Creationists and Y Chromosomes

| 155 Comments

I’ve posted here before about Kevin and Larry, the creationist duo that treks every Saturday from the hinterlands of Wisconsin to downtown Madison and the farmers market around the square. They set up their Young Earth Creationism display and attempt to convert the heathens with claims of medieval knights defeating tyrannosaurus and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a triceratops.

You can read my previous post on another server for details of my earlier encounters, but here I’ll just say that between the two of them they know and understand about as much actual science as you’d expect from two people who never read more than can be found on typical creationist web sites. I stop by their display on the weekends I make it down to the farmers market and often watch and participate in the exchanges they have with people from various backgrounds. I’ve never seen anyone give their material even the slightest serious consideration, have heard a lot of people offer blunt and unflattering appraisals of their display, and watched many a college student score big points against their creationist nonsense. But if they receive top marks for anything, it would be for persisting when there is absolutely no logical or practical reason to do so.

This past Saturday Larry asserted that an article in Nature proves human and chimp DNA is only 70% similar, new research that disproves earlier claims in the high nineties. Kevin began scrambling through their folder of creocrap and produced the relevant documentation. Was it the actual Nature paper? If you guessed yes, slap yourself across the face and go to bed without dessert.

Kevin handed me an article from the April 2010, Acts & Facts, published by the Institute for Creation Research titled “New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims.” Without discussing it I told Larry I’d look up the actual paper and bring it to him next Saturday so we could compare the two. The weather was clear and cool, and I was already on the TZR so I was going to spend the rest of the morning carving up some back roads.

When I got home I read through the A&F piece and instantly realized something rather glaring. It doesn’t discuss any kind of comparison of human and chimp genome of any sizable portion, but rather as the title says the Y chromosomes of each. And further still, though ICR doesn’t say so, the Nature article makes it clear that the region of the chromosomes that were compared were only 25.8 megabases (Mb). In other words, the study dealt with less than 1% of the actual chimp genome.

So why did Larry claim that this paper shows that humans and chimps are only 70% similar? As I’ve found to be his modus operandi, Larry scans these little screeds for near-comprehensible tidbits and clings to them like Homer Simpson to the last pork chop. I found highlighted on the second page “[t]he researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity…” and “only 70% of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence.” Remember, we’re talking about 25.8Mb on the Y chromosome.

So let’s look at the actual paper, which of course is only a Google away. “Chimpanzee and Human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content” appeared in the Letters section of Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010). The meat of the research involved finishing “sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY.”

The researchers posit that since “primate sex chromosomes are hundreds of millions of years old, theories of decelerating decay would predict that the chimpanzee and human MSYs should have changed little since the separation of these two lineages just 6 million years ago.” And their research confirmed their hypothesis. “As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%).”

They also discovered something surprising: more than “30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.”

This is clearly big news and certainly worthy of investigation, but remember we’re talking about less than 1% of the total genome. It’s obviously incorrect to extrapolate this small sample across the entire genome of both species, and in fact the paper states that “[i]n this respect, the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where [less than] 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks a homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa.”

But the ICR completely ignores this last statement that reiterates the prevailing view and instead uses the 30% difference in less than 1% of the genome to claim the new findings “contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.”

Distorting real scientific research to further their agenda is obviously nothing new for the ICR, and creationists in general, but participating in this exchange and experiencing firsthand how people like Larry and Kevin are manipulated by the professional anti-evolution organizations was enlightening.

I choose the word “manipulated” carefully, because I believe what is going on here is the ICR is exploiting the existential vulnerabilities in the theology of people like Kevin and Larry that the ICR actively shapes. And sells. Remember, the ICR makes their living, a very good one at that, convincing malleable fundamentalist Christians that their very soul, their place in either heaven or hell, depend on buying their books, toeing their party line, and coming to downtown Madison to regurgitate their nonsense.

It also makes me wonder why Larry adamantly refuses to look up primary references, and why he so forcefully argues these positions as if he really understands the science, and indeed almost physically dismisses those who disagree with him. I can only conclude that he’s become so convinced his actual Christian salvation is bound to believing this dreck he can’t bring himself to read the actual research.

