Where’s the ID Research?

| 145 Comments

Wondering what ever happened to all that ID inspired scientific progress that was supposedly just around the corner? Here’s Bruce Chapman explaining why it hasn’t materialized:

Friends of ID know the cases of a number of ID-friendly scientists who have lost their lab privileges or otherwise been discriminated against at universities here and in the UK. We are not trumpeting very many cases because the situations of several such scientists remain difficult. It is an appalling commentary on the state of academic freedom that ID-friendly scientists should have to work in an atmosphere of fear, but it’s true. We just want friends of ID who wonder why we don’t publicize work in progress more than we do to take a moment and reflect about that!

As for foes and critics who pester us for information about research now underway and who insinuate that, unless we oblige them, we must accept their opinion that such research is not happening, we owe them nothing. Since when does a scientist have to “report” on his work to the public before he is ready? The opposite is almost always the case.

There’s lot’s of ID research, but a conspiracy of censorship prevents us from telling you about it. Lot’s of people are being oppressed by Darwinists, but we can’t tell you who they are.

RIght. And people who deny the existence of robots are themselves robots.

I’ve posted some further comments over at EvolutionBlog. Enjoy!

145 Comments

“Report to the public”!?

Isn’t that just what the IDiots have been trying to do all along by going directly to high school science classes? Bypass the monolithic, dogmatic Darwinist conspiracy and appeal directly to the fresh, open minds of yong people?

Now this clown says ID “scientists” don’t have to report to the public before they are ready?

What’s it going to be, IDiots? Seems they want it both ways. Yep, ID is “all about the science.”

I especially liked this little red herring:

It appears that the distinguished Baylor University philosopher and legal scholar Frank Beckwith will get tenure after all, but that decision came only a few days ago and on appeal at the very end of a long, painful process where his adversaries were well organized, persistent and reckless of facts and decency. His real problems were that he was pro-life and that he had written that it is constitutional to teach about intelligent design. Against those PC liabilities, his long record of outstanding publication didn’t matter at all to his foes.

Uh, right. Offhand I know half a dozen openly pro-life tenured professors here at OSU, but I’m sure pro-life academics suffer serious prejudice at Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas.

C’mon, ID supporters. Aren’t you pissed that the DI thinks you’re that stupid? Jeez.

Friends of ID know the cases of a number of ID-friendly scientists who have lost their lab privileges

So go get a grant from the Discovery Institute and continue the research. The DI says they’re actively looking for good studies to fund.

And it’s not like they’re going to need to build something the size of the space station or a supercollider.

Gregor Mendel worked out the basics of genetics with a garden full of pea plants.

Darwin had a book full of notes form his world tour.

Galileo, Newton and Einstein didn’t need much more than paper, pencil, and access to a good library.

Don’t forget this isn’t some subtle, arcane, question about how quarks spin or hox genes work. According to the ID guys, everything that science believes is simply wrong. How difficult can it be to find one little scrap of data that back that up?

Why do the ID forces need anything bigger than the Discovery Institute (which is funded well into 7 figures, BTW) can supply?

Just how much of a “lab” do you really need to find a giant flaw in the fabric of modern science?

As for foes and critics who pester us for information about research now underway and who insinuate that, unless we oblige them, we must accept their opinion that such research is not happening, we owe them nothing. Since when does a scientist have to “report” on his work to the public before he is ready?

I dunno guys, it’s been what, about 20 years now since Creation Scientist supposedly went to work?

Doesn’t it seem like two decades is an awfully long time to wait around for some preliminary data? Any preliminary data?

After all, it didn’t take two decades to put men on the moon.

Don’t we have a right to expect that an effort that should be able to get rolling with nothing more than a good literature search might be expected to produce something by now?

Maybe we should even expect to get that kind of information before we teach it in the schools.

