dinosaurs. All the participants were already committed to the impact hypothesis years ago, and nothing new or original is in that paper--it's just rehashed from older papers....

Thanks for the insider background, Don. My late father, an avid dinosaur sculptor and science buff, often said that "The Asteroid killed the last of the Dinosarus, all right - both of 'em." (E.G. the dinos were already in decline before the impact). Cheers, Dave

John Kwok said: Dave, The marine micropaleontological record across the K/P boundary does show ample evidence of rapid, geologically instantaneous, mass extinction within Protists. As much as I admire Don, he and other doubting vertebrate paleobiologists are recycling objections I have read that have been published since the early 1980s - immediately after the Alvarez et al. 1980 paper in Science which hypothesized an asteroid impact (based on evidence of an unusually high concentration of irdium at the K/P boundary stratigraphic section in Gubbio, Italy, and related evidence such as shocked quartz particles) - which have sought to argue against a mass extinction via a cataclysmic asteroid impact. Here I must respectfully disagree with Don and state that the burden of proof lies with Don and his fellow doubters, not with the recently convened scientific panel which concluded that there was such an asteroid impact and that it was, most likely, the "smoking gun" responsible for the K/P boundary mass extinction:

Dave Thomas said:

Donald Prothero said: I wouldn't get too excited about the "expert panel" agreeing that the KT impact wiped out the dinosaurs. All the participants were already committed to the impact hypothesis years ago, and nothing new or original is in that paper--it's just rehashed from older papers....

Thanks for the insider background, Don. My late father, an avid dinosaur sculptor and science buff, often said that "The Asteroid killed the last of the Dinosarus, all right - both of 'em." (E.G. the dinos were already in decline before the impact). Cheers, Dave

I’d disagree with you there. Both 4.3 and 4.7 would provide are useful approximations for testing and interpreting data; 5 minutes is not useful, not approximate, and if you’re talking the omphalos idea, not testable.

— eric

Perhaps this goes on the scepticism topic, or perhaps it's a shameless attempt to draw attention to something I want to see covered more in depth, but South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." I wonder if they will link to evolution and follow the trend.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

Random Lurker said: Perhaps this goes on the scepticism topic, or perhaps it's a shameless attempt to draw attention to something I want to see covered more in depth, but South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." I wonder if they will link to evolution and follow the trend. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

Random Lurker said: Perhaps this goes on the scepticism topic, or perhaps it's a shameless attempt to draw attention to something I want to see covered more in depth, but South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." I wonder if they will link to evolution and follow the trend. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

Chris Sanford -

Read this thread -

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/02/evidence-that-t.html

Dornier Pfeil said:

fnxtr said:

See, over the course of my life I have changed my mind, corrected myself, shifted my point of view, incorporated new knowledge and, did I say changed my mind? I did? Well, then. What the hell could I know?

Depending on which party you belong to, you're either "coming to a deeper understanding of the issues", or "flip-flopping".

It doesn't actually depend on which party you belong to but whether you are being attacked or supported by either party

Random Lurker said: Perhaps this goes on the scepticism topic, or perhaps it's a shameless attempt to draw attention to something I want to see covered more in depth, but South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." I wonder if they will link to evolution and follow the trend. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

GvlGeologist, FCD said: In all fairness, I do have to say that it is an exaggeration to say that the SD legislature has said that GW is astrological; rather, they have demonstrated their ignorance of the difference between the terms astronomy and astrology. Bad enough. I also note that that they continue the hoary old "a scientific theory rather than a proven fact" meme, that they use the discredited "31000 scientists against GW", that they use the "CO2 is not a pollutant" argument, and other demonstrations of ignorance. Out of curiosity, I looked up the party affiliation of the resolution sponsors, and of the 30 whose party I could identify, 27 were repubs and only 3 were dems. Of the 3 senators whose party I could ID, all were repubs. And the repubs wonder why books like "The Republican War On Science" get written. RL, has this resolution been passed by the senate and signed by the Gov?

Random Lurker said: Perhaps this goes on the scepticism topic, or perhaps it's a shameless attempt to draw attention to something I want to see covered more in depth, but South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." I wonder if they will link to evolution and follow the trend. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

John Kwok said: I'll let Don Prothero answer this, since he has access to the most current information, but I believe that the Deccan Trap eruptions began prior to the K/T impact. But I will also observe that those who are most resistant to the asteroid impact hypothesis for the terminal Cretaceous mass extinctions are vertebrate paleontologists (which, I might add, is Don Prothero's specialty)

Richard Simons said: Is it possible that the shock waves from the impact radiated out, then focussed on the opposite side of the globe and caused the Deccan Traps, or does the timing rule (or something else) this out?

Dave Thomas said:

Donald Prothero said: I wouldn't get too excited about the "expert panel" agreeing that the KT impact wiped out the dinosaurs. All the participants were already committed to the impact hypothesis years ago, and nothing new or original is in that paper--it's just rehashed from older papers....

Thanks for the insider background, Don. My late father, an avid dinosaur sculptor and science buff, often said that "The Asteroid killed the last of the Dinosarus, all right - both of 'em." (E.G. the dinos were already in decline before the impact). Cheers, Dave

Donald Prothero said:

John Kwok said: I'll let Don Prothero answer this, since he has access to the most current information, but I believe that the Deccan Trap eruptions began prior to the K/T impact. But I will also observe that those who are most resistant to the asteroid impact hypothesis for the terminal Cretaceous mass extinctions are vertebrate paleontologists (which, I might add, is Don Prothero's specialty) That's correct: the Deccan traps began erupting LONG before the impact, so there's no way the impact could have caused it. More importantly, if you look at the past decade of geological literature, the "impacts cause extinction" model so popular in the 1980s has gone into disrepute. None of the other major mass extinctions are associated with impacts, and more importantly, the Eocene-Oligocene transition has major impacts almost as big as Chicxulub (the KT impactor) but NO extinctions of consequence. Only the KT is possibly connected, and there the multiple possible causes and complex pattern of extinction rule out the simplistic models that the impactors have proposed.

Richard Simons said: Is it possible that the shock waves from the impact radiated out, then focussed on the opposite side of the globe and caused the Deccan Traps, or does the timing rule (or something else) this out?