That’s just sad.

Additional notes:

I’m starting to like Todd Wood, an actual honest creationist. Here’s his take on the Y chromosome research.

In the case of the MSY, it’s important to keep in mind that the chimp MSY sequence reported by Hughes et al. is only 25.8 Mb. That’s slightly less than 1% of the entire genome. Given that fixed nucleotide differences between the human and chimp genomes are around 1%, having yet another 1% difference in the very different Y chromosomes doesn’t make the genomes that much more different than they already were.

For a bit of further reading on the topic, start with John Hawks from UW Madison. I can brag here and say, “Yeah, I know John.” He’s come to speak at our Science Pub events downtown Madison. Interestingly. I invited Larry to come to one of John’s talks to ask him in person about human evolution. Larry said he would on several occasions but was absent the day of the talk.

What’s that I hear? Is that the sound of a chicken squawking?

155 Comments

I’m starting to like Todd Wood, an actual honest creationist.

Ya gotta like the guy. I think partially it’s just out of the sheer amazement of running into a creationist who isn’t trying to run a scam.

If he comes up with creationist arguments for his case, I’ll actually read them. They might be wrong, but at least I won’t assume they’re wrong before I get past the title.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

~Rhaco

Am I missing something? How long have primates been around? Are they correct in saying that “primate sex chromosomes are hundreds of millions of years old?”

I assume they mean the ancestral chromosome are hundreds of millions of years old?

Woops, meant to include the paper they reference. Haven’t checked it myself, but might be enlightening on that points.

Lahn, B. T. & Page, D. C. Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome. Science 286, 964–967 (1999).

Can’t say I’m too impressed with wood. First of all he does allow comments on his blog. Then about a years ago I found an entry he made saying that the tower of babel story about the confusion of languages is literally true. Since I’m a philologist, I tracked down his e-mail address and sent him an e-mail asking how he handles a list of facts that can’t possibly be explained by that story (like where did English, which is not much more than a thousand years old, come from, and if it developed from Germanic predecessors as Philologists think, why couldn’t they have evolved from proto-Germanic, and that from Proto- Indo-Euroepan), but he never bothered to answer. This suggests to me that he is unable to argue on the subject, but is nevertheless willing to assert a definite opinion, which seems just like normal creationist operating procedure.

Oh yes, Luskin was telling essentially the same lies, it’s just that he admitted that the y-chromosome diverged far more than most of the rest of the genome.

But see, we have these “assumptions,” like that Yahweh isn’t inordinately interested in our sex lives and changing sex chromosomes. Or something.

And rearranging chromosomes (the amount of which shows the same remarkable evolutionary changes), which doesn’t look like any kind of design that we know, is just one of those playful things that middle eastern deities love to do. Or something.

Apparently evolution can’t affect some parts of the chromosome more than others, thereby telling us something. Except that if everything did change at the same rate, well, wouldn’t that be remarkable, almost miraculous?

So there you go. Everything in life shows design, and cannot fail to do so. Just like, ahem, it says in the holy writings. But don’t you dare suppose that ID is religious in nature, only something that remarkably backs up religious (Xian, esp.) claims without bias being involved at all.

Glen Davidson

Oh, I guess I should link to the Luskin article. It doesn’t really say much, just implying that evolution is put into dire straits because of the differential rate of change because, um, you know, everything we find just plain “explodes” evolution, don’t you know. Or something.

Glen Davidson

Wouldn’t it make sense that two very closely related species would have more differences in their sex chromosomes than in the average of their DNA? Aren’t hybrids usually at a selective disadvantage? So, different mutations in their sex chromosomes would have a selective advantage; different mutations in their protein-generating genes would tend to have a selective disadvantage; and differences in pseudogenes would have little or no effect on survival.

Is that correct, or am I way off base?

hoary puccoon said:

Wouldn’t it make sense that two very closely related species would have more differences in their sex chromosomes than in the average of their DNA? Aren’t hybrids usually at a selective disadvantage? So, different mutations in their sex chromosomes would have a selective advantage; different mutations in their protein-generating genes would tend to have a selective disadvantage; and differences in pseudogenes would have little or no effect on survival.

