Brief Update on Kansas

| 134 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Between keeping up with my personal life/day job and with the flurry of events here in Kansas, I’ve had little time to reflect and inform here at the Panda’s Thumb. If you are interested, the best place to do some reading is at the KCFS Update forum, where we archive our KCFS Updates. See particularly:

1. KCFS Update 2-20-05 here, where we discuss committee chairperson Steve Case’s response to the BOE’s first proposal to have an extended “debate” concenring the ID creationist’s minority draft,

2. KCFS Update 3-2-05 here, second article for a news story about how the BOE changed things to a written essay exchange,

3. KCFS Update 3-5-05 here for a position paper by KCFS president Harry McDonald on the whole review process fiasco, and

4. KCFS Update 3-5-05 Steve Case response here for Steve Case’s response to the written essay idea.

In general, all players on the pro-science are not playing. The BOE subcommittee meets next Monday to reach a final decision on how they are going to proceed, and the full BOE meets Tuesday and Wednesday. Stay tuned for more exciting events, and watch the KCFS forum site for KCFS Updates. Go here if you would like to personally subscribe to the KCFS Update.

1 TrackBack

Russell Durbin, a PT contributor known for his occasional magnanimity, posted the following in response to an article by one Steve Case... Read More

134 Comments

From post number 4:

Dr. Jonathan Wells is a frequent source for comments at the public hearings and his views are clearly reflected in the minority report. Dr. Wells has no academic credibility, has done no work in biology beyond a rather weak doctoral program, has very questionable motivation for pursing his education in biology, and, because of a felony conviction, would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas.

Okay, so it may not be relevant (except for his inability to qualify for a teaching post in Kansas) but what was his crime?

because of a felony conviction, [Jonathan Wells] would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas.

Mike Walker: Okay, so it may not be relevant (except for his inability to qualify for a teaching post in Kansas) but what was his crime?

I’m among the least likely to join a Wells fan club, but this is an outrageous red herring. Totally irrelevant. I believe the “crime” was refusal to fight in the Vietnam debacle.

I agree, and I’m sorry that Steve put this in. I’ll talk to him about retracting it in some way or another.

Thanks for the info - I agree that it is not relevant to the issue at hand. Just my curiosity getting the better of me :)

I found the following list of questions in the first KCFS update Jack listed to be most interesting:

1. To what extent is Intelligent Design used as a theoretical foundation for research at the institution? 2. What courses is Intelligent Design taught at the institution? 3. Is antievolution or evidence against evolution teaching included in the instructional program of your institution? 4. Is there any scientific research that looks for explanations beyond the material world at your institution? 5. Is evolution taught as philosophy at your institution?

I have recently wondered if it would be useful to add to NCSE’s Voices for Evolution a list of the universities and colleges that do not teach ID, or more appropriately, a list the miniscule number that do teach it (along with some statistic indicating just how small this number is), and to ask, it it appropriate to teach our high school students concepts that have almost no recognition in our colleges and universities, including many religiously based ones?

I’d especially appreciate comments about this from any of you NCSE folks. This seems so obvious that perhaps it has already been considered and rejected for some reason. Thanks.

I believe the “crime” was [Wells’] refusal to fight in the Vietnam debacle.

That’s fascinating. What was Wells reason on the record for “refusing” to fight in the so-called “Vietnam debacle”? Was he a Moonie at that time?

In the fourth KCFS Update listed by Jack, Steve Case mentions several documents that he feels offer sufficeint answers to the questions of the Kansas Board of Education subcommittee. He did not provide any links, and, unfortunately, he appears to have gotten the names of a couple of them wrong. Here are the documents I found that I believe Steve was referring to:

“National Science Education Standards” “Benchmarks for Science Literacy” “Science for all Americans” (not “Science of all Americans”) “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (not “Evolution and the Nature of Science”)

Hope this helps.

Anybody have a spare pair of hip waders? The hubris is getting deep around here!

DaveScot: Anybody have a spare pair of hip waders? The hubris is getting deep around here!

So now Dave is claiming that being correct = hubris?

I suppose Einstein is guilty of hubris… I suppose Newton is guilty of hubris… I suppose Feynman is guilty of hubris… I suppose Bohr is guilty of hubris… etc. and etc.