Here’s the kind of research that IDists are committed to doing (these are Dembski’s words):

If I have one gripe with the scientific community’s reception of intelligent design, it has nothing to do with its less-than-cheerful acceptance of the idea. Rather, what I find objectionable is its willful refusal to admit that intelligent design is accurately focusing attention on some deep conceptual problems in biology (however they end up being resolved). Even Michael Ruse, whom I regard as a friend, exhibits this narrowness when, in responding to Jonathan Wells, he writes “Scientists have looked at ID in some detail and found it sadly wanting.”

Have they really? Some scientists have reflexively reacted against intelligent design because they see it as a political movement (unfortunately with some justification) or as a variant of biblical creationism (fortunately without justification). The fact is that intelligent design is asking biology some tough questions and forcing evolutionary biology to own up, not to some minor crevices that need papering over, but to vast conceptual lacunae that require fundamental rethinking of the discipline. But do not take my word for it.

A prominent biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences with whom I maintain an irregular correspondence wrote me last year. He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection. Commenting on these alternatives, he writes: “Of these, I sort of favor the last. If it is true, then Darwin, et al. have found a mechanism that works in simple cases (which it certainly does!) but misses more important mechanisms of evolutionary change and adaptation. The search for the missing mechanisms can only be helped by people like you asking tough questions. Keep at it!”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]&id=1215

See, they’re so busy with the “deep conceptual problems of biology” (which, of course, Dembski understands not at all), that they can’t quite get around to publishing papers after 150 years, or in the at least 15 years, if you want to count the latest incarnation of Paley (or are they trying to suggest that there are new converts to ID, who are just starting to do “research”?).

The trouble with these IDiots is that they can never keep their stories straight. Dembski writes about how the real concern is science’s unwillingness to redress the “problems” of the scientific method that gives us our technology and expert opinion in court cases, while Chapman suggests that scientists using at least something like the scientific method are in fact doing work that just happens never to appear.

How could any IDists be doing actual science, if it has such fundamental “materialist” flaws in it? Wouldn’t they be apostates or heretics if they were doing real science? It’s the reliance upon evidence (which the IDiots mis-describe as “materialism”) that the IDiots have a problem with. Our insistence on details is the real sacrilege, the only reason that we “persecute” those who would do “science” sans evidence.

But, oh yeah, they’re just hunkered down with their test-tubes. After having complained about biology’s fundamental flaws, they’re doing science after all, it’s just that they can’t show it to us before it is ready, and apparently it takes an extraordinarily long time for breakthroughs to be produced in ID (yes, I expect that part is true enough).

The only way I can reconcile the two accounts is that there are ID “scientists” out there doing ersatz “science” which, being epistemically flawed, they dare not publish. Thus we have perpetual limbo, with “science” they cannot divulge, since it is so much rot, but it conforms with their conception of science, i.e., it is so much apologetics.

More likely nothing at all is being done, of course. The Templeton Foundation (IIRC) tried to fund ID research, and nothing worthwhile was proposed–not surprising, given the ID animosity against good science standards.

The DI will try to have it both ways, though, since it can’t acknowledge that its fight is against science as both Xians (including most IDCists, outside of origins research anyway) and secularists understand it, and is stuck both criticizing evidence-based science, and claiming to perform the same. Their contradictions prevent real science and cause them to claim that they’d be publishing real science if only we would let them.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

“deep conceptual problems in biology”

Yeah, right. Dembski is deep, man, real deep. Who needs facts and data when you have deep thoughts. I can just see kindly Dembski, years from now, as Dean of Dembski U, with his bald head, colorful vest, and curly mustache reaching into his black bag and handing out chincy diplomas for “thinkology” for thinking deep thoughts. Instantly, on receipt of the diploma, each student will knit their eyebrows, incorrectly spout out the Pythagorean Theorem and look very serious. American Education will have reached its pinnacle, and Dembski will float away in a big balloon to return to Kansas and see if the science standards have finally met his deep, thoughtful, ideal, complete with a brass band and apple pie.

Meanwhile, the rest of us shallow, deluded souls will carry on in our offices and labs doing experiments, analyzing data, and otherwise trying to advance science by testing hypotheses and asking questions.