Is that correct, or am I way off base?

Sounds about right to me. For one thing, Y chromosomes have a lower effective population size, so drift would occur faster. For another thing, selection would be greater for Y linked genes, since mutations could not be masked in the heterozygous condition. So sure, on average, one might expect the divergence to be higher on average for Y chromosomes than other parts of the genome.

Interestingly enough, when one reconstructs recent human evolutionary history using Y chromosome markers, the answer is exactly the same as that produced by nuclear or mitochondrial markers. Just one more thing that creationists cannot explain.

Helena wrote:

Can’t say I’m too impressed with wood.

Well, he IS a creationist after all, but he’s far more often willing to concede the actual science than Ham, Hovind or the pathologically dishonest Casey Teddy Rupskin.

(Ooh, nothing cute and cuddly about that. I just creeped myself out.)

Skip said: ist after all, but he’s far more often willing to concede the actual science than Ham, Hovind or the pathologically dishonest Casey Teddy Rupskin.

Oh, you mean Denyse O’Luskin and Casey Leary?

Wood cannot maintain his creationist beliefs without SOME selective reading of the evidence – I mean, creationism can’t EXIST without selective reading of the evidence, it’s only the hot air that keeps the gasbag in the sky.

However, the amount of evidence that he DOES concede is so staggering that it amazes me he clings to creationism at all and hasn’t jumped the barrier to TE yet … or possibly adopted Denis Lamoreaux’s concept of “evolutionary creationism”.

Mind you, I don’t endorse concepts like “evolutionary creationism”, but I do find them amusing.

mrg said:

However, the amount of evidence that he DOES concede is so staggering that it amazes me he clings to creationism at all and hasn’t jumped the barrier to TE yet … or possibly adopted Denis Lamoreaux’s concept of “evolutionary creationism”.

Not that surprising if you assume that, like Kevin and Larry, his theology requires him to believe that his salvation depends on the Bible being literally true. The difference between him and them being that he has the education to know that standard creationist claims are a load of crap.

I can imagine how hard it must be to let go dreams of a heavenly afterlife, especially if you’re in the company of people sharing the same dream.

Aagcobb said:

mrg said:

However, the amount of evidence that he DOES concede is so staggering that it amazes me he clings to creationism at all and hasn’t jumped the barrier to TE yet … or possibly adopted Denis Lamoreaux’s concept of “evolutionary creationism”.

Not that surprising if you assume that, like Kevin and Larry, his theology requires him to believe that his salvation depends on the Bible being literally true. The difference between him and them being that he has the education to know that standard creationist claims are a load of crap.

I don’t have much in the way of an in-depth education, but even my technical college’s Introduction to Logic class gave me enough to understand that standard Creationist claims are a load of crap. I have a hard time thinking that everyone from Dembski to Luskin are really that badly off in terms of the book learnin’ they received. Rather I think it’s just a choice to be less critical of their own knowledge (or their peers’) than they should.

Our local Wed. night street markets are over until next summer, so I miss arguing with the creationist proselytizers (this year I have been focusing on how they all seem to use Bibles rewritten in the ’70s [NIV, ESV, Living Bible] to eliminate the contradictions in Genesis, and how such Bibles are by their own standards blasphemous. It is fascinating how terrified they become of their Bibles when I whip out my copies of the Peshitta & Tanach (along with printouts from the KJV, Septuagint & Vulgate). They are typically either afraid to look at their Bible or hold it out as a shield).

-

One thing they always seem to say is, “Nobody understands evolution”. When I respond, “That’s silly. I understand evolution. What do you want to know?”, the conversation ceases and they repeat like a mantra, “Nobody understands evolution”.

Did you want to know about cosmic evolution?

“Nobody understands evolution”.

Stellar evolution?

“Nobody understands evolution”.

Chemical evolution?

“Nobody understands evolution”.

Biological evolution?

“Nobody understands evolution”.

Human evolution?

“Nobody understands evolution”.

