Westboro Baptist Creationist Loses School Board Bid

Even in deeply red Kansas, the deeply red voters aren't (quite) crazy enough to voted for the likes** of Jack Wu.

**The likes of Jack Wu include FL, IBIG, et al.

Discuss.

I wonder what type of "computer programmer" he is. I strongly suspect that there is a connection between creationism, low level careers in the information sector, and exaggeration of one's credentials within the information sector.

Granted, Wu isn't quoted describing himself as a "computer programmer", and he may well be one by any reasonable standard. However, it would be creationist-like to do some bureaucratic job on a legacy system, or even play with a computer at home, armed with an associate's degree or once-impressive bachelor's but with never-updated skills, while declaring oneself a "software engineer", "computer scientist", or "computer programmer", and implying that such a title indicates expertise across all of science.

FL said:

Discuss.

There's not much to discuss. Nobody in Northeast Kansas (including myself) gave Wu any chance to win, and he lived up to expectations. The WBC connection was an automatic Forget-It-Baby anyway, and also his opponent Carolyn Campbell was a reasonably popular incumbent. A big victory for evolution? Hardly. Just same-o same-o, status quo. The End. FL

I believe the end of the world is nigh upon us, since I now have to use the phrase "Way to go, Kansas voters!".

FL said: A big victory for evolution? Hardly. Just same-o same-o, status quo.

stevaroni said: I believe the end of the world is nigh upon us, since I now have to use the phrase "Way to go, Kansas voters!".

Meaning nothing to reasonable people with the name of "Wu," but in this case I have to be pleased that Wu lost in both (auditory) senses in this case.

Glen Davidson

Well, Wu still got about 30,000 votes out of about 100K, so either that many in the area ado support Fred Phelps' agenda in secret or an awful lot of voters just went for the (R) after his name. One option is bad and the other is worse.

The good news that even if Wu had won, he'd be one of three on the 10-member board working against evolution.

Now back to grading . . . gotta keep crankin' out those "liars, thieves, murderers and perverts!" [insert dastardly laugh here]

If Kansas ballots have the option to "skip all this choosing, and vote across the board for one party", that might explain a lot of the votes Jack Woo got.

As Einstein might have said about politics, always appeal to the lowest common denominator, but no lower. Woo seems to have aimed too low, even for Kansas.

I don't think this says much about support for evolution in Kansas. Mr Wu's link to the Westboro Baptist Church would have been enough to turn off 99.9% of voters, including creationists. (But would Mr Wu from DEADWOOD have had a chance in that election, I wonder?)

I hadn't read csdams's post before commenting. Change that 99.9% estimate into maybe 70% -- although I suspect most of the people voting for him were just following the (R) next to his name.

SonOfHastur said:

FL said: A big victory for evolution? Hardly. Just same-o same-o, status quo.

Did someone say it was a "big victory for evolution"? My understanding has always been that evolution's "big victory" happened about 150 years ago (give or take). You know, back when people realized it fit all the evidence perfectly?

Of course, if he had won, you would probably be shouting it from the rooftops and calling it a landmark victory...

I, for one, am very disappointed. With Kathy Martin departing from the Board, we needed someone to take her place as the mainspring of creationism in Kansas. Wu would have been perfect -- just think of the entertainment he would have provided. I hope we haven't heard the last of Jack Wu.

Never fear, SC; creationists John Bacon and Ken Willard are still on the state school board. Former board member (now state senator) Steve Abrams is sure to cause all kinds of mischief; with the GOP moderates definitively ousted from the state legislature the Tea Party is in complete control here in Brownbackistan.

How long before Wu is discovered in a public restroom with a "wide stance"?

Great news about poor Jack. That bastered and all thoughs other religous nust can stay in Topeka.

Moo Moo said: One of the most disappointing things about the re-election of Obama is that we will have to wait another four years before a presidential decree calling for a moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Hopefully, someone like Huckabee will run in 2016 and do just that.

I call Poe.

i'm pretty sure I commented on this thread.
Anyways.
The great point of the thread and the issue is that indeed its up to the people to decide these issues.
To allow creationism or evolution to be taught and about what, if anything, should be censored.
These minor cases only rightly highlight and give publicity to this important issue of teaching and seeking truth.
This guy is too wrong with words and concepts but his agenda to bring back truth to origin subjects gives him credibility.

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said:

Moo Moo said: One of the most disappointing things about the re-election of Obama is that we will have to wait another four years before a presidential decree calling for a moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Hopefully, someone like Huckabee will run in 2016 and do just that.

Why don't you move to some 3rd world country, like the hinterlands of Afghanistan, or Somalia, or the regions of Nigeria controlled by Boko Haram, or the regions of Uganda controlled by the Lord's Resistance Army?

All I am saying is that the teaching of evolution should be withheld until we can together arrive at a format which is acceptable to all school boards and to all school teachers. Yes, let's teach kids that living things change over time, and that bacteria evolve drug resistance, but not the absurd things like their ancestors were carnivorous reptiles or that they are just modified walking fish.

Robert Byers said: i'm pretty sure I commented on this thread. Anyways. The great point of the thread and the issue is that indeed its up to the people to decide these issues. To allow creationism or evolution to be taught and about what, if anything, should be censored. These minor cases only rightly highlight and give publicity to this important issue of teaching and seeking truth. This guy is too wrong with words and concepts but his agenda to bring back truth to origin subjects gives him credibility.

Jack Wu, whatever.

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said:

Moo Moo said: One of the most disappointing things about the re-election of Obama is that we will have to wait another four years before a presidential decree calling for a moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Hopefully, someone like Huckabee will run in 2016 and do just that.

Why don't you move to some 3rd world country, like the hinterlands of Afghanistan, or Somalia, or the regions of Nigeria controlled by Boko Haram, or the regions of Uganda controlled by the Lord's Resistance Army?

All I am saying is that the teaching of evolution should be withheld until we can together arrive at a format which is acceptable to all school boards and to all school teachers. Yes, let's teach kids that living things change over time, and that bacteria evolve drug resistance, but not the absurd things like their ancestors were carnivorous reptiles or that they are just modified walking fish.

Moo Moo said:

DS said: So why exactly do you think that you should be the one to decide what is taught in public schools, rather than say the scientific experts in the field?

I may be no scientific expert myself, but I think that parents and communities hold the right to decide what is taught in the public schools that they pay for through their taxes . The views of teachers and scientists can only be advisory: We live in a democracy, not a technocracy. It would be an awfully repressive world if scientists decided what we were taught, what we ate, what fuels we put in our cars, and how we lived generally.

fnxtr said: I call Poe.

I may be no scientific expert myself, but I think that parents and communities hold the right to decide what is taught in the public schools that they pay for through their taxes.

The views of teachers and scientists can only be advisory: We live in a democracy, not a technocracy.

It would be an awfully repressive world if scientists decided what we were taught, what we ate, what fuels we put in our cars, and how we lived generally.

harold said:

fnxtr said: I call Poe.

Maybe I'm a crazy optimistic dreamer, but to me that opening comment is just flat out obvious and fairly humorous satire. Sometimes a joke really is a joke.

Moo Moo said:

DS said: So why exactly do you think that you should be the one to decide what is taught in public schools, rather than say the scientific experts in the field?

I may be no scientific expert myself, but I think that parents and communities hold the right to decide what is taught in the public schools that they pay for through their taxes . The views of teachers and scientists can only be advisory: We live in a democracy, not a technocracy. It would be an awfully repressive world if scientists decided what we were taught, what we ate, what fuels we put in our cars, and how we lived generally.

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said: And we are to presume that you know better about science, and that you know better about what should and should be taught to children in a science classroom than actual scientists?

Heck, no. I didn't take science class beyond high school. I went and did law instead.

But I do know that it is parents and school boards who have the right to decide what is taught. The views of teachers and scientists must always be taken into account, but the ultimate decision does not rest with them. That said, many teachers just want to be allowed to present different points of views and interpretations on the evidence for evolution.

Then how do you expect these children to fare in the real world when Creationists have abused democracy in order censor all inconvenient facts that disagree with their preferred religious propaganda? Hmmm?

I think you'll find that some scientists have censored out all the inconvenient objections to the theory of evolution from the textbooks despite the fact that Charles Darwin himself devoted an entire chapter of The Origin to such criticisms. Why can't literature like this be presented in class or at least in the school library?

We've repeatedly seen how Creationists have turned the educational programs of numerous states in the US into appalling dungheaps that churn out Idiots for Jesus.

Louisiana and Tennessee are actually doing just fine. If anything, the science performance of their schools has improved since academic freedom bills were passed.

Moo Moo said:

DS said: Please tell me what scientist is trying to tell you what to eat? That wasn't the question/. The question was, who is the most qualified to determine what scientific theories are taught in public schools? SHould it be the experts who discovered the science and understand the science, or should it be the know nothing people who don;t understand science and are afraid of science? That's the only question.

I am just saying that in this increasingly nanny state that we live in, scientists are telling us not to eat this or that, or even take vitamins! I am sure that some of their recommendations on sodium or sucrose intake etc is perfectly sensible, but I do object to being forced not to eat the things I like. If you want to raise my health insurance premium, on account of a bad lifestyle, that's OK but I just don't want the FDA closing down the Heart Attack Grill and places like that on the orders of scientists.

See science isn't a democracy and wanting it to be ain't gonna make it so. Voters don't get to decide which scientific theories are valid, scientists do that. If you don;t like the findings of science, fine, don't study it. But don't try to deprive others of the opportunity, just because of your own ignorance and prejudices. DOn;t forget, people who don;t share your religious views pay taxes as well. Why should you get to prevent them form getting a real education just because you don't want one?

Actually, science is a democracy of sorts in that the consensus matters.

Unfortunately, those who disagree with the consensus may be ostracized, excoriated and censored.

But school kids have the right to know that for every scientific idea - whether it be the Big Bang, Evolution, Climate Change, Origin of Life etc - there is likely to be a valid objection to that idea. Why do you oppose kids being presented with all of the evidence and interpretations of it?

We don’t oppose kids being presented with all of the evidence, we do oppose people lying to children, and trying to mislead them about science.

Moo -- can I call you Moo? --, there is a sizable minority of people who, for religious or other reasons, believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system, and maybe even of the whole universe. Should their views be presented in elementary or middle school science classes as a legitimate alternative to the system propounded by scientists? Should time be devoted to presenting all their "proofs" of a geocentric system? Should they be given "equal time"?

If not, then why do you think anti-evolutionists should get a place in the classroom, but not anti-heliocentrists?

Actually, I hope that Huckabee would try to do a presidential finding to not teach evolution. Then it can get hammered in the Supreme Court and we never have to worry about it again.

On the other hand, a religious wackjob who's in the president's seat, with access to multiple nuclear weapons, can do lots and lots of damage to the country.