He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection. Commenting on these alternatives, he writes: “Of these, I sort of favor the last.”

So?

I’d wager that most scientists would sum up the state of the art with something like “Right now, we think Darwin was right, but there could always be some additional mechanisms at play”

But I’d point out that the three given options are not exactly, um, equivalent.

Sure, science is currently betting on #2, Darwinian evolution, but I don’t think you’d find a whole lot of scientists out there who would bat an eye at the plausibility of #3, a still unknown natural mechanism that augments natural selection.

Science saying “We might not have the entire picture yet” is, um, not exactly earth-shaking. That’s how science works.

On the other hand, the jump to #1, “God sez ‘poof’ “, is a leap of somewhat larger magnitude, methinks.

Book-burners know the cases of a number of book-burning-friendly librarians who have lost their stacks privileges or otherwise been discriminated against at universities here and in the UK. We are not trumpeting very many cases because the situations of several such librarians remain difficult. It is an appalling commentary on the state of academic freedom that book burning-friendly librarians should have to work in an atmosphere of fear, but it’s true. We just want friends of book burning who wonder why we don’t publicize work in progress more than we do to take a moment and reflect about that!

“Galileo, Newton and Einstein didn’t need much more than paper, pencil, and access to a good library.”

Actually all were able experimenters and inventors, getting familiar with the real world before embarking on their remarkable journeys of theory building.

And of course Newton was the Einstein of classical mechanics, and Einstein was the Newton of relativity.

Demsbki however, remains the Hovind of ID.

I’m pretty sure that if we did Bayesian estimates of creationism vs evolution progress based on reviewed papers, belief in creationism would have passed beyond Demsbki’s UPB at this time. Luckily for him, there is no UPB concept in science.

It’s a smokescreen.

If the DI had anything… if there really were any sort of serious research which supported ID… they’d crank up their media machine and trumpet it to the heavens.

But they don’t have anything.

Demsbki however, remains the Hovind of ID

No, Dembski’s the Hovind of mathematics, but the Malcom McLaren of ID.

It’s a smokescreen.

If the DI had anything… if there really were any sort of serious research which supported ID… they’d crank up their media machine and trumpet it to the heavens.

But they don’t have anything.

The climate of discrimination they describe is of course simply a climate of insisting on real science. As I posted previously, IDers don’t like to mention cases like my own where, though I wasn’t forced to leave, I found I had to because my school director began overtly teaching ID, and using my presence to justify the idea that ID and evolution were simply competing theories (or ideas), in a controversy within science about what was true. Isn’t it wonderful that we can have honest dialouge and debate?

If you’re a Christian and teach biology at a school whose administration is Christian, (outside Catholicism) you’re in trouble. There is a climate of fear and discrimination. In my experience, it’s created by those on the side of ID.

Isn’t this a tautology?

He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection.

Sounds like 1) ID, 2) RM+NS, and 3) something else. Well, at least he admits that there’s no dichotomy.

Furthermore, 3) seems like the majority view nowdays anyway. Is there anyone who really believes that RM+NS accounts for all of life’s diversity?

GuyeFaux — I am not a biologist. Why doesn’t RM+NS suffice? Various applications of the Simple Genetic Algorithm suggests that RM+NS does, in fact suffice…

When you have to lie in the title of your web site (evolution news and views) you have sunk to a level that you probably can’t see daylight.

David Benson wrote:

GuyeFaux — I am not a biologist. Why doesn’t RM+NS suffice? Various applications of the Simple Genetic Algorithm suggests that RM+NS does, in fact suffice…

Because we already know that there are such things as genetic recombination and genetic drift that have been verified to exist in nature and contribute to the diversity and evolution of life on this planet.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]08194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]08194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]08194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

ben: “but the Malcom McLaren of ID.”

You must have touched one of my blind spots, since I have no idea what this means. I could appreciate a little help, if you will.

One Malcom McLaren seems to be an impressario in musics, which can explain my ignorance. Music is what I dance or workout to, sports is when I excercise (dance or gym or vacation), but I have little further interest so I have few ideas about areas and artists in these two practices even though I get a lot of both.