-

They are wonderful examples of how stupidity evolves.

Jaycubed -

Just remember that “cosmic”, “stellar”, and “chemical evolution”, although potentially valid terms, have nothing to do with what is usually meant by the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution explains biological evolution. Human evolution is a type of biological evolution.

Although it is almost certainly valid to state that “almost everything seems to change as time changes”, and although biology depends on and is compatible with mathematics and the physical sciences, the theory of evolution directly explains only phenomenae which are within its scope.

It does not explain the origin of life on earth; it explains how cellular life evolves on earth, and also explains the evolution of closely related biological replicators like viruses. It explains how the diverse biomass we see on earth today arose from common ancestry.

If you want to learn about stars you have to study astrophysics.

I bother to mention this because the famous Jack Chick tract “Big Daddy” implies that the theory of evolution is some kind of over-arching philosophy that encompasses direct statements about galaxies, stars, and so on. It isn’t.

I was really hoping to hear a Christian explanation of where Jesus’ Y chromosome came from, and if it happened to match Pandera’s.

jaycubed wrote:

“One thing they always seem to say is, “Nobody understands evolution”. When I respond, “That’s silly. I understand evolution. What do you want to know?”, the conversation ceases and they repeat like a mantra, “Nobody understands evolution”.”

Well it’s true. Probably no one person actually understands every single aspect to evolution. So what? Even if no one understood anything about evolution it would still be true. The fact that scientists all over the world have discovered many of the principles by which evolution operates is good enough. The fact that descent with modification has been confirmed is sufficient. The fact that street preachers don’t understand anything is irrelevant.

Of course, you could always remind them that nobody understands god. If they disagree, ask them how many different religions there are. Ask them which one really understands god. Ask them why the others don’t. You can guess the answer, but the point will be made.

Or you could just go with the ever popular - “do so, do so”.

stvs said:

I was really hoping to hear a Christian explanation of where Jesus’ Y chromosome came from, and if it happened to match Pandera’s.

And why is it 98.5% similar to a chimpanzee?

Dear harold:

You are engaging in an extremely common category error. Evolution is the interaction of matter/energy with time/space.

Chemical evolution is merely one aspect of cosmic evolution (regarding the evolution of the hydrogen, helium & a tiny amount of lighter elements) and its special case of stellar evolution (regarding the evolution of all the other elements).

Biological evolution is merely one aspect of chemical evolution: it is a special case. In exactly the same way, human evolution is a limited & specific pathway within biological evolution. But since we are arrogant & self-centered humans, we tend to focus on what affects us personally. We ignore the bases/basis of the evolutionary pyramid upon which we stand (not that we are on the top of anything except our own clade). We limit our “scope” based on our prejudices rather than what external reality demonstrates.

They are all connected in a single evolutionary process (the interaction of matter/energy with time/space). They all follow the same descriptive physical laws. They all start from the same source and necessarily rely on the previous evolutionary processes.

You can’t have any form of biological evolution without the preceding forms of evolution (for example, there would be no carbon for biological evolution without preceding stellar evolution).

DS said:

stvs said:

I was really hoping to hear a Christian explanation of where Jesus’ Y chromosome came from, and if it happened to match Pandera’s.

And why is it 98.5% similar to a chimpanzee?

I suppose that is true in one sense, but the TOE is not nor is instended to be a TO Everything.

The other fields have other theorys that use other factors to figure them.

TOE doesn’t care how life came to be, it could have been the primordial soup, space seed, hand of God. Whatever. It doesn’t change TOE even in a bit.

The fact that things changed over time until eventually evolution happened on this planet is a given regardless but that isn’t the TOE and it has nothing to do with the Human species ego. No one is disputing things happened before we happened. The issue is that creationists like to expand the scope evolution so that they can say things like “I like science just not evolution.” rather then “I like science, just not 90% of it.”

Then they can shift goalposts allover the place. Its all a play on language.

Leszek said:

DS said:

stvs said:

I was really hoping to hear a Christian explanation of where Jesus’ Y chromosome came from, and if it happened to match Pandera’s.