No, we still have to fight the fight we have and convince ignorant people, like Moo, that "no, teachers, do NOT have a right to teach whatever they want" and "no, citizens are very poor judges of what should be taught in schools" (as Moo so aptly demonstrates).

Tell me Moo, do you think that we should teach Newton's Laws of Motion, after all, we know that they are wrong under certain conditions? Do you understand why we teach Newton's Laws instead of relativity to 9th grade students? Do you, with your high school education, have any idea what I'm talking about?

If not, then YOU are not qualified to judge anything about science curricula anywhere, much less a public school, where it is shown that students do not have the critical thinking skills to deal with the crap that they have to deal with.

Moo Moo said: Heck, no. I didn't take science class beyond high school. I went and did law instead.

Moo Moo said:

Just Bob said: Moo -- can I call you Moo? --, there is a sizable minority of people who, for religious or other reasons, believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system, and maybe even of the whole universe. Should their views be presented in elementary or middle school science classes as a legitimate alternative to the system propounded by scientists? Should time be devoted to presenting all their "proofs" of a geocentric system? Should they be given "equal time"?

Well, I would respond with two points: 1. The position of the earth relative to the universe is not something that needs to be discussed in science class. 2. There would need to be some serious scientific views in support of geocentrism. There aren't any.

If not, then why do you think anti-evolutionists should get a place in the classroom, but not anti-heliocentrists?

Now, what is wrong with teaching Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species - Difficulties of the Theory - alongside material in books and scientific papers that present objections to and criticism of the Neo-Darwinian consensus? Why do you consider that to be so threatening and dangerous? Is it because you don't want kids to be exposed to views that undermine what you believe?

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

Moo Moo said:

Just Bob said: Moo -- can I call you Moo? --, there is a sizable minority of people who, for religious or other reasons, believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system, and maybe even of the whole universe. Should their views be presented in elementary or middle school science classes as a legitimate alternative to the system propounded by scientists? Should time be devoted to presenting all their "proofs" of a geocentric system? Should they be given "equal time"?

Well, I would respond with two points: 1. The position of the earth relative to the universe is not something that needs to be discussed in science class.

2. There would need to be some serious scientific views in support of geocentrism. There aren't any.

Moo Moo said: Actually, science is a democracy of sorts in that the consensus matters. Unfortunately, those who disagree with the consensus may be ostracized, excoriated and censored. But school kids have the right to know that for every scientific idea - whether it be the Big Bang, Evolution, Climate Change, Origin of Life etc - there is likely to be a valid objection to that idea.

Why do you oppose kids being presented with all of the evidence and interpretations of it?

Well, we have another denialist on our hands. There are some here who advocate the shunning of the whacks like Byers and Moo. As a long-time reader, first time commenter, I would urge that this never be done. Panda's Thumb, The web's foremost resource on evolution denialism, has done a public service in exposing the kooks. Many people, particularly outside of America, can't beleive in the existance of Byers and Moo without seeing their words - it's just too stupid. And still they come.

To those who engage with the kooks, please don't be angry; you deserve better. These people literally don't know what they are saying. Of course there is no point in listening to Byers and Moo. There is on the other hand great value in discussing them as the nutty social-scientific specimens they are. Through understanding them, we may help to beat down the political threat of authoritarianism. I thank Panda's Thumb contributors for your efforts in this effort.

I'm just one reader, but let me be clear about the value of the Thumb as a resource. I see it first as a source on the political threat of evolution denial, and only secondarily as a science source. So, keep the nutballs coming.

FL said:

We don’t oppose kids being presented with all of the evidence, we do oppose people lying to children, and trying to mislead them about science.

And of course, any evidence that might cast doubt upon any of the current claims of the theory of evolution, (e.g., the anti-biblical claim that the first humans originated by naturalistically evolving from a no-goodnik "apelike common ancestor" animal), automatically constitutes "lying to children." FL

FL said:

We don’t oppose kids being presented with all of the evidence, we do oppose people lying to children, and trying to mislead them about science.

And of course, any evidence that might cast doubt upon any of the current claims of the theory of evolution, (e.g., the anti-biblical claim that the first humans originated by naturalistically evolving from a no-goodnik "apelike common ancestor" animal), automatically constitutes "lying to children." FL

Moo Moo said:

Robin said: This right here is the problem with your argument, Moo. First, as noted by others, science is not and never has been a democracy. Science is only concerned with the best explanation for a given phenomenon. The best explanation is the one with the most substantiating evidence and the one with the most predictive power. That's it.

I think you are mistaken. Scientific ideas require a majority of scientists to confirm them. Why do we constantly read about the theory of evolution being supported by 99.99% of scientists if majority/consensus opinion were not important? You can indeed have a better explanation, supported by a mountain of evidence, but if you can't persuade other scientists to adopt your ideas then they won't count for naught.

It took nearly 100 years for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to be accepted by a majority of scientists.

And it may take another 100 years for the scientific community to accept intelligent design - but that doesn't mean we have to wait until the late 21st century to discuss ID arguments.

Well, we do have valid objections from scientists, not religious apologists. They author scientific papers and books describing why the consensus view is mistaken.

Would you not allow the views of Feduccia and Ruben - who dispute the dinosaurs to bird theory - not to be presented in the class as an example of how there is pluralism within science?

But the fact is that many things that were taught in the science class as factual turned out to be. Only the other day, a paper was published in Science that showed that the hominin “Lucy” swung from the trees and was most comfortable in an arboreal environment:

When I was at school, I was taught that “Lucy” was a ground-dwelling upright ape that walked just like a human does: that is increasingly less certain nowadays.But I suspect that the textbooks will continue asserting this view no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented.

Science is not a dictatorship.

There isn’t one view that is right, and all others that are wrong.

There is always room for differences of interpretation and kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves.

Yet another dipstick who doesn't understand that science is not a democracy. Kids absolutely don't have the right to make up their own minds. I you think they do, maybe we should let them make up their minds about 2 + 2 as well.

The point is that 99.9% of everyone who is actually familiar with the evidence is convinced by the evidence. The opinion of those who are not familiar with the evidence is irrelevant. The opinion of those who refuse to look at the evidence is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the evidence. I notice that you have failed to provide any for your position. As you have stated regarding another position, the reason is because there ain't none. So tell us again why your made up fairy tales should be taught in science class? Tell us again why you shouldn't listen to the experts? Tell us again why you aren't convinced by the evidence?

We were kind of hoping this guy would turn out to be just another bad Poe. Unfortunately, it has one again proven impossible to tell.

DS said: Yet another dipstick who doesn't understand that science is not a democracy. Kids absolutely don't have the right to make up their own minds. I you think they do, maybe we should let them make up their minds about 2 + 2 as well.

Moo Moo said: Science is not a dictatorship. There isn't one view that is right, and all others that are wrong. There is always room for differences of interpretation and kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves.

"This new find confirms the pivotal place that Lucy and Selam's species occupies in human evolution," Alemseged said. "While bipedal like humans, A. afarensis was still a capable climber. Though not fully human, A. afarensis was clearly on its way." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/26/early-human-lucy-swung-from-trees/#ixzz2BkcZ4kNY

kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves

Moo Moo said:

Robin said: This right here is the problem with your argument, Moo. First, as noted by others, science is not and never has been a democracy. Science is only concerned with the best explanation for a given phenomenon. The best explanation is the one with the most substantiating evidence and the one with the most predictive power. That's it.

I think you are mistaken. Scientific ideas require a majority of scientists to confirm them.

Why do we constantly read about the theory of evolution being supported by 99.99% of scientists if majority/consensus opinion were not important?

You can indeed have a better explanation, supported by a mountain of evidence, but if you can’t persuade other scientists to adopt your ideas then they won’t count for naught.

It took nearly 100 years for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to be accepted by a majority of scientists.

And it may take another 100 years for the scientific community to accept intelligent design - but that doesn't mean we have to wait until the late 21st century to discuss ID arguments.

So whether or not you and a some minority of religious folks have "valid objections" to evolution, origin of life, the Big Bang, etc..., such is irrelevant. Objections don't mean squat unless you have a valid competing scientific theory. Right now, there are no other theories than the ones mentioned above, and thus those are the only valid concepts that can be taught in public school science. 'Fraid that's just how science works.

Well, we do have valid objections from scientists, not religious apologists. They author scientific papers and books describing why the consensus view is mistaken. Would you not allow the views of Feduccia and Ruben - who dispute the dinosaurs to bird theory - not to be presented in the class as an example of how there is pluralism within science?

No one opposes any such thing, however we do oppose lies, strawmen, irrelevant tangents, and opinions. Unless you have valid evidence that some concept being taught as science is inaccurate, simply offering an opinion that it is because the bible says so is laughably prohibited. Why? Because your opinion isn't scientific. Neither is Michael Behe's, William Dembskis, William Lane Craig's, or any other apologists' opinion. Opinions don't mean squat.

But the fact is that many things that were taught in the science class as factual turned out to be.

Only the other day, a paper was published in Science that showed that the hominin "Lucy" swung from the trees and was most comfortable in an arboreal environment: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/26/early-human-lucy-swung-from-trees/ When I was at school, I was taught that "Lucy" was a ground-dwelling upright ape that walked just like a human does: that is increasingly less certain nowadays.But I suspect that the textbooks will continue asserting this view no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented.

And right now, that's all the opposing arguments there are. So why should we allow such opinions to trump science? Answer: we shouldn't.

Science is not a dictatorship. There isn't one view that is right, and all others that are wrong. There is always room for differences of interpretation and kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves.

So some of the things Moo Moo learned in science class were later changed?

Well, here's some science things that changed since I was in school:

The number of elements on the periodic table went from 103 to 118. (In 1999 the number actually dropped by 1, but then it started going up again.)

Protons and neutrons were described as fundamental particles; now they're made of quarks.

Number of known planets in this solar system went from 9 to 8, number outside this solar system went from zero to some astronomical number. Oh, and the number of Kuiper Belt objects went up, too (even aside from acquiring Pluto).

Neutrinos were previously described as being without mass, now they have mass (and I didn't even know they were Catholic!).

Black holes were a theoretical prediction; now it's normal for a galaxy to have a big one in its middle.

Not to mention dark matter and dark energy.

Should I be complaining about the errors in my education? ;)

Moo Moo said:

OgreMk5 said: So there is no dispute among scientists that humans evolved, that Australopithecus is a transitional fossil between non-human primate and human primate, and there is no dispute that Australopithecus was bipedal.

That is the evolutionist spin on the recent analysis of the shoulder blade. There is now a mountain of the evidence that Lucy's kind were arboreal apes who were no more bipedal than a modern bonobo is. You can't be adapted for both a terrestial and an arboreal environment - you don't have to be a scientist to realize this. But because some scientists want to be believe that Lucy's kind were ancestral to modern humans, they are prepared to overlook the evidence that does contradicts this interpretation.