Here’s a clue for you, Dave: When all the facts and observations support your theory, it is not hubris to say you’re right, it is merely truth.

Very good material at the KCFS board, linked by Jack at the top of this thread.

Suppose 1 percent of Kansans read it and all are convinced that science, not nonsense, should be taught in science class. Suppose further that nearly all hyperliterates [reading level at least 18 (scale: 12th grade = 12)]in KS agree.

Where does this leave you?

Here’s a clue for you, Dave: When all the facts and observations support your theory, it is not hubris to say you’re right, it is merely truth.

Hey, that reminds me, Dave. You said:

Prokaryotes get a lot larger than you might expect. Several times the human genome

To which I said

Give me one example

You’ve been back several times since then, spouting your usual content-free slurs on mainstream science, yet you just walk away from the gaffe that reveals your own cluelessness. Despite that, I guess you think we should still take you seriously?

Now that’s hubris!

For those who may be itnerested:

Evolution Fight Goes International: International Internet Activists Donate Science Books to Anti-Evolution School District

An international email group that focuses on opposing the teaching of intelligent design creationism is donating over twenty science books to the Dover High School Library in Dover, Pennsylvania. Among the books being donated are “What Evolution Is” by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, “Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics” by Robert Pennock, and “Finding Darwin’s God” by biologist Kenneth R Miller.

Dover became the scene of a legal fight after supporters of “intelligent design theory” attempted to insert their viewpoint into science classes. Similar conflicts over “intelligent design theory” are taking place in Ohio, Kansas, Alabama, Arkansas, and elsewhere.

The cyber-activists from the DebunkCreation email list at Yahoogroups, from the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, Australia and Sweden, say they were motivated by reports that an “anonymous donor” gave sixty copies of the intelligent design textbook “Of Pandas and People” to the school district. “We wanted students in Dover to have access to accurate information about science, about evolutionary biology, and about the real agenda of the intelligent design movement,” says list founder Lenny Flank, a freelance writer from St Petersburg, Florida.

Activists from the UK, Canada, Australia and elsewhere point out that they too have a stake in fighting creationism. Many of them are facing their own anti-evolution movements, most of which are founded and funded by American creationist groups. “It seems almost unbelievable that the UK Government should be giving religious extremists control of our schools and then allowing them to corrupt the teaching of science,” says Alan Bellis, an anti-creationist campaigner in Great Britain. “Yet it is actually happening.” The Emmanuel Schools Foundation (Vardy Foundation), which operates three schools in the north of England and plans to open four more, has made no secret of its plans to teach creationism, and has recieved support from Answers In Genesis, an Australian group that was itself founded by members of the Institute for Creation Research, in California. “Fortunately,” says Bellis, “resistance against them is slowly growing and only recently, a concerted campaign by protesting parents halted the takeover of a school near Doncaster.”

The battle cry of the intelligent design movement has been to “teach the controversy”, but in reality, say list members, there is no scientific controversy over evolution. Michael Brass, a South African archeaeologist residing in England, and author of the anti-creationist book “The Antiquity of Man”, points out, “Recent reviews of the available anatomical and genetic evidence have convincingly re-affirmed yet again the theory that apes and anatomically modern humans share a common ancestry. There is no controversy, amongst palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists over the validity of evolutionary processes in human evolution.” Rather than being science, Brass says, intelligent design and creationist advocates “take their religious text as their starting point and attempt to force-fit the data into their religious paradigm.” Brass concludes, “Creationist works, and those who support such efforts, have no basis whatsoever in any scientific procedure and basic plain scientific reality.”

Despite it claims to be “science”, the cyber-activists conclude that the intelligent design movement is simply a religious crusade, coupled with a deliberate attempt to conceal that fact. The Discovery Institute (the primary force behind the intelligent design movement), which has been advising the Dover School Board members, goes to great lengths to claim that it has no ulterior religious motives. But Flank points to the ‘Wedge Document’, an internal Discovery Institute document that was leaked onto the Internet a few years ago. Under the heading ‘Governing Goals’, the Wedge Document states, “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” The primary financial backer of the Discovery Institute is California S&L mogul Howard Ahmanson, a supporter of the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement, which advocates placing the United States under “Biblical law”. The Dover intelligent design advocates are being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, which describes its mission as “Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians”. And recent published statements by school board members make clear the religious goals of their intelligent design “theory”. “It certainly sounds to me,” Flank says, “as if the intelligent design movement and its backers want to do exactly what the Supreme Court has already ruled they can NOT do — use the public schools to advance their religious opinions.”