And why is it 98.5% similar to a chimpanzee?

I suppose that is true in one sense, but the TOE is not nor is instended to be a TO Everything.

The other fields have other theorys that use other factors to figure them.

TOE doesn’t care how life came to be, it could have been the primordial soup, space seed, hand of God. Whatever. It doesn’t change TOE even in a bit.

The fact that things changed over time until eventually evolution happened on this planet is a given regardless but that isn’t the TOE and it has nothing to do with the Human species ego. No one is disputing things happened before we happened. The issue is that creationists like to expand the scope evolution so that they can say things like “I like science just not evolution.” rather then “I like science, just not 90% of it.”

Then they can shift goalposts allover the place. Its all a play on language.

Somehow this reply was to the wrong post. I meant to reply to “jaycubed.”

jaycubed said: You can’t have any form of biological evolution without the preceding forms of evolution (for example, there would be no carbon for biological evolution without preceding stellar evolution).

This is not an argument for which I would calculate any percentage in taking sides, but I might comment that it relates to a certain subtle contradiction in creationut thinking.

Creationuts are fond of the teleological argument, claiming that the Universe in general and organisms in specific demonstrate an elaboration that reflects Design by a Higher Power.

I can entertain this argument (though the comment above about percentages applies even more), mostly because even if accepted at face value, it gives no reason to accept that everything was created exactly as it is now. It gives no reason to think nothing changes.

But the sciences claim that everything DOES change, does evolve in its own way: galaxies, stars, planets, landscapes, rocks, molecules, even the atoms themselves – being built up in stellar furnaces, then breaking down in radioactive decay. Creationuts insist that a Higher Power created the Universe – but they cannot give any persuasive reason to accept that the Universe must be static and unchanging.

Dear mrg:

Creationism is a devolutionary theory, as are most Faith-based world views. They posit a perfect creation debased by time and the behaviors of humans.

Reality is evolutionary.

One of the things that I really don’t care for about PT is the fact that, when I realize I’ve got into a conversation that’s not worth the bother – I can’t delete my posting. Suggestion to the powers that be for a future improvement.

Dear Leszek:

My point remains that the theory of biological evolution is a specific sub-set of preceding specific forms of evolution. In each of the preceding categories of evolution there are specific theories to describe specific observed phenomena.

All of those theories are connected by the observed descriptive laws revealed by scientific inquiry. The various theories regarding specific phenomena are complementary, not contradictory, despite their limitations. The same language, mathematics, is used to describe all the various different phenomena.

Believing that evolution only should be used to describe biological evolution is both factually incorrect and, I would contend, a simple example of an extremely common bias.

If you mean “Theory of Biological Evolution”, you should specify it as such. Don’t be lazy or incorrect when you use a term with broad meaning.

mrg said:

One of the things that I really don’t care for about PT is the fact that, when I realize I’ve got into a conversation that’s not worth the bother – I can’t delete my posting. Suggestion to the powers that be for a future improvement.

It sounds like what you are saying is that you can’t run away & hide from what you’ve written.

Glen Davidson paraphrasing Casey Ruxpin:

But see, we have these “assumptions,” like that Yahweh isn’t inordinately interested in our sex lives…

Gee, that would be news to most of the rubes pushing this crap. It seems to me that the same ones pushin’ ID and other creationist garbage also are telling us that every form of sex (except for one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation) is an abomination in their god’s eyes.

Thanks for these posts. I try to remember to be nice when I meet creationists, and these posts help. I have not gone to jail.

We all know what we mean when we say “evolution” by itself: biological evolution. Only when we wish to discuss another type of evolution (in astronomy or geology) do we clarify it with adjectives.

We don’t need anyone coming in here from out of nowhere telling us that they way we operated here for years is wrong or inadequate when it suited us all this time. That’s arrogance.

Hmm. Dale, this kind of talk raises some questions. Permit me to ask.

(1) Do you speak for all the PT posters? Whence cometh this “we” business?

(2) Is PT becoming insular, or inbred, or something? Have things reached the point where evolutionists from outside the PT forum are somehow not so welcome or not taken sufficiently seriously, if they happen to suggest that “the way we operated here for years” is somehow wrong or inadequate?

