NCSE: Eyeing ID

| 668 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

While legislatures focus on antievolution bills, a new video at Expelled Exposed helps students see how evolution works.

Oakland, California, May 6, 2008 As attacks on evolution education remain in the news, with proposed antievolution legislation in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Missouri in the headlines, a new video rebutting the basic premise of intelligent design creationism is now available on www.ExpelledExposed.com.

“Creationism Disproved?” is the third in a series of short videos commissioned by the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The video focuses on the evolution of the eye a favorite target of creationists.

“It’s common for creationists, especially ‘intelligent design’ creationists, to claim that complex structures like the eye or parts of the cell couldn’t have evolved step by step,” explains NCSE’s executive director, Eugenie C. Scott. “It’s a tired objection indeed, Darwin himself anticipated, and refuted, the argument. But opponents of evolution continue to insist that such structures had to be assembled all at once.”

Ken Dill, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco featured in the video, adds: “In fact, complexity can evolve through small steps. We can infer the evolution of a very complex organ, like the eye, by looking at intermediate stages preserved in animals alive today. And just as a baby’s eye is built up step by step over nine months in the womb, the eye evolved in small steps over millions of years.”

Noting that the latest advances in science have only confirmed Darwin’s insights, Josh Rosenau, a biologist at NCSE, observed, “Scientists recently traced the evolution of a protein crucial to vision by comparing the genomes of many species, showing that the molecule, opsin, existed in the common ancestor of hydras, jellyfish, flies, fish, and people. Other researchers have traced the evolution of genes critical to the growth and development of eyes in different branches of the tree of life. All those lines of evidence match the predictions of evolution.”

Louise S. Mead, a biologist and teacher who heads NCSE’s outreach to educators, hopes that students and teachers will use the video to dispel a common misconception about evolution. “Evolution can be tough to learn and tough to explain, even independently of the prevalence of creationist misconceptions,” she explains. “Videos like this can help students see things in a new light.”

The National Center for Science Education is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The NCSE maintains its archive of source material on the history of creationism at its Oakland, California, headquarters.

On the web at www.ncseweb.org.

NCSEs other website, www.ExpelledExposed.com, is a resource for journalists, teachers, and curious moviegoers who want the full story behind the creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Contacts: Eugenie C. Scott, [Enable javascript to see this email address.], 800-290-6006 Josh Rosenau, [Enable javascript to see this email address.], 800-290-6006 Louise S. Mead, [Enable javascript to see this email address.], 800-290-6006

2 TrackBacks

NCSE: Eyeing ID from Intelligent Design Exposed on May 6, 2008 11:00 PM

While legislatures focus on antievolution bills, a new video at Expelled Exposedhelps students see how evolution works. Oakland, California, May 6, 2008 As attacks on evolution education remain in the news, with proposed antievolution legislation in ... Read More

How it Happened vs. Probabilities from Threads from Henry's Web on May 8, 2008 12:40 PM

I may be hopelessly naive in the matter of probability, though it is the one area of math that I have actually studied, but I am simply not terribly impressed with probability arguments. That’s probably (!) a major reason why I’m not impr... Read More

668 Comments

Beautifully simple to understand. Elegant and charming as in Natural Selection itself. As the ultimate source of energy, I’ve always pointed out to my kids the absolute need to respond to light. And any increased ability to detect it would be a great advantage over others that could not. Through detecting light, other organisms are also detectable and thus more and more complex relationships between them evolve. I’ll be showing them this little button for sure.

I’m not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant’s eyes isn’t exactly the best “evidence” of evolution, is it? After all, the “information” a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn’t it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I await you’re verbal pulverization.

Ugh. *your* Sorry.

Not only do I need an education in science, I apparently need one in English too!

The development of the eye in embryos is one of the various evidences that help scientists understand how the eye evolved.

Timothy David said:

I’m not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant’s eyes isn’t exactly the best “evidence” of evolution, is it? After all, the “information” a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn’t it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I await you’re verbal pulverization.

Even here, you admit that biological errors occur, which is a goor argument against Intelligent Design. But the development of the eye in human embryos also parallels what we see in other organisms with less complex eyes than those of humans. Have you never heard of the concept of “evo-devo”?

Timothy David said:

I’m not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant’s eyes isn’t exactly the best “evidence” of evolution, is it?

It depends on how you set it into context, and what else can be understood about embryonic development.

We know, for instance, that events such as anterior-posterior patterning occur early in the development of the embryo, and that relatively simple structures (e.g. limb buds) form next, and more complex features form later. This, it has been discovered, relates to the way the various genes that control development have evolved. As more complex structures have evolved, their development in the embryo has been “tacked on” to the generic vertebrate embryo “program”. Thus, the way in which the eye forms in the embryo reflects to some extent the different types of eye that we observe in nature.

After all, the “information” a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn’t it?

It’s not really a question of information so much as it is a question of the ordering of a series of events. For the sake of convenience, I’ll call this series of events a “program”. Information is, of course, involved, but the sequencing of the various stages is the key aspect.

Evolution can never go backwards. So, to develop something complicated like the human eye required a series of selectable steps to precede it. Let’s imagine that these selectable steps were exactly as described in the video. First, the ancestral organism had to develop light-sensitive cells. Well, this has occurred at least three times in evolutionary history, and confers a significant advantage, so light-sensing capability will be strongly selected.

Next, it forms its light-sensing cells into a patch, which can supply more information about the environment (the possibility to sense differential qualities of light, and perhaps detect edges). However, in the organisms’s development, it still has the “program” to form light-sensing cells. So, either these must be directed to form in situ, or they must be migrated to form a patch. Extra developmental genes are required to direct this process.

Next, it forms a concavity. Again, this is selectable (the ability to sense the direction of the light). Again, it makes the development “program” that little bit more involved, so additional “instructions” are added on to what already exists.

Then, the lineage evolves the equivalent of a pinhole camera, with the ability to form images (again, this is strongly advantageous). Again, more “instructions” must be added to the developmental “program”.

And so on. Each stage that involves a bit more complicatedness requires a more involved program in the organism’s embryonic development. But it can only build on what already exists, it cannot “re-write the code from scratch”.

Therefore, the sequence of events during embryonic development does indeed provide us with information concerning the evolutionary history of the organism.

In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I’m not quite sure I get the sense of your last sentence here. Do you mean inevitable in an evolutionary sense (in the which case, nothing is inevitable except change)? Or do you mean inevitable in the sense that a correctly-formed human embryo has eyes, therefore it will grow eyes (which, while trivially true, is not very interesting)?

Embryos as a reflection of evolution.…sounds.….so.….pseudo-scientific!

First off, I’m glad to see that you can’t spell any better than I can!

Second, who on earth said anything about Intelligent Design? Apparently by asking if the fetal development of the human being was the “best” proof of the eye’s evolution, it was automatically assumed that I was arguing in favor of ID? Rest assured that I am no ID advocate. But even if I were, I don’t see how biological errors would constitute a “good argument” against ID. After all, as the ID’ers themselves are fond of pointing out, something not being *perfectly* designed is not proof against it being designed. One can call to mind all sorts of poorly designed things. But I’ll save that fight for the people who care to fight it.

Third, yes; I am familiar with Evo-Devo. Not terribly familiar, though; I just started reading Sean Carroll’s book on the subject, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say. Actually, I’d be interested in anything that anyone here has to say about it, even you.

Finally, I still think my criticism about this not being the “best” proof for the evolution of the eye (at least at a popular level) has not been met. But I’m ready to be corrected!

I posted my last message just after Nigel D’s post went up, so hadn’t had a chance to read it. If it answers my question I’ll shut up.

Hmm, I’m not sure what to think about this. It’s simple, straightforward, and uses some good arguments. At the same time it seems a bit condescending on occasion (“Science says:”) and the bit about development seems like a bad choice to me. It is reminiscent of the classic IDer freakout subject of Haeckel’s biogenetic law. While development can definitely be studied for evolutionary relationships and insights into a species’ evolutionary path, the clip doesn’t justify it as such and seems to implicitly feed right into paranoia about recapitulation theory remaining in biology.

From the clip:

“Scientists not only see evidence of evolution in the increasing complexity of mollusc eye development, they see it even in our own development. The eyes of a human fetus grow increasingly complex in stages just as the eyes of molluscs have over thousands of years.”

“First of all you get basically a light sensitive patch. And then you get a cup-like form that eventually forms a whole lens and a full eye with all the nerves and all the connections bringing light ot the brain and so forth and then the baby is born and then you can see.”

“A very similar process produces an eye in an organism that’s born like you or me is a process that took place over millions of years over scores of different lineages of evolving organisms.”

Now, I can see how these could be defended as analogies with detailed justifications from developmental biology, but to me they give the wrong impression, especially for a lay audience which is likely what this clip is intended for. As I essentially just quoted the second half of the clip, I could argue that about half of what they get out of this could be completely misguided.

William Wallace said:

Embryos as a reflection of evolution.…sounds.….so.….pseudo-scientific!

from the expert on pseudo-science…

And what do you know about evolution my confused Christian friend? You are still ignoring Augustine warning about looking foolish but I appreciate your efforts to educate yourself.

Shirakawasuna said:

Hmm, I’m not sure what to think about this. It’s simple, straightforward, and uses some good arguments. At the same time it seems a bit condescending on occasion (“Science says:”) and the bit about development seems like a bad choice to me. It is reminiscent of the classic IDer freakout subject of Haeckel’s biogenetic law. While development can definitely be studied for evolutionary relationships and insights into a species’ evolutionary path, the clip doesn’t justify it as such and seems to implicitly feed right into paranoia about recapitulation theory remaining in biology.

You do realize that this is based on von Baer and not on Haeckel? Although you are right, the paranoia of some IDers may confuse the statement with Haeckel. I notice how William Wallace seems to have some “concerns”.

Hey, I got a post to go through at the PT! Yeah.

PvM said:

You do realize that this is based on von Baer and not on Haeckel? Although you are right, the paranoia of some IDers may confuse the statement with Haeckel. I notice how William Wallace seems to have some ”concerns”.

I thought that von Baer had played around with the idea and concluded it to be incorrect while Haeckel coined the term and advocated the concept. (‘it’ is the biogenetic law) I could be wrong, though, I’ve been reading too much Gould lately…

I’m talking more about a lay person who’s generally not into much science or terribly educated on the subject but sees these videos and looks into the issue in a somewhat superficial sense. I think that’s partially who these clips are intended for. I don’t really count William Wallace in that crowd, as I’ve seen him actively use dishonest debate tactics and seemingly ignore what must be massive cognitive dissonance to hold onto his usually ludicrous positions. Someone commenting that much should have scaled their level of research to their rhetoric by now and read up on developmental biology.

In short, the hardcore IDers will obviously leap to their paranoid conclusions as this clip is ripe for quotemining (their lazy reading comprehension/dishonesty), but my primary concern is for the general layperson getting the wrong idea.

I’m not quite sure how to work the quote thingie. I’ve been using blockquote, b, and p (html flags).

Timothy David said: Second, who on earth said anything about Intelligent Design? Apparently by asking if the fetal development of the human being was the “best” proof of the eye’s evolution, it was automatically assumed that I was arguing in favor of ID?

Unfortunately the best null hypothesis regarding Panda’s Thumb irregular commenters is that they are creationists.

This was a movie focused on a target for creationists. Evolution as change over time is best validated by such things as the fossil record or evolution of antibiotic resistance, instead you used a creationist argument to discuss a more complex aspect of biology.

Just as you do above when you ask for “proof” instead of theoretical evidence. This may be due to unfamiliarity with science, but it is correlated with creationist propaganda devices.

WW said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution.…sounds.….so.….pseudo-scientific!

You are loosing the script.

AFAIU creationist “macrodevelopment” of cellular complex structures such as eyes have an easily observed, if not easily understood, pathway in cellular growth program, modulo maternal hormones. There is truth to “what can grow can evolve”. But creationist “microdevelopment” of subcellular complex structures such as Behe’s butt propeller has other explanations as cellular components are wholesale heritable at fertilization.

Really, you must keep up with development of cretinist terminology. It’s the same old ideas repackaged every year.

William Wallace said:

Embryos as a reflection of evolution.…sounds.….so.….pseudo-scientific!

Well, WW, hello again.

I see that, once again, you have either misunderstood or misinterpreted my comment.

If one were to claim that the embryonic development of an organism is a direct reflection of that organism’s evolutionary history, then one would indeed be in the realm of pseudoscience. Fortunately for me, that is not what I said. Go and read my post a bit more carefully.

However, just because an organism’s embryonic development is not a direct reflection of that organism’s evolutionary history, this does not imply that we cannot infer anything at all about an organism’s evolutionary lineage from its embryonic development. Quite the opposite, in fact. Embryonic development provides many clues about evolution - this is what the field of evo-devo is all about.

These clues are mostly quite subtle, and require a little bit of careful thought to properly understand. They certainly cannot be encapsulated into a handy soundbite, so I fully expect this entire field of biological investigation to be beyond the comprehension of WW and, in fact, most creos of whatever stripe.

The key points in my comment above are:

(1) Evolution can only build upon what exists already.

(2) Evolution cannot go back and “re-write” anything that was selected in the past.

These have consequences:

(3) What matters in evo-devo is the sequence of events (certainly this is far more important than the events themselves when one is looking for clues about an organism’s evolutionary history).

(4) When two lineages diverge (forming new species initially via cladogenesis, but perhaps leading on eventually to new families or orders), they will at first have much in common in their embryonic development. Neither of them will be able to subtract anything from this developmental program, they can only add to it*.

(5) Thus, they will share a core sequence of events that occur during embryonic development.

(6) Subsequently, as the lineages diverge, changes will be brought about in embryonic development that will cause changes in adult morphology**.

(7) Therefore, the two lineages will share a set of events at the beginning of embryonic development; these shared events will occur in the same sequence. Minor, subtle changes may occur, but the overall program remains the same. However, at some point the embryonic development program of the two lineages will become different. The development of the embryos after this point will be different; and these differences will become more pronounced and more significant in relation to the amount of evolution that has occurred in weach lineage since the two diverged.

Thus, for example, gastrulation is a broadly similar event for all vertebrate embryos. However, events that occur late in embryonic development will be distinct for each species or genus (for example, the dissolution of the tail in all ape embryos).

* This is my understanding, but my experience of evo-devo is limited, so I hope that, if this is wrong, someone with more knowledge will be able to correct me.

** I acknowledge that this is an over-simplification, but there is too little space (or time) to really get into the detail here.

Nice video. It deals clearly and simply with that old canard. But it would round it out nicely if the stages of evolution illustrated in it could be related back to the fossil record (or perhaps dated back somehow using genetic techniques) so as to show the progression.

Nigel D: My experience with evo devo is limited as well, but from what I remember you can ‘subtract’ parts of development or delay them indefinitely, if that’s the proper context of add/subtract. An example of this is cave salamanders that have partial juvenile morphology into adulthood due to regulating development differently. However, this would be very unlikely to be a reversion in entirety - the genes for the development of more adult forms would likely still be there and certainly those parts of the genome wouldn’t ‘rewind’ back in time.

It’s a good video, but I think it would be even more useful to have one demonstrating an evolutionary series regarding the eye. One of the most common arguments one comes across from Neocreationists is that “the eye is too complex to have evolved in pieces; what good is half of an eye?” Of course, we see plenty of “half-eyes” in nature — things that can detect differences in light intensity but can’t form images, eyes that form images but can’t reproduce color, etc.

A simple, straightforward video that went through the series of eyes and things-like-eyes seen in the natural world, beginning perhaps with Cnidaria and culminating with both mammalian and cephalopod eyes, would be a very good thing, indeed. Even better if, at the end of such a video, a phylogeny of eyes could be mapped onto some other intuitively simple reconstruction of animal phylogeny.

I essentially agree with what Shirakawasuna said here about conflating the present video with Haeckel. That’s not going to happen with people already intimately familiar with evo-devo, but clearly that’s not the audience for whom videos like this one are intended. I’d imagine it would be all too easy for Neocreationists to twist a video like this one into a statement like, “See? Those Darwinists rely on a discredited idea!” While those who already understand what the video demonstrates can argue against such a statement all day long, that’s not a situation that I would think of as having made progress.

I actually didn’t like the video. I appreciate what it’s trying to do, but it felt too much like a DI PR video. Too much sugar.

I was actually having this argument on UD a week ago, about how I saw no difficulty for mutation and selection to build a complex structure like the eye, and all I got were accusations of blind faith (apparently it didn’t occur to them to ask if I had actually looked into the matter) and people quoting Behe’s OMG-LOOK-HOW-COMPLIFERATED-EYE-CHEMICALS-ARE HOW-CAN-YU-BELEEV-RM+NS-DUZ-ALL-THIS!1 (and then going on to believe quite happily that someone with Godlike powers who they haven’t seen before did it).

And William Wallace, grow up. Nigel D posted a good explanation, which has actually made evo-devo a lot clearer to me, and which you clearly didn’t read before posting your comment which ignores it all. That’s insulting and rude. I’d suggest Jesus would disapprove, but I rather doubt you work for that guy.

Timothy David said:

I’m not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant’s eyes isn’t exactly the best “evidence” of evolution, is it? After all, the “information” a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn’t it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I await you’re verbal pulverization.

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it.

Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

Nigel D: My experience with evo devo is limited as well, but from what I remember you can ’subtract’ parts of development or delay them indefinitely,

That would be neotony, the carrying to adulthood of what were formerly juvenile characters.

Humans are claimed to be neotonous products of primate evolution.

Domestic cats are claimed to be neotonous products of old world wild cats. That is why they seem to be perpetual kittens.

For me, the difficulty with the fetal development analogy in the video is that the fetus doesn’t have to struggle for survival at every step, so how can its development in vitro be evidence for the evolutionary development of its eye? You guys say that the video’s point wasn’t that but simply that organ development, as a matter of fact, mimics or is presumed to mimic its evolutionary development. That’s fine. I’ll take your word for it, but I think the video should have been clearer about what it was saying (or maybe it was and I missed it). Anyway, my next question is: Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

bobby said:

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

The problem with your argument is that your underlying assumption is entirely wrong. Modern theories of Evolution don’t claim that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” - in fact, quite the reverse.

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was Haeckel’s idea - it has been entirely rejected. Modern thinking is closer to the concepts of von Baer, which have less to do with the exact sequence of development of the embryo of one particular species, and more to do with the comparative development of related species. I’m not sure whether I’ll be shot down for saying that “similarity of ontogeny suggests similarity of phylogeny”, but it all tends to support the concept of common descent.

While some people were a mite abrupt at first with TD, Bobby, the video does not claim O->P. Go watch again. And read Nigel’s extremely clear explanation.

Q for Nigel: Your list makes me as a layman wonder if unusual changes early in an established development would more likely lead to non-viable embryos? (Like Dr. Tyrell explaining to Roy why sequences can’t be changed once they’ve been encoded.) Is there research on this? Or whether such early changes are more/less likely than later ones? I would guess that if an early sequence step is changed, then every step after it would somehow have to still work, which would be unlikely. I seem to have answered my own question. The tea is kicking in.

Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

I don’t know about every case but it is common.

1. Mammals are descended from egg layers. Egg layers have a yolk sack to support the embryo. Mammals have a yolk sack also. Some still have yolk proteins in them, most do not. The yolk sack function has been taken over by the placenta.

2. Whales have no visible hind legs. Except for rare atavistic whales occasionally found with hind legs. In the embryos, typical hind leg limb buds form and then regress. The molecular details are even somewhat known as to how this occurs.

nacsbf:

If you are td, please read the rules about posting under multiple names. If not, please disregard this message. Just sayin’s all.

bobby said:

Timothy David said:

I’m not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant’s eyes isn’t exactly the best “evidence” of evolution, is it? After all, the “information” a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn’t it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I await you’re verbal pulverization.

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it.

Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

bobby - I believe you’re absolutely correct. Situations where the development of an organism does NOT recap the phylogeny of that organism, should be evidence against Darwinian evolution.

Now… are there any such situations? I’m no biologist, but I’m going to take a guess that there are no instances where an organism has a phase in its development, that cannot be traced back down its line of descent. That’s a pretty strong prediction there.

Or did it not occur to you that maybe there really ARE no exceptions to the rule, which is why the theory is so well supported?

Timothy (and I presume not_a_creationist_so_back_off),

I am not a scientist, or professional biologist, so my answer can’t be as well thought out as some of the other posters here. That being said, I will make an attempt…

In general, through genetics, paleontology, and other disciplines, one can see how different species evolved from one another. Additionally, with genetics, it can be seen in general how things like eyes evolved independantly in different lineages.

Knowing the above, you can trace certain physiological developments. Where this can be useful in determining first steps is finding more “primitive” species from the one you are examining, and then comparing the different genes that control development. While not all of these are mapped out yet, we do know something about the ones that control development of things such as spines, eyes, and skin. By comparing the two sets of genes, the “primitive” and the more recent, along with how they develop as embryos, one can tease out how these things were changed along the way.

Keep in mind that “primitive” in the biological sense is equivalent to “earlier”, not “lesser”.

That is about as best as a business major can explain it. I do keep learning, I just don’t have the same amount of time to devote to all of it as the posters here. I can recommend nosing around on talk origens, but it might not be as up to date. For some good posts specifically on evo-devo, you can hit up Pharyngula. If you are steadfastly religious though, I would skip any of PZ’s posts on religion, and only focus on the biology posts. ;-)

Back to lurking.

‘So, it’s just one huge argument from ignorance and incredulity. You can’t understand how life evolved, because you don’t want to take the trouble of thinking about it, so you declare it must have been some sort of “astral origin”. You don’t actually even try to show any evidence FOR that “astral origin”, just declare that “weaknesses of darwinism” demand it. A slightly different destination, but classic creationist tactics. Just make shit up and pretend you can ignore all real evidence.’

I just quoted wiki. Don’t get your panties in a knot. If you think Holyle is off his rocker fine. I did not make this ‘shit’ up.

Sir Fred Hoyle, who is an astronomer, not a biologist, is not “off his rocker” when it comes to Evolutionary Biology: He concocted his own pet Panspermia hypothesis of a “space virus” riding in with the meteor that killed the dinosaurs to infect and mutate the ancestors of birds and mammals 65 million years ago, and demonstrated his own extreme ignorance of paleontology, evolutionary biology and how the fossilization process works when he claimed that the fossil(s) of Archaeopteryx was a fraud. He’s also made equally extraordinarily absurd claims about the astronomical impossibility of evolution, including the infamous “tornadoes in junkyards don’t build 747’s,” in order to drum up money-making notoriety for his own books. All such absurd claims have been thoroughly (and repeatedly) debunked and eviscerated.

It’s just my opinion, RotundOne, but, don’t trust what Sir Fred Hoyle says about evolution or biology, especially since Sir Hoyle has a reputation among biologists, ornithologists and paleontologists as being a wacky windbag when it comes to fossils and evolution.

RotundOne said:

‘So, it’s just one huge argument from ignorance and incredulity. You can’t understand how life evolved, because you don’t want to take the trouble of thinking about it, so you declare it must have been some sort of “astral origin”. You don’t actually even try to show any evidence FOR that “astral origin”, just declare that “weaknesses of darwinism” demand it. A slightly different destination, but classic creationist tactics. Just make shit up and pretend you can ignore all real evidence.’

I just quoted wiki. Don’t get your panties in a knot. If you think Holyle is off his rocker fine. I did not make this ‘shit’ up.

You quoted as fact an article that admitted your claims were “contrary to nearly all contemporary scientific views”, while conveniently omitting that line. You quoted as fact an article that said at the top, in bold letters in an obvious box “This article does not cite any references or sources”, while again conveniently omitting that piece of information. You cited as “Evidence” something that wasn’t even close to being evidence, and said so in the very source you used, but you conveniently left out the link to the source that showed how worthless your pitiful excuse for evidence was.

You ignored the facts, quote-mined the article, and hid the link to your source in hopes no one would catch you at it.

SCIENCE: U R DOIN IT RONG!!1

RotundOne said:

‘So, it’s just one huge argument from ignorance and incredulity. You can’t understand how life evolved, because you don’t want to take the trouble of thinking about it, so you declare it must have been some sort of “astral origin”. You don’t actually even try to show any evidence FOR that “astral origin”, just declare that “weaknesses of darwinism” demand it. A slightly different destination, but classic creationist tactics. Just make shit up and pretend you can ignore all real evidence.’

I just quoted wiki. Don’t get your panties in a knot. If you think Holyle is off his rocker fine. I did not make this ‘shit’ up.

No, but you did quote-mine it, which is dishonest. You should stop that, otherwise no one will respond with much of anything except derision - like we do to folks like bobby, who are merely trolls. And not very good ones, either.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

RotundOne said:

‘So, it’s just one huge argument from ignorance and incredulity. You can’t understand how life evolved, because you don’t want to take the trouble of thinking about it, so you declare it must have been some sort of “astral origin”. You don’t actually even try to show any evidence FOR that “astral origin”, just declare that “weaknesses of darwinism” demand it. A slightly different destination, but classic creationist tactics. Just make shit up and pretend you can ignore all real evidence.’

I just quoted wiki. Don’t get your panties in a knot. If you think Holyle is off his rocker fine. I did not make this ‘shit’ up.

No, but you did quote-mine it, which is dishonest. You should stop that, otherwise no one will respond with much of anything except derision - like we do to folks like bobby, who are merely trolls. And not very good ones, either.

I did not ‘quote-mine’ Do even know what that means? Stop it troll.

The Comment Number Of The Beast is upon us.

Sorry, RotundOne, but you need to look at the post above - you very clearly mangled the wiki article; failed to provide a link; and tried to use it to argue a point that’s not true.

Quote-mining. Stop it. If you’d like to have a serious discussion of some interesting points, I’m game; but you behave far too much like bobby and various other trolls for my tastes.

Do you even know what an internet troll IS? Really.

Time to close the thread.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 6, 2008 10:52 PM.

Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Gain was the previous entry in this blog.

More “Expelled” News 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