“There was a time when science had to conform to the opinions of the prevailing religious authorities,” Flank concludes. “We call those times ‘The Dark Ages’. They are not fondly remembered by most people.”

The DebunkCreation email list, formed in 1999 and currently with over 400 members, is found at Yahoogroups.com.

Hubris

Science is not afraid to be judged. Science ideas are judged every day by competent experts in the appropriate field. Scientists are well schooled in statistical inference and we would not be true to our training if we bet on a stacked deck.

Statements like that from imbeciles like Harry McDonald, president of KCFS, insult the intelligence of people who don’t self-annoint themselves as scientists. And you wonder why it seems like everyone outside your academic circles is picking on you?

Get a clue!

You DO NOT have a monopoly in either science or intelligence. In fact you’re just hired hands working for people even smarter than yourselves.

Russell

Okay, I’ll do your homework for you just this once. But I want you to do it yourself next time, okay?

You want one example of a prokaryote with a genome “several times larger than a human”.

Sorangium cellulosum Soce56 12200 d proteobacteria Pradella S, et al (2002)

12.2 billion base pairs. Several times the human genome of 3 billion base pairs.

Russell Wrote:

You’ve been back several times since then, spouting your usual content-free slurs on mainstream science, yet you just walk away from the gaffe that reveals your own cluelessness. Despite that, I guess you think we should still take you seriously?

The salient question is whether I should take YOU seriously. Don’t confuse my not noticing your questions with not being able to answer them, dopey. There’s one of me and scores of you that want a piece of me. Sad but true, there just ain’t enough of me to go around.

Nevermind. The prokaryote table I referenced is labeled wrong. The lengend says megabases and it should be kilobases.

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else. Or actually you caught me referring to someone else’s error. It’s rare. Cherish it.

But in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made that amoeba dubia has a genome size 200 of times the size of the human genome so the point still stands.

Dave,

Always check the original sources - or have you been sniffing the ether again

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/[…]opt=Abstract

Fred

“There’s one of me and scores of you that want a piece of me.”

———————————-

Uh, who the hell are YOU. …?

You seem to have an awfully inflated sense of your own self-importance, junior.

Dave,

Your motto seems to be - “I have a theory and, if it’s wrong, then I have another theory.”

It’s interesting that despite the scorn you heaped on Russell he actually had even suggested earlier that the table might contain a typo. So, you owe him an actual apology not a juvenile justification which amounts to saying “I was right all along” and the fault lies with others. Your intelligent designer will probably be a bit pissed off at such unhumble behavior.

Now, you have this big theory that we descended from a pre-programmed ameoba - or was it a lungfish - but you’re too sloppy even to do your homework. Plus you have no internal BS detector that clearly warns you when something sounds fishy. Then, when you get caught out, in typical fundie fashion, you proclaim that it didn’t really matter anyway and you’re still right. So what sort of a theorist are you? I’d suggest that 5 or 6 years in a decent graduate school might help you get over this sort of behavior. There you would learn not to take things at face value. That’s one of the key differences between a scientist and a nitwit who’s perpetually and breathlessly proclaiming a new theory or insight that his betters have overlooked.

You need to learn some humility my boy - drop the hubris and start doing some thinking. With an IQ of 153+ you have some serious potential - but you need to use the intellect and lose the emotionalism. But maybe you have been emulating your hero, Dead Wood Davison, a bit too faithfully. If so, you’ll end up just like him.

Cleave to the words of the apostle Paul, which I paraphrase; “When I was a child, I used to think as a child, but now that I am a man .….”

Fred

Okay, I’ll do your homework for you just this once. But I want you to do it yourself next time, okay?

…The salient question is whether I should take YOU seriously. Don’t confuse my not noticing your questions with not being able to answer them, dopey. There’s one of me and scores of you

Later that day…

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else.

Believe me, Dave. If I were to “write down” all your errors, I’d never have time for anything else.

Or actually you caught me referring to someone else’s error.