(3) What happened to all that fancy “Science Is Self-Correcting” rhetoric you guys used to preach around here?

Seems to me that if that statement was true, you’d be willing to listen all the more carefully to those “outsider” (that is, non-regular) evolutionists who offer a different evolutionary perspective. (Although, quite frankly, Jaycubed’s mention of the “evolution continuum” has been professionally published for years, accepted for years, and so is not really “different” at all.)

Perhaps (like Kuhn suggested), science is not so “self-correcting” after all?

FL

FL said:

We all know what we mean when we say “evolution” by itself: biological evolution. Only when we wish to discuss another type of evolution (in astronomy or geology) do we clarify it with adjectives.

We don’t need anyone coming in here from out of nowhere telling us that they way we operated here for years is wrong or inadequate when it suited us all this time. That’s arrogance.

Hmm. Dale, this kind of talk raises some questions. Permit me to ask.

(1) Do you speak for all the PT posters? Whence cometh this “we” business?

Dale is using the official definition of “evolution” as it is used in Biology. Simply because you, yourself, inappropriately use the term “evolution” as a synonym for “devil worship” does not invalidate Dale from stating its correct definition.

(2) Is PT becoming insular, or inbred, or something? Have things reached the point where evolutionists from outside the PT forum are somehow not so welcome or not taken sufficiently seriously, if they happen to suggest that “the way we operated here for years” is somehow wrong or inadequate?

What makes you say that?

Why do you demand that we be civil to trolls, like yourself, who have neither the desire nor the ability to earn respect?

(3) What happened to all that fancy “Science Is Self-Correcting” rhetoric you guys used to preach around here?

It’s still going on. And just to clarify, “self-correcting” does not mean “bending over backwards to worship a literal interpretation of the Bible in order to please the egos of Creationists”

Seems to me that if that statement was true, you’d be willing to listen all the more carefully to those “outsider” (that is, non-regular) evolutionists who offer a different evolutionary perspective. (Although, quite frankly, Jaycubed’s mention of the “evolution continuum” has been professionally published for years, accepted for years, and so is not really “different” at all.)

Jaycubed is a troll who demanded that we deliberately expand the definition of biological evolution to include cosmology, abiogenesis and non-organic chemistry, without explaining exactly why it is necessary to go into needless detail in those topics in order to explain biological evolution, in detail.

Furthermore, FL, you are not in a position to talk about Evolution, given as how you repeatedly claim that it is, somehow, a god that is allegedly worshiped by Darwin’s evil acolytes.

Perhaps (like Kuhn suggested), science is not so “self-correcting” after all?

FL

Please explain to us why you think science would be “self-correcting” if it was forced to contradict evidence in order to claim that evolution magically did not occur, and that the world really was magically less than 10,000 years old, simply to satisfy science-hating fanatics, like yourself.

Been out of town for a few days and will be traveling for the next week & a half so this will be my last post on this thread.

——-

Dear hoary puccoon:

if I were you, about using the phrase, “turn the ego off,” referring to yourself.

I agree, I should have said “turn the ego down.” Throughout this thread I have claimed external authority for only one thing, my Tavistock Group training & experience. A major focus of such group experience is understanding the nature of task, role & authority. For everything else I focused only on presenting my evidence & reasoning for my ideas.

A significant part of the task of a Tavistock consultant involves being a focus/magnet for the projections of participants. The technique necessary to be successful in such an endeavor involves (among other things) decreasing the ego and being aware of the information provided by one’s internal state (those transient chemical injections of hormones & neurotransmitters we call “feelings”). This is the opposite of the denial of one’s feelings. Most people are not aware of their feelings, they are awash in them. Being awash in feelings generally leads to flight from the here & now in attempts to deny the uncomfortable feelings and reinforce or seek out comfortable ones. Being deeply aware of one’s feelings provides valuable information about both the self & about the emotional states of others (heightened empathy).

