Behe’s blinders: My rough 2 cents on Behe’s paper

| 344 Comments

I don’t have time to do a serious blog entry, but I would just note that Jerry Coyne has been blogging Behe’s QRB paper, and the scandalous abuse of it by ID proponents (well, I’m sure the abuse was intended by Behe, but what he could actually establish in a peer-reviewed paper does not support even a smidgen the claims that Behe and other ID fans are making about the paper on the blogs).

In the latest thread, Paul Nelson popped up with another promise for another piece explaining why something that’s obviously wrong is actually reasonable (in this case, why ID advocates are allowed to disdainfully ignore the massive evidence that gene duplication + divergence is the main source of new genes with new functions, and why they are allowed to claim that the origin of new functional sequence is a big problem, when in fact it’s basically a solved problem, with the answer – gene duplication + divergence – known across biology, tested and verified in numerous different ways, and written down for beginners in the textbooks). We’ll see if he ever comes up with it. But in the meantime, here are a few irate comments from me:

Post #1:

Paul,

What Jerry said. Ignoring the massive evidence that gene duplication + divergence is the main source of new “information” = one is a traditional, very silly, creationist hack who will be dismissed as a crank and who will deserve it.

Basically what Behe and his fans are doing by ignoring this obvious, long-known, long-the-dominant-explanation-in-standard-textbook-theory, extremely-well-tested explanation for the origin of new “information” is the equivalent of going to Kansas, observing that the Earth looks flat in their arbitrarily selected extremely limited observational domain, and then concluding that the Earth is probably flat, and then petulantly insisting that the world is flat unless someone can show them that the Earth isn’t flat by direct observation, while never allowing observations that involve something broader than the view from the ground in Kansas.

I vote we dub this kind of thing – stubbornly ignoring obviously relevant evidence, and obsessive focus on one very narrow kind of evidence as the only good evidence – as “Behe’s Blinders”.

(All that said, consider:

1. Mainstream theory says gene duplication + modification of a copy is basically the main source of new genes with new functions.

2. Behe reviews many experiments in which adaptive (even better than neutral spread!) gene duplications are observed in very short-term, very-simple experimental situations.

3. Behe reviews many experiments in which genes successfully change function (e.g. new substrates, even to human-created xenobiotic compounds not before seen in nature) through point mutations, observations again made even in very short-term, very-simple experimental situations.

4. Behe concludes we should be skeptical of gene duplication + modification as an explanation of new genes.

This is the only appropriate reaction when confronted with that sort of silliness:

Post #2:

Paul Nelson writes:

“Just to be sure: NO experimental studies have been done in eukaryotes on the origin of what Behe calls FCTs?”

Yeah, no, there is a bunch of stuff with yeasts. Especially because of industrial uses with fermentation, ethanol production for biofuels (and drinking) etc. This one is a classic, long-mentioned on e.g. talkorigins…as far as I can tell it even meets the “new coding sequence” requirement as well:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) […]

Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.

344 Comments

Oh, and it gets worse.….for the 10% or so that Behe lists in his as Gain-of-FCT*

“.….no matter what causes gain-of-FCT events to sporadically arise in nature (and I of course think the more complex ones likely resulted from deliberate intelligent design).…”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darw[…]jerry-coyne/

God did it. Because Behe believes so, which is fine, but how is this science?

*P.S. This kinda kills the idea of information never increasing, etc., doesn’t it? I mean, ID-expert verified cases where “‘gain-of-FCT’ adaptive mutation is a mutation that produces a specific, new, functional coded element while adapting an organism to its environment.”

Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong.

He admits:

* beneficial mutations can happen * increases in specificity can happen * increases in information can happen

In “Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

He still tries to argue that most of these are “degradative” – never giving a rigorous definition of this – but basically this doesn’t matter anyway. We know selection sometimes preserves e.g. modified duplicates, because we see them persisting in microbial populations today, and we typically see them lost only when the microbes are transplanted to some simpler environment like a petri dish, chemostat, or nice warm nutrient-rich host organism body.

Stephen Meyer said: Gene duplication and divergence do not make new genes any more than a paper and a typewriter makes a new poem.