This new find confirms the pivotal place that Lucy and Selam’s species occupies in human evolution,” Alemseged said. “While bipedal like humans, A. afarensis was still a capable climber. Though not fully human, A. afarensis was clearly on its way.”

A species might be partially adapted to both ground living and tree living. It's not an either/or, it's a trade-off.

Funny, I would have thought that each journal, magazine, funding board, or university would be controlled by their owners and workers, a group that is mostly different for each of them.

Moo Moo said:

OgreMk5 said: So there is no dispute among scientists that humans evolved, that Australopithecus is a transitional fossil between non-human primate and human primate, and there is no dispute that Australopithecus was bipedal.

That is the evolutionist spin on the recent analysis of the shoulder blade. There is now a mountain of the evidence that Lucy's kind were arboreal apes who were no more bipedal than a modern bonobo is. You can't be adapted for both a terrestial and an arboreal environment - you don't have to be a scientist to realize this.

Henry J said: So some of the things Moo Moo learned in science class were later changed? Well, here's some science things that changed since I was in school: The number of elements on the periodic table went from 103 to 118. (In 1999 the number actually dropped by 1, but then it started going up again.) Protons and neutrons were described as fundamental particles; now they're made of quarks. Number of known planets in this solar system went from 9 to 8, number outside this solar system went from zero to some astronomical number. Oh, and the number of Kuiper Belt objects went up, too (even aside from acquiring Pluto). Neutrinos were previously described as being without mass, now they have mass (and I didn't even know they were Catholic!). Black holes were a theoretical prediction; now it's normal for a galaxy to have a big one in its middle. Not to mention dark matter and dark energy. Should I be complaining about the errors in my education? ;)

Moo Moo said:

OgreMk5 said: So there is no dispute among scientists that humans evolved, that Australopithecus is a transitional fossil between non-human primate and human primate, and there is no dispute that Australopithecus was bipedal.

That is the evolutionist spin on the recent analysis of the shoulder blade. There is now a mountain of the evidence that Lucy's kind were arboreal apes who were no more bipedal than a modern bonobo is.

You can't be adapted for both a terrestial and an arboreal environment - you don't have to be a scientist to realize this.

But because some scientists want to be believe that Lucy's kind were ancestral to modern humans, they are prepared to overlook the evidence that does contradicts this interpretation.

Every time we get one of these trolls who want ID/creationism in the public school classroom, we see a person who has serious deficiencies in his science education at even the 8th grade level. This Moo character claims he went into law instead.

Well, why should anyone learn about the law? Why shouldn’t we teach lawlessness in school? Let’s teach anarchy. Let everybody learn about the alternatives to law by allowing them to make their own decisions about what laws they want to follow. Why should we obey any laws? There are, after all, alternatives to which side of the road we can drive on. The Brits drive on the left side, so if we wish, we can do so also.

Why can’t we just dump toxic waste anywhere we want, others be damned if they are too weak to stop us? Why should we have to bear the cost and inconvenience of the disposal of toxic waste; isn’t it the responsibility of others to clean up after me?

Why should anyone be protected by enforcing laws? After all, many people are inconvenienced by law enforcement when they want to rob others. Those damned cops just get in the way of the desires of many people who are restricted from simply taking what they want by force or by bilking naive consumers out of their money.

Why should anyone care if there are consequences of lawlessness? Doesn’t it all boil down to what we want to believe; and if we choose to believe something that conflicts with the beliefs of others, why should we have to obey any laws that restrict our behaviors and get in the way of our desires to simply take what we want when we want it?

I don’t see any evidence that this Moo character knows anything about anything. He appears to be just crapping on the thread in order to get the attention an immature adolescent always wants when he failed his science classes.

Failing science is no excuse for advocating disrupting the educations of others. Moo obviously failed science; that’s his own fault. By advocating the imposition of misinformation and misrepresentations of science on others, he shows that he fails to understand law also. He appears to have no ability to understand the consequences of denying reality.

Moo Moo said:

Robin said: False. Scientific ideas do not require the majority of scientists to confirm them. Scientific ideas (hypotheses) are actually actually when as few as two or three groups confirm them. Once they are presented to peers and confirmed, they are good to go unless overturned by later investigation or data.

I meant the scientists in the particular field, rather than all scientists in all fields.

The catch is that all ideas in science are provisional. Any concept confirmed today by a group of scientists can be falsified tomorrow. But no scientific idea is simply accepted because a majority of scientists all decide to accept it. That isn't how science works.

No. For an idea to be accepted by the scientific community, it naturally has to be accepted by a majority of scientists. I can't see how it could be any different.

Even more important to note, however, is that the 99.99% you refer to don't get to decide evolution is "right". There's no vote out there to "keep evolutionary theory". The point is, that 99.99% isn't about evolution being popular and democratically picked; it's about the theory being unbelievably accurate and useful.

Actually, the 99.99% (if that figure is in fact true) are the ones who control the journals, the magazines, the funding boards, the university departments, the conferences and so on. They will naturally refuse to countenance any idea that disputes their own position.

I've heard this claim before, but oddly those folks making such claims can never substantiate it. There's never been a better scientific explanation than evolution for the diversity of life on this planet. But do feel free to present an example of where a "better explanation, supported by a mountain of evidence" was dismissed because the person submitting it couldn't persuade other scientists to adopt the ideas. Any example would be great.

I think you'll find that there is a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, at least the diversity of genes and the information they encode, and that is intelligent design. The only problem that remains in explaining how the design was implemented and executed. But it is only a matter of time before this is solved.

Moo Moo said:

OgreMk5 said: Funny how the scientist you quoted is right when he says "Lucy's kind is arboreal"... but that same scientist is 100% wrong when he later says (in the same article).

Yes, it is funny. Because you can't be fully arboreal and fully terrestrial. But that's evolutionists for you! They want to claim things that are anatomically impossible.

This a common tactic of those who are unable to critically review and evaluate information. It's a logical fallacy called 'cherry-picking'. You are fine with the guy quote as long as he says the things you want to hear, but you ignore that same guy when he says things you don't want to hear.

I think you'll find that the scientist investigated the scapula and not the pelvis or knees. The author of the magazine article also makes two mistakes: 1. The feet of Lucy were never uncovered - the only evidence ever presented are the disputed "Laetoli footprints". 2. Lucy's kind had wrists adapted for knuckle-walking: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/03/24-03.html The article also goes on to state something that should appear in the science textbooks: "The big problem is that we don't have a fossil record of the chimp-human-gorilla ancestor," says Carol Ward, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

BTW: Your comment about being adapted for a terrestrial and aboreal environment is obviously wrong. I can think of several organisms (and not just primates) that are equally home in the trees and on the ground. This particular Australopithicus is just one example. As stated by the scientist who actually did the work.

The scientist did work on the upper body, not the lower body. Hence, he is no position to claim that Lucy's kind was as bipedal as humans - i.e. obligate terrestrial bipeds.

Moo moo,

(If that is your real name). Why are you trying to tell real scientists what a scientific theory needs to be accepted? You admitted that you are no scientist. Why should your opinion even be considered? Why do you insist that you know best? How are you qualified to judge science, let alone science education. You are sadly mistaken if you think that creationism can be taught as science in this country. Get a clue, then go away.

If Moo Moo thinks that hominids have to be either exclusively arboreal or exclusively terrestrial, he has never seen--or been--a young child with access to suitable trees.

Moo Moo said: Yes. Absence of evidence is legally, for all intents and purposes, evidence of absence.

W. H. Heydt said:

Moo Moo said: Yes. Absence of evidence is legally, for all intents and purposes, evidence of absence.

When did "circumstantial evidence" cease to be used in the courtroom?

Moo Moo said:

W. H. Heydt said: If Moo Moo thinks that hominids have to be either exclusively arboreal or exclusively terrestrial, he has never seen--or been--a young child with access to suitable trees.

Actually, there may be primates that live mostly on the ground - but they don't walk upright and they retain the ability to live in the trees which requires a lot of balance and agility that humans do not have because their body is designed only for upright, terrestrial locomotion. Just because I can swim does not mean I can live in the sea.

DS said: Moo moo, (If that is your real name). Why are you trying to tell real scientists what a scientific theory needs to be accepted? You admitted that you are no scientist. Why should your opinion even be considered? Why do you insist that you know best? How are you qualified to judge science, let alone science education. You are sadly mistaken if you think that creationism can be taught as science in this country. Get a clue, then go away.

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said: And we are to presume that you know better about science, and that you know better about what should and should be taught to children in a science classroom than actual scientists?

Heck, no. I didn't take science class beyond high school. I went and did law instead. But I do know that it is parents and school boards who have the right to decide what is taught. The views of teachers and scientists must always be taken into account, but the ultimate decision does not rest with them. That said, many teachers just want to be allowed to present different points of views and interpretations on the evidence for evolution.

Then how do you expect these children to fare in the real world when Creationists have abused democracy in order censor all inconvenient facts that disagree with their preferred religious propaganda? Hmmm?

I think you'll find that some scientists have censored out all the inconvenient objections to the theory of evolution from the textbooks despite the fact that Charles Darwin himself devoted an entire chapter of The Origin to such criticisms. Why can't literature like this be presented in class or at least in the school library?

We've repeatedly seen how Creationists have turned the educational programs of numerous states in the US into appalling dungheaps that churn out Idiots for Jesus.

Louisiana and Tennessee are actually doing just fine. If anything, the science performance of their schools has improved since academic freedom bills were passed.

Moo Moo said:

Robin said: This right here is the problem with your argument, Moo. First, as noted by others, science is not and never has been a democracy. Science is only concerned with the best explanation for a given phenomenon. The best explanation is the one with the most substantiating evidence and the one with the most predictive power. That's it.

I think you are mistaken. Scientific ideas require a majority of scientists to confirm them. Why do we constantly read about the theory of evolution being supported by 99.99% of scientists if majority/consensus opinion were not important? You can indeed have a better explanation, supported by a mountain of evidence, but if you can't persuade other scientists to adopt your ideas then they won't count for naught. It took nearly 100 years for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to be accepted by a majority of scientists. And it may take another 100 years for the scientific community to accept intelligent design - but that doesn't mean we have to wait until the late 21st century to discuss ID arguments.

So whether or not you and a some minority of religious folks have "valid objections" to evolution, origin of life, the Big Bang, etc..., such is irrelevant. Objections don't mean squat unless you have a valid competing scientific theory. Right now, there are no other theories than the ones mentioned above, and thus those are the only valid concepts that can be taught in public school science. 'Fraid that's just how science works.

Well, we do have valid objections from scientists, not religious apologists. They author scientific papers and books describing why the consensus view is mistaken. Would you not allow the views of Feduccia and Ruben - who dispute the dinosaurs to bird theory - not to be presented in the class as an example of how there is pluralism within science?