For example, I’ve vaguely heard of Sex Pistols, but I didn’t know they were a punk band, and I have no idea how punk sounds. I can’t connect the info on this McLaren in Wikipedia to ID, not humoristically. (Nor factually, but for some reason I don’t think that was the purpose.)

Torbjorn:

I had to blink at that one too. (M. McLaren)

But the Sex Pistols were not a band before McLaren “created” them as such, based on image and attitude, not necessarily misical aptitude.

So maybe the implication is that Dembski has cooked up a “movement” (analagous to punk) that is all style and no substance, or, as we used to say in Kansas, all sizzle and no steak.

Subvert the dominant paradigm! (old punk slogan)

Does anybody even read any of DI’s, uh, “press releases” any more?

They’re dead. Dead, dead, dead.

Time to bury the stinking corpse and move on to the next scam.

Subvert the dominant paradigm! (old punk slogan)

As an old punk rocker from wayyy back, I can say categorically that this was never a punk slogan.

But as an environmental organizer from wayyy back, I *can* categorically say that it was a slogan for Earth First!

Couldn’t the ID researchers just drop a few hints about their exciting research? They could say, for example, that a ID scientist on continent x is researching z. That wouldn’t really reveal their identity/location to the Darwinian ID-hating lab-burning mobs, would it?

Does anybody even read any of DI’s, uh, “press releases” any more? They’re dead. Dead, dead, dead. Time to bury the stinking corpse and move on to the next scam.

That would be AIG. Bury them, and so many problems are over. ‘Course, no one wants to see Wes, Nick, et al out of a job, or our primary source of entertainment vanish :) Somehow, I’m not worried about that happening.

I don’t know much about McLaren, either, Torbjorn, but I’m speculating that the reference isn’t merely to McLaren having promoted or managed these various mucic groups but to his having, in some sense, “manufactured” them–or at least taken whatever modest musical talents may have been there originally and “packaged,” “positioned,” and “presented” them to the public in a way that would appeal.

Think of how even the Beatles’ producer, George Martin, was termed the “fifth” Beatle or how controversial the Rolling Stones’ manager (from memory, here) Andrew Loog Oldham, was in their early days.

If you, first, view the Sex Pistols as either essentially talent-less (or not having on their own the kind of talent and drive that would ever have brought them commercial success–and I’m not endorsing the no-talent view, but just attempting to translate the humor) and, second, view the McLarens of the world as concocting, confecting, or conjuring this apparent talent out of nowhere and turning it into a marketable commodity–then I suspect the Dembski:Id as McLaren:Sex Pistols, where ID is to science as the Sex Pistols (again, for purposes of this analogical scheme, tho not necessarily in my personal judgment) is to musical ability, and add to all that the “PR/commodity” aspect of both ID and (some apparently would say) the phenomenon of the Sex Pistols, then I think you’ll begin to see–after much labor–what this one-liner was driving at.

Rent the DVD of “Sid and Nancy” if you are interested in a well-made movie-ized take on the, um, ups and downs of the Sex Pistols.

Thanks CJ, that makes sense and ben funny on several levels.

So if ID is the punk of pop music, is creationism the atonality of classical music? “The two great errors of the 20th century were atonality and Marxism.”

Thanks Lenny and Stevepinhead too. (Forgot to update before posting again.) It seems I haven’t missed out much on Sex Pistols, either.

Frickin’ Degas! Here I was, unable to even open PT, and CJ stole my thunder, and so much more pithily, at that.

While I kept getting, “The Page Cannot Be Found.”

Management, isn’t there ANYTHING more permanent that can be done to solve the hosting woes? I’ve sent in my check to the TO foundation, but the same old problems keep plaguing the site.

Time to move to Seed, like PZ and Zimmer?

Time to pay for a pro for a day or two?

Something, pretty please…!

Why isn’t anyone asking the obvious question – if there is a “conspiracy” to prevent research, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute pony up the money to do it?