—————

I asked an editor friend of mine who regularly compiles lists (Book of Lists) to run through this thread and compile a list of statements that they considered in any way insulting. I also asked them to be specifically biased during this process; listing any even vaguely or potentially insulting statements in comments made by me while only listing clear & direct insults made towards me by other commentators. Here’s what she came up with :

_________

My statements:

Nice attempt to throw woo.

Fairy Worshippers

Please save your scientific contempt for our willfully ignorant contemporaries.

For those biologists who think that they invented the word “evolution”

Your irritation is not my concern.

idea beaten out of them during the course of their science “education” by educators trying to protect their own areas of specialization.

How(corrected) nice of you; but your ASSumptions are showing. (My response to the snarky comment)“Therefore, I am going to offer you one more chance.”

Winning an argument on a blog is like winning the Special Olympics. (Having worked on about 10 Special Olympics events as a volunteer/staff member there is one concept that was repeatedly reinforced: Everybody Is A Winner. If everybody is a winner then the concept of winning is meaningless, hence my comment)

I have attempted to make points rather than to browbeat opposing viewpoints.

There’s nothing I can add to your own defensive comments above that better demonstrate your fear, anger and sense of privilege.

If you were to actually read my post,

bible thumpers

The egos apparent among some commentators here seem upset at the triviality of their existence being pointed out. It seems to represent a Belief very similar to the bible thumper’s belief that the universe was created for them personally. You, like the holy rollers, think yourselves far too important considering our actual place in the universe.

reading your vitriolic posts.

It is you who continue to throw red herrings, build straw-men & appeal to authority to justify your ideas.

———

Comments & projections directed towards me:

entirely talking out of his ass.

you wish that others were making the error you incorrectly ascribe to them, in order that your own ego could be gratified by a sense of superiority.

irritating and insulting

you consider yourself a great, insightful genius, whose brilliant mind has grasped something that no-one has thought of before.

You seem to be a non-creationist.

one who is emotionally incapable as backing down from an error.

You just lied outright. You are a troll

This @$$hole has been playing us like a fiddle!

your cocky bull$#itting attitude

hateful waste of your time.

on Dembski’s payroll

certainly one of the nastier trolls on the site

(you) have no expertise that justifies

(you)’ll weasel out of this one

(you)’ll falsely imply

a bizarre insult.

I feel obliged to finish off with an immature insult, including a swipe at people with disabilities.

insensitive moron

Do you endorse other examples of their stupidity?

I really … truth means nothing

(Lack) sufficient insight and maturity, and a healthy enough ego, to actually learn something.

like those holocaust deniers

you are prejudiced

(attempting to read our minds, which is verbally abusive).

you have no legitimate business here; you do nothing but poison discussions

arguing over nothing useful

You played mind games with us, then when we realized what you were doing, you increased the abuse to try to make us look bad.

but a smart @$$hole is still an @$$hole.

lying again

the pest is going to play language cop

Go jump in a lake. Your ego is bigger than Mount Everest.

using condescension and insults.

you have been condescending and insulting

your mode of address seems condescending.

mistakenly thought you’d be someone who could engage in productive dialogues

know-it-alls like you are the sort I enjoy stomping on whenever I meet them

you deserved every bit of the contempt you got here

our whining about that because you feel so superior it is pathetic

Grow up and take your lumps like a man.

obnoxious troll …definitely needs a slap on the head

Agent provocateur

you being extremely rude and arrogant in return

Making frivolous demands

just more sneers and put-downs

poor self-awareness

Still being an @$$hole, I see.

I wonder if you are a sociopath.

total lack of empathy

trolls do that often. It’s a childish ploy

——-

Comments directed at just bob who offered some agreement to my ideas:

Though you may not personally find it compelling it seems quite rude to post a comment which is nothing beyond dismissive.

Sorry to see that you feel that way.

Sorry to see that you think

Sorry that you think

________

It seems rather clear from the evidence of this thread that the insults(especially those of a direct & personal nature) are primarily coming from those who disagree with my thesis regarding the scope of evolution rather than from me. Please feel free to quote any insulting comments you feel that I have made that were left out of the list above.