There may be some strong circumstantial evidence pointing to potential regional differences in the timing of the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. CUNY invertebrate paleobiologist John Chamberlain and several of his graduate students have looked at patterns of extinction in marine sharks in North America, and have noted that those furthest away from the Chicxulub impact site were more resistant to extinction than those in close proximity. Chamberlain, in collaboration with his graduate student Matthew Garb, and American Museum of Natural History curator of invertebrate paleontology Neil Landman (who is the principal investigator on this research), have discovered that, in coastal New Jersey waters, a "typical" benthic marine invertebrate fauna dominated by Cretaceous bivalves and ammonites apparently persisted for possibly up to tens of thousands of years after the terminal Cretaceous impact. Whether this is an isolated episode in the early Cenozoic Northern Hemisphere or one that could be documented elsewhere, say, for example, at the classic Stevns Klint Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary site in Denmark, will require further investigation by invertebrate paleontologists and biostratigraphers.

Clueless Chris Sanford said: I see that you are under the belief that the earth is millions, possible billions of years old. I was wondering if this is true then how does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics play into your theory.

Chris Sanford said: ...how does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics play into your theory. No doubt you are not ignorant of the scientific law of entropy. No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is moving from a state of order to a state of chaos.

Random Lurker said: ... South Dakota has officially declared Global Warming to be "astrological." http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

(from the bill...) WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide; and WHEREAS, there is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the troposphere where the majority of warming would be taking place; and WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life"; and

WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth":

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED(snip) (3)That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena;

No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is moving from a state of order to a state of chaos.

No doubt you are familiar that Entropy is simply the law that everything is moving from a state of order to a state of chaos.

(from the bill...) WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth":

Somehow, I missed this petition when it circulated. Anybody got a copy handy?

WTF? So the tons of hydrogen in stellar cores that are being fused into helium every second are in a state of order? What, are they all just lined up patiently waiting their turn?

Panels of experts should not be needed in subjects of science. if the hypothesis can not stand or be dismissed by merely doing the scientific method then its not science.
Origin issues are not science but mere ordinary evidence gathering.

The incompetence of the lemur thing shows the problem. Drawing great conclusions of heritage from bits and bytes of bones.
The impact thing is welcome to YEC. It teaches that there was a sudden disaster that changed the fauna/flora of earth.
Of coarse many, not all , biblical creationists would say this is the biblical flood event. I do.
Then after the world was repopulated with new dominances of life.
i say it was the clean/unclean ratio on the ark that is the origin for a "mammal" dominance whereas before it was a unclean dominance.
I don't believe there is in nature a mammal division and i allow that some dinosaurs may of with just a bit of change actually be the same creatures as after the flood.
Not sure but perhaps a triceratops is just of the same kind as a rhino. I know of no other creationists who say so. Its just that i always see minor details used to define whole groups of creatures. I know marsupials are just placentals ith pouches. And so on.

I see volcanoes as part of the origin for the rock strata above the k-P line.
Volcanos also would of been a great part of the flood year and so evidence of them will be great and conclusions made this killed the dinos.

The thing that killed the dinos is the thing one finds them everywhere intombed in. Sediment moved by water. All dinos ever found never died from old age or mishap.
the were killed by the great flood of biblical history and universal human lore whether writtrn or verbal.
Need more panals.

Would it be too much to ask for to have the troll Robert Byers be consigned permanently to the Bathroom Wall?

Robert, how can volcanoes be part of the flood year? We're not talking about underwater eruptions.

Robert Lyers said: Panels of experts should not be needed in subjects of science. if the hypothesis can not stand or be dismissed by merely doing the scientific method then its not science. Origin issues are not science but mere ordinary evidence gathering. The incompetence of the lemur thing shows the problem. Drawing great conclusions of heritage from bits and bytes of bones

The impact thing is welcome to YEC. It teaches that there was a sudden disaster that changed the fauna/flora of earth. Of coarse many, not all , biblical creationists would say this is the biblical flood event. I do. Then after the world was repopulated with new dominances of life. i say it was the clean/unclean ratio on the ark that is the origin for a "mammal" dominance whereas before it was a unclean dominance. I don't believe there is in nature a mammal division and i allow that some dinosaurs may of with just a bit of change actually be the same creatures as after the flood. Not sure but perhaps a triceratops is just of the same kind as a rhino. I know of no other creationists who say so. Its just that i always see minor details used to define whole groups of creatures. I know marsupials are just placentals ith pouches. And so on. I see volcanoes as part of the origin for the rock strata above the k-P line. Volcanos also would of been a great part of the flood year and so evidence of them will be great and conclusions made this killed the dinos. The thing that killed the dinos is the thing one finds them everywhere intombed in. Sediment moved by water. All dinos ever found never died from old age or mishap. the were killed by the great flood of biblical history and universal human lore whether writtrn or verbal. Need more panals.

Stanton said: Would it be too much to ask for to have the troll Robert Byers be consigned permanently to the Bathroom Wall?

Robert Byers said: Not sure but perhaps a triceratops is just of the same kind as a rhino. I know of no other creationists who say so. Its just that i always see minor details used to define whole groups of creatures. I know marsupials are just placentals with pouches. And so on.

Stanton said: Would it be too much to ask for to have the troll Robert Byers be consigned permanently to the Bathroom Wall?

Yeah, Byers (and I'M BIG) really writes like he never heard Mr. Mackie's warning:

"Drugs're bad, m'kay?"

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Not sure but perhaps a triceratops is just of the same kind as a rhino. I know of no other creationists who say so. Its just that i always see minor details used to define whole groups of creatures. I know marsupials are just placentals with pouches. And so on.

This is the most wonderful demonstration of Poe's law ever ( that is, the hypothesis that a sufficiently over-the-top parody of a creationist cannot be distinguished from the real thing ) Let's face it, if we didn't know who Byers is and that he actually thinks like this, who would ever, for even a moment, believe he was real?

Let’s face it, if we didn’t know who Byers is and that he actually thinks like this, who would ever, for even a moment, believe he was real?