No, Dave. The relevant error here is not the mislabeling of the table. The error is in some jerk, informed by wing-nut ideology and a comically bloated sense of his intellectual powers, cherry-picking data to back up his quixotic bashing of his betters, and in so doing, not recognizing the difference between a typo and a truly surprising observation. Its an error you need to take ownership of.

But in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made that amoeba dubia has a genome size 200 of times the size of the human genome

Actually, it was quite central to that point. You have been touting A. dubia as an example of a “simple” organism that could have enough extra genetic information to encode as yet unselected evolutionary scenarios. So far as I’m aware, everywhere the “c-value” paradox has been explored, at least in eukaryotes it turns out the extra size is accounted for by repetitious DNA, so the complexity - you might say the information content - of the genome does, in fact, pretty well match the complexity of the organism. So I predict that, if and when A. dubia’s genome is analyzed, it will fall into that same pattern. [yawn]. Now if a prokaryote had a genome larger than an animal, that would take some explaining.

Oh, and in the future, if you want anyone to take you seriously, try to observe a modicum of table manners when you’re eating crow. I suggest you…write that down.

You have been touting A. dubia as an example of a “simple” organism that could have enough extra genetic information to encode as yet unselected evolutionary scenarios.

——————————

Ahhh, the old “PK Zip Theory” of genetics.

I’m curious — can any IDer out there give me an example of this working? Can anyone show me a parent species and its genome, a daughter species and its genome, and point to the specific genetic sequences that “PK Unzipped” to give this “new genetic information”? Can any IDer tell me how this genetic sequence “unzips”, and what happens to all the old sequences once they’ve “unzipped”?

Wait, let me guess ——- that’s “left unspecified by design theory” too, right . … just like everything else.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 18, column 2, byte 475 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Lenny,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the PK Unzip theory would surely have to anticipate all future states that the earth might settle into. So, e.g., there would be a bit of the genome reserved for for thermophilic bacteria, another bit for sulfur eaters etc. That is, each of the actual environments that have developed on Earth would have to have been anticipated. But, presumably, a host of other environments that didn’t actually become realized would also be in there too, just to cover the bases. Or do the ID-ers argue that God controlled the environment too?

Fred

Okay, so it may not be relevant (except for his inability to qualify for a teaching post in Kansas) but what was his crime?

Jon Wells following one tour of duty, refused to return to Viet Nam, and for that ‘crime’ was sent to the Levenworth federal pen. I respect, and honor his action. I find it callow that Chase would have brought this personal attack into what should be a measured discussion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the PK Unzip theory would surely have to anticipate all future states that the earth might settle into. So, e.g., there would be a bit of the genome reserved for for thermophilic bacteria, another bit for sulfur eaters etc. That is, each of the actual environments that have developed on Earth would have to have been anticipated. But, presumably, a host of other environments that didn’t actually become realized would also be in there too, just to cover the bases.

Well, it’s pretty hard to tell just WHAT the ID, uh, “theory” states or doesn’t state, since ID “theorists”, for some unfathomable reason, refuse at all costs to tell us just WHAT THE HELL THEIR “THEORY” SAYS.

Gee, I wonder why that would be … ? Is it because they have no scientific theory to offer and are just lying to us when they claim they do?

Or do the ID-ers argue that God controlled the environment too?

I dunno. Heck, *I* was under the impression that the “intelligent designer” could be nothing but a *space alien* (or, alas, are IDers lying about THAT, too?).

Indeed, not only does ID “theory” claim that it does NOT involve God, but by claiming that the creator MAY NOT BE GOD, it seems to me as if the ID “theory” (such as it is) is actually ATHEISTIC, since it asserts that God may not have played any role in creation – it may have been a plain old ordinary space alien that diddit. According to ID “theory” (such as it is), nothing we see REQUIRES any supernatural or divine explanation. No god necessary or needed, according to the IDers. Just a plain old ordinary mortal materialistic naturalistic intelligent being from outer space.

Hmm, seems rather heretical to me . … .

IDers, explain please.

Jon Wells following one tour of duty, refused to return to Viet Nam, and for that ‘crime’ was sent to the Levenworth federal pen. I respect, and honor his action. I find it callow that Chase would have brought this personal attack into what should be a measured discussion.

I find that confusing. Why would a man who has the character to go to prison for principle, then lose basic principles like the honesty to be accurate in presenting others’ work?

The more I learn about creationists and creationism, the more I wonder whether it’s a virus that infects the frontal lobes.