In fact, I recall that a major religious charity that offered to fund ID research could find no legitimate takers. Is anyone out there so stupid as to believe the Christian Right can’t find the money to do this “research” if there really was any?

John

Dr. Michael Martin Wrote:

I can name two right (IDist who do not believe in God) off the top of my head.

When I say God, I mean the Biblical God.

When I say God, I mean a hedgehog with the power of telekinesis. Therefore, all the major ID figures are atheists.

When I say God, I mean a hedgehog with the power of telekinesis.

name wouldn’t be “Spiny Norman”, by any chance?

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketc[…]/piranha.htm

I just got back & am happily researching beefalo’s. Am in process of reviewing the literature so conveniently linked to above. Not having the technical know-how to put up such convenient references I give an address which was usefull: HOW I GOT FERTILE BUFFALO X HEREFORD BULLS (were they red-whiskered bulbuls?) by Rancher Burnett, www.ababeefalo.org/abi19.htm . Burnett is hands-on, somewhat reminiscent of Samuel Morse :”What things God hath wrought!” From what I have read to date, Rancher Burnett won’t be saying that God hath wrought confusion in the biosphere, despite his own hybridization triumphs. Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy. Time is not a mechanism, remember. Pleased to see we aren’t continuing to do despite to the venerable science of Geology. Some palaeontologists have indeed jumped the gun in this area and have gone as far as speculating on common ancestry (but did they mean, genetic or “blood” ancestry?) but thankfully not too many are running around denying their own discipline by claiming unequivocal advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian. Traditionally, one certain way of distinguishing between Pre-Cambrian and later strata has been on the basis of the absence or presence of organisms with hard parts, or with the proven internal complexity of forms such as echinoderms and coelenterates. That’s not to say there weren’t remarkable advances, latest Pre-Cambrian. Avast with the Geology-undermining verbiage, bio-freaks! WIKIPEDIA is WHACKEY-PEDIA if it countenances such outbreaks of excessive over-hypothesization. Hang in there and we might arrange some questions for the big shots. Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects? Remember, time is not a mechanism. Random encounters with quantum particles, if it is a mechanism, could have killed the moon astronauts, had there been a cosmic radiation storm. And advanced life is demonstrably not mutating for the better. Weeds, bugs, and microbes are the only ones improving genetically right now. What we want is the mechanism of speciation, not random and disjointed observations.

I have had a look at the Bison - Beef Cattle links and being as conversant with the language of genetics as with the topography of the far side of the moon, would have to say I leave that to experts. As you know, it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of a great many people, past and present, that the most workable species definition centers around observed reproductive self-containment over time, under natural conditions. Given that, under natural conditions, over time, distinct herds of Bison were observed as well as distinct herds of other types, there is an argument for classing them as separate species. There may be other opinions. Of some significance here could be the observation that two possibly distinct species can be reunited in some measure. Are these hybrids likely to have similarities to the common - as-Darwinists-call-it - ancestor? Can we learn something about speciation by studying the methods involved in getting these two organisms to return towards that common “ancestor”? Start looking - there will be useful information here. I have another question - does anyone know if there is any discernable difference between the DNA of domestic goats and sheep?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag ‘kwickxml’

Dr, maybe you should just close your eyes and bang on the keyboard; I think your formatting and your argumentation would both probably come out better than whatever you’re doing so far.

Helywood blithers: “Bovine excrement.”

Such as:

“Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects?”

Hey, Heywood. YOU’RE 95% CHIMP!!!

(And possibly 50% banana!)

We are what we eat. :-)

OK, we’ve got two infractions on the play. We’ve got “moving the goalposts” on Heywood:

“From what I have read to date, Rancher Burnett won’t be saying that God hath wrought confusion in the biosphere, despite his own hybridization triumphs. Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy.”

And we’ve also got “appeal to popular vote” also on Heywood:

“As you know, it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of a great many people, past and present, that the most workable species definition centers around observed reproductive self-containment over time, under natural conditions.”