— stevaroni

Frank J said: I have been trying to interpret that sentence, and I confess that I can't. Was that your intent by chance? Or are you actually saying that there is one set of evidence (e.g. his PT comments) from which it's impossible to tell whether he is serious or not, and another set of evidence that leads you to "know" that he's serious?

I agree with you Stevaroni. A number of Byer's posts have been so whacky as to make me wonder if he wasn't really jerking everyone's chains. Sadly, he's successfully proven that while in some ways he is (particularly his own) it's not intentional - he really does believe the things he posts.

I was recently introduced to Vox Day's blog and it took about two minutes of reading to put me into an utter state of shock and awe. I was convinced that such ravings MUST be the work of a POE until a read some of the commentary on the guy at AtBC and found out how long he's been posting that stuff and what else he's been involved in. The sheer level of whacky just boggles my mind to the point of shutdown. It makes Venice Beach seem completely conventional and conservative.

Robin said: I agree with you Stevaroni. A number of Byer's posts have been so whacky as to make me wonder if he wasn't really jerking everyone's chains. Sadly, he's successfully proven that while in some ways he is (particularly his own) it's not intentional - he really does believe the things he posts. I was recently introduced to Vox Day's blog and it took about two minutes of reading to put me into an utter state of shock and awe. I was convinced that such ravings MUST be the work of a POE until a read some of the commentary on the guy at AtBC and found out how long he's been posting that stuff and what else he's been involved in. The sheer level of whacky just boggles my mind to the point of shutdown. It makes Venice Beach seem completely conventional and conservative.

@ Dave Thomas -

Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Had I not had outside evidence Byers was real, I never would have believed it.

— stevaroni

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Frank J said:

Had I not had outside evidence Byers was real, I never would have believed it.

— stevaroni

So if you can't tell from the "inside" evidence, how can you tell from the outside evidence? Are you saying that Poe's Law falls apart somewhere? You know where I'm going. Before I even heard of Poe's Law, it occurred to me that, short of reading minds, it's impossible to know what anyone truly believes. Especially when one is on a mission to save the world, and is much more passionate that others believe X. In this case, "X" being increasingly "anything but evolution."

Frank J said: So if you can't tell from the "inside" evidence, how can you tell from the outside evidence? Are you saying that Poe's Law falls apart somewhere?

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

John Kwok said: Just as an additional, though brief, postscript, Dave, I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist, so I would hope that I know what I am discussing with regards to the paleobiological implications of the impact hypothesis:

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

You two cut that out! Don't make me come in there!

Rilke's granddaughter said: But in the past you've claimed to be an evolutionary biologist. My understanding is that you've only ever actually worked as an IT person. You should try to distinguish between classes you've taken and work you've actually done.

John Kwok said: Just as an additional, though brief, postscript, Dave, I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist, so I would hope that I know what I am discussing with regards to the paleobiological implications of the impact hypothesis:

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

John Kwok said: You're utterly moronic, RG. Invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology. So is vertebrate paleobiology. This means that I can call myself a former evolutionary biologist and Donald Prothero, a current evolutionary biologist. But what more can I expect from an militant atheist troll who behaves exactly like the creo trolls lurking here? Sad, but true, unfortunately:

Rilke's granddaughter said: But in the past you've claimed to be an evolutionary biologist. My understanding is that you've only ever actually worked as an IT person. You should try to distinguish between classes you've taken and work you've actually done.

John Kwok said: Just as an additional, though brief, postscript, Dave, I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist, so I would hope that I know what I am discussing with regards to the paleobiological implications of the impact hypothesis:

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

Just Bob said: You two cut that out! Don't make me come in there!

John Kwok said: Just Bob and Stanton, My apologies, but I'm not going to let a troll like RG continue to smear me, especially when I have been acknowledged in several peer-reviewed papers in evolutionary biology for rendering assistance to the author(s), given talks on part of my master's thesis at scientific meetings and have at least one peer-reviewed publication. So could you both do me a favor please and tell her to shut up:

Just Bob said: You two cut that out! Don't make me come in there!

Guys - chicks - whatever - settle down, now, K?

Continued whining will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.

How can I justify sending IBIG to the BW, while letting all y'all derail the thread?

Be advised.

Dave

Dave Thomas said: Guys - chicks - whatever - settle down, now, K? Continued whining will be sent to the Bathroom Wall. How can I justify sending IBIG to the BW, while letting all y'all derail the thread? Be advised. Dave

John Kwok said: Robin, I might add that I doubt Byers's fellow YECs would go for the Chixculub asteroid impact site. Would upset them to think that Yahweh would be so mean-spirited that HE would hurl an asteroid at the Earth just to kill off the nonavian dinosaurs (And they weren't the only criters to have "bitten the dust".). No Byers is a kind unique unto himself, which may be the only redeeming trait I can think of with respect to him:

Robin said: I agree with you Stevaroni. A number of Byer's posts have been so whacky as to make me wonder if he wasn't really jerking everyone's chains. Sadly, he's successfully proven that while in some ways he is (particularly his own) it's not intentional - he really does believe the things he posts. I was recently introduced to Vox Day's blog and it took about two minutes of reading to put me into an utter state of shock and awe. I was convinced that such ravings MUST be the work of a POE until a read some of the commentary on the guy at AtBC and found out how long he's been posting that stuff and what else he's been involved in. The sheer level of whacky just boggles my mind to the point of shutdown. It makes Venice Beach seem completely conventional and conservative.

John Kwok said: You're utterly moronic, RG. Invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology. So is vertebrate paleobiology. This means that I can call myself a former evolutionary biologist and Donald Prothero, a current evolutionary biologist. But what more can I expect from an militant atheist troll who behaves exactly like the creo trolls lurking here? Sad, but true, unfortunately:

Rilke's granddaughter said: But in the past you've claimed to be an evolutionary biologist. My understanding is that you've only ever actually worked as an IT person. You should try to distinguish between classes you've taken and work you've actually done.

John Kwok said: Just as an additional, though brief, postscript, Dave, I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist, so I would hope that I know what I am discussing with regards to the paleobiological implications of the impact hypothesis:

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

Creationists simply must look at the evidence for when a impact could hit. If it was before the flood...

— Robert Byers

Rilke's granddaughter said: I suspect that given enough posts, you could spot moments of coherence and intelligent response.