What a terrible analogy. Absent humanity, poems do not descend with modification; organisms do. There is no selection process working on poems; there is on organisms.

Your attempted analogy to evolution fails to reflect two of its most important characteristics.

Polls are now the arbiters of truth?

Wonder why that might be a bad standard: http://www.gallup.com/poll/7444/gal[…]lection.aspx

Not to mention the poll contains the poison phrase “through an unguided process” to which a Theistic evolutionist could not consent. The supernatural guiding or lack there of is beyond the scope of science!

As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don’t feed this troll.

RBH said:

As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don’t feed this troll.

Sorry—these kinds of trolls used to be outrageous. Now they’re only slightly goofier than their namesakes.

Well said. Meyer usually lets the other flaks at the DI do his talking for him.

RBH, according to your definition of troll, anyone who comes on here and challenges your thesis is a troll. So if you went to Uncommon Descent and challenged their thesis, you too would be a troll

RBH’s definition of a troll is correct. Your definition of a troll is wrong. Anyone who challenges evolutionary biology by picking sentences out of their wazoo and thumping some pamphlet is either a troll or a knave or a fool. Anyone who walks over to uncommonlydense and challenges the nonsense spouted by the likes O’L, BarryA and the other bots is doing them a service.

If the poem is gibberish it takes just a little longer for it to be appreciated. The nonsense verse of Sukumar Ray (Auteur Satyajit Ray’s father) were popular as ditties for children, and today are mined for their references to logical ideas and social commentary. So you got two things wrong.

First, nonsense verse survives and even prospers Second, to think nonsense verse = organism is foolish.

So uncommondense fans like you need a dose of sense from Pandasthumb posters like us.

ABJECT FAIL!

Stephen Meyer said:

What a terrible analogy. Absent humanity, poems do not descend with modification; organisms do. There is no selection process working on poems; there is on organisms

If the poem is gibberish then NS destroys it, or no one reads it. the analogy is apt.

With a poem these things cannot happen absent human intervention, while with organisms we know they happen without human intervention. I stick by my claim - its a terrible analogy. You might as well claim that because a piece of iron requires intelligent design to float, nothing can float without design.

so if you went to Uncommon Descent and challenged their thesis, you too would be a troll.

No, actually he’d be banned.

Stephen Meyer said:

why ID advocates are allowed to disdainfully ignore the massive evidence that gene duplication + divergence is the main source of new genes with new functions, and why they are allowed to claim that the origin of new functional sequence is a big problem, when in fact it’s basically a solved problem, with the answer – gene duplication + divergence – known across biology, tested and verified in numerous different ways, and written down for beginners in the textbooks).

Gene duplication and divergence do not make new genes any more than a paper and a typewriter makes a new poem. You have to sequence the amino acids correctly in order to get a new protein. You need intelligence to choose what keys to type on a typewriter in order to get a correct English sentence, randomness can’t do it.

Stephen,

You are sadly mistaken. This is a well documented phenomena which includes many good examples such as hemoglobin genes, ribosomal protein genes, histone genes, olfactory genes, hox genes and many others. Polls are irrelevant. If you have any evidence that gene duplication and divergence cannot produce a new gene you should publish it. If you don’t, then you should stop making such foolish claims. Personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.

Exactly why do you think that random mutation and natural selection cannot produce a new gene? Exactly what do you think is could prevent this? Do you think that gene duplications do not occur? Do you think that mutations do not occur? Do you think that natural selection does not occur? Do you think that all of these things acting together could not produce any new gene? Why do you think this?

Me thinks it is a weasel.

What part of don’t feed the troll do you people not understand

Sorry RBH. I didn’t see your post.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

rossum

Has anyone read this paper?

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index[…]BIO-C.2010.1

Most of it is beyond my comprehension (as I’m not a scientist), but I think its author is arguing that protein folds are very unlikely to have evolved. Anyway, it’s being touted by ID advocates as “peer-reviewed research” that provides evidence against evolution.

PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski’s experiment were all “degradative”? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

Alfie said: Anyway, it’s being touted by ID advocates as “peer-reviewed research” that provides evidence against evolution.

Yeah, in a sense it’s “peer-reviewed”, since “BIO-Complexity” is a group of creationists trading papers with each other … not really all that different from ARN or ISCID.

Alfie said:

Has anyone read this paper?

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index[…]BIO-C.2010.1

Most of it is beyond my comprehension (as I’m not a scientist), but I think its author is arguing that protein folds are very unlikely to have evolved. Anyway, it’s being touted by ID advocates as “peer-reviewed research” that provides evidence against evolution.

PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski’s experiment were all “degradative”? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

From the Douglas Axe abstract:

This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins.

Whenever you see an ID/creationist talking about a “sampling problem,” you are seeing an example of the fundamental misconception of ID/creationism.

ID/creationists “know” deep down in their heart of hearts that complex systems cannot form without intelligence (their sectarian dogma tells them so). Therefore, every “problem” they see with evolution is a sampling problem because, in the phrasing of creationist Abel, it is all “spontaneous molecular chaos” down there.

The “degradative” part very likely comes from “genetic entropy” notions. For ID/creationists, all systems like this degrade. It’s how it must be for them, therefore it is how they see it.

Unfortunately for them, Nature doesn’t see it that way.

Alfie said: PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski’s experiment were all “degradative”? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

Probably something like this: if you took the genetic sequence of the regular parent and compared it to the genetic sequence of the citrate-eating daughter, you’d find that the citrate-eating sequence has less CSI than the parent sequence. Or that the citrate-eating mutation is the result of some extant sequence being turned off or broken rather than some new sequence appearing in the genome.

The testable parts of that claim are pure speculation. But that probably doesn’t even matter, because if you proved them wrong about the presence of a new sequence they’d just fall back on the CSI claim. Since there is no actual method for calculating CSI, its simple enough for them to decide, post-hoc, when faced with a new sequence, that the CSI value of the daughter must be lower whatever it is.

back to the bible.org:

Series: Keeping Your Teens from Walking Away Dr. Woodrow Kroll May 11, 2009

Woodrow Kroll: They’re turning their backs, they’re walking away, and we have to do something about it now! What am I talking about? I’m talking about our Christian teenagers. deleted material

Let me quote several of these groups. First of all the Barna Group; you know them because they’ve been doing surveys for oh, 20 or something years now. The Barna Group found out that two out of three Christian teens will leave the church after they graduate from high school. Two out of three. deleted material Lifeway Research; Lifeway is a division of the Southern Baptist Convention (it’s their research division). Lifeway Research shows that more than two-thirds of all kids who are in church regularly during high school are going to opt out of church after they graduate from high school. Two-thirds.

Now let me think now. Barna says two out of three, Lifeway says two-thirds. Two out of three, two-thirds. We’re talking about the same number of kids. Two different surveys done by two different groups telling us exactly the same thing.

Here is another two polls for Stephen Meyer. Two out of three kids leave fundie churches when they can. The sources are Barna and Lifeway, both fundie polling organizations.

What happens when you make believing in lies and attacking science, the basis of modern Hi Tech civilization, a litmus test. Litmus tests work both ways. Worked for me, I was a life long xian before I ran into the creationists.

Stephen Meyer, you aren’t destroying science, you are destroying US xianity.

As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don’t feed this troll.

Sorry, didn’t get far enough to see the Fake Meyer alert. But really, the troll is dumb enough to be Stephen Meyers.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong.

He admits:

* beneficial mutations can happen * increases in specificity can happen * increases in information can happen

In “Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication. If I have a gene with variation at one of its sites, and natural selection chooses among those bases (say A, T, and G) one of them (say G) that brings about higher fitness, and fixes it in the population, that reduction of uncertainty is increase of information (increase of specified information, if we identify the specification with fitness, as seems appropriate).

Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

Actually, random mutation and natural selection can produce a poem (even a haiku!) and I’ve done this.

Using a random word generator I spewed out 48 words, 8 lines of 6. Then, 5 of my friends selected by vote zero to two words in each line to keep. The next iteration was weighted so the voted words had a better chance of being retained.