DaveScot – an alleged adult – writes

Write that down, Russell. You caught me in an error in a casual remark to someone else. Or actually you caught me referring to someone else’s error. It’s rare. Cherish it.

Rare? That’s a laugh. So how do you characterize that lie about the Austin schoolteachers being forbidden from wishing someone Merry Christmas? Was that a ‘typo’ too?

It’s a rhetorical question, Dave. We are familiar here with your problem and with your inability to recognize when you’re position has been destroyed. Unfortunately for you, some of us ran out of pity a long time ago.

Gary writes

I find it callow that Chase would have brought this personal attack into what should be a measured discussion.

Personal attack? Chase pointed out what appears to be a fact: Wells is a convicted felon and can’t teach in Kansas schools. That’s hardly a personal “attack.” It’s actually a rather “measured” statement of that fact.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this entire anti-evolution shame is a political movement spearheaded by religious conservatives. Political. Conservatives. Political. Conservatives. Religious. Political. Conservative. Religious.

It’s not about science in the way that the mechanism of interfering RNA is about science. Not even close.

The Discovery Institute preachers, including Mr. Wells, are dirty players. That’s well documented (for example, by this website). If you avoid the trenches, you risk getting your feet blown off.

What is the Discovery Institute’s position regarding the “Iraq debacle”? How about the Rev. Moon’s newspaper?

These are fair questions to ask in a political game. Why be shy?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this entire anti-evolution shame is a political movement spearheaded by religious conservatives.

———————

With all due respect, I think you ARE wrong. The fundies are not “conservatives”. “Conservatives” want to, well, “conserve” what has always been there. “Conservatives” have always been in favor of less government intrusion and more privacy. The fundamentalist “Christians”, on the other hand, do not want to “conserve” anything. They do not want to maintain traditional political and social structures. They do not want less government and more privacy. They do not want to get government *off our backs*—they want to get government *into our bedrooms*. They want to replace church and family-run religious education, with religious education at the hands of the state-run schools. They want government involvement in every sphere of “morality”, by passing laws which enshrine their own religious opinions. Rather than “conserving” the separation of church and state, they want to blend the two in a Taliban-like political structure. Like the Muslim militants, the fundamentalist “Christians” want to destroy everything that has existed in American “conservativsm”, and replace it with their own RADICAL agenda.

The fundies are not “conservatives”. They are “revolutionaries”, in the truest sense of the word.

I find that confusing. Why would a man who has the character to go to prison for principle, then lose basic principles like the honesty to be accurate in presenting others’ work?

It makes no sense to me either. Wells and I have never corresponded, but I am tempted to ask him to reply.

There is his famous admittion in “Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.,”

Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

GWW Wrote:

Personal attack? Chase pointed out what appears to be a fact: Wells is a convicted felon and can’t teach in Kansas schools. That’s hardly a personal “attack.” It’s actually a rather “measured” statement of that fact.

Reading that statement, one gets the impression that Wells is some sort of hardened criminal, when his crime, if you can call it that, was being a conscientious objector in an extremely unpopular war. Whether Wells was right or wrong to do what he did, it’s irrelevant to his general credibility, and doubly irrelevant to his authoritativeness concerning evolution.

Ironically, this sort of tactic is Wells’ specialty. He likes to make all sorts of nasty insinuations against scientists based on irrelevancies and omission of crucial information. We shouldn’t stoop to that level.

Dr. Davison,

I have provided some links to some required reading before you use Drosophila as evidence against modern evolution. These also show the role both karyotypic and genic changes play in speciation.

Speciation within Drosophila melanogaster

Speciation genes in the D. melanogaster subgroup: Odysseus HMR Nup96 Speciation between D. simulans and D. mauritiana

Karyotypic evolution and speciation in Drosophila: Sympatric vs. allopatric speciation Model for speciation via genomic rearrangements

There is abundant evidence for speciation within Drosophila with examples from different stages in the speciation process. Within species variation in D. melanogaster shows the very early steps of speciation. D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis give insight into intermediate stages. Studies on the D. melanogaster subgroup allow us to understand species boundries between well established species. How does this reconcile with your view of modern evolution?

RPM

Here is a task for you. Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don’t want any nonsense about “incipient” species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place. The other side of the coin is this little task for you. I want demonstrable proof that Darwin’s precious finches are not all one species.