Robert Byers said: Creationists simply must look at the evidence for when a impact could hit.

John Kwok said: It needs to stop now.

W. H. Heydt said:

John Kwok said: You're utterly moronic, RG. Invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology. So is vertebrate paleobiology. This means that I can call myself a former evolutionary biologist and Donald Prothero, a current evolutionary biologist. But what more can I expect from an militant atheist troll who behaves exactly like the creo trolls lurking here? Sad, but true, unfortunately:

Rilke's granddaughter said: But in the past you've claimed to be an evolutionary biologist. My understanding is that you've only ever actually worked as an IT person. You should try to distinguish between classes you've taken and work you've actually done.

John Kwok said: Just as an additional, though brief, postscript, Dave, I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist, so I would hope that I know what I am discussing with regards to the paleobiological implications of the impact hypothesis:

John Kwok said: I thought I'd remind you, only if you thought what Don said should be regarded as the absolute last word (And, incidentally, I haven't read anything from Don that would refute my observation regarding the sudden collapse of marine ecosystems across the K/P boundary.). As far as my time is, I only have time to drop by and to comment quickly. Can't afford to stay here or other online threads as much as might want to:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: @ Dave Thomas - Just to get this discussion back on topic, I hope you realize that Don Prothero's opinion of the Chixculub asteroid impact as the primary cause of the K/P boundary mass extinction is one that's not universally shared. It may be a "simplistic" hypothesis, but it's the one which is best corrobated by existing scientific evidence, and which accounts best for the sudden collapse that we do see in marine ecosystems - as reflected, for example, in the Protistan mass extinctions - at the K/P boundary. None of the other alternatives which Don has mentioned could account for such a sudden collapse.

Other than casually mentioning what my late father said over eleven years ago on that topic, I don't think I've been coming down too hard on the impact hypothesis. Aren't there other posts needing your expert supervision and guidance? You must be a very busy man. Dave

RG makes a vaild point. You can call yourself King of the Mountain, but that doesn't make it so. I've taken a bunch of Physics and Math courses, but I'd never call myself a physicist or a mathematician.

If you've been calling other commenters "stupid", expect to find your comments scrawled on the Bathroom Wall.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

Dave

John Kwok said: And I would expect you to show similar intolerance toward a militant atheist troll like RG when she does appear again to hurl yet another insult at me:

Dave, I'll stop posting this when you decide to stop moving my comments to the Bathroom Wall:

RG’s comments from yesterday questioning my competence should suggest to anyone who is truly being objective that her understanding of evolutionary biology is far from perfect. How? Invertebrate paleobiology is as much a part of evolutionary biology as is population genetics, systematics or ecology. So it is accurate for me to claim that I am both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist since invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology (Just as it is accurate for an ornithologist studying the systematics of, say, pigeons, to note that he or she is an evolutionary biologist too.).

Would RG question whether such eminent invertebrate paleobiologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are evolutionary biologists too? Hopefully not, since both have made important contributions to evolutionary biology, and not merely in developing their theory of punctuated equilibria.

fnxtr said:

John Kwok said: Just Bob and Stanton, My apologies, but I'm not going to let a troll like RG continue to smear me, especially when I have been acknowledged in several peer-reviewed papers in evolutionary biology for rendering assistance to the author(s), given talks on part of my master's thesis at scientific meetings and have at least one peer-reviewed publication. So could you both do me a favor please and tell her to shut up:

Just Bob said: You two cut that out! Don't make me come in there!

Chicks, man. Go figure. (fnxtr runs and hides)

Rilke's granddaughter said: You'd better! ;-)

fnxtr said:

John Kwok said: Just Bob and Stanton, My apologies, but I'm not going to let a troll like RG continue to smear me, especially when I have been acknowledged in several peer-reviewed papers in evolutionary biology for rendering assistance to the author(s), given talks on part of my master's thesis at scientific meetings and have at least one peer-reviewed publication. So could you both do me a favor please and tell her to shut up:

Just Bob said: You two cut that out! Don't make me come in there!

Chicks, man. Go figure. (fnxtr runs and hides)

John Kwok said: Dave, I'll stop posting this when you decide to stop moving my comments to the Bathroom Wall: RG’s comments from yesterday questioning my competence should suggest to anyone who is truly being objective that her understanding of evolutionary biology is far from perfect. How? Invertebrate paleobiology is as much a part of evolutionary biology as is population genetics, systematics or ecology. So it is accurate for me to claim that I am both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist since invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology (Just as it is accurate for an ornithologist studying the systematics of, say, pigeons, to note that he or she is an evolutionary biologist too.). Would RG question whether such eminent invertebrate paleobiologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are evolutionary biologists too? Hopefully not, since both have made important contributions to evolutionary biology, and not merely in developing their theory of punctuated equilibria.

Gotta watch iPhone corrections. Creationists inflate their credentials because their arguments are poor. We're both smarter and more honest: we need to avoid doing it as well.

Rilke's granddaughter said: But Kwok, this sort of thing IS important. I'm not questioning your competence, but if we want to avoid the kind of inane and irrelevat credential-inflation, we need to avoid doing that sort of thing ourselves. We have to keep to higher standards of ethics and accuracy. Now I'm credited on some papers in math, because the primary thrust of Rhodes papers had some bearing on my neuro work. But I would consider it both irrelevant and dishonest to call myself a former mathematician. Heck, I think it would be dishonest of Dembski to call himself a mathematician, and he's got a PhD. Creationists self-aggrandize; we need to avoid the temptation ourselves , because it's too often use to lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

John Kwok said: Dave, I'll stop posting this when you decide to stop moving my comments to the Bathroom Wall: RG’s comments from yesterday questioning my competence should suggest to anyone who is truly being objective that her understanding of evolutionary biology is far from perfect. How? Invertebrate paleobiology is as much a part of evolutionary biology as is population genetics, systematics or ecology. So it is accurate for me to claim that I am both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist since invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology (Just as it is accurate for an ornithologist studying the systematics of, say, pigeons, to note that he or she is an evolutionary biologist too.). Would RG question whether such eminent invertebrate paleobiologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are evolutionary biologists too? Hopefully not, since both have made important contributions to evolutionary biology, and not merely in developing their theory of punctuated equilibria.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Gotta watch iPhone corrections. Creationists inflate their credentials because their arguments are poor. We're both smarter and more honest: we need to avoid doing it as well.