In short order we had something like a poem, although it read like a 60’s drug-induced, pseudo-literary poem. Still, it would probably get you a C in Freshman English class.

Stephen Meyer said:

This is a well documented phenomena which includes many good examples such as hemoglobin genes, ribosomal protein genes, histone genes, olfactory genes, hox genes and many others.

Let’s see some of these well documented cases.

Here are some scientific reports about them. Also, tell us again how and why should we be impressed by the fact that you are either incapable of or are too lazy to use a search engine like scholar.google.com If you ask me, it’s a severe shortcoming that you shouldn’t boast about.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conte[…]/9/1440.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journa[…]re03154.html

Joe Felsenstein said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong.

He admits:

* beneficial mutations can happen * increases in specificity can happen * increases in information can happen

In “Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication. If I have a gene with variation at one of its sites, and natural selection chooses among those bases (say A, T, and G) one of them (say G) that brings about higher fitness, and fixes it in the population, that reduction of uncertainty is increase of information (increase of specified information, if we identify the specification with fitness, as seems appropriate).

Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

You mean like how the icefish’ antifreeze gene originated when a START codon got spliced into a region of non-coding DNA near the ancestral fish’s bile production genes?

gate.net:

Xylitol is also not normally metabolized, but Mortlock and his colleagues were able to develop strains (generally through spontaneous mutations, but sometimes with u.v. ray or chemical induced mutations) that could use it because ribitol dehydrogenase (which is usually present in the cells to convert ribitol to D-ribulose) was able to slightly speed up the conversion of xylitol to D-xylulose, for which metabolic pathways already exist. The ability of the strains to utilize xylitol was increased as much as 20 fold when first production of ribitol dehydrogenase was deregulated (the enzyme was produced all the time, not just when ribitol was present), then duplication of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes occurred, then the structure of the enzyme was changed such that its efficiency at working with xylitol was improved, and finally, in at least one case, a line regained control of the modified ribitol dehydrogenase gene so that the enzyme was only produced in the presence of xylitol. Here we have a complete example of a new metabolic pathway being developed through duplication and modification of an existing pathway.

Here is one example of evolution of a complete new metabolic pathway by gene duplication followed by divergence, and then a regulatory evolution step.

This work is decades old. There are pages and pages of such example by now. But why bother.

The creationist troll will just move the goal posts. Since we have already created lifeforms, now they are at the point of demanding scientists recreate the Big Bang to prove Cosmology. Better hope we don’t, that would be the last experiment for another 14 billion years.

No one has ever shown how there is a direct line from one protein to another protein whose sequences are different in more than 20 locations, and this is to say nothing of some genes who are more than a 1000 amino acids long.

Yeah they have. It’s called the Theory of Evolution and common descent.

This is the standard creationist trick of making impossible demands that no one can meet. We haven’t yet been able to stay up for a few million years and document evolution in action. Humans don’t live for millions of years and modern science is only 200 years old.

No one has seen mountain ranges rising up due to plate tectonic collisions either but virtually no geologists doubt the theory of plate tectonics. No one saw India running into Tibet to form the Himalayas but that nonetheless, it happened.

BTW, if the religious used the same standard of proof that scientists use, we would have a videotape of the crucifixion, the True Cross, the complete works of jesus, and jesus the immortal godman would have his own TV show, radio show, and blog. Absent all that, the veracity of their religion has to be questionable.

Raven wrote:

“The creationist troll will just move the goal posts.”

Way to go Raven. Prediction confirmed in nine minutes.

troll fake:

The duplication of an already built gene is not the same as building a new gene. That’s like saying xeroxing a copy of Moby Dick is writing a new book.

I just showed an example of duplication followed by divergence to create a new metabolic pathway. Which you ignored.

troll:

No one has ever shown how there is a direct line from one protein to another protein whose sequences are different in more than 20 locations, and this is to say nothing of some genes who are more than a 1000 amino acids long.

As predicted, the troll has already moved the goal posts. Now it is 20 mutations needed or 1000 amino acids. They are so boringly predictable and so incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Done for now, some else can play with the chew toy.