No one opposes any such thing, however we do oppose lies, strawmen, irrelevant tangents, and opinions. Unless you have valid evidence that some concept being taught as science is inaccurate, simply offering an opinion that it is because the bible says so is laughably prohibited. Why? Because your opinion isn't scientific. Neither is Michael Behe's, William Dembskis, William Lane Craig's, or any other apologists' opinion. Opinions don't mean squat.

But the fact is that many things that were taught in the science class as factual turned out to be. Only the other day, a paper was published in Science that showed that the hominin "Lucy" swung from the trees and was most comfortable in an arboreal environment: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/26/early-human-lucy-swung-from-trees/ When I was at school, I was taught that "Lucy" was a ground-dwelling upright ape that walked just like a human does: that is increasingly less certain nowadays.But I suspect that the textbooks will continue asserting this view no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented.

And right now, that's all the opposing arguments there are. So why should we allow such opinions to trump science? Answer: we shouldn't.

Science is not a dictatorship. There isn't one view that is right, and all others that are wrong. There is always room for differences of interpretation and kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves.

Moo Moo said:

W. H. Heydt said: If Moo Moo thinks that hominids have to be either exclusively arboreal or exclusively terrestrial, he has never seen--or been--a young child with access to suitable trees.

Actually, there may be primates that live mostly on the ground - but they don't walk upright and they retain the ability to live in the trees which requires a lot of balance and agility that humans do not have because their body is designed only for upright, terrestrial locomotion. Just because I can swim does not mean I can live in the sea.

Moo Moo said:

OgreMk5 said: Oh, so now we come to it. If we don't have every single organism between us and 3.5 billion year old bacteria, then we have no evidence for evolution.Seriously?

Yes. Absence of evidence is legally, for all intents and purposes, evidence of absence. You do need a body (or the remains of it) to verifiably prove that someone has died. If you don't have any fossil evidence for the hypothetical ancestors of humans-chimps-gorillas, then you cannot assert that such a creature actually existed. Even my kid understands this.

Let's see, so, your claim is that a scientist who didn't work on the legs of Lucy has no business talking about the legs of Lucy.

Yes, I could argue in court that a scientist who had not published research on the lower body was in no position to comment on it. The judge would have to agree with me. Btw, I may be no scientist, but I do pay attention to what scientists are themselves saying: Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans http://www.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/ScienceAndEnvironment/Article.aspx?id=58121 But when will this appear in the science textbooks?

Moo Moo said:

DS said: You aren't serious right? Now I suspect that you a really are a Poe. The human body is "designed" to walk upright? Really? Your pelvis is "designed" for upright walking? Your spinal nerves aren't based on a quadraped pattern? Had any back problem lately? That's because your spine isn't so good for upright walking either. You really don't know anything about biology do you? Why don't you just go take course and deal with your own ignorance?Time for another dump to the bathroom wall.

The human body certainly is designed for an erect posture. The S-shaped spine is, by all accounts, an outstanding feature of intelligent design because it "works like a coiled spring to absorb shock, maintain balance, and allow the full range of motion throughout the spinal column." http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PE-AnatSpine.htm It means that "the spine can more evenly distribute the strain and stress placed on it by the activities you do and the pull gravity has on it even while you are sitting still." http://expresschiropractickeller.com/2012/09/26/why-does-the-spine-have-curves/ I am alarmed that you want to teach kids that humans are just modified quadrupeds.

Moo Moo said: ...kids have the right to make their own minds up for themselves.

Henry J said: So some of the things Moo Moo learned in science class were later changed? Well, here's some science things that changed since I was in school: The number of elements on the periodic table went from 103 to 118.

Moo Moo said: I am alarmed that you want to teach kids that humans are just modified quadrupeds.

Moo Moo said:

DS said: I could provide you with hundreds of references about the quadraped ancestors of humans and the transition from quadraped to bipedal locomotion.

First of all, learn how to spell "quadruped".

But since you obviously don't have the proper respect for the real experts in the field, why bother? Just like any other creationist, you will remain willfully ignorant.

Name me some experts in the field who claim the human spine is a poor design and one not suited to upright locomotion.

And by the way, posting bullshit links that aren't to real journal articles will only get you ridicule here. You shouldn't listen to chiropractors when trying to learn about the evolution of the human spine. They aren't scientists or experts on evolution. By your own criteria, the links you posted are completely worthless. Piss off Poe.

And this is precisely why evolution is completely irrelevant to the teaching of anatomy. You don't need to know how the human spine supposedly evolved from that of a quadrupedal ancestor in order to know how it works and why it is optimal.

Moo Moo said:

DS said: You aren't serious right? Now I suspect that you a really are a Poe. The human body is "designed" to walk upright? Really? Your pelvis is "designed" for upright walking? Your spinal nerves aren't based on a quadraped pattern? Had any back problem lately? That's because your spine isn't so good for upright walking either. You really don't know anything about biology do you? Why don't you just go take course and deal with your own ignorance?Time for another dump to the bathroom wall.

The human body certainly is designed for an erect posture. The S-shaped spine is, by all accounts, an outstanding feature of intelligent design because it "works like a coiled spring to absorb shock, maintain balance, and allow the full range of motion throughout the spinal column." http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PE-AnatSpine.htm It means that "the spine can more evenly distribute the strain and stress placed on it by the activities you do and the pull gravity has on it even while you are sitting still."

I am alarmed that you want to teach kids that humans are just modified quadrupeds.

Moo Moo said: I am alarmed that you want to teach kids that humans are just modified quadrupeds.

And if Moo Moo is old enough to have gone to school before the mid-1960s, the prevailing science of the time held that Mercury’s rotation was synchronously tidally locked to its orbit, and that the elements in “Group 0” were chemically inert.

Every time we get one of these trolls who want ID/creationism in the public school classroom, we see a person who has serious deficiencies in his science education at even the 8^th grade level.

I am alarmed that you want to teach kids that humans are just modified quadrupeds.

What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

Moo Moo said: Nobody is proposing teaching biblical creationism in the classroom.

What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

Moo Moo said:

ksplawn said: You know, as courts have repeatedly found whenever the subject of teaching Creationism in public schools comes up. He may have walked into this thread with an excuse for his ignorance of both the practice of science and current state of our scientific understanding, but there's not really any excuse for this one.

Nobody is proposing teaching biblical creationism in the classroom. What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

Henry J said:

And if Moo Moo is old enough to have gone to school before the mid-1960s, the prevailing science of the time held that Mercury’s rotation was synchronously tidally locked to its orbit, and that the elements in “Group 0” were chemically inert.

I'd forgotten about that thing about Mercury. That the gasses formerly known as Inert can sometimes (and with great difficulty) be coaxed into reacting, that I've read about, though I don't know how many of them they've done that with, as I figure that He and maybe Ne would be far more reluctant to react than would the heavier ones. (And never mind element 118, which is presumably in that column, since they can only make an atom or two of it at a time, and it doesn't last.)

Nobody is proposing teaching biblical creationism in the classroom. What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

One of the most disappointing things about the re-election of Obama is that we will have to wait another four years before a presidential decree calling for a moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Hopefully, someone like Huckabee will run in 2016 and do just that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Nobody is proposing teaching biblical creationism in the classroom. What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

Here's how this troll began his shifting and dishonest attacks:

One of the most disappointing things about the re-election of Obama is that we will have to wait another four years before a presidential decree calling for a moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Hopefully, someone like Huckabee will run in 2016 and do just that.

This BSer isn't simply in favor of teaching even the dishonest junk he's read (and believed) from professional liars in order to dilute and poison science education, he simply desires to ban science teaching with respect to biology, save for "stamp collecting" (not worthless, but hardly like a good causal theory such as evolution). Practically all of them really do, of course. The Wedge document tells of the desire to "replace" science, although, amusingly, it foretells its own future when it points out that if it doesn't do "scholarship" (really, research, like they'd know that) it'll be just another attempt to indoctrinate. Like the Mooer wants. Glen Davidson

bigdakine said:

Henry J said: So some of the things Moo Moo learned in science class were later changed? Well, here's some science things that changed since I was in school: The number of elements on the periodic table went from 103 to 118.

Who the hell voted for element 118? I didn't vote for element 118? Did you? Outrageous.

Moo Moo said:

ksplawn said: I don't suppose you could rattle off some of those legitimate scientific objections with sources from the appropriate scientific literature, could you? I mean, it would be pretty silly to argue over a completely hypothetical situation that doesn't happen in the real world.

Well, you could always start with Behe's 2010 paper published in the Quarterly Review of Biology: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf But an even better one is probably this one: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037 "Throughout their evolutionary history, organisms have evolved numerous complex morphological, physiological, and behavioral adaptations to increase their chances of survival and reproduction.......The way that most of these and other adaptations first evolved, however, is still largely unknown." Surely kids have a right to know that scientists don't themselves know?

Moo Moo said: Well, you could always start with Behe's 2010 paper published in the Quarterly Review of Biology: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf

But an even better one is probably this one: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037 "Throughout their evolutionary history, organisms have evolved numerous complex morphological, physiological, and behavioral adaptations to increase their chances of survival and reproduction.......The way that most of these and other adaptations first evolved, however, is still largely unknown." Surely kids have a right to know that scientists don't themselves know?

W. H. Heydt said: The faculty adviser to the dorm I was in at UC Berkeley (late 1960s), Prof. Koch, was one of the people that discovered that XeO3 was a contact explosive when dry. He found out the hard way when he was trying to get it into solution. One of the main Chem buildings on campus (Latimer Hall) had a display case with safety posters and the face protection he was wearing when the stuff blew up. The skin grafts on the lower part of his face were still healing when I knew him. (He was wearing both goggles and face shield...no eye damage, the face shield was pretty thoroughly trashed.)

Henry J said:

W. H. Heydt said: The faculty adviser to the dorm I was in at UC Berkeley (late 1960s), Prof. Koch, was one of the people that discovered that XeO3 was a contact explosive when dry. He found out the hard way when he was trying to get it into solution. One of the main Chem buildings on campus (Latimer Hall) had a display case with safety posters and the face protection he was wearing when the stuff blew up. The skin grafts on the lower part of his face were still healing when I knew him. (He was wearing both goggles and face shield...no eye damage, the face shield was pretty thoroughly trashed.)

Ouch! Sounds analogous to metallic sodium plus water, but maybe more so. So some of those compounds can continue to exist at room temperature and pressure?

ksplawn said: It's almost as though you (Moo Moo) don't really understand the issues you're grappling with, even beyond the realm of science.

It always amazes me that people who are sure there is a conspiracy to promote evolution, censorship of other ideas, and so on, don't realize that someone who actually presented convincing evidence that supported a more compelling theory than evolution to explain the diversity of life, would be exalted by the scientific community and have prizes stacked high on their shelves. If such a theory appeared biologists would be lining up to work on it. So far, all I've seen is, "it's so complicated, it couldn't be natural. Let's ban evolution." One might almost think they had some other agenda.