John Kwok said: RG - Several graduate school professors do regard me as a former evolutionary biologist, and it is primarily for the reasons I stated in my reply to Heydt (The first one, not the one which Dave Thomas moved to the Bathroom Wall). I was also educated as an evolutionary biologist. Again, I have to wonder how much you understand evolutionary biology if you can conceive of asking me how I can call myself both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist at the same time. Maybe I should have been more explicit in stating that I was an evolutionary biologist specializing in invertebrate paleobiology, but here, I think we're splitting hairs and geting into ridiculous issues pertaining to semantics (Though if Dave Thomas hadn't implicitly rejected my support of the asteroid impact theory for the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary mass extinction - which, contrary to his and Donald Prothero's claims - is well established as a theory, not as a mere scientific hypothesis - then I wouldn't have confused you.):

Rilke's granddaughter said: But Kwok, this sort of thing IS important. I'm not questioning your competence, but if we want to avoid the kind of inane and irrelevat credential-inflation, we need to avoid doing that sort of thing ourselves. We have to keep to higher standards of ethics and accuracy. Now I'm credited on some papers in math, because the primary thrust of Rhodes papers had some bearing on my neuro work. But I would consider it both irrelevant and dishonest to call myself a former mathematician. Heck, I think it would be dishonest of Dembski to call himself a mathematician, and he's got a PhD. Creationists self-aggrandize; we need to avoid the temptation ourselves , because it's too often use to lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

John Kwok said: Dave, I'll stop posting this when you decide to stop moving my comments to the Bathroom Wall: RG’s comments from yesterday questioning my competence should suggest to anyone who is truly being objective that her understanding of evolutionary biology is far from perfect. How? Invertebrate paleobiology is as much a part of evolutionary biology as is population genetics, systematics or ecology. So it is accurate for me to claim that I am both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist since invertebrate paleobiology is part of evolutionary biology (Just as it is accurate for an ornithologist studying the systematics of, say, pigeons, to note that he or she is an evolutionary biologist too.). Would RG question whether such eminent invertebrate paleobiologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are evolutionary biologists too? Hopefully not, since both have made important contributions to evolutionary biology, and not merely in developing their theory of punctuated equilibria.

Read what I said to Heydt. And no, you are mistaken if you think I wrap myself around with some kind of metaphorical cloak around me, saying that you ought to respect me since I am a former evolutionary biologist. No, I am merely stating that I was educated as such and did perform some service as such, though neither one was recently.

And just for the record, I don't wear my credentials on my sleeve.

Thought I made some sense with you, but you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

John Kwok said: RG - Several graduate school professors do regard me as a former evolutionary biologist, and it is primarily for the reasons I stated in my reply to Heydt (The first one, not the one which Dave Thomas moved to the Bathroom Wall). I was also educated as an evolutionary biologist. Again, I have to wonder how much you understand evolutionary biology if you can conceive of asking me how I can call myself both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist at the same time. Maybe I should have been more explicit in stating that I was an evolutionary biologist specializing in invertebrate paleobiology, but here, I think we're splitting hairs and geting into ridiculous issues pertaining to semantics (Though if Dave Thomas hadn't implicitly rejected my support of the asteroid impact theory for the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary mass extinction - which, contrary to his and Donald Prothero's claims - is well established as a theory, not as a mere scientific hypothesis - then I wouldn't have confused you.):

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: RG - Several graduate school professors do regard me as a former evolutionary biologist, and it is primarily for the reasons I stated in my reply to Heydt (The first one, not the one which Dave Thomas moved to the Bathroom Wall). I was also educated as an evolutionary biologist. Again, I have to wonder how much you understand evolutionary biology if you can conceive of asking me how I can call myself both a former evolutionary biologist and a former invertebrate paleobiologist at the same time. Maybe I should have been more explicit in stating that I was an evolutionary biologist specializing in invertebrate paleobiology, but here, I think we're splitting hairs and geting into ridiculous issues pertaining to semantics (Though if Dave Thomas hadn't implicitly rejected my support of the asteroid impact theory for the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary mass extinction - which, contrary to his and Donald Prothero's claims - is well established as a theory, not as a mere scientific hypothesis - then I wouldn't have confused you.):

Kwok, you are displaying much confusion. I simply mentioned something my late dad said over 11 years ago - along the lines that, YES, an asteroid indeed wiped out the last of the dinosaurs - both of 'em - i.e. that the dinos themselves were in decline before the impact. This is hardly " implicitly reject[ing] my support of the asteroid impact theory for the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary mass extinction - which, contrary to his and Donald Prothero's claims - is well established as a theory, not as a mere scientific hypothesis..." If you continue to interpret people failing to jump up and down shouting "Kwok is Right!" as "implicitly rejecting your claims," you are really much too thin-skinned to be posting on the internet. That said, I still have no clue why you claim to be an evolutionary biologist and/or vertebrate paleontologist, other than your statement that "graduate school professors do regard me as a former evolutionary biologist." What are your actual credentials? What school(s) did you attend? What are your degrees in? Where were you gainfully employed as an evolutionary biologist and/or vertebrate paleontologist? When I tell people that I'm a mathematician and physicist, and have been writing computer programs for decades, I can actually back that up. If I should happen to mention that I am a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, I can also back that up. Where is your resume posted, John? Sincerely, Dave (Back to working on his real job ....)

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb? Anyway Don Prothero knows that I was a graduate student of invertebrate paleobiology since he has a proceedings volume which lists one of my abstracts. But that, as I have noted before, was quite some time ago:

John Kwok said: you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

Methinks Kwok's problem is that he abuses the Argument from Authority, but then refuses to say what Authority he has, if any at all.

And when called on he, he goes all ad hominem on us.

Is Friday anytime soon?