Now I am going to be very firm on what constitutes a species by insisting on Dobzhansky’s criterion. Now you understand that genomic rearrangement is exactly what the PEH predicts as the only speciation mechanism so be careful in your evidence that you don’t inadvertantly support the PEH.

I want that on my desk within 24 hours. Do as you are told and stop spouting Darwinian dogma. It makes me upset

John A. Davison

RPM

I am also sick and tired of your claim that I am not an evolutionist. You Darwimps are all alike. If someone is not a Darwinian he is some kind of a mystic. The Darwimps are the mystics and always have been.

I am unable to post on these insanely long threads so if you want to communicate with me you will have to do it before the thread reaches the 250 post level. I downloaded Foxfire and it helped some but I still cannot deal with these very long threads. I am sure that will be a relief for some of you.

You guys remind me very much of what is going on over at ARN where some of you post as well, Salvador for example. There, I simply do not exist. They go on and on about allelic mutations oblivious to the demonstrable fact that they never had anything to do with evolution. You do the same thing here. It is monstrously idiotic to ignore reality like that. The same with Natural Selection. It has never been a creative force in evolution. Quite the contrary it is anti-evolutionary. Similarly, sexual reproduction is incompetent as an evolutionary device. It separately evolved many times and in many drastically different forms in order to stabilize species rather than change them. That is what led to my Semi-meiotic Hypothesis a corollary to the PEH.

Darwinism, like its ideological sister political liberalism, is a genetic disease and there is no hope for those that are so afflicted. You are all homozygous at the atheist materialist locus which I have sound reason to believe is located on chromosome # 12.

Everything, and I mean everything, about the Darwinian model is without foundation. It will never be patched up and it should have been abandoned the day the Origin was published. Mivart did just that. I am convinced that Darwin would never have published it at all if Wallace hadn’t come up with the same idiotic idea. After all Darwin had sat on it for 25 or more years. Wallace first gradually and then finally completely abandoned the whole scheme which is very much to his credit. I am obviously wasting my time trying to communicate with you all so I think I will let DaveScot deal with you. He is a lot younger than I am and a lot smarter too. As far as I am concerned the rest of you have IQs in the room temperature range. That is Celsius not Fahrenheit.

Take over Dave, I am fed up. Incidentally Dave, William Paley was right on.

John A. Davison

Comment # 19550

John A. Davison Wrote:

Comment #19550 Posted by John A. Davison on March 10, 2005 06:31 PM … I am obviously wasting my time trying to communicate with you all so I think I will let DaveScot deal with you. …

I’m placing a bet that JAD, once agian, doesn’t infact stop lecturing us.

For others I found this which I found interesting SEXUAL ISOLATION EVOLVES FASTER THAN HYBRID INVIABILITY IN A DIVERSE AND SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC GENUS OF FISH (PERCIDAE: ETHEOSTOMA) Evolution, 57(2), 2003, pp. 317–327 It was a good read.

Who does Wu quote (isn’t that clever?) in support of whatever it is that Wu believes. I assume Wu has core beliefs of some sort.

Beliefs and the scientific process have nothing to do with each other- your mistake here reveals your misunderstanding of the process. If I were to quote something to support a scientific argument, it wouldn’t just be the conclusion. Note, for example, the information-rich links RPM pointed out to you. That is how you support a scientific argument. If you quoted the Sermon on the Mount in favor of humility and generosity, that would make sense. Quoting an unknown (“great”) scientist saying “evolution didn’t happen” isn’t worth beans.

Since when is it a fallacy to quote ones intellectual superiors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority It isn’t a fallacy to quote them. It’s a fallacy to treat the quote as a stand-alone argument, as you did. You quoted his conclusion, then proceeded to claim that In other words, Drosophila melanogaster is immutable. Those are freshman-level reasoning skills.

I think it is very likely that I am wrong about a number of things but that has yet to be demonstrated. Until it is I intend to go right on blaspheming Darwinism to my hearts content with or without your approval.

It’s almost always the poor thinkers who claim that they’re being censored somehow. I have no problem with you speaking your befuddled, dogmatic mind about these matters, or any matters. I haven’t seen a single poster on this site suggest that you needed someone’s approval to speak your mind. So stop whining, and maybe answer some of the science-type questions. Such as: what about the trilobite series is lacking that would demonstrate intermediates? Maybe your definition of “intermediates” would be useful in clarifying your position.