The standard technique of the playground bully who finds someone standing up to their bullying is to first shout insults & threats: if that doesn’t work they’ll whine that they are the one being bullied (ie. engage in projection).

As this thread has evolved; the increasing level of vitriol, insults, mud-slinging and desperate attempts to nit-pick about issues completely unrelated to the original thesis (the common category error concerning the subordinate relationship of biological evolution [special case] to the evolution of everything that exists [general case] and the cause of that category error being due to the biased perspective of humans concerning the primacy of the category to which we belong) is readily apparent.

———–

The ability of such willfully ignorant clowns as FL to so powerfully affect the regular commentators here is a manifestation of the need to play & win “the game”. Because people like FL don’t really care about what others think, they are successful in playing the game if they get you upset. And they obviously get most people here upset. As Richard Feynman said: What do you care what other people think (about you)?

I don’t care in the least if readers are happy or upset about my comments: that is irrelevant unless you are engaged in trying to win the game of “popularity contest”.

I try to let my ideas stand on their own merits. I continue to think & feel that I have done that throughout this thread.

FL said:

We all know what we mean when we say “evolution” by itself: biological evolution. Only when we wish to discuss another type of evolution (in astronomy or geology) do we clarify it with adjectives.

We don’t need anyone coming in here from out of nowhere telling us that they way we operated here for years is wrong or inadequate when it suited us all this time. That’s arrogance.

Hmm. Dale, this kind of talk raises some questions. Permit me to ask.

(1) Do you speak for all the PT posters? Whence cometh this “we” business?

(2) Is PT becoming insular, or inbred, or something? Have things reached the point where evolutionists from outside the PT forum are somehow not so welcome or not taken sufficiently seriously, if they happen to suggest that “the way we operated here for years” is somehow wrong or inadequate?

(3) What happened to all that fancy “Science Is Self-Correcting” rhetoric you guys used to preach around here?

Seems to me that if that statement was true, you’d be willing to listen all the more carefully to those “outsider” (that is, non-regular) evolutionists who offer a different evolutionary perspective. (Although, quite frankly, Jaycubed’s mention of the “evolution continuum” has been professionally published for years, accepted for years, and so is not really “different” at all.)

Perhaps (like Kuhn suggested), science is not so “self-correcting” after all?

FL

What Stanton said. Now, you and jaycubed need to get a room together. You both suck!

jaycubed said:

I asked an editor friend of mine who regularly compiles lists (Book of Lists) to run through this thread and compile a list of statements that they considered in any way insulting. I also asked them to be specifically biased during this process; listing any even vaguely or potentially insulting statements in comments made by me while only listing clear & direct insults made towards me by other commentators. Here’s what she came up with :

What’s this, one of your imaginary friends? Why didn’t she post anything herself? In any case, you started the $#it, and when someone does that, I think we are quite happy to finish it. I make no apologies for giving you what you deserve.

I don’t care in the least if readers are happy or upset about my comments: that is irrelevant unless you are engaged in trying to win the game of “popularity contest”.

I try to let my ideas stand on their own merits. I continue to think & feel that I have done that throughout this thread.

I don’t care about your damned delusions either.

FL wants to get into silly word arguments.

Many words, evolution included, have multiple meanings. “List” for example, can mean a jousting arena, a “list” of items, a desire, the left-over fabric after cutting a pattern or the leaning of a sailboat. Most people can discern from the context which meaning is intended.

When people discuss the “theory of evolution” as put forth by Darwin, et. al., they mean biological evolution; not social evolution, artistic evolution, economic evolution, stellar evolution, personal evolution, systems evolution, the evolution of dance, the evolution of theater, the evolution of the Internet or the “evolution of a hipster”.

To blindly, or perhaps perversely, pretend, in a forum where biological evolution is the principal subject, that “evolution” might include the origin of the universe, origin of the solar system or even the origin of life - no matter how many “six degrees of separation” relationships may be invented - is to engage in silly a word game.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Skip published on October 3, 2010 7:39 PM.

Publicly funded parochial school in Fort Collins, Colorado? was the previous entry in this blog.

Cervus canadensis nelsoni 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