Stephen Meyer said:

The duplication of an already built gene is not the same as building a new gene. ….

I am mystified because the quote is not from any posting of mine. Plus this troll is not the real Stephen Meyer and is posing as him, so it’s a waste of time to play his games. And this troll is sufficiently incompetent as to get confused about who posted what.

Stanton said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication.

Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

You mean like how the icefish’ antifreeze gene originated when a START codon got spliced into a region of non-coding DNA near the ancestral fish’s bile production genes?

That is origin of a new gene. My point was that much more boring processes like substitutions fine tuning a protein for better function are also perfectly good examples of new information.

Dale Husband said:

More empty rhetoric, now that his bogus postering has been totally undone here.

Kris, you are indeed a liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants on fire! And a hypocrite, because you can clearly dish out abuse but you cannot take it, can you?

Dale - “Kris” has absolutely no interest in the content he argues for or against. His sole purpose is to enrage PT posters to react emotionally.

He is a leech that sucks blood. And that blood is emotion. It’s how he gets his kicks.

Reflect on all his posts and you’ll see what I mean.

IBelieveInGod said:

I’m none of the above! Why engage Kris? I have my concerns about whether He/She really has any of my views.

Hey “IBIG”, I’m breaking the rules, but I just can’t help myself.

“Kris” has none of your views. “Kris” has gaping holes of ‘doubt’ about the validity of evolution.

Why don’t you give him some of your answers? Maybe you could flip him.

Please respond at http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bi[…]=7060;st=210

Kris, if all you want to do is rant, please go to the place you have been directed for the past few pages. It is polite. This is not a place to rant, rave, or threaten.

If you truly are interested in being polite, then please move to After the Bar Closes forum and feel free to engage there. If you are polite, then I will be polite, but you better bring evidence and actually answer questions… unlike creationists.

Deal?

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Dale Husband said:

More empty rhetoric, now that his bogus postering has been totally undone here.

Kris said:

Learn how to read and comprehend. Seriously.

And you still haven’t (and can’t) show where I said the things you say I said. It must be embarrassing being you.

I hope I’m not the only one who sees how nonsensical your remarks are.

You’re pretty good at distorting facts and putting a dishonest spin on things. I’m not fooled though, even if other people are. I know what I’ve actually said.

Kris, you are indeed a liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants on fire! And a hypocrite, because you can clearly dish out abuse but you cannot take it, can you?

Where do you live Dale-boi?

Dale Husband said:

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

That is a perfectly acceptable and noble modus operandi for Dale to take IBelieveInStupidity:

IBelieveInGod said: Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

We defend what is valid mainstream science - that is, primarily evolutionary biology - here from those like you who would love to ram your breathtakingly inane, pathetic, religiously-derived pseudoscienctific nonsense down the throats of others, especially those studying science in intermediate and secondary schools. Your behavior - as well as those of your fellow reprehensible ilk - are not meant to be viewed as courageous acts of dissent, but rather, as the very malicious deeds of mendacious intellectual pornographers.

Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you Kris that, for more than twenty years, Intelligent Design advocates have had more than their ample share of opportunities to demonstrate why their ideas should be viewed as sound mainstream science. Instead they engage constantly in attacking their opponents, distorting and omitting their criticisms and data that show how patently false Intelligent Design is, and, in the case of one William Dembski, even go as far as outright theft and censorship. Can you blame myself, Stanton, Dale, Mike Elzinga, RBH, Dave Luckett, and many, many others for having nothing but ample scorn and contempt for creationists posting here, especially those who are Intelligent Design fanatics? Really, your pleas for decency have a most hollow and disingenuous ring to them:

Kris said: You and others really are clearly demonstrating what this site and most of the people here really are about. It’s ALL about hating and ranting about creationists. That’s the ONLY purpose here. Science has nothing to do with it. You’re as fundamentalist in your belief system as any creationists. The only difference between you and the people you hate is the name of your religion.