Dave

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb? Anyway Don Prothero knows that I was a graduate student of invertebrate paleobiology since he has a proceedings volume which lists one of my abstracts. But that, as I have noted before, was quite some time ago:

You can't have it both ways, Kwok. Either stop trying to bolster your points by continually claiming to be an evolutionary biologist/invertebrate paleontologist, or simply post your qualifications in those areas. Since you say we're not entitiled to the latter, I say you're not entitled to the former. Simple as that. Sincerely, Dave

John Kwok said: Read what I said to Heydt. And no, you are mistaken if you think I wrap myself around with some kind of metaphorical cloak around me, saying that you ought to respect me since I am a former evolutionary biologist. No, I am merely stating that I was educated as such and did perform some service as such, though neither one was recently. And just for the record, I don't wear my credentials on my sleeve. Thought I made some sense with you, but you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information.

John Kwok said: ...I am glad you admit now that the asteroid impact theory is a valid scientific theory...

Shebardigan said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information.

Wow. Just... er... um... Wow. /me REALLY misses Usenet and the useful facility of the killfile.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: My first thought was HAL! You live!

Shebardigan said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information.

Wow. Just... er... um... Wow. /me REALLY misses Usenet and the useful facility of the killfile.

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb?

SWT said: ...the implication of this is that your resume/CV is confidential.

SWT said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb?

John, I don't really have an opinion about your disputes with fellow pro-science posters, but the implication of this is that your resume/CV is confidential. That strikes me as odd ...

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Look John, if you were an actual scientist, great. You're entitled to claim that you were. If you weren't; if you were just a grad student, then you can't. Based on what you've written elsewhere, you never actually worked as a scientist. As I said, some of us worked very hard to reach that point. More importantly, by putting your claims in posts so often you are implicitly claiming that you have authority in the subject. But that's what we dislike (rightfully so) about creationists. We need to be better. Go for it! Let your arguments and your arguments alone be your online achievement.

John Kwok said: Read what I said to Heydt. And no, you are mistaken if you think I wrap myself around with some kind of metaphorical cloak around me, saying that you ought to respect me since I am a former evolutionary biologist. No, I am merely stating that I was educated as such and did perform some service as such, though neither one was recently. And just for the record, I don't wear my credentials on my sleeve. Thought I made some sense with you, but you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

John Kwok said: No SWT, it isn't odd at all. If I was working as a professor at some college or university, then it might make sense to post it, but since I'm not applying for a job to work with RG or Dave Thomas, I see no reason why I should post it. Bottom line is my life is not an open book nor do I want it to be:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb?

John, I don't really have an opinion about your disputes with fellow pro-science posters, but the implication of this is that your resume/CV is confidential. That strikes me as odd ...

John Kwok said: Anyway I have quite a few friends and family who like to leave private lives and I do not pry into them (Will mention only that one is a well known author who doesn't like to read anything about himself, especially reviews of his books.). So it is in that spirit that I hope you do respect my wishes (As for worrying about the validity of my credentials, etc. those who need to know already know about them.):

John Kwok said: No SWT, it isn't odd at all. If I was working as a professor at some college or university, then it might make sense to post it, but since I'm not applying for a job to work with RG or Dave Thomas, I see no reason why I should post it. Bottom line is my life is not an open book nor do I want it to be:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Dave, but you're not entitled to that information. Are you going to question each and every one who posts here at Panda's Thumb?

John, I don't really have an opinion about your disputes with fellow pro-science posters, but the implication of this is that your resume/CV is confidential. That strikes me as odd ...

Dave Thomas said: Methinks Kwok's problem is that he abuses the Argument from Authority, but then refuses to say what Authority he has, if any at all. And when called on he it , he goes all ad hominem on us. Is Friday anytime soon? Dave

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: ...I am glad you admit now that the asteroid impact theory is a valid scientific theory...

What planet do you live on , John? I live on planet Earth. Are you just trying to make Byers and IBIG look good? Cuz you don't have to, y'know...

Rolf Aalberg said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists simply must look at the evidence for when a impact could hit.

You do, but the rest of the world looks at the evidence for when an impact did happen. See the difference? That's the same method the police use when investigating crime. Which method do you think works best?

Yeah stop making me look good!

— Robert Byers

Robert Byers said:

Rolf Aalberg said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists simply must look at the evidence for when a impact could hit.

You do, but the rest of the world looks at the evidence for when an impact did happen. See the difference? That's the same method the police use when investigating crime. Which method do you think works best?

Police can be wrong. I always like the illustration that biblical creationists see ourselves like Sherlock Holmes dealing with Scotland Yard. We know they are trying but we can fix a few points up and bring out the truth.

I suspect impacts are a problem for long earth geology concepts.

what with glaciers and general erosion concepts and just plain dating methods from moving water it seems to me much of impact areas is not working for the other side. Below or above the K-P line.

Robert wrote:

"Police can be wrong."

Sure they can. But simply refusing to believe anything that you don't want to believe doesn't make it automatically wrong. Ignoring all of the evidence doesn't make it go away. Not coming up with a better alternative that explains all of the evidence won't convince anyone. You can cry and whine all you want to but if you have no evidence you won't win in a court of law. I notice that you have not actually addressed the evidence, why is that? Who do you think you are fooling exactly?

Robert Byers said:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: ...I am glad you admit now that the asteroid impact theory is a valid scientific theory...

What planet do you live on , John? I live on planet Earth. Are you just trying to make Byers and IBIG look good? Cuz you don't have to, y'know...

Yeah stop making me look good!

DS said: I notice that you have not actually addressed the evidence, why is that? Who do you think you are fooling exactly?

John Kwok said: But that's the extent to which I wiil divulge my resume, simply because it's not relevant.

The most comprehensive evolution course I have attended (other than those I have taught, perhaps) was a junior level invertebrate paleontology course. My geology MS thesis was as study of fossil forams and and ostracods. I then changed course and became a neontologist, a systematic ichthyologist. Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

Robin said:

John Kwok said: But that's the extent to which I wiil divulge my resume, simply because it's not relevant.

The above is the key John. You might want to reflect on why that it is the case and then consider that perhaps it is also true for any claim you make about your alma mater, any associations of your alma mater, any claim to any work you've ever done, any claim of titles or degrees, etc. The fact is, nobody cares on the Intertubes, least of all here at Pandas Thumb. Your claims of such credentials, associates, authorities, etc carries no weight, nor does such add any helpful or effective information to any post made. The only thing that matters in Internet discussions is whether you can craft and post an articulate and concise thought and write it down and whether your can, to some extent, support it with references to someone's described work. Claiming you've done the work is meaningless; the thoroughness of your post will be sufficient to convey such for those in any capacity to judge such.