Moo Moo -

I'm a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields.

In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

1) Provide a coherent, testable version of ID/creationism, and

2) Provide a better explanation for the evidence that I perceive as supporting evolution.

Now, we certainly have a problem with "2)", because both intentionally and unintentionally, you reveal to me with your comments in this thread that you are quite ignorant of biomedical science. Embarrassingly so for an educated lay person, in my view.

However, I want to be very fair, so let's give you a chance with "1)".

Please answer these questions, please answer all of them, and please answer them in a thoughtful, coherent, non-flippant way...

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if the Bible can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Administrators,

Please check the ISP address for the poster known as moo moo. I strongly suspect that this is Bozo Joe. He voluntarily departed last time, probably in order to avoid being permanently banned. Remember, this guy threatened other peoples jobs and threatened physical violence. Since he admitted to having several restraining orders already, I think the threats should be taken seriously.

I want a moratorium so that school boards can then reevaluate the following things: 1. What do kids need to be taught about evolution? 2. What things about evolution that are presently taught are misleading or inaccurate? 3. What criticisms of evolutionary theory as a whole, or just aspects of it, should be presented as part of a balanced treatment? I can’t really see why anyone would object to this.

Moo Moo said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Do you really think that educators DON'T consider what kids need to be taught about ANY topic? Do you really think that educators DON'T consider about what parts of any topic are misleading or inaccurate?

No, not really. I don't think educators have the time or the motivation to check the textbooks and see if they are in line with the best scientific information.

But parents like myself who sit on school boards are minded to check and demand that material is excised.

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said: In other words, are you calling for stopping the teaching of evolution because you think scientists don't know how evolution occurred, or are you calling for students to be taught that scientists don't know how evolution occurred?

Well, I think it should be mentioned in the textbooks, or by the teacher, that the origin of complex traits - something evolutionary theory should be able to explain if it is as comprehensive of a paradigm as its advocates claim it is - are not known to science.

After all, in your very first comment in this thread, you want a moratorium on the teaching of evolution because you think facts are "absurd" because you don't want to understand them.

I want a moratorium so that school boards can then reevaluate the following things: 1. What do kids need to be taught about evolution? 2. What things about evolution that are presently taught are misleading or inaccurate? 3. What criticisms of evolutionary theory as a whole, or just aspects of it, should be presented as part of a balanced treatment? I can't really see why anyone would object to this.

Moo Moo -

I’m a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields.

In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

1) Provide a coherent, testable version of ID/creationism, and

2) Provide a better explanation for the evidence that I perceive as supporting evolution.

Now, we certainly have a problem with “2)”, because both intentionally and unintentionally, you reveal to me with your comments in this thread that you are quite ignorant of biomedical science. Embarrassingly so for an educated lay person, in my view.

However, I want to be very fair, so let’s give you a chance with “1)”.

Please answer these questions, please answer all of them, and please answer them in a thoughtful, coherent, non-flippant way…

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four cor

Oops, here's the complete question 9.

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if the Bible can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

I will continue to repeat these questions until either they are answered, or the inability to answer them is made extremely obvious.

No, not really. I don’t think educators have the time or the motivation to check the textbooks and see if they are in line with the best scientific information.

And that’s one big reason why American education is so crappy.

Moo Moo said: But parents like myself who sit on school boards are minded to check and demand that material is excised.

Moo Moo said: Well, I think it should be mentioned in the textbooks, or by the teacher, that the origin of complex traits - something evolutionary theory should be able to explain if it is as comprehensive of a paradigm as its advocates claim it is - are not known to science.

I want a moratorium so that school boards can then reevaluate the following things: 1. What do kids need to be taught about evolution?

2. What things about evolution that are presently taught are misleading or inaccurate?

3. What criticisms of evolutionary theory as a whole, or just aspects of it, should be presented as part of a balanced treatment?

Moo Moo said:

apokryltaros said: In other words, are you calling for stopping the teaching of evolution because you think scientists don't know how evolution occurred, or are you calling for students to be taught that scientists don't know how evolution occurred?

Well, I think it should be mentioned in the textbooks, or by the teacher, that the origin of complex traits - something evolutionary theory should be able to explain if it is as comprehensive of a paradigm as its advocates claim it is - are not known to science.

After all, in your very first comment in this thread, you want a moratorium on the teaching of evolution because you think facts are "absurd" because you don't want to understand them.

I want a moratorium so that school boards can then reevaluate the following things: 1. What do kids need to be taught about evolution? 2. What things about evolution that are presently taught are misleading or inaccurate? 3. What criticisms of evolutionary theory as a whole, or just aspects of it, should be presented as part of a balanced treatment? I can't really see why anyone would object to this.

Moo Moo said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Do you really think that educators DON'T consider what kids need to be taught about ANY topic? Do you really think that educators DON'T consider about what parts of any topic are misleading or inaccurate?

No, not really. I don't think educators have the time or the motivation to check the textbooks and see if they are in line with the best scientific information. But parents like myself who sit on school boards are minded to check and demand that material is excised.

csadams said:

Moo Moo said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Do you really think that educators DON'T consider what kids need to be taught about ANY topic? Do you really think that educators DON'T consider about what parts of any topic are misleading or inaccurate?

No, not really. I don't think educators have the time or the motivation to check the textbooks and see if they are in line with the best scientific information. But parents like myself who sit on school boards are minded to check and demand that material is excised.

Um yeah after curriculum is decided in a district then textbooks are chosen by another committee with relevant expertise. What, were you sleeping through every board meeting?

W. H. Heydt said: Certainly... The classic way to make Xenon Fluorides is to put Xenon and Fluorine in a Nickel can and bake at 300 degrees. The unusual thing about what Prof. Koch was working with was that it was an Oxide. Those are harder to make, and--correspondingly--less stable.

...or are you calling for students to be taught that scientists don’t know how evolution occurred?

"Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/

…or are you calling for students to be taught that scientists don’t know how evolution occurred?

Yes, especially when it comes to prebiotic chemical evolution.

Whenever scientists make clear that they honestly DON’T know how something in the biological arena originated, public school science teachers should be legally PROTECTED to share that same information with their classes, WITHOUT having their jobs/careers held hostage

by Nervous-Nelly evolutionists.

(Btw, the LSEA would guarantee such protection, which is why all states seriously need such legislation.)

Here’s an excellent example of a “we don’t know” admission from SciAm – and it comes from an evolutionist, so you should be very happy to see biology teachers sharing it in their public school science classes, right?

Moo Moo -

I’m a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields.

In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

1) Provide a coherent, testable version of ID/creationism, and

2) Provide a better explanation for the evidence that I perceive as supporting evolution.

Now, we certainly have a problem with “2)”, because both intentionally and unintentionally, you reveal to me with your comments in this thread that you are quite ignorant of biomedical science. Embarrassingly so for an educated lay person, in my view.

However, I want to be very fair, so let’s give you a chance with “1)”.

Please answer these questions, please answer all of them, and please answer them in a thoughtful, coherent, non-flippant way…

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if the Bible can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Moo Moo the perfidious moron whined:

harold said: Moo Moo - I’m a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields. In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

But I am not advocating teaching ID or creationism in the classroom. What I am calling for is a moratorium on the teaching of evolution for the following reasons: 1. Review all science textbooks to ensure that erroneous and/or misleading material is removed or amended. 2. Determine what school kids do need to learn about evolution and what they don't need to know as part of their biology instruction. 3. Ensure that valid objections to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be presented in the classroom, as part of an exploration of critical thinking, and without the teacher being threatened with legal action or the threat of dismissal for doing so.

Moo Moo said:

harold said: Moo Moo - I’m a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields. In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

But I am not advocating teaching ID or creationism in the classroom. What I am calling for is a moratorium on the teaching of evolution for the following reasons:

1. Review all science textbooks to ensure that erroneous and/or misleading material is removed or amended.

2. Determine what school kids do need to learn about evolution and what they don't need to know as part of their biology instruction.

3. Ensure that valid objections to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be presented in the classroom, as part of an exploration of critical thinking, and without the teacher being threatened with legal action or the threat of dismissal for doing so.

To all posters,

Please be very careful when responding to the poster known as moo moo. I strongly suspect that this is Joe Bozogherzma (or whatever). He will try to get you to reveal personal information, then threaten you. IN the past he has driven reasonable scientists away from this site with his incessant badgering. He has already had restraining orders issued for harassment of several scientists. He has a very bad case of science envy. Technically, I don't think he was actually banned last time he threatened physical violence at a science convention, so it was inevitable he would show up again.

If the administrators are incapable of banning him, the very least they could do is banish him to the bathroom wall. I certainly won;t respond to him anywhere else. And if it is proven that he is the same joker, I won't respond at all.

Moo Moo the perfidious moron whined: But I am not advocating teaching ID or creationism in the classroom.

What I am calling for is a moratorium on the teaching of evolution for the following reasons: 1. Review all science textbooks to ensure that erroneous and/or misleading material is removed or amended.

2. Determine what school kids do need to learn about evolution and what they don't need to know as part of their biology instruction.

3. Ensure that valid objections to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be presented in the classroom, as part of an exploration of critical thinking, and without the teacher being threatened with legal action or the threat of dismissal for doing so.

Moo Moo said: "Evolution" is also one of the most poorly defined terms - it can refer to so many things. I think you will find that meaning "change over time", few if any would disagree that evolution is a fact. It is when this is extrapolated to mean "universal common descent through natural selection" that problems arise and people will object.

This does not mean that we therefore understand everything that's explicable by evolution in perfect detail. In fact, nothing in science works that way.

I believe that not being able to explain something as important as the origin of complex traits is a considerable flaw in evolutionary theory. It is not something trivial.

Virtually nothing? I think many scientists would disagree with you. School kids have been misinformed over things like human embryos having gill slits (supposedly connecting them to piscine ancestors) and particularly on human origins such as the fact that Lucy was not a human ancestor, nor indeed many other extinct apes.

Once again, what are you referring to as "evolution". If it is drug resistance in bacteria, I would agree that it is an observed and documented fact. But such an example can't be used to explain away all the outstanding problems on evolutionary theory reported in the literature by scientists themselves.

harold said:

3. Ensure that valid objections to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be presented in the classroom, as part of an exploration of critical thinking, and without the teacher being threatened with legal action or the threat of dismissal for doing so.

I completely agree. The key word here is "valid". So far, in all cases that I am aware of in which teachers tried to insert evolution denial or ID/creationism into science class, there has been a motivation of religious discrimination. That is an invalid and illegal thing for teachers to do. Furthermore, even if the teacher were not religiously motivated, but merely wrong, it would be a severe abrogation of their responsibilities to teach factually incorrect evolution denial. That would also be invalid, just as it would be invalid to teach that the War of 1812 took place in the twentieth century, even if there was no malicious motive.

