Have a querulous Paul Nelson Day!

| 186 Comments | 4 TrackBacks

The new generation of creationists has been doing something rather remarkable. Flaming anti-scientific religious nutcases like Wells and Dembski have been diligently going to real universities, not the usual hokey bible colleges, and working hard to get legitimate degrees in actual fields of science and math to get themselves a superficial veneer of credibility. It's basically nothing but collecting paper credentials, though, since they don't actually learn anything and never do anything with the knowledge they should have acquired, other than use it to razzle-dazzle the rubes.

One other example is Paul Nelson, and today is the anniversary of an infamous interaction. You see, Nelson likes to flaunt the pretense of being knowledgeable about developmental biology. Several years ago, he invented this mysterious metric called "ontogenetic depth" that he claimed to be measuring, and which he claimed to have used as evidence that the Cambrian fauna did not evolve. He even dragged this nonsense to professional meetings where he was ignored, except by vicious anti-creationists. I harshly criticized the entire vacuous notion. (I also expressed sympathy for the poor graduate student Nelson had lured into this waste of effort…it was Marcus Ross, remember him?)

He said he'd write up a technical summary that would explain exactly what ontogenetic depth was and how it was measured. He gave us a whole series of dates by which he'd have this wonderful summary. Every one of those dates sailed by without a word. And ever since we have commemorated Paul Nelson Day on 7 April, one of the dates in 2004 that he promised us an explanation. Here's my anniversary timeline from last year.

I was just reminded that last year at this time I announced an anniversary. In March of 2004, I critiqued this mysterious abstraction called "ontogenetic depth" that Paul Nelson, the ID creationist, proposed as a measure of developmental and evolutionary complexity, and that he was using as a pseudoscientific rationale against evolution. Unfortunately, he never explained how "ontogenetic depth" was calculated or how it was measured (perhaps he was inspired by Dembski's "specified complexity", another magic number that can be farted out by creationists but cannot be calculated). Nelson responded to my criticisms with a promise.

On 29 March 2004, he promised to post an explanation "tomorrow".

On 7 April 2004, he told us "tomorrow".

On 26 April 2004, he told us he was too busy.

On 13 January 2005, he told us to read a paper by R Azevedo instead. I rather doubt that Ricardo supports Intelligent Design creationism, or thinks his work contributes to it.

Ever since, silence.

This year he is apparently off in Brazil, proselytizing his lies and fake science to the people there, so I'm assuming he won't get around to explaining his magic metric tomorrow, either. Isn't it amazing how creationists can make stuff up and get a career speaking at exotic places all around the world?

Oh, and get a day named after them! In his honor, we should all make it a point to ask people "How do you know that?" today, and the ones who actually can explain themselves competently will be complimented by being told that they're no Paul Nelson.

We'll celebrate it again next year, I'm sure.

4 TrackBacks

Yes, it is that time of the year again, Paul Nelson Day. PZ suggests we should all make it a point to ask people "How do you know that?" today, and the ones who actually can explain themselves competently will... Read More

The Meaning of Life from Greg Laden's Blog on April 7, 2008 4:17 PM

I have a theory that cinema and other forms of fiction often arise not from pure creativity, but from prescience. It is not the case, when this happens, that "life imitates art" but rather, that art predicts life. It is only a matter of figuring... Read More

Today we celebrate Paul Nelson Day in honor of the five year anniversary of his theory of "ontogenic depth" and a promised exposition that has never appeared. Methods of celebration vary - PZ has in the past suggested that... Read More

Once upon a time, a creationist invented a brand new pseudo-scientific term, which he even presented at a scientific conference. It was a very, very silly idea called "ontogenetic depth". I criticized the idea publicly and viciously, pointing out that... Read More

186 Comments

This from the website of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/O[…]enetic_Depth) :

“Ontogenetic depth is a measure of the distance (in terms of cell division and differentiation) between a single-celled state and an adult animal (metazoan) capable of reproduction. All animals begin their existence as a single cell, the fertilized egg. From that cell, many other cells arise, and become specialized for particular functional roles – for instance, as sensory organs, skeletal parts, or reproductive structures (such as ovaries). The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.

Developmental biology has mapped the ontogenetic depth of a handful of species, in the so-called “model systems” of the discipline, such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans or the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. To explain the historical origin of any animal species (and arguably the same is true for plants), one must give an account of how that species’ respective ontogenetic network – i.e., its process of differentiation – was constructed.”

I did not do an exhaustive search of the site but I didn’t see a copyright more recent than 2006 nor any society event more recent than 2004. Their address is in Princeton NJ if anyone wants to go have a look. It sad that with “Darwinism” on it’s last legs there isn’t more money for such endeavours. Where will all the researchers go?

Funny you should mention that. Someone did go have a look. It’s a UPS store with a mailbox labeled “Suite 1800”.

I did find one thread on the ISCID forum still active but almost all the posts for the last six months have been by the same person, nosivad, with one noticed interjection by DaveScot. A bit sad really.

The last posts?: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get[…]70-p-83.html

“The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.”

Easy. Now all you have to do is estimate the total number of cell divisions required, then multiply by the number of genes that must be properly regulated in order to achieve differentiation. Simple. In fact one could make and estimate for a few species already. As for the rest, I guess Paul better get buzy in the lab and measure the important parameters. Of course that still won’t prove that the developmental pathways could not evolve.

This is just a nonsensical way of saying that development is complex and that in order to explain evolution you must explain development. Well the field of evo/devo has made an excellent start on that. Maybe Paul should get another degree and learn a thing or two about what is known about developmental genetics before declaring that no one understands it. After all, he can still claim that the pathetic level of detail is just not good enough for him. But then he would have to go into the lab anyway. Oh well.

novisad… that’d be AJNovisad, I’ll wager.

David Stanton - what’s that?? Paul should get himself into a lab?? But then he might have to interact with - *gasp* - the evilutionists! On their own turf!

He might even - horror of horrors! - learn something about evolution. They can’t have that. He might even abandon ID altogether.

Sorry pee wee, but I celebrate “pee wee nobody day” everyday as I consider the totally vacuous nature of your entire existence and the meaningless drivel you post.

Real scientists, like say Dr. Chain, Nobel prize winner and life long opponent of evolution writ large laughed at weenies like you and considered your little hypothesis to be a fairy tale for the weakminded.

Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.

Keith - Please be quiet. I’m trying to listen to reason :-)

So would a butterfly that goes goes through a number of different states (egg, larva, pupa, butterfly, have more depth than a human?

The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith

Are you kidding?

Hummm, mysterious numbers to impress the rubes, hah? How about the total number of genes of an organism, no, not mysterious enough. How about their total height divided by the number of eyes they have, hum, that has possibilities. Oh, I know, the total number of alleles for hair color within a species, to the Nth power, where N is the remainder after dividing their number of teeth by their number of stomachs. Ok, I promise to post a paper tomorrow.

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can’t be calculated? The “Omega” number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory. It measures the probability that a given program with a given input will eventually halt. (See Greg Chaitin, “Meta Math,” Pantheon, 2005)

However, Omega is different from Phu, the probability that a given creationist with a given claim will eventually halt. Although Phu cannot be calculated exactly, its value approaches zero asymptotically.

Chain, who got the Prize in 1945?

One Nobelist out of how many over the last century?

And with this you mock scientists?

Do you not even slightly perceive the irony?

Keith: if you want to get mentioned on PZ’s blog, you’ll have to try harder. Only the most frothing nutcases get that honour. Try mixing in some bad logic and capital letters with the lies, it’s funnier. :>

Although Phu cannot be calculated exactly, its value approaches zero asymptotically.

Excellent concept, but you need to check your calculations.

Phu is a split function.

For all creationists except Behe, it is always exactly zero. It does not approach zero, it is zero, for all input variables. No other creationist ever has or ever will halted making a specious claim.

For Behe, Phu appears to rapidly approach a probability of one, as a function of time. In other words, it appears that whatever creationist claim Behe advances, he will eventually deny it.

This is taken by some as one of many pieces of evidence that Behe is some sort of a triple agent, rather than a true creationist. First he got a job at Lehigh University by pretending to be a well-meaning scientist. Then he embarrassed Lehigh by claiming to be a creationist. But now he seems to collect money from creationists as an “expert”, but then torpedo them in court. Very odd. The only consistent lesson seems to be that if you rely on Behe, you’ll get burned, no matter who you are.

Thanks for giving me another reason to have a beer. In remembrance, I’ll plan to have another one tomorrow. Cheers.

Olorin Wrote:

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can’t be calculated? The “Omega” number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory. It measures the probability that a given program with a given input will eventually halt. (See Greg Chaitin, “Meta Math,” Pantheon, 2005)

Yes, but, while Omega cannot be calculated, it can have boundaries and it has a clear, meaningful definition. It can thus be of use despite being incalculable.

By contrast, Nelson’s concept of ontological depth has only the vaguest and fluffiest of definitions. It is incaculable only because of its vagueness and lack of defintion. Even if Nelson were to come up with some kind of calculation for determining ontological depth, it is unclear what meaning this would have in biology. In biology, the bottom line is reproduction and survival.

I guess that ontological depth could conceivably have some use in cladistics, but why not go to the source instead? What meaning could ontological depth have beyond genetic comparisons? None.

Scott Fanetti said:

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith

Are you kidding?

“Intelligent design, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.”

Fixed.

Just Bob:

Chain, who got the Prize in 1945?

One Nobelist out of how many over the last century?

And with this you mock scientists?

Do you not even slightly perceive the irony?

No, he doesn’t. When you have no science whatsoever backing your mindless creotard assertions, you grasp desperately at any straws you may find.

James F:

Scott Fanetti said:

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith

Are you kidding?

“Intelligent design, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.”

Fixed.

how can ID waste research dollars?

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can’t be calculated? The “Omega” number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory.

The problem is that you can’t test predictions if you can’t establish properties to observe, for example if you can’t make a measurable definition.

Btw, while Chaitin’s omega is uncomputable (computable to desirable precision), some digits are calculable and it is claimed that the first 64 bits are known. So it would work.

Scott Fanetti:

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith

Are you kidding?

<scarcasm>Sure it gives good technological results, but the resulting moral consequences are intolerable… </scarcasm>

What’s Ernst Chain got to do with it?

He was an excellent biochemist and carried on from where my father left off in 1936. My father isaolated Lysozyme for Florey and found it was NBG as an antibiotic. Chain then tried Fleming’s other finding - a mould and with Florey Heatley et al found it worked. Evolution was hardly needed in his or my fathers’s work and he was probalbly looking down on the messiness of field biology in contrast to an ordered lab - despite the crude biochemical procedures (My dad once ninked my meccano set to make some apparatus in the 50s)

Years later my parents shared a house with him and he blasted out on his piano while I was supposed to be sleeping in my pram.

Despite the fact I got all the lowdown on Florey Chain etc as a youngster I never heard that despite the agnosticism of my father.

I doubt if there is much in the story

Michael

What’s Ernst Chain got to do with it?

He was an excellent biochemist and carried on from where my father left off in 1936. My father isaolated Lysozyme for Florey and found it was NBG as an antibiotic. Chain then tried Fleming’s other finding - a mould and with Florey Heatley et al found it worked. Evolution was hardly needed in his or my fathers’s work and he was probalbly looking down on the messiness of field biology in contrast to an ordered lab - despite the crude biochemical procedures (My dad once nicked my meccano set to make some apparatus in the 50s)

Years later my parents shared a house with him and he blasted out on his piano while I was supposed to be sleeping in my pram.

Despite the fact I got all the lowdown on Florey Chain etc as a youngster I never heard that despite the agnosticism of my father.

I doubt if there is much in the story

Michael

Fellas, I appreciate the responses to Keith’s “Ernest B. Chain, Nobel Laurate, dissented from ‘Darwinism’” comments… but several especially productive types of replies seem to have been overlooked.

1) What is your evidence that he rejected evolution? I didn’t search in depth, but his biographical blurb at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/[…]ain-bio.html didn’t mention anything about it, and his work in anti-biotics would seem to indicate that evolutionary principles would be required for him to acheive anything meaningful.

2) You do realize that his work was done rather early in the the life of Modern Evolutionary Theory, right? MET has come a long way, particularly with regard to molecular bio and genomics–given these areas were primitive when he was working, his alleged doubts about them would have little bearing on todays state of the art.

3) Science is not done by argument from authority; any authority could be wrong. The ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is nature itself; poor models get weeded out. No matter how prestigeous EBC may seem, if he holds an incorrect opinion about science, then the science doesn’t even need to respond–much less change to conform to the misguided opinion of some arbitrary ‘authority’ figure.

4) To discard or modify a scientific theory requires a better model to replace it with. Such a model has to be able to independantly explain all the results explained by the old theory; it also has to make testable predictions about new results which the old theory could not explain; and it needs to serve as a guide for further research and expanded investigation of nature. If MET is wrong, how do you explain its’ success? What alternative model do you propose to replace it with? Where are the research articles, the predictions, the tests?

I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I couldn’t resist… especially since these near-boilerplate replies always give IDC creos such trouble. Sorry for the unpolished presentation; I’m certain it suffered from the rushed manner in which I wrote it.

I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I couldn’t resist… especially since these near-boilerplate replies always give IDC creos such trouble. Sorry for the unpolished presentation; I’m certain it suffered from the rushed manner in which I wrote it.

On the contrary, you’ve probably given a better, more patient, more compassionate, and more germane response that any of the rest of us who have long since lost patience with the likes of Keith. Much better for the lurkers.

“To explain the historical origin of any animal species (and arguably the same is true for plants), one must give an account of how that species’ respective ontogenetic network – i.e., its process of differentiation – was constructed.”

This looks like the source of the argument by many an ID/Creationists follower which says something to the effect that, if they cannot be given a molecule-by-molecule description of the evolution of a specified organism or system, then evolutionists have failed and evolution must not be true. Therefore design must be the case.

PZMyers Wrote:

It’s basically nothing but collecting paper credentials, though, since they don’t actually learn anything and never do anything with the knowledge they should have acquired, other than use it to razzle-dazzle the rubes.

This is even being carried to the extreme of collecting several shallow degrees in order to build the appearance of an “intimidating” education. The idea is to appear (to the rubes, anyway) more educated than the specialists who have gone deeply into specific areas of science.

It appears that the ID/Creationists who do this are able to bend fundamental concepts to fit their sectarian dogma while taking advantage of the overloaded educational system to avoid having these misconceptions exposed before they get their degrees.

The result of this type of education is a characteristic set of misconceptions, mischaracterizations, and misinformation that then get funneled into the ID/Creationist propaganda, and which are expected to be the territory and framing in which all debates and discussions are to take place.

The ID/Creationists who take this route acquire just enough vocabulary to fool rubes. This requires people who really know the science to undo all the mischaracterizations, misconceptions, and misinformation before they can even begin the arduous task of explaining the real science. Thus, in choreographed debates in front of naive audiences and in debates outside the peer-review of normal science, most real scientists are at a disadvantage.

Politically, the ID/Creationist strategy of “a legitimate education”, although it doesn’t get them past peer-review, works fairly well in front of rubes. And it leaves their worshipful followers holding the bag whenever they load up on the ID/Creationist propaganda and shtick and go out to do battle with the “evilutionists”.

But then being subjected to any scrutiny similar to peer-review leaves the rubes feeling persecuted, and it confirms the propaganda they received from their leaders. They don’t understand why they ended up looking stupid so they blame the “arrogant” scientists, because they have been told that scientists form a cabal that expels the “multiple-degreed geniuses” of the ID/Creationist leadership.

Nice game, isn’t it?

It would seem Dr. Chain, (inconsequential Nobel winner LOL!) was perfectly consistent in his position of opposition to the darwin dogma for dullards on purely scientific grounds through his death in the late 70’s.

“The August 17-24, 1998, issue of the U.S. News & World Report had a long piece on the great inventions of the twentieth century. The story of penicillin started with Fleming in 1922 and continued with Florey and Chain 13 years later. Fleming, who had a cold, sneezed on a culture plate (3). He observed that when bacteria later formed on the plate, none developed in the spots of mucus. Thus, Fleming discovered lysozyme – a substance found in body fluids and body tissues that dissolves bacteria.” Fleming…how curious!

As for hypotheses and theories they often coexist and compete for perhaps decades until one is proven by observation and experimentation to be considerably more explanatory, highly predictive, more confirmed with increasing data, and attract the preponderance of scientific scholarship and support. Of course one would only realize this if they has studied the History of Science in some detail. Otherwise one would adopt the evolutionary, dogmatic, true believer mentality and seek to silence any and all critics by whatever tactics fit the model,”the end justifies the means”…where have we heard that before.

“This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time.”

“These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

“There is no doubt that such variants do arise in nature and that their emergence can and does make some limited contribution towards the evolution of species. The open question is the quantitative extent and significance of this contribution.”

“evolution willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species.”

Clark, R. W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 147. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society. London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 24-25. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25.

The inconsequential Dr. Chain.

Professor Chain is author or co-author of many scientific papers and contributor to important monographs on penicillin and antibiotics. He was in 1946 awarded the Silver Berzelius Medal of the Swedish Medical Society, the Pasteur Medal of the Institut Pasteur and of the Societé de Chimie Biologique, and a prize from the Harmsworth Memorial Fund. In 1954 he was awarded the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize; in 1957 the Gold Medal for Therapeutics of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London; and in 1962 the Marotta Medal of the Società Chimica Italiana. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1949. He holds honorary degrees of the Universities of Liège, Bordeaux, Turin, Paris, La Plata, Cordoba, Brasil, and Montevideo, and is a member or fellow of many learned societies in several countries: these include the Societé Philomatique, Paris; the New York Academy of Medicine; the Accademia dei Lincei and the Accademia dei XL, Rome; the Académie de Médicine, Académie des Sciences, Paris; the Real Academia de Ciencias, Madrid; the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth, Israel; the National Institute of Sciences, India; the Società Chimica Italiana; and the Finnish Biochemical Society.

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

So Brown having been soundly refuted (don’t worry I do that consistently with evolander dullards) can take solace in the fact that I welcome additional opportunities to shred your posts like a head of wet lettuce in a rod mill.

The amusing aspect of the subject writ large is that the bacteria in the dish have infinitely more intellect than the evos observing them.

As for hypotheses and theories they often coexist and compete for perhaps decades until one is proven by observation and experimentation to be considerably more explanatory, highly predictive, more confirmed with increasing data, and attract the preponderance of scientific scholarship and support.

Please give one example of a well-supported theory (not hypothesis) that accumulated evidence and developed and grew with no significant competitors for fifteen decades before being shown to be completely wrong.

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

Even if he died thirty years ago?

In summary, can we all agree that ontological depth is a shallow concept?

Then we can move on to “baramin distance,” which measures the separation of species according to Biblical kinds. This number is interesting in that, although there are (non-unique) methods of calculating it, any value can be trumped by scripture if it shows that the species are too close to each other.

David Stanton:

“The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.”

Easy. Now all you have to do is estimate the total number of cell divisions required, then multiply by the number of genes that must be properly regulated in order to achieve differentiation. Simple. In fact one could make and estimate for a few species already. As for the rest, I guess Paul better get buzy in the lab and measure the important parameters. Of course that still won’t prove that the developmental pathways could not evolve.

This is just a nonsensical way of saying that development is complex and that in order to explain evolution you must explain development. Well the field of evo/devo has made an excellent start on that. Maybe Paul should get another degree and learn a thing or two about what is known about developmental genetics before declaring that no one understands it. After all, he can still claim that the pathetic level of detail is just not good enough for him. But then he would have to go into the lab anyway. Oh well.

The concept of ontogenetic depth can be understood only in the light of Biblical presuppositions. The religion of evolutionism does not allow these ideas into their paradigm. Since most evolutionists are Sodmites, the role of reproduction often escapes them.

Charlemagne Wrote:

Since most evolutionists are Sodmites, the role of reproduction often escapes them.

Another Keith imitator. Nothing of substance, just blurted out insults.

The correlation between the mental illness of unmanaged anger and fundamentalism is unmistakable.

They apparently stoke each other. When one of them hangs himself, another swoops in to do the same.

Charlemange,

So if you, (presumably a non-sodomite), are familiar with the prerequisite Biblical presuppositions, perhaps then you could calculate the ontogentic depth of a fruit fly for us. Please state the equation, the assumptions and the Biblical presuppositions involved.

Oh, by the way, claiming that evolutionary biologists don’t understand reproduction is probably even more stupid than claiming that most of them are sodomites. And exactly how would you have obtained this knowledge?

I assumed someone would get out their magic electric box that produces instant maggots and animalcules

No one except PBH is claiming that this is, or ever was, a main stream theory in biology.

I did note in my previous entry that complex life evidenced contemporaneous with the Pre-Cambrian - Cambrian event.

Soory, no. Eukaryotes, which are complex cells compared to others, predates Precambrian.

David Stanton Wrote:

And exactly how would you have obtained this knowledge?

:-) I’m sure he will claim “intimate” knowledge. Perhaps even intimate as “understood only in the light of Biblical presuppositions”.

My thanks and apologies to Nigel and the board. First, thank you Nigel for correcting my syntax error to a post a made April 9. Somehow I missed that a few days later when I saw my post with the syntax error message. My apologies on reposting essentially the same response.

I will note that PBH has not commented on his misuse of the dictionary. One wonders where this much hyped “Christian honesty and integrity” is these days.

Robin:

My thanks and apologies to Nigel and the board. First, thank you Nigel for correcting my syntax error to a post a made April 9. Somehow I missed that a few days later when I saw my post with the syntax error message. My apologies on reposting essentially the same response.

No worries.

I will note that PBH has not commented on his misuse of the dictionary. One wonders where this much hyped “Christian honesty and integrity” is these days.

In the same place as his ability to recognise a fact when it hits him over the head (i.e. so far up his fundament that it sees no daylight). I have yet to see either from PBH in a discussion on this board.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on April 7, 2008 8:07 AM.

A New Bathroom Wall was the previous entry in this blog.

Truth Tickets 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