Jim Thomerson said: The most comprehensive evolution course I have attended (other than those I have taught, perhaps) was a junior level invertebrate paleontology course. My geology MS thesis was as study of fossil forams and and ostracods. I then changed course and became a neontologist, a systematic ichthyologist. Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

Jim Thomerson said: Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

RWard said:

Jim Thomerson said: Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

Biology is the study of evolution. Every biologist is an evolutionary biologist.

John Kwok said: Sorry Robin, I have no need to apologize nor to be ashamed of anything. But, as another, truly prominent, defender of the teaching of evolution once advised me, yours would be comments that I should anticipate. Thank you for proving his prediction to be true:

Richard Simons said: John - why does it matter if it was a 'truly prominent, defender of the teaching of evolution' or the person who was mopping the floor in your office? It is gratuitous comments like this, in which you try to show that you are continually rubbing shoulders with the famous, that so irritates people.

RWard said:

Jim Thomerson said: Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

Biology is the study of evolution. Every biologist is an evolutionary biologist.

Dave Thomas said:

Richard Simons said: John - why does it matter if it was a 'truly prominent, defender of the teaching of evolution' or the person who was mopping the floor in your office? It is gratuitous comments like this, in which you try to show that you are continually rubbing shoulders with the famous, that so irritates people.

That's all everyone has been trying to tell you, Kwok: You don't need the constant name-dropping and credentials-dropping -- just dazzle us with words of wisdom. This approach works best when you actually have something interesting to add to the conversation. Dave

John Kwok said: Maybe you can enlighten Kurt Wise and Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, among others. They obviously don't think so:

RWard said:

Jim Thomerson said: Although,I am a former invertebrate paleontologist, I have never ceased being an evolutionary biologist.

Biology is the study of evolution. Every biologist is an evolutionary biologist.

RWard said: Wise, Behe, & Wells aren't biologists - they're theologists. When they look at protein structure or DNA sequence they believe that they are studying the works of god.

John Kwok said: I said what I said to Robin, Dave, merely because I anticipated yet another incredulous remark from you:

John Kwok said: I said what I said to Robin, Dave, merely because I anticipated yet another incredulous remark from you:

Dave Thomas said:

John Kwok said: I said what I said to Robin, Dave, merely because I anticipated yet another incredulous remark from you:

Thinking about this a tad more, I'm led to reflect that your misuse of the word incredulous, which actually means unbelieving or disbelieving, is actually a compliment. Thanks, John. Too bad that's not what you meant. As far as what you did mean, who knows? Byers, maybe? Dave P.S.

Stanton said:

RWard said: Wise, Behe, & Wells aren't biologists - they're theologists. When they look at protein structure or DNA sequence they believe that they are studying the works of god.

You're extremely generous when you describe what frauds like Wise, Behe, and Wells do as "studying"

John Kwok said: Stanton, Well you have to remember that Kurt Wise is the only "honest" creationist in that bunch. The others engage in daily disinformation of the kind once practiced at the Soviet Politboro and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda:

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Stanton, Well you have to remember that Kurt Wise is the only "honest" creationist in that bunch. The others engage in daily disinformation of the kind once practiced at the Soviet Politboro and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda:

That's true, but, one can't help but to feel a hybrid of contempt and pity for someone who is honest about how he's crucified his scientific career and his ability to think critically simply for the sake of conforming to religious dogma. As for Behe and Wells, there's some pity, yes, but more contempt and nausea.

Joe Felsenstein said: There is simply no excuse for scientists or documentary filmmakers exploiting the public's familiarity with the term “missing link” and the confusion about what it is and whether it is still “missing”. Sowing confusion in the public understanding of science is not excused by the need to publicize one's work or make money.

Prof. Red Bottom said: Evolution is not useful to explain diversity of life only string theory. All species have always existed just as all parallel universes have as well.

Prof. Red Bottom said: Funny. You know why everyone on this site is stupid? They all believe a 19th century theory, that was has been completely refuted by the archeological record discovered since the dark ages when the theory was divined. ... Evolution is not useful to explain diversity of life only string theory. All species have always existed just as all parallel universes have as well.

Nunh-uh! This is a creationist! Send him to the Big Tent! Let's see if the DI will welcome him in as a fellow struggler against the evils of "darwinism."

Prof. Red Bottom said: I'm a lunatic who loves to make shit up.

Dave Thomas said:

Prof. Red Bottom said: Funny. You know why everyone on this site is stupid? They all believe a 19th century theory, that was has been completely refuted by the archeological record discovered since the dark ages when the theory was divined. ... Evolution is not useful to explain diversity of life only string theory. All species have always existed just as all parallel universes have as well.

I call Poe. Or maybe just confused/New-Age/Krishna/tin-foil-hat/think-they-sound-smart/etc. Dave

John Kwok said: I'm not claiming to be a scientist. Nor have I ever. Do you need to look up in the dictionary the word "former"? Anyway, if several of my former graduate school professors do perceive of me as a former evolutionary biologist, then it's fine with me:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Look John, if you were an actual scientist, great. You're entitled to claim that you were. If you weren't; if you were just a grad student, then you can't. Based on what you've written elsewhere, you never actually worked as a scientist. As I said, some of us worked very hard to reach that point. More importantly, by putting your claims in posts so often you are implicitly claiming that you have authority in the subject. But that's what we dislike (rightfully so) about creationists. We need to be better. Go for it! Let your arguments and your arguments alone be your online achievement.

John Kwok said: Read what I said to Heydt. And no, you are mistaken if you think I wrap myself around with some kind of metaphorical cloak around me, saying that you ought to respect me since I am a former evolutionary biologist. No, I am merely stating that I was educated as such and did perform some service as such, though neither one was recently. And just for the record, I don't wear my credentials on my sleeve. Thought I made some sense with you, but you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Excellent. You are not now nor have you ever been a scientist. Glad we got that straight.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Excellent. You are not now nor have you ever been a scientist. Glad we got that straight. But really, John. Not knowing what 'incredulous' means? Funny.