Moo Moo said: Nobody is proposing teaching biblical creationism in the classroom. What is proposed is allowing teachers to discuss the problems associated with the theory of evolution, and the scientific objections made to certain aspects of it, without fear of reprisals.

As an employee for a textbook publisher let me just say a few things about how textbooks are built.

First, they are written by scientists. The most popular high school biology text in the US is Ken Miller's "Biology" series. He writes in collaboration with another scientist. These books are not written by journalists or ghost-writers or whatever. Dr. Miller and his colleague write and edit each chapter. I'm certain that they are sufficiently conversant with relevant literature.

Second, these books go through a rather severe editing process (the results of which are approved by Dr. Miller). This process includes the normal publishing aspects of art, copy edit, universal design review, etc. But also includes a fact check. Every phrase in these books is verified with peer-reviewed literature. Every art piece is reviewed to make sure that it is factually accurate.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the pre-production books are shipped to scientists (shockingly, lawyers are not used) for a peer-review. These scientists are free to make comments, suggest revisions, etc.

I can't remember which edition Biology is on, but it's been continually printed since 1990 or so.

What you are actually saying is that the hundreds of people who are directly involved with the writing, editing, and publication of a textbook that has the vast majority of market share AND has been printed for more than 22 years don't have a clue about what they are doing.

How arrogant, and typical for a creationist lawyer.

The evolution of complex traits has been explained in theory and observed in practice in the laboratory and in the field.

"Pharyngial pouches" are modified gill arches. They are not "gill slits".

"Lucy", ie Australopithecus afarensis, was fully terrestrially bipedal. The type specimen jaw is easily distinguishable from a gorilla's and has clearly identifable hominin characters distinct from all other apes.

Owen? Richard Owen, died in 1892? That Owen? You are joking, aren't you? And St George Jackson Mivart, died 1900, who disputed evolution on grounds of Catholic theology? Both of them died long before genetics established the theory for good and all. Neither of them was able fairly to criticise the theory even on the facts known in their day. Since that day - more than a century ago, for heaven's sake - the evidence has gone from convincing to overwhelming.

Denton was and is a lone crackpot. His book came out in 1985. His criticisms were torn to pieces decades ago. New evidence was hardly needed, so misguided were they, but was anyway long ago produced.

Stephen J Gould never disputed evolution, nor common descent, nor the role of natural selection. It is a desperate misrepresentation to imply that he did.

You have been misled by the creationist sources that you refuse to actually cite, but which are clearly the source of your misconceptions. To put it plainly, you have been lied to, and you are now passing those lies on.

Inference and interpolation are valid and everyday scientific and intellectual mechanisms for understanding past events. Speciation has in any case actually been observed in the field and in the laboratory. When dealing with evolution we are in fact dealing with "observed and demonstrated facts".

There is no scientific alternative to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life. There are no cogent objections to it that are based on any facts.

You try to represent the continuing research into the precise biochemical and genetic mechanisms by which evolution occurs, as some sort of controversy as to whether it occurs. It is no such thing, and the questions now under examination by that research are far beyond the reasonable scope of high school biology. However, you admit that the process of evolution is not in dispute within science. That is sufficient to carry the point that it should be what is taught in schools.

As to the rest, I say again that you have been lied to, and you are spreading those lies.

Moo Moo said:

harold said: Moo Moo - I’m a fair person. I accept the theory of evolution, but only because I find it to be supported by multiple converging lines of strong evidence from independent fields. In order to convince me that ID/creationism is better, you only have to do two things.

But I am not advocating teaching ID or creationism in the classroom. What I am calling for is a moratorium on the teaching of evolution for the following reasons: 1. Review all science textbooks to ensure that erroneous and/or misleading material is removed or amended. 2. Determine what school kids do need to learn about evolution and what they don't need to know as part of their biology instruction. 3. Ensure that valid objections to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be presented in the classroom, as part of an exploration of critical thinking, and without the teacher being threatened with legal action or the threat of dismissal for doing so.

Dave Luckett said: The evolution of complex traits has been explained in theory and observed in practice in the laboratory and in the field. "Pharyngial pouches" are modified gill arches. They are not "gill slits". "Lucy", ie Australopithecus afarensis, was fully terrestrially bipedal. The type specimen jaw is easily distinguishable from a gorilla's and has clearly identifable hominin characters distinct from all other apes. Owen? Richard Owen, died in 1892? That Owen? You are joking, aren't you? And St George Jackson Mivart, died 1900, who disputed evolution on grounds of Catholic theology? Both of them died long before genetics established the theory for good and all. Neither of them was able fairly to criticise the theory even on the facts known in their day. Since that day - more than a century ago, for heaven's sake - the evidence has gone from convincing to overwhelming. Denton was and is a lone crackpot. His book came out in 1985. His criticisms were torn to pieces decades ago. New evidence was hardly needed, so misguided were they, but was anyway long ago produced. Stephen J Gould never disputed evolution, nor common descent, nor the role of natural selection. It is a desperate misrepresentation to imply that he did. You have been misled by the creationist sources that you refuse to actually cite, but which are clearly the source of your misconceptions. To put it plainly, you have been lied to, and you are now passing those lies on. Inference and interpolation are valid and everyday scientific and intellectual mechanisms for understanding past events. Speciation has in any case actually been observed in the field and in the laboratory. When dealing with evolution we are in fact dealing with "observed and demonstrated facts". There is no scientific alternative to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life. There are no cogent objections to it that are based on any facts. You try to represent the continuing research into the precise biochemical and genetic mechanisms by which evolution occurs, as some sort of controversy as to whether it occurs. It is no such thing, and the questions now under examination by that research are far beyond the reasonable scope of high school biology. However, you admit that the process of evolution is not in dispute within science. That is sufficient to carry the point that it should be what is taught in schools. As to the rest, I say again that you have been lied to, and you are spreading those lies.

OgreMk5 said: And what's really sad, is that I seriously doubt that MooMoo will learn from the people here. Discover that he (and his sources) are indeed wrong and then stop using these arguments. I honestly don't think that's ever happened. What will happen is that he will go away and then come back in a few threads (or years, Hi FL!) and then do the same thing again. and again (right FL?) The reason I keep bringing up FL is that he has some questions from almost four years ago that he hasn't dealt with. He has been given evidence almost four years ago that utterly destroyed his entire argument, yet here he is, four years later saying exactly the same thing he did then. MooMoo, I hope you learn from others' mistakes.

Moo Moo said:

Dave Luckett said: The evolution of complex traits has been explained in theory and observed in practice in the laboratory and in the field.

Really? I don't know of any experiment where a bacterium grew a flagellum from scratch in the laboratory - as Behe has suggested ought to be a benchmark.

"Pharyngial pouches" are modified gill arches. They are not "gill slits".

You can call it what you like - they have nothing to do with piscine anatomy.

"Lucy", ie Australopithecus afarensis, was fully terrestrially bipedal. The type specimen jaw is easily distinguishable from a gorilla's and has clearly identifable hominin characters distinct from all other apes.

So you say...but the cumulative evidence suggests otherwise.

Owen? Richard Owen, died in 1892? That Owen? You are joking, aren't you? And St George Jackson Mivart, died 1900, who disputed evolution on grounds of Catholic theology? Both of them died long before genetics established the theory for good and all. Neither of them was able fairly to criticise the theory even on the facts known in their day. Since that day - more than a century ago, for heaven's sake - the evidence has gone from convincing to overwhelming.

Mivart correctly criticized Darwin's idea that features, only useful in their complete form, could be built up gradually in a stepwise fashion.

Denton was and is a lone crackpot. His book came out in 1985. His criticisms were torn to pieces decades ago. New evidence was hardly needed, so misguided were they, but was anyway long ago produced.

Denton's work on the avian lung - and how it is so different from theropod dinosaurs - has been vindicated in recent years by Ruben and others.

Stephen J Gould never disputed evolution, nor common descent, nor the role of natural selection. It is a desperate misrepresentation to imply that he did.

Take a look at this article by the late Stephen Jay Gould: Darwinian Fundamentalism http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/?pagination=false "My own field of paleontology has strongly challenged the Darwinian premise that life’s major transformations can be explained by adding up, through the immensity of geological time, the successive tiny changes produced generation after generation by natural selection." That needs to be taught in the classroom!

The extended stability of most species, and the branching off of new species in geological moments (however slow by the irrelevant scale of a human life)—the pattern known as punctuated equilibrium—requires that long-term evolutionary trends be explained as the distinctive success of some species versus others, and not as a gradual accumulation of adaptations generated by organisms within a continuously evolving population.

Inference and interpolation are valid and everyday scientific and intellectual mechanisms for understanding past events. Speciation has in any case actually been observed in the field and in the laboratory. When dealing with evolution we are in fact dealing with "observed and demonstrated facts".

Creationists have never disputed "speciation" as properly defined: http://thefactofcreation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/speciation.html

There is no scientific alternative to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life. There are no cogent objections to it that are based on any facts.

I may be no scientist myself, but I thought the modern synthesis has been abandoned and that the controversial field of "evo-devo" has been proposed instead to explain the diversity of life?

You try to represent the continuing research into the precise biochemical and genetic mechanisms by which evolution occurs, as some sort of controversy as to whether it occurs. It is no such thing, and the questions now under examination by that research are far beyond the reasonable scope of high school biology. However, you admit that the process of evolution is not in dispute within science. That is sufficient to carry the point that it should be what is taught in schools. As to the rest, I say again that you have been lied to, and you are spreading those lies.

I have said that universal common descent is not widely disputed within science, but the mechanism of evolution, and the origin of biological complexity, is hotly contested and there is a lot of self-professed ignorance on the subject by scientists themselves.

Mivart correctly criticized Darwin’s idea that features, only useful in their complete form, could be built up gradually in a stepwise fashion.

Henry J said:

Mivart correctly criticized Darwin’s idea that features, only useful in their complete form, could be built up gradually in a stepwise fashion.

The clause "only useful in their complete form" does not belong in that statement. In general the primitive forms of a feature are expected to be useful in some way, especially if expensive to maintain.

Just Bob said: Indeed, as all those creatures with "incomplete eyes" (from a vertebrate point of view) could attest (if they could only speak). 1/2 of an eye is a hell of a lot better than no eye at all.

Moo Moo said: Well, so you say. But there are scientists, both today and in the last 150 years, who have raised serious objections to Darwin's theory of descent through modification. Their arguments are valid, and I think that school kids should learn about them as part of an objective and balanced induction. Why not teach kids about the views of Owen, Mivart, Gould and Denton? Why not teach them about the dispute over natural selection versus self-organization?

Not being able to explain the origin of complex traits is a pretty massive gap in knowledge.

It limits the theory to what many folks would call small microevolutionary change that no creationist would ever dispute actually happens.