It continues to amaze me how many people think they can alter reality by changing the definitions of the words they use.

Oh, for those of you unfamilar with American football, just assume he got two yellow cards and a kick in the nuts.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Not having the technical know-how to put up such convenient references I give an address which was usefull: HOW I GOT FERTILE BUFFALO X HEREFORD BULLS (were they red-whiskered bulbuls?) by Rancher Burnett, www.ababeefalo.org/abi19.htm . Burnett is hands-on, somewhat reminiscent of Samuel Morse :”What things God hath wrought!”

Of course, as you continue to review the literature, or perhaps stumble upon this, you’ll see lots of examples of hybridization which occurred without any human help. After all, cow genes are currently spreading through wild bovids without the help of a secret army of artificial inseminators!

Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy.

Need some help with those goalposts, Heywood? I might be able to find a tractor.…

But in fact you’re right. Bison can cross with cows, but not with skylarks or (probably) horses. Likewise wolves can cross with coyotes and jackals, but not with sharks or tomato plants. It’s almost as if more closely-related species share a more recent common ancestor, and therefore tend to retain more of their original ability to interbreed, than more distantly-related species do! Now where have I heard that before.…

Time is not a mechanism, remember.

But some mechanisms take time.

Pleased to see we aren’t continuing to do despite to the venerable science of Geology. Some palaeontologists have indeed jumped the gun in this area and have gone as far as speculating on common ancestry (but did they mean, genetic or “blood” ancestry?) but thankfully not too many are running around denying their own discipline by claiming unequivocal advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian.

Advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian is common knowledge now, Heywood. I know, it doesn’t feel that way when your personal library dates to 1901, but science has progressed since then.

Avast with the Geology-undermining verbiage, bio-freaks! WIKIPEDIA is WHACKEY-PEDIA if it countenances such outbreaks of excessive over-hypothesization.

Classic. That almost rivals PYGMIES + DWARFS.

Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects?

We got rid of our chimp-like information? Funny, I’ve got five fingers and an opposable thumb. Don’t you? As for “all our inheritable human defects”…um, which defects are you talking about and why would you expect us to have gotten rid of them?

Random encounters with quantum particles, if it is a mechanism, could have killed the moon astronauts, had there been a cosmic radiation storm.

But there wasn’t, so it didn’t. What’s your point?

And advanced life is demonstrably not mutating for the better. Weeds, bugs, and microbes are the only ones improving genetically right now.

Really? Care to demonstrate such a demonstrable fact? While you’re at it, you might mention your criteria for “advanced,” because they obviously aren’t the same as a biologist’s. Biologists tend to give weeds and bugs quite a lot of respect.…

I have another question - does anyone know if there is any discernable difference between the DNA of domestic goats and sheep?

Apparently.

This is a response to Lenny Flunk

My, that certainly is clever beyond measure.

(snicker) (giggle)

Hey Doc, when you’re finished clogging up the Thumb with your incompetent posting errors (doctoral degree, my ass), I’ll point out to you that (1) Wells’s God is the same as yours, and (2) Denton thinks ID is a load of crap.

Oh, and I’m still waiting to hear from you (1) when AIG’s updated version of the Malleus Maleficarum is going to help us find all those witches hiding out there, and (2) whether or not you think women should be allowed to speak in church.

After all, cow genes are currently spreading through wild bovids without the help of a secret army of artificial inseminators!

SHHHHH!

If too many people find out about that, I might lose my job!

Earlier there was a good suggestion for the PT moderators: Limiting the number of posts per thread per commenter per day.

I suggest changing this idea to one I have seen used, successfully, elsewhere: Not more than one comment per commenter in any 90 second interval.

Might help…

“As for “all our inheritable human defects”…um, which defects are you talking about and why would you expect us to have gotten rid of them?”

Maybe PBH has actually learned something - last thread he first insisted that humans accumulated defects towards certain extinction.

Maybe he was thinking of when the creos becomes to many?!

David B. Benson Wrote:

I suggest changing this idea to one I have seen used, successfully, elsewhere: Not more than one comment per commenter in any 90 second interval.

Might help…

That’d inconvenience me slightly, since I tend to compose replies offline and then post them all when I have a free moment; otherwise I lose track.

OTOH, if it stems the raging flood of semantic chaos that is “Dr.” “Michael” “Martin,” I will nobly sacrifice five extra minutes of my time.

Oh, and hey Doc, what is this “traditional doctrine of creation” that DIs ays it wants to defend, and why does it want to defend it?

I’m as annoyed by the multi-unreadable-indecipherable posts of some of our recent trolls as anyone, but–

–understandable as it is on, for example, PZ’s own blog, where he attracts certain personal hate-trolls–

–this is a group site, with a pretty dedicated bunch of steady troll-repellers available.

I think I’m against banning, post limits, post/time limits, etc., except in extreme cases where the offenders have been warned.

(In any event, as ineffectual and bumbling as Nurse Bettinke and her butterfly-net-guys seem to have been to date, there’s always the possibility that the Trollheim Sanatorium will eventually learn how to control its own.)

Re “That’d inconvenience me slightly, since I tend to compose replies offline and then post them all when I have a free moment; “

Me too.

Course there’s already a timed interval before the next note is allowed, but I think it’s more on the order of half a minute, or thereabouts?

Henry

I’m slightly more educated about sheep and goat DNA but why don’t some of these geneticists talk English? No, I can’t see where I moved the goalposts. If I quote from anything other than what some of these contributors seem to have made up between themselves, it’s either out of date, too recent to be reliable, or “shifting the goalposts”. Good to see that Anton admits there is such a thing as reproductive isolation in nature. Compensates for the despite he does to the published facts of the fossil record. The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth. Go and re-read it, but I don’t think re-reading a question any number of times will help, unless there is a willingness to comprehend the simple gist of the matter in hand. Sure, it took some time to carve Mt. Rushmore. Unless someone got up there with some rock-cutting equipment, all the time in the world wouldn’t have carved the faces. What was the rock cutting equipment? Don’t say random mutations, unless you have either observational evidence that mutations are improving the genetic information in HIGHER animals, or you have a methematically based process in mind. Something real.

You know, I had a strange occurrence at my site? The Force could be out of balance. It’s a strange occurrence of a weird kind. Out of hyperspace this cryptic verse appeared. What could it mean? Intigued I am.

I’d like to be a bunny, A’ hopping in the grass. Forgive this mild calumny; ‘Tis thus the time I’d pass.

I’d nip a dandelion, And rumble ‘mongst the weeds: Resulting purturbations Would scatter all the seeds.

I’d burrow through to China, Then trim a marigold; So when I’m not a miner, I’ll be a gardener bold.

I’d leap o’er weedy patches, And somersaults do three; I’d open all the latches, To lettuce patch entry.

A bane I’d be to farmers, Who turn the loam so deep. They’d chase me in pyjamas, Bemoaning loss of sleep.

I’d wander ‘mongst the berries, And gnaw on tubers stout. And ignore silly queries, Like, What’s this all about?

For bunnies will be bunnies; ‘Though roaming fields so wide, Those cottontail alumnie’s In burrows will reside.

Now here’s an even more off-beat occurrence. Fading into a slow-moving vision warp were some words: “Darth Rabot; his mark”. I got a distinct impression of a fading paw-print, possibly of a representative of the LEPORIDAE.

Weird, eh? Here’s more. Pictures of two adorable bunnikins time- warped themselves onto the bottom of the poem. You can verify the phenomenon at www.creationtheory.com . Are these two holograms actually Ken Hamster and Richard (Dawkins) Rabbit trying to get a message through, or is this actually Darth Rabo, his likeness? What, then, is the other robit? Do we need to name these bunnies, before the Force can settle? Can someone oblige? Concerned I am about these bunnies!

PBH:

“Intigued I am.”

You insult the great green master with your bad spelling and bad impression. :(

And before you ask, we doubt it is possible for leporids to mate with Panthera pardus. If any tried, Concerned I WOULD be about those bunnies.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

No, I can’t see where I moved the goalposts. If I quote from anything other than what some of these contributors seem to have made up between themselves, it’s either out of date, too recent to be reliable, or “shifting the goalposts”.

Oh, Heywood. Creationists under fire have been retreating to “But elephants can’t make babies with rosebushes!” for over a century now. Why deny your respect for tradition?

Good to see that Anton admits there is such a thing as reproductive isolation in nature.

You might be amazed, but this is actually a well-known fact in modern biology. And in non-modern biology, in fact. There was this book, written about 150 years ago, called “The Origin of Species”–not, you’ll notice, “The Nonexistence of Species”–and its author points out:

“It is certain, on the one hand, that the sterility of various species when crossed is so different in degree and graduates away so insensibly, and, on the other hand, that the fertility of pure species is so easily affected by various circumstances, that for all practical purposes it is most difficult to say where perfect fertility ends and sterility begins. “

Looks like you’ve almost caught up to him!

Compensates for the despite he does to the published facts of the fossil record.

*Snort*. Yeah, it’s terribly disrepectful to said published facts to actually cite them and stuff.

The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth.

Er, no, that’s not what you asked, because you were talking about chimps and humans, and neither is a “previous species” to the other.

Go and re-read it, but I don’t think re-reading a question any number of times will help, unless there is a willingness to comprehend the simple gist of the matter in hand.

I don’t think re-reading that question any number of times would help under any circumstances. “Preserving” the genes of the new species? Why would genes of a new species need to be “preserved” when they’re, um, new?

Sure, it took some time to carve Mt. Rushmore. Unless someone got up there with some rock-cutting equipment, all the time in the world wouldn’t have carved the faces.

It worked for the Old Man of the Mountain.

But you know, you’re absolutely right. If there was an animal running around with four heads that looked like famous American presidents, and on which each head appeared sometime after the election of the corresponding president, we’d be seriously thinking about whether human engineering was responsible.

Got one?

What was the rock cutting equipment? Don’t say random mutations, unless you have either observational evidence that mutations are improving the genetic information in HIGHER animals,

Yes. Next!

Oh, but if you have evidence that “HIGHER animals” are somehow incapable of experiencing beneficial mutations, whereas “weeds and bugs and microbes” are not, please blow modern science out of the water by providing it. (Hint: “Because of math and logic, so there,” and “I’m all out of arguments, so here’s a poem” do not constitute evidence.)

or you have a methematically based process in mind. Something real.

I’m slightly more educated about sheep and goat DNA

been trying to create some personal sheep/human hybrids have you?

That’s dashed amusing. Anytime you wish to contribute at www.creationtheory.com, Robo, be my guest. Where did you get that style.

“That’s dashed amusing. Anytime you wish to contribute at www.creationtheory.com, Robo, be my guest.”

It IS a joke after all. :-)

“Where did you get that style.”

From Yoda. The Jedi Master who instructed me. ;)

PBH: It’s also “the opinion of a great many people, past and present,” that the Jews are conspiring to take over the world, and regularly eat Christian babies at Passover or some such. Why are such opinions relevant to scientific issues?

Or are you such a weakling yourself that your thought processes can be bowled over by sheer numbers?

The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth.

PBH: This one sentence is a dead giveaway that the whole concept of evolution has completely evaded your grasp. I suggest you read (and think about) some basic biology texts.

This one sentence is a dead giveaway that the whole concept of evolution has completely evaded your grasp.

No surprise there — in 25 years of creationist-fighting. I’ve never met a single person who both rejects evolution AND UNDERSTANDS IT.

Not a one.

But then, given Heywood’s incoherent blithering, it’s awfully hard to tell WHAT he understands. (shrug)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jason Rosenhouse published on October 2, 2006 3:34 PM.

A working list of species “concepts” was the previous entry in this blog.

Mark Your Calendars: Michael Shermer Book Forum 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 4.381

Site Meter