Coincidentally, we share your belief that you’re likely wrong about many things. Who knew we had something in common?

Davison said:

Incidentally Dave, William Paley was right on.

You guys keep talking nonsense.

When was Paley right: When he hired Murrow, or when he fired him?

;-)

Carleton Wu

You said “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority … It isn’t a fallacy to quote them. It’s a fallacy to treat the quote as a stand-alone argument, as you did.

.….Coincidentally, we share your belief that you’re likely wrong about many things. Who knew we had something in common?”

***

If you read your post you may have learnt what appeal to authority is. When you present yourself as the authority, you are still appealing to authority.

But turning your self into we must be a neat party trick.

I am going to do the same thing I did at EvC. I am going to request a poll on whether the PEH is “worthy of scrutiny”. They took me up on it over there AFTER they banned me for life of course. At first the poll was very much in favor of NO. Somehow that changed and was reversed. Next they claimed chicanery and reanalyzed the data, discarding the bulk of the YES votes. That is still a matter of record over there or was the last time I looked.

Now don’t misunderstand me. I couldn’t care less whether you think the PEH is worth a nickel or not, since you have already made it very clear that you don’t like it. What I want is a record engraved in cyberspace for all time that the majority of the participants at Panda’s Thumb in 2005 rejected it so you can show that to your children and your grandchildren long after both the PEH and the SMH become standard textbook fare.

Now do as your told for a change.

John A. Davison

Mr. Davison, we are not here to “do as we are told.” It is not our job to provide a forum for, or a poll about, your ideas.

I think this thread has gone on long enough, so I will close comments soon unless some new and relevant topic of discussion arises.

P.S. (I will also be posted updates on Kansas soon, which is what this thread was actually about.)

John,

If you were prepared to go through it step by step and respond rationally to rational questions or criticisms on a point by point basis then I for one would be prepared to do that. I am away for a week but after Spring Break I would be more than happy and quite interested actually, to take you up on your proposal. But simple declarations that it’s the truth and Darwimpism is wrong aren’t helpful to your argument.

Despite our recent tantrums out this is meant seriously.

Fred

Since Jack Krebs is about to close this thread anyway, please allow me to present a closing thought.

As you probably know by now I am convinced that political liberalism and Darwiniam are closely linked genetically. This is based partly on my 55 years in academe and partly on the make up of internet forums with which I have had considerable experience.

I just ran into the following comment by my favorite political commentator, Ann Coulter, from her March 9 weekly column. Just substitute Darwinians for liberals.

“Liberals have been completely intellectually vanquished. Actually they lost the war of ideas long ago. Its just that now their defeat is so obvious, even they’ve noticed.”

As for going through my evolutionary hypotheses step by step, that has already been done in the form of seven published papers and my unpublished Manifesto. I am happy to respond to specific questions which reveal, in their format, comprehension of that material. All of that material is available in online versions except the original 1984 paper. I think those are reasonable expectations. I am too old to present that evidence again.

John A. Davison

As you probably know by now I am convinced that political liberalism and Darwiniam are closely linked genetically.

Hmm. Is that why the fundies keep telling me that Darwinism (whatever the heck THAT means) produced both Stalinism and Nazi-ism . …?

I just ran into the following comment by my favorite political commentator, Ann Coulter

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don’t want any nonsense about “incipient” species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place.

I’ve already pointed out that domestic wheat is descended from wild emmer grass.

And can’t interbeed with it.

That is the very definition of a “species”.

Is emmer grass and wheat the same “kind”? Why or why not.

Take any living species you want and then provide the species ancestor for that species. Now I don’t want any nonsense about “incipient” species you inderstand. I want demonstrable proof that the two species in question are serially related in time. It would also be very nice if you could tell me exactly when this separation took place.

I’ve already pointed out that domestic wheat is descended from wild emmer grass.

And can’t interbeed with it.

That is the very definition of a “species”.

Is emmer grass and wheat the same “kind”? Why or why not.

Well . … ?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Krebs published on March 5, 2005 4:04 PM.

The brain of Homo floresiensis was the previous entry in this blog.

10 Times the Daily Recommended Dose of Irony is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter