Genome Biology: “It is alive” by Gregory A Petsko

| 195 Comments

In a Comment in the journal Genome Biology Gregory Petsko, Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry Protein Crystallography at Brandeis University discusses the latest shenanigans of the Intelligent Design movement. ( Gregory A Petsko It is alive Genome Biology 2008, 99::106)

They’re at it again. Armed with another new idea from the Discovery Institute, that bastion of ignorance, right-wing political ideology, and pseudo-scientific claptrap, the creationist movement has mounted yet another assault on science. This time it comes in two flavors: propaganda and legislative.

What is Petsko talking about?

The propaganda refers to the movie “Expelled” which Petsko appropriately describes as a “poorly written and badly acted movie” and observes how the movie failed quickly in the theatres.

The legislative assault refers to the Louisiana bill which promotes ‘critical thinking’ on such topics as evolution, origins of life and global warming.

The bill is cleverly worded: it states in section 1C that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.” In an interview with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times (12 June 2008), Jason Stern, vice-president of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian right-wing lobby group, insisted “It’s not about a certain viewpoint. It’s allowing [teachers] to teach the controversy.”

Petsko wastes no words

Let me say this as clearly as possible, so there can be no mistake about what I mean: there is no controversy. Just because a few misguided so-called scientists question the validity of the concept of evolution doesn’t mean there is a controversy. There are still some people who believe the Earth is flat (there’s even a ‘Flat Earth Society’), but that doesn’t mean that a grade-school science teacher should teach his or her students that the Earth might be flat.

So what about the ‘academic freedom’ argument? Again Petski quickly dismisses this argument

What about the academic freedom argument? If someone wants to teach creationism in a science class, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? Certainly - if they want to get fired. Because if they do that they deserve to get fired. It has nothing to do with academic freedom; it’s about basic competence.

Similarly, creationists are trying to undermine science teachings in other states, for instance in Texas

On 7 June 2008, the Houston Chronicle wrote that “strengths and weaknesses” language is “a ‘teach the controversy’ approach, whereby religion is propounded under the guise of scientific inquiry”. The editorial went on to say: “What students really need is to be able to study science from materials that have not been hijacked by creationists whose personal agenda includes muddying the science curriculum. Creationism is not a ‘system of science’.”

Hear hear.

ID’s scientific vacuity has doomed it to a misleading approach called “teach the controversy” where teachers are indirectly encouraged to present ID materials to their students where it has failed to meet even the minimum standards of science. Such indoctrination efforts should be of concern to anyone interested in the quality of science. To Christians these efforts should be of concern as they practice the flawed “God of the Gaps” approach to science where our ignorance leads us not to stimulate further scientific inquiry but rather to invoke a supernatural cause.

Our children deserve better than to be exposed to such nonsense.

As Darwin observed

Savages like York minister who consider thunder and lightning the direct will of God were scarcely less primitive than the miracle mongering philosopher who says the innate knowledge of a Creator has been implanted in us … by a separate act of God, rather than evolving according to His most magnificent laws.

Full quote:

So ready is change, from our idea of causation, to give a cause (& no one being apparent, one fixes on imaginary beings, many vicarious, like ourselves) that savages (Mem York Minster) 102 consider the thunder & lightning the direct will of the God ((thus) & hence Those savages who thus | argue, make the same mistake, more apparent however to us, as does that philosopher who says the innate knowledge of creator (is) /has been/ implanted in us (?individually or in race?) by a separate act of God, & not as a necessary integrant part of his most magnificent laws. which we profane in thinking not capable to produce every effect of every kind which surrounds us. Moreover /it would be difficult to prove this/ this innate idea of God in civilized nations has not been improved by culture ((who feels the most implicit faith that through the goodness of God knowledge has been communicated to us)). & that it does exist in different degrees in races.–whether in Ancient Greeks, | with their mystical but sublime views, or the wretched fears & strange superstitions of an Australian savage or one of Tierra de Fuego.–

102. York Minster was one of three Fuegians brought back to Tierra del Fuego by Capt. FitzRoy and the Beagle.

Source: Barrett, P. H. 1974. Early writings of Charles Darwin. In Gruber, H. E., Darwin on man. A psychological study of scientific creativity; together with Darwin’s early and unpublished notebooks. Transcribed and annotated by Paul H. Barrett, commentary by Howard E. Gruber. Foreword by Jean Piaget. London: Wildwood House.

195 Comments

The war continues. McCain has just nominated the Creationist governor of Alaska as his running mate.

Doing your homework for you. Correct reference: Genome Biol. 2008; 9(6): 106 First Darwin quote box refers to “York minister”, who seems to be “York Minster” in the second quote.

Jim do you have a link showing Palin’s position? PT’s search function wasn’t giving me much

Jim Harrison said:

McCain has just nominated the Creationist governor of Alaska as his running mate.

I was wondering if that was an exaggeration, but it appears that from a TV debate in October 2006 that Sarah Palin has bought the “teach the controversy” game hook line and sinker, saying that she’s in favor of teaching “alternate theories”: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.” She evaded condemning evolutionary theory, however.

I was going to vote Obama anyway – I don’t see McCain as being the reactionary rightist some try to paint him to be, but I had my hesitations about him. Now at least he’s given me a good reason to definitely not do so.

Having a VP who thinks, in effect, that a bank loan and a deal from an email scammer are equally credible – a heartbeat away from the presidency when the president is of an age when his heartbeat isn’t such a certain proposition – does not reassure me.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

JGB

This link should help you http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2[…]and_the_ala/

Just when I thought it was safe to go to Alaska I find this news via Evolution Research - General Evolution News:

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor’s race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night’s televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, ‘Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.’

The Anchorage Daily News has more:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

*snip*

Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.

“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.

“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’ “

Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, “I believe we have a creator.”

She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

“I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,” she said.

Doesn’t like someone I would be much interested in voting for if I lived in Alaska…

JGB said: Jim do you have a link showing Palin’s position? PT’s search function wasn’t giving me much

Palin’s WikiPedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin ) says “While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools, however, she noted she would not use “religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism” as criteria for selection to the school board.” There’s a reference note to http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/el[…]243554c.html - “Creation science enters the race” from Oct 27 2006

Once again the issue of local control is involved. Kenneth Miller addresses this issue in “Only A Theory”. He says that according to a British friend, the locals in England would pretty much accept the expert authority of learned college professors. In the U.S., however, there is a more rebellious spirit, and locals feel free to ignore their counsel.

If your only aim is that evolution be taught properly, then a simple solution is to strictly mandate all details of education, including evolution, at the state or federal level. Would people here be happy with this solution?

I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

Most Christians who don’t want to discuss their views on evolution say that they “believe in a Creator”. That would be true of all Christians, would it not. I think Ken Miller would say that he believes in a Creator.

It’s possible to be a conservative Christian and accept evolution, right? So, please don’t jump to conclusions about Sarah Palin. Even her view that “teaching the controversy” is OK doesn’t tell you much. Even if she accepts evolution, she still may want to respect the rights of local communities to make their own decisions. In fact, this is how I personally feel about the issue. I think the theory of evolution is solid and want it to be taught well, but I don’t want local school boards to be completely powerless.

Science

Draconiz said:

I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

True, but PUBLIC education takes place within the context of a democracy.

This is sort of a fascinatingly, possibly shrewdly, ambiguous remark:

Draconiz said:

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

What does it mean? Is she saying that she doesn’t care if people are trying to promote a religious ideology in science classes? That evolution and creation are only matters of personal opinion, not a matter of factual evidence? The answer simply raises more questions.

Palin may not honestly be a creationist. She may simply be washing her hands of the matter because she doesn’t care about it. However, she does seem to be a member of the Assemblies of God – AGs are not generally sympathetic to evo science, but they don’t push Darwin-bashing as doctrine. I have known some AGs who don’t have a problem with Darwin, playing the “theistic evolutionist” angle.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

WallyK said:

Even her view that “teaching the controversy” is OK doesn’t tell you much.

On the contrary, it tells you exactly what’s important. This isn’t about science, its about politics, and she’s completely accepted the anti-science campaign’s agenda.

WallyK said:

Science

Draconiz said:

I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

True, but PUBLIC education takes place within the context of a democracy.

Only in so far as the majority is free to reject what we call “science”, and perhaps replace it with something else. That would be a bad mistake for the country. The “Ascent of Man” will go on elsewhere in the world, maybe China. Accepted science is determined by the consensus of an elite, not by discussion in a high school class, or not by the agenda of a religious/political thinktank. We don’t get to vote on it.

WallyK said:

If your only aim is that evolution be taught properly, then a simple solution is to strictly mandate all details of education, including evolution, at the state or federal level.

That isn’t just the simplest solution, it is also AFAIU the solution used in most nations. And it works great. (The same solution can also be hijacked for detrimental purposes outside of democracies, and there is plenty of evidence for that it works well for that too. As always in politics YMMV.)

How can you make the right choice in a democracy if you don’t know what the truth is?

What if a school board wants to teach that the trails of tears didn’t happen or the holocaust was a lie? Public education may take place in a democracy but it still doesn’t give you the power to decide what truth or science is. Creationism is always welcome in a comparative religion class.

They had no problem teaching real science when the Russians launched sputniks and scared the hell out of us, if the government doesn’t act soon the U.S. will get some rude awakening when China or India overtake us in science.

And yet, I dread that on that day, people will still blame sins, evolution, homosexuals or liberals for our fall.

WallyK said:

Most Christians who don’t want to discuss their views on evolution say that they “believe in a Creator”. That would be true of all Christians, would it not.

No, it doesn’t seem to me that we can be so simplistic about social phenomena. There are card carrying christians who are agnostic about whether a god is a creator or not, but remain within the organization; they are not agnostic about a god as such, for reasons of tradition, relations, convenience, not having acted on a new position et cetera. At least where I live [Sweden].

Draconiz said:

And yet, I dread that on that day, people will still blame sins, evolution, homosexuals or liberals for our fall.

What do you mean, or? :-\

But really, what will stop China from becoming the most important nation in anything? The interesting question is when it will happen, and how the new international community will work. Hopefully China will act as an example to inspire other nations to achieve economical (and scientific) greatness.

It was an “and”, grammatical mistake on my part :p

And I agree, the world isn’t really doing well with one superpower. However, if America is utterly crushed in science there will be no one left to challenge China in a friendly rivalry like the U.S. (India and Russia is too close for their comfort).

Draconiz Wrote:

They had no problem teaching real science when the Russians launched sputniks and scared the hell out of us, if the government doesn’t act soon the U.S. will get some rude awakening when China or India overtake us in science.

The result of Sputnik was a call for improving science, including biology. The response of the Religious Wrong was to politically mobilize to keep evolution out of the schools.

This kind of response from them shows how self-centered, narrow-minded and unaware they are of the larger society in which they are protected and fed. They would destroy the country just to keep their dogma from coming under scrutiny.

I certainly wouldn’t trust any of them with governmental responsibilities. In a crunch, most of them would throw away civilization in order to keep their illusions.

Mike Elzinga said:

I certainly wouldn’t trust any of them with governmental responsibilities. In a crunch, most of them would throw away civilization in order to keep their illusions.

Why care when the next world will be soooo much better, the President also loves the constitution so much that he has to destroy it in order to save it.

I’m confident that the US won’t be crushed in science anytime soon. Even if federal courts eventually rule that bogus “controversies” about evolution can be taught, I expect most urban school districts outside the South won’t follow suit, plus we still have excellent universities which will continue to teach science regardless of what podunk creationist school boards do. Plus we’ll keep importing good scientists from India and China. China isn’t going to be a superpower anytime soon. Despite the Olympic Show they put on, China has a lot of ecological and demographic problems that make ours look like triflings in comparison (If you think not, try to imagine how you would deal with a billion impoverished people dropped into the U.S. countryside).

Thats not to say we shouldn’t fight creationist efforts. Even students in rural and southern school districts deserve a quality education, and the 1st Amendment forbids transforming public school science classes into sunday school.

Dear WallyK,

You’re correct, Ken Miller says repeatedly that he believes in a Creator, the Judeo-Christian God:

WallyK said:

Most Christians who don’t want to discuss their views on evolution say that they “believe in a Creator”. That would be true of all Christians, would it not. I think Ken Miller would say that he believes in a Creator.

It’s possible to be a conservative Christian and accept evolution, right? So, please don’t jump to conclusions about Sarah Palin. Even her view that “teaching the controversy” is OK doesn’t tell you much. Even if she accepts evolution, she still may want to respect the rights of local communities to make their own decisions. In fact, this is how I personally feel about the issue. I think the theory of evolution is solid and want it to be taught well, but I don’t want local school boards to be completely powerless.

Palin - who isn’t a fellow alumnus of my undergraduate alma mater - has demonstrated more sense about trying to inject religion into science classrooms than another young Republican governor, Bobby Jindal (who is a fellow alumnus of my college, and no, thankfully, never studied with Ken Miller who teaches introductory biology there (He’s also another fellow alumnus)).

You can be a diehard opponent of the Dishonesty Institute and still support the McCain - Palin ticket (I shall.). I see no contradiction whatsoever, especially when I know that there are other conservative opponents of Intelligent Design creationism out there, most notably, Paul Gross, co-author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, and National Review columnist John Derbyshire, among others.

Regards,

John

iml8 Wrote:

I was wondering if that was an exaggeration, but it appears that from a TV debate in October 2006 that Sarah Palin has bought the “teach the controversy” game hook line and sinker, saying that she’s in favor of teaching “alternate theories”: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.” She evaded condemning evolutionary theory, however.

What makes that doubly distressing is that her Wikipedia entry says that her father was a science teacher. That increases the likelihood that she’s in on the scam rather than just one of the scammed. As does the fact that by October 2006 she surely heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Palin’s line on evo science is what might be expected from almost any Republican politician even if the politician isn’t particularly impressed by the various flavors of creationism.

There is a major asymmetry on this issue between Democrats and Republicans. Barack Obama can unequivocably come out against ID – see his website – because it costs him nothing, since in effect no Darwin-bashers are going to vote for him.

A Republican politician is in a much more difficult position. There is a conservative faction – Derbyshire and George F. Will – that flatly condemns creationism as bunkum (a minority to be sure, but it’s still there), and there’s also a division between classic Goldwater-type small-government / free markets / libertarian lite Republicans and the religious conservatives. The Goldwater Republicans do NOT like mixing religion up with politics, while that’s the primary agenda of the religious conservatives.

The result is that Republican politicians have a tendency to try to waffle on this issue in a way that makes nobody very happy. Whatever Palin’s actual motives, suggesting that scientific scams should be accepted at face value certainly makes me unhappy.

McCain is a Goldwater Republican and the religious conservatives do not trust him. Palin appears to be another McCain sop to this group to shore up electability – comparable to the way Obama picked Biden to shore up weak foreign-policy credentials. Palin may be an attractive voting point for the religious conservatives because the odds of McCain dying in office are relatively high.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Hi GG,

An interesting bit of political analysis here:

iml8 said:

Palin’s line on evo science is what might be expected from almost any Republican politician even if the politician isn’t particularly impressed by the various flavors of creationism.

There is a major asymmetry on this issue between Democrats and Republicans. Barack Obama can unequivocably come out against ID – see his website – because it costs him nothing, since in effect no Darwin-bashers are going to vote for him.

A Republican politician is in a much more difficult position. There is a conservative faction – Derbyshire and George F. Will – that flatly condemns creationism as bunkum (a minority to be sure, but it’s still there), and there’s also a division between classic Goldwater-type small-government / free markets / libertarian lite Republicans and the religious conservatives. The Goldwater Republicans do NOT like mixing religion up with politics, while that’s the primary agenda of the religious conservatives.

The result is that Republican politicians have a tendency to try to waffle on this issue in a way that makes nobody very happy. Whatever Palin’s actual motives, suggesting that scientific scams should be accepted at face value certainly makes me unhappy.

McCain is a Goldwater Republican and the religious conservatives do not trust him. Palin appears to be another McCain sop to this group to shore up electability – comparable to the way Obama picked Biden to shore up weak foreign-policy credentials. Palin may be an attractive voting point for the religious conservatives because the odds of McCain dying in office are relatively high.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

McCain has Barry Goldwater’s seat in the US Senate. He also has a 98 year-old mother. So I’m not certain that you can say with such certainty that “.…the odds of McCain dying in office are relatively high.”

I think we should take McCain at his word that he wanted a maverick partner to help end “business as usual” in Washington, DC.

Appreciatively yours,

John

John Kwok said:

I think we should take McCain at his word that he wanted a maverick partner to help end “business as usual” in Washington, DC.

“What this WE business, Kimosabe?!”

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Aagcobb said:

China isn’t going to be a superpower anytime soon. Despite the Olympic Show they put on, China has a lot of ecological and demographic problems that make ours look like triflings in comparison (If you think not, try to imagine how you would deal with a billion impoverished people dropped into the U.S. countryside).

What do you mean, not a superpower:

The Financial Times noted that “China has been the world’s largest economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries”,[5][6] while according to The Economist, “China was not only the largest economy for much of recorded history, but until the 15th century, it also had the highest income per capita — and was the world’s technological leader.”[5][7]

??? Don’t underestimate what a large and educated population can achieve:

The People’s Republic of China has the second largest economy in the world with a GDP of over $6.9 trillion (2007) when measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. In November 2007, it became the third largest in the world after the US and Japan with a nominal GDP of US$3.42 trillion (2007) when measured in exchange-rate terms.[4] Since free market reforms in 1978 China’s GDP has grown an average 9.9 percent a year.[5]

As I understand it the ecological problems have been rapidly diminishing the last 30 years, even though dropping water tables continue to be a problem there as here. And I don’t think they have anything close to a billion impoverished people - in fact, I would be surprised if their percentage of such people would be anything near what is observed in US.

Dear GG,

I would have preferred Giuliani or Lieberman to Palin. But McCain is a maverick and wanted one to work alongside him if he wins the election:

iml8 said:

John Kwok said:

I think we should take McCain at his word that he wanted a maverick partner to help end “business as usual” in Washington, DC.

“What this WE business, Kimosabe?!”

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

On a lighter note, I’ve been confused for being a Native American and have known Native Americans who were mistaken for Asian-Americans.

Cheers,

John

Actually, now that I checked up on possible definitions of “superpower”, it doesn’t seem like any nation will any longer apply; it is usually defined as dominant global influence (as opposed to economical mass). US may still marginally apply, for example when it turned its back on the Kyoto agreement, but it is arguable and anyway likely a temporary position.

John Kwok said:

I would have preferred Giuliani or Lieberman to Palin. But McCain is a maverick and wanted one to work alongside him if he wins the election …

The fact that she is young (younger than Obama), female, and to the right of McCain can’t hurt of course. I suspect the fact that she is an effective national unknown may have been a plus as well – no excess baggage.

Giuliani has his excess baggage. To be sure, I have a soft spot for him – an SOB, but an interesting SOB, almost the cartoon stereotype of a New Yorker.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

jobby said“If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? “

The person asking the question purports to be an innocent pilgrim - not a biologist - and we are trying to get a definition out of “her.”

For that matter, “jobby,” what is your definition of the term?

But the only thing that went throught the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was “Oh, no, not again.”

jobby said:

Paul Burnett said:

jobby said“If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? “

The person asking the question purports to be an innocent pilgrim - not a biologist - and we are trying to get a definition out of “her.”

For that matter, “jobby,” what is your definition of the term?

OK what is the correct definition of evolution?? You complain that the ‘creationists’ use improper defs. Clear this all up and tell everyone what the correct def is.

I’ll propose “change over time mediated by natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift.”

Now - “Laura” and “jobby” - WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE TERM “EVOLUTION”? Answer the question, troll.

jobbyTroll said:

Paul Burnett said:

jobbyTroll said:“If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? “

The person asking the question purports to be an innocent pilgrim - not a biologist - and we are trying to get a definition out of “her.”

For that matter, “jobby,” what is your definition of the term?

OK what is the correct definition of evolution?? You complain that the ‘creationists’ use improper defs. Clear this all up and tell everyone what the correct def is.

This is why we think you are nothing but an idiotic troll: if you actually had marginally competent reading comprehension skills, you would have noticed that I’ve already mentioned the correct definition of “biological evolution” as being “descent with modification with each passing generation” earlier in this thread, and in previous threads.

This is getting obnoxious.

I thought “jobby” was banned. Can’t someone at least move his/her posts, and any that feed them, to the BW?

Even Talk.Origins is getting infested with that troll from Alt.Talk.Creationism (the “trailer park” version of TO).

BTW, apologies for insulting trailer parks.

Fuck you and your perpetual cranial rectal inversion Jobby. Go report us as a pron site if you like, but just go. Your understanding of science is stuck at a kindergarten level, and will clearly never change no matter what anyone says.

Just ask him to recap the review he gave of the Wong and Mi article, and watch him disappear.

Frank J said:

This is getting obnoxious.

I thought “jobby” was banned. Can’t someone at least move his/her posts, and any that feed them, to the BW?

Even Talk.Origins is getting infested with that troll from Alt.Talk.Creationism (the “trailer park” version of TO).

Frank J said:

I thought “jobby” was banned.

PT is totally ineffectual at bans. You need either a more effective forum system or an absolute tyrant – Phil Plait over at the Bad Astronomy Blog, who is an SOB and is proud of it.

I have notice that some PT authorities are cutting off discussions at 150 postings. I would encourage this to become a policy – in fact, I would by default limit it to 100 postings, there’s not much worthwhile going on beyond that. If the discussion is actually interesting and not the same old small group of folks shouting at each other, it could be extended as needed.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

PT is totally ineffectual at bans.

It’s as if all the experts in that area work for the opposition…

Henry J said:

It’s as if all the experts in that area work for the opposition…

Heh! From what I hear of UNCOMMON DESCENT, when you get banned – you are HISTORY, period!

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

It’s also as if the admins here don’t like the idea of banning, but have to do something when the blog gets a poster who has nothing to say but posts lots of replies saying it. Of course, the problem with saying nothing is figuring out when one is done.

Henry

iml8 said: Heh! From what I hear of UNCOMMON DESCENT, when you get banned – you are HISTORY, period!

I’m not worried. You’ve seen how inept they are at history.

jobby said: Its because they are smarter and UD.

“Jobby” - what is your definition of the term “evolution”?

John Kwok Said

first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East

This is a very odd statement or quote from John. But John is making all sorts of odd statements.

‘First strike’ is short for first strike capabilities. It refers to a nuclear power’s ability to strike first at another nuclear power with sufficient success so that the losses from the counterattack are “acceptable”. First strike is non-sensical when refering to tactical situations. Live and learn, John.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on August 29, 2008 11:16 AM.

Tangled Bank #112 was the previous entry in this blog.

Giardia lamblia, polyadenylation, and irreducible complexity 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