Human embryos have "pharyngeal pouches", not gill slits.

Troy Britain said: At least three of the five creationists (the Elizabeth Mitchell, Menton and Wells) quoted above should have been, based on their education (an obstetrician, an anatomist and a developmental biologist), aware of the anatomical/embryological facts I documented above. Yet rather than relate any of this information to their readers they instead chose to tell them that pharyngeal clefts in amniote embryos are just superficial parallel lines in the neck or like the multiple chins a heavy set person might exhibit by tilting their head forward. Is this incompetence or dishonesty?

I have not been misled about Lucy. All the scientific evidence shows that Lucy was an arboreal ape whose bipedalism was more suited to walking on branches...

... and whose jaw was closer to that of gorillas than humans

Universal common descent is a particular interpretation of the evidence. It is important for schools to teach that interpretations are not observed and demonstrated facts.

The problems are fairly overwhelming.

Apparently for you, scientists are only right when they're pointing to an area of current ignorance and not when they're pointing to findings that are already established beyond reasonable doubt or skepticism. Again, your double standard is obvious. So is your ignorance of the scientific process, and the state of science education.

Gaps in knowledge are knowledge in itself.

Just Bob said: Indeed, as all those creatures with "incomplete eyes" (from a vertebrate point of view) could attest (if they could only speak). 1/2 of an eye is a hell of a lot better than no eye at all.

Moo Moo said: Not being able to explain the origin of complex traits is a pretty massive gap in knowledge.

ksplawn wrote:

"So I’m going to ask you yet again, what makes you think evolution is so special here? Why are you singling it out when the exact same criticisms apply to other well-established scientific ideas like the workings of atoms? If you’re truly interested in an honest discussion you will not avoid this issue any more."

He's not going to answer. He can't. There is no defense for his obvious double standard. He just can't stand it when people point out the hypocricy and logical flaws in his so called arguments.

Interestingly enough, I have been calling this moo moo guy Joe for three days now. He hasn't bothered to even object yet. Pretty telling from a guy who is a known liar. Now why do you suppose he is trying to avoid that criticism as well?

Once again, anyone who responds to Joe, (er I mean moo moo), should be very careful about revealing any personal information. Even if it turns out to be a completely different loony, it's still a good idea. This guy appears to be cukoo for coco puffs.

Re: Behe's test for evolution -- Behe has chosen a standard that is impossible to meet. The evolution of modern flagella from non-flagellar cellular components took millions, possibly billions of years (depending on how far back one defines non-flagellar). Since any attempt to speed up that process in the laboratory will be dismissed as "directed" evolution by the ID crowd, that means Behe's standard for accepting evolution is a minimum of several million years of continuous observation of the molecular evolution of a particular set of structures of huge numbers of micro-organisms (since we can't know a priori which organisms will develop a particular trait).

Other tests that conform to the Behe standard: we should not accept modern geology until scientists create a Grand Canyon from scratch; we should not accept stellar evolution until scientists observe a protostar change into a white dwarf, we should not accept the story that the Roman Empire collapsed until scientists can create a Roman Empire and observe it collapsing in the laboratory.

Chris Lawson said: Re: Behe's test for evolution -- Behe has chosen a standard that is impossible to meet. The evolution of modern flagella from non-flagellar cellular components took millions, possibly billions of years (depending on how far back one defines non-flagellar). Since any attempt to speed up that process in the laboratory will be dismissed as "directed" evolution by the ID crowd, that means Behe's standard for accepting evolution is a minimum of several million years of continuous observation of the molecular evolution of a particular set of structures of huge numbers of micro-organisms (since we can't know a priori which organisms will develop a particular trait). Other tests that conform to the Behe standard: we should not accept modern geology until scientists create a Grand Canyon from scratch; we should not accept stellar evolution until scientists observe a protostar change into a white dwarf, we should not accept the story that the Roman Empire collapsed until scientists can create a Roman Empire and observe it collapsing in the laboratory.

Looks like Moo Moo has been turned into well done steak!

I suspect DS is indeed on to something here.

Let me make it simple for Moo Moo:
Are you in fact Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr of Manchester, UK?, a.k.a. "Bozo Joe"?

A simple Yes or No should suffice.

Thanks, Dave

Chris Lawson said: Re: Behe's test for evolution -- Behe has chosen a standard that is impossible to meet. The evolution of modern flagella from non-flagellar cellular components took millions, possibly billions of years (depending on how far back one defines non-flagellar). Since any attempt to speed up that process in the laboratory will be dismissed as "directed" evolution by the ID crowd, that means Behe's standard for accepting evolution is a minimum of several million years of continuous observation of the molecular evolution of a particular set of structures of huge numbers of micro-organisms (since we can't know a priori which organisms will develop a particular trait). Other tests that conform to the Behe standard: we should not accept modern geology until scientists create a Grand Canyon from scratch; we should not accept stellar evolution until scientists observe a protostar change into a white dwarf, we should not accept the story that the Roman Empire collapsed until scientists can create a Roman Empire and observe it collapsing in the laboratory.

Moo Moo said:

Dave Thomas said: I suspect DS is indeed on to something here. Let me make it simple for Moo Moo: Are you in fact Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr of Manchester, UK?, a.k.a. "Bozo Joe"? A simple Yes or No should suffice. Thanks, Dave

Is that even a real name? But there is a milkshake parlor in the UK with my username: http://www.moo-moos.co.uk/ Like I said, I am not a scientist.

Moo Moo said: Like I said, I am not a scientist.

Moo Moo said:

stevaroni said: Eh. maybe yes, maybe no.

Please tell me what the theory of evolution does explain then? I would have thought that any explanation for the diversity of life on earth would need to explain the complex traits that reflect this diversity? You see how this is going to be very confusing to school kids.

Bozo, aka atheistoclast, used to proudly claim to be a scientist on the basis of a review paper and some letters that he managed to get published in obscure journals where the peer-review process was ropey. Of course he'd never done any actual science, as in research, fieldwork, or empirical investigation, nor did he have any academic qualifications. Didn't stop him from claiming that he was about to overturn all of biological science.

It's still possible that this loon is Bozo, but if so he's changed his approach.

His assertions about non-observation of evolution in action, A. afarensis, the bacterial flagellum, and the pharyngeal pouch in human and mammalian embryos have been very adequately answered by others. He cites Denton's assertions about the avian lung (ie, Denton said it couldn't evolve from therapod lungs, so there). These assertions were also exploded decades ago. Both mammalian and avian lungs and the structures that support and enable them were evolved from reptilian basal features that can be traced back to fish. See http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/739.short

But one further observation: when you have no evidence at all for an assertion, you use some such expression as "the cumulative evidence suggests otherwise", which is a smokescreen that you hope conceals the fact. Hint: it doesn't.

dalehusband said: Looks like Moo Moo has been turned into well done steak!

Moo Moo said:

Dave Thomas said: I suspect DS is indeed on to something here. Let me make it simple for Moo Moo: Are you in fact Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr of Manchester, UK?, a.k.a. "Bozo Joe"? A simple Yes or No should suffice. Thanks, Dave

Is that even a real name? But there is a milkshake parlor in the UK with my username: http://www.moo-moos.co.uk/ Like I said, I am not a scientist.

Until we can ban Joe for good, why not at least flush him to the bathroom wall? He is so far off topic and so obviously insane that it seems a prudent course of action.

What would count as "an observable and demonstratable fact", then?

If you subjected a population of organisms to a changed environment, and then observed the reponse over many generations, recorded that response when it occurred, and then precisely investigated and described the biochemical mechanism that caused that response, pinning it down to the precise mutation that originated it, would that be "an observable and demonstratable fact"? Would it also be an observed fact when the change was seen to spread according to the predictions of genetic theory, throughout the population. Could this be measured, and would this also be an observed fact?

Because that's been done. Richard Lenski and citrate nutritive uptake in e-coli.

Would it be a demonstrable and observable fact if a new species were observed in the field, arising without human involvement, to exploit a new food source not present prior to a known historical event? Because that's happened at least three times to my knowledge - the nylonase bacterial speciation, the appearance of Rhagoletis pomonella, (the apple maggot fly) and the London Underground mosquito.

Would it be a demonstrable and observable fact if a species were observed to diverge within historical times, to produce two or more morphologically distinct breeding populations that continue to diverge. That's been observed, too - the Shetland Islands house mouse.

Would it be a demonstrable and observable fact if it could be shown that in a continuous geographical range of many species, individuals geographically proximate to each other can and do interbreed, but more widely separated individuals cannot, indicating radiation? Because that's been observed, as well, many times.

You will, of course, deny that these divergences have taken place, by quibbling about the definition of "population" and "species", and arguing that the organisms are still bacteria, flies, mosquitoes, or whatnot. That is completely bootless. The divergences, the morphological changes, and the effect of natural selection to meet changes in environment have been repeatedly demonstrated and observed. Evolution occurred and continues to occur.

"Species" is a word that can only be operationally defined. The boundaries between species are indistinct and fractal - which is exactly what evolution predicts and exactly what separate design does not.

There is no known barrier that would prevent a population from continuing to diverge until it was unequivocably a different species, genera, family, or any cladistic division. No such barrier has been observed in practice; none can be postulated from theory. If such a barrier exists, it is for those who propose it to demonstrate it, and that they have not done and cannot do.

In short, evolution happens. All life is commonly descended. The rest is commentary.

Moo Moo said:

Chris Lawson said: Re: Behe's test for evolution -- Behe has chosen a standard that is impossible to meet. The evolution of modern flagella from non-flagellar cellular components took millions, possibly billions of years (depending on how far back one defines non-flagellar). Since any attempt to speed up that process in the laboratory will be dismissed as "directed" evolution by the ID crowd, that means Behe's standard for accepting evolution is a minimum of several million years of continuous observation of the molecular evolution of a particular set of structures of huge numbers of micro-organisms (since we can't know a priori which organisms will develop a particular trait). Other tests that conform to the Behe standard: we should not accept modern geology until scientists create a Grand Canyon from scratch; we should not accept stellar evolution until scientists observe a protostar change into a white dwarf, we should not accept the story that the Roman Empire collapsed until scientists can create a Roman Empire and observe it collapsing in the laboratory.

Maybe. But you can't claim something as a demonstrable and observable fact if you haven't observed and measured it.

ogremk5 said: ... On the other hand, let's see what we can measure... We can observe and measure the DNA sequences of organisms on this planet. Now, using whatever your chosen methodology, why don't you tell us your prediction of what we would find when we do this and why.

BTW, has Moo Moo bothered to explain to us why we should take his anti-science suggestions that he blatantly cribbed from Creationists to heart, even though he is "not a scientist," yet?

Moo Moo said: Where a crime goes unobserved, a number of other factors are considered such as if the suspect was observed as having an alibi.

Moo Moo said:

ogremk5 said: So, by this logic, every criminal in jail should be set free because no jury member observed the crime.

No. Because, more often than not, someone else did observe the crime and testifies to this effect under oath in a court of law with the jury present. Where a crime goes unobserved, a number of other factors are considered such as if the suspect was observed as having an alibi. Your argument has already collapsed right here.

We can observe and measure the DNA sequences of organisms on this planet. Now, using whatever your chosen methodology, why don't you tell us your prediction of what we would find when we do this and why.

We would expect to find a common design with organisms sharing the same genes coding for the same proteins.

Moo Moo said: Maybe. But you can't claim something as a demonstrable and observable fact if you haven't observed and measured it.

Moo Moo said:

ogremk5 said: So, by this logic, every criminal in jail should be set free because no jury member observed the crime.

No. Because, more often than not, someone else did observe the crime and testifies to this effect under oath in a court of law with the jury present. Where a crime goes unobserved, a number of other factors are considered such as if the suspect was observed as having an alibi. Your argument has already collapsed right here.

eric said:

Moo Moo said: Maybe. But you can't claim something as a demonstrable and observable fact if you haven't observed and measured it.

I have never observed a bank account starting with a penny in it growing to $1 billion over thousands of years due to compound interest. But I don't have to observe this particular case to know that it would; I observe how compound interest works in more limited cases (say, $1,000 into $1,005 over two years) and apply what I know to all other time increments and starting amounts. Evolution is exactly the same: we find a mechanism at work in cases we can observe and apply what we know about it to longer time increments. There is no reason to think the amount of genetic change that can occur has an upper limit any more than there is a reason to think compound interest, as a mechanism, stops mathematically working once you hit $1,000,000.

Moo Moo said:

ogremk5 said: So, by this logic, every criminal in jail should be set free because no jury member observed the crime.

No. Because, more often than not, someone else did observe the crime and testifies to this effect under oath in a court of law with the jury present. Where a crime goes unobserved, a number of other factors are considered such as if the suspect was observed as having an alibi. Your argument has already collapsed right here.

We can observe and measure the DNA sequences of organisms on this planet. Now, using whatever your chosen methodology, why don't you tell us your prediction of what we would find when we do this and why.

We would expect to find a common design with organisms sharing the same genes coding for the same proteins.

Why do you single out evolution in your science education diatribe when the "problems" you describe equally apply to all areas of science?

Moo Moo said:

eric said: I have never observed a bank account starting with a penny in it growing to $1 billion over thousands of years due to compound interest. But I don't have to observe this particular case to know that it would; I observe how compound interest works in more limited cases (say, $1,000 into $1,005 over two years) and apply what I know to all other time increments and starting amounts. Evolution is exactly the same: we find a mechanism at work in cases we can observe and apply what we know about it to longer time increments. There is no reason to think the amount of genetic change that can occur has an upper limit any more than there is a reason to think compound interest, as a mechanism, stops mathematically working once you hit $1,000,000.

That's a good point you make, but I think it is more relevant to the age of the earth than it is to evolution. Say you know the current amount in the account and the interest rate. It should be easy to calculate how much time has elapsed to go from a penny to $1,000,000 or whatever. Right? Actually, no - that would be a false assumption. Why? Because you don't know and didn't observe the initial amount in the account. You can't say whether it was a penny or $100,000.

Moo Moo said:

bigdakine said: You're a weasel.

Close. I'm a lawyer.

People get convicted solely based on Forensic evidence all the time. No eyewitness testimony needed. Alibis are refuted all the time by forensic evidence... you say you weren't there? Well your fingerprint does...

Fingerprints and DNA evidence alone are not sufficient to convict: if otherwise, the 90s trial of OJ Simpson would have been very different. That said, many miscarriages of justice have involved relying on forensic evidence when there was no other corroborating evidence. Is that what you want to be comparing the theory of evolution against?

Make that justly convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence.

bigdakine said: For that matter we haven't observed Pluto making a complete orbit around the Sun. Perhaps we should withhold judgment on gravity... and not teach it in the schools for another 140 years or so.

Moo Moo said: Say you know the current amount in the account and the interest rate. It should be easy to calculate how much time has elapsed to go from a penny to $1,000,000 or whatever. Right? Actually, no - that would be a false assumption. Why? Because you don't know and didn't observe the initial amount in the account. You can't say whether it was a penny or $100,000.

Moo Moo said:

ogremk5 said: We can observe and measure the DNA sequences of organisms on this planet. Now, using whatever your chosen methodology, why don't you tell us your prediction of what we would find when we do this and why.

We would expect to find a common design with organisms sharing the same genes coding for the same proteins.

ogremk5 said:

Moo Moo said:

ogremk5 said: So, by this logic, every criminal in jail should be set free because no jury member observed the crime.

No. Because, more often than not, someone else did observe the crime and testifies to this effect under oath in a court of law with the jury present.

We can observe and measure the DNA sequences of organisms on this planet. Now, using whatever your chosen methodology, why don't you tell us your prediction of what we would find when we do this and why.

And witness testimony is the absolute worst form of testimony in the court system. Every lawyer, every judge, everyone knows this.

But you only answered ONE out of five or six similar objections. Get with the rest. Please, do try to explain those away as well.

bigdakine said:

Moo Moo said:

eric said: I have never observed a bank account starting with a penny in it growing to $1 billion over thousands of years due to compound interest. But I don't have to observe this particular case to know that it would; I observe how compound interest works in more limited cases (say, $1,000 into $1,005 over two years) and apply what I know to all other time increments and starting amounts. Evolution is exactly the same: we find a mechanism at work in cases we can observe and apply what we know about it to longer time increments. There is no reason to think the amount of genetic change that can occur has an upper limit any more than there is a reason to think compound interest, as a mechanism, stops mathematically working once you hit $1,000,000.

Actually, no - that would be a false assumption. Why? Because you don't know and didn't observe the initial amount in the account. You can't say whether it was a penny or $100,000.

Actually we do know what the original amount is in this case. We can add radio-chronology to the ever expanding list of things about science you don't know.

Moo Moo said: That's a good point you make, but I think it is more relevant to the age of the earth than it is to evolution.

Say you know the current amount in the account and the interest rate. It should be easy to calculate how much time has elapsed to go from a penny to $1,000,000 or whatever. Right? Actually, no - that would be a false assumption. Why? Because you don't know and didn't observe the initial amount in the account. You can't say whether it was a penny or $100,000.

eric said: Nope, its directly applicable. In fact I intentionally chose that analogy because humans tend to dramatically underestimate the amount of change that occurs in both, for the exact same reason: they compound. Change occurs on top of change. Our intuitions tend to estimate linear change - simple interest and mutation of a base genome - so we typically underestimate the ability of such systems to deviate from their starting point.

Announcement:
The PT admins have disabled poster "Moo Moo" for violating our usage rules.

That is all.

Please resume the discussion.

We would expect to find a common design with organisms sharing the same genes coding for the same proteins.

Oh, and I don't mind responding to Bozo Joe when he's banned, since he never provides any meaningful answers to crucial questions regardless of his status at a given time.

Glen Davidson

Dave Thomas said: Announcement: The PT admins have disabled poster "Moo Moo" for violating our usage rules. That is all. Please resume the discussion.

When we inevitably encounter the next Moo-Moo-like troll, it might be a good idea if we didn't inundate him/her/it with too many questions at one time, thus depriving the troll of the opportunity to cherry-pick the easiest question(s) to respond to while ignoring the more difficult.

You've been asking many excellent questions but the troll has been effectively evasive.

Can we somehow take turns asking just one question at a time, and ignore the troll until each question has been addressed?

gnome de net said: When we inevitably encounter the next Moo-Moo-like troll, it might be a good idea if we didn't inundate him/her/it with too many questions at one time, thus depriving the troll of the opportunity to cherry-pick the easiest question(s) to respond to while ignoring the more difficult. You've been asking many excellent questions but the troll has been effectively evasive. Can we somehow take turns asking just one question at a time, and ignore the troll until each question has been addressed?

ogremk5 said:

That never works either. I've had some questions for some trolls here for 4 years.

Exactly my point. Your question is never answered because others jump in with their own questions, allowing the troll to control the argument by picking and choosing which (if any) to respond to. What I'm suggesting requires co-operation and discipline. By regularly posting reminders that the troll has not responded to a question, along with "Do Not Feed The Troll" warnings to visitors and would-be posters, we can engage the troll under our terms. If the troll continues posting without answering a simple, clearly-phrased question, astute visitors should recognize evasiveness and an unwillingness or inability to answer, thus clearly exposing weaknesses in the troll's argument.

With respect, I think 'astute visitros' already can recognize this.

With respect, I think 'astute visitors' already can recognize this. Don't worry, there already are lots of people here that restate questions and offer narrowly understood challenges.

And assuming that M.M was not Joe, and assuming that he really is the lawyer he says, he is not a troll - he really believes what he is saying. He is not trolling; he is intellectually incompetent. And it doesn't matter if he was lying, because there are lots of similarly intellectually incompetent people out there, and plenty of them are lawyers, doctors, etc.

And I wish I was sufficiently competent to avoid double posts.

RJ said: And assuming that M.M was not Joe, and assuming that he really is the lawyer he says, he is not a troll - he really believes what he is saying. He is not trolling; he is intellectually incompetent. And it doesn't matter if he was lying, because there are lots of similarly intellectually incompetent people out there, and plenty of them are lawyers, doctors, etc. And I wish I was sufficiently competent to avoid double posts.

Just to be clear, DS, I was not arguing one way or the other whether Moo was Joe. I trust your judgment in that issue.

FYI, Moo Moo's email address included the name Hannon, which certainly indicates a possible relationship with Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, a.k.a. "Bozo Joe."

That, and his ISP is in Manchester, UK.

That, and his inability to just say "No, I am not Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr," makes me think the admins got it right. And, the admins have even more info (previous ISP's used by Bozo, for example) that I am not privy to, so I suspect there was more than enough information to make the right decision.

Cheers, Dave

Dave Thomas said: FYI, Moo Moo's email address included the name Hannon, which certainly indicates a possible relationship with Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, a.k.a. "Bozo Joe." That, and his ISP is in Manchester, UK. That, and his inability to just say "No, I am not Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr," makes me think the admins got it right. And, the admins have even more info (previous ISP's used by Bozo, for example) that I am not privy to, so I suspect there was more than enough information to make the right decision. Cheers, Dave

So, he's not a lawyer either?

ogremk5 said: So, he's not a lawyer either?

All this notwithstanding, a marvelous array of solid science was presented in response.

To me, reading it weeks after the event, it was immediately apparent from stylistic elements that this was JoBo, but the net effect was enough to make me want to believe that MM was someone who wished to evoke precise and effective expressions of the science that was supposedly being contested.

Despite occasional twitches, this patient seems to have ceased normal function.

I'm calling it - 1:46 PM MST, 25 November 2012.

Cheers, Dave