John Kwok said: I'm not claiming to be a scientist. Nor have I ever. Do you need to look up in the dictionary the word "former"? Anyway, if several of my former graduate school professors do perceive of me as a former evolutionary biologist, then it's fine with me:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Look John, if you were an actual scientist, great. You're entitled to claim that you were. If you weren't; if you were just a grad student, then you can't. Based on what you've written elsewhere, you never actually worked as a scientist. As I said, some of us worked very hard to reach that point. More importantly, by putting your claims in posts so often you are implicitly claiming that you have authority in the subject. But that's what we dislike (rightfully so) about creationists. We need to be better. Go for it! Let your arguments and your arguments alone be your online achievement.

John Kwok said: Read what I said to Heydt. And no, you are mistaken if you think I wrap myself around with some kind of metaphorical cloak around me, saying that you ought to respect me since I am a former evolutionary biologist. No, I am merely stating that I was educated as such and did perform some service as such, though neither one was recently. And just for the record, I don't wear my credentials on my sleeve. Thought I made some sense with you, but you insist on being treated as the Militant Atheist troll that you are.

fnxtr said:

Prof. Red Bottom said: I'm a lunatic who loves to make shit up.

Come to the Wall on the tab above, Professor, we'd love to have fun with you and IBIG and Byers all at once.

I'm laughing right now in anticipation of someone with brains discovering that the "snake legs" actually belong to a rodent the snake was trying to poop out when it died. How many years did piltdown man fool the biology community? It's hard to come up with a theory of how legs are something not useful. Platypus's bill sure is not useful...but it's not going to stop appearing on his face. Haha!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

All this character has done is taunt. He hasn't demonstrated any understanding of anything.

He belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Prof. Red Bottom said:

Joe Felsenstein said: There is simply no excuse for scientists or documentary filmmakers exploiting the public's familiarity with the term “missing link” and the confusion about what it is and whether it is still “missing”. Sowing confusion in the public understanding of science is not excused by the need to publicize one's work or make money.

Funny. You know why everyone on this site is stupid? They all believe a 19th century theory, that was has been completely refuted by the archeological record discovered since the dark ages when the theory was divined. Modern physics dictates that there are 11 dimensions and infinite parallel universes (look up "string theory"). Why, therefore, do you turn off your brain and try to reconcile an ancient and flaw-ridden theory to explain life on earth as though it only could have come from predecessor species and only from earth. Wake up and smell modernity. There are infinite parallel universes and all creatures that live exist in them and always have. When strings collide they create big bangs when they align then items, material, and species transfer universes and life and diverse species are spread. Evolution is not useful to explain diversity of life only string theory. All species have always existed just as all parallel universes have as well.

Stanton said: Can you please explain how to demonstrate how test for your explanation that newer organisms are actually from different dimensions and not descended from their immediate forebearers, even though we have observed evolution of organisms occurring? Furthermore, can you go back and please explain how your inane claims and taunts are relevant to the topic of this thread? If you are incapable of explaining, could you do us all a favor and desist from posting any more inane, babbling rants?

Poe, Stanton; Stanton, Poe.

Prof Red Bottom said:

Stanton said: Can you please explain how to demonstrate how test for your explanation that newer organisms are actually from different dimensions and not descended from their immediate forebearers, even though we have observed evolution of organisms occurring? Furthermore, can you go back and please explain how your inane claims and taunts are relevant to the topic of this thread? If you are incapable of explaining, could you do us all a favor and desist from posting any more inane, babbling rants?

The test is that one species cannot reproduce with another. If species A improbably morphs into species B prototype 1, then species B (a new species) needs to be quite lucky to find species B prototype 2 and mate...otherwise extinct immediately. Because of this improbability of predecessor origin, and because modern physics is now calling for infinite parallel universes to explain everything...it seems more likely that all species have always existed just as all space and matter has always existing across infinite parallel universes. But, my bullshit just seems less likely than your theory--doesn't it?

Keelyn said:

Prof Red Bottom said:

Stanton said: Can you please explain how to demonstrate how test for your explanation that newer organisms are actually from different dimensions and not descended from their immediate forebearers, even though we have observed evolution of organisms occurring? Furthermore, can you go back and please explain how your inane claims and taunts are relevant to the topic of this thread? If you are incapable of explaining, could you do us all a favor and desist from posting any more inane, babbling rants?

The test is that one species cannot reproduce with another. If species A improbably morphs into species B prototype 1, then species B (a new species) needs to be quite lucky to find species B prototype 2 and mate...otherwise extinct immediately. Because of this improbability of predecessor origin, and because modern physics is now calling for infinite parallel universes to explain everything...it seems more likely that all species have always existed just as all space and matter has always existing across infinite parallel universes. But, my bullshit just seems less likely than your theory--doesn't it?

There - I fixed that for you, Prof. No need to thank me. I agree with your last statement now. You can go away happy, now.

Prof Red Bottom said: It's like Joker said, "If you gotta go...go with a smile!" Could I suggest changing less to more? Compromise?

If species A improbably morphs into species B prototype 1, then species B (a new species) needs to be quite lucky to find species B prototype 2 and mate…otherwise extinct immediately.

Dave Luckett said: Poe, Stanton; Stanton, Poe.

This thread is almost a fortnight old, and it's showing it's age. Get in your last digs 'fore I pull the plug!

Cheers, Dave

Dave Thomas said: This thread is almost a fortnight old, and it's showing it's age. Get in your last digs 'fore I pull the plug! Cheers, Dave

Oops, I meant “its” not “it’s”.

Henry J said:

Oops, I meant “its” not “it’s”.

Is that a case of possession being 9/10 of the law?

Dave Thomas said:

Dave Thomas said: This thread is almost a fortnight old, and it's showing it's age. Get in your last digs 'fore I pull the plug! Cheers, Dave

Oops, I meant "its" not "it's". Dave

Prof Red Bottom said:

Dave Thomas said:

Dave Thomas said: This thread is almost a fortnight old, and it's showing it's age. Get in your last digs 'fore I pull the plug! Cheers, Dave

Oops, I meant "its" not "it's". Dave

Last dig!