We have repeatedly ask you whether you understand the science of evolutionary biology or why there are no legitimate reasons why any aspect of Intelligent Design should be viewed as valid mainstream science. Instead, like a typical creotard troll, you refuse to answer our questions, but instead, engage in offensive attacks, including character assassinations. When you finally demonstrate that you know something about science, then, and only then, may some of us respond accordingly in a more diplomatic fashion.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn’t “a science site”. It’s about “defending the integrity of science”. The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend.

Science didn’t start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Please stop feeding the trolls.

They only get pleasure from tweaking us. They can’t even handle a smidgen of actual intellectual effort. It’s actually funny, but they are just boring.

Science bitches, it works. ID fails… again and again.

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn’t “a science site”. It’s about “defending the integrity of science”. The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend.

Science didn’t start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Science needs defending? Sorry, I don’t see that here, what I see defended here is pseudo-science. I don’t consider Abiogenesis, Evolution by common descent, or Big Bang to actually be real science. So, if the integrity of science is what you want to defend, then stop the defending of pseudo-science.

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn’t “a science site”. It’s about “defending the integrity of science”. The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend.

Science didn’t start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Science needs defending? Sorry, I don’t see that here, what I see defended here is pseudo-science.

I’m sure you believe this, but since you’ve established that you see reality as “pseudo-science”, this is quite the compliment.

I don’t consider Abiogenesis, Evolution by common descent, or Big Bang to actually be real science.

That’s nice, but your opinion on such matters is quite moot given that you aren’t a scientist nor any kind of authority on even tangential subjects.

So, if the integrity of science is what you want to defend, then stop the defending of pseudo-science.

LOL!

Ten Reasons Why “Kris” Is Not “IBIG”

1) “Kris” said so.

2) “IBIG” said so.

3) “Kris” uses profane language. “IBIG” refrains from profanity, so far (though he might tell you you’re going to Hell).

4) “IBIG” copiously quotes bible verses and posts 6,000-word Spurgeon sermons copied from AiG. “Kris” has not quoted the bible (so far) nor copied a sermon (so far).

5) “Kris”, despite thousands of words posted, has yet to make a point or to write anything of substance. “IBIG” has difficulty posting his own thoughts, but once in a while makes a point (he says, “The point I was trying to make was …”)

6) “Kris” says “Sure doesn’t sound scientific!” “IBIG” says “NOT SCIENTIFIC!”.

7) “IBIG” claims to ‘understand evolution’ and says “Common Descent IS A LIE!!!!!!!!”. “Kris” claims to ‘believe’ in evolution but has ‘doubts’ about the ‘gaping holes’ in evolutionary theory.

8) “Kris” replies to responses posters make to “IBIG”. “IBIG” replies to responses posters make to “Kris”.

9) “IBIG” has flooded a forum with his provocative posts. “Kris” floods forums with his provocative posts.

10) “IBIG” often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses. “Kris” often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses.

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn’t.

Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda’s Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It’s like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That’s what lions do, period.

Krs sd:

Whr dd vr s tht “nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?”

Whr d GT ths CRP?????

nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t’s LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht’s th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. ‘r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn.

XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, ‘m nt ‘n f ‘ nd dn’t blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn’t gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn’t ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn’t ssm th’r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th’r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t.

‘m nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn’t tmtcll thnk tht th’r ‘trll’ (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn’t r my nt agr wth thm.

gs jst rll wn’t ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. ‘r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd.

h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd.

nd nne wh dsn’t b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b ‘crtnst trll’ nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds!

nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn’t “a science site”. It’s about “defending the integrity of science”. The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend.

Science didn’t start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Science needs defending? Sorry, I don’t see that here, what I see defended here is pseudo-science. I don’t consider Abiogenesis, Evolution by common descent, or Big Bang to actually be real science. So, if the integrity of science is what you want to defend, then stop the defending of pseudo-science.

Your opinion on what is science vs. pseudo-science is, as you have admitted, worthless. We need to defend science from ignorant anti-Christians such as yourself.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 17, 2010 11:23 AM.

Everyone read the Pennock article in Synthese was the previous entry in this blog.

It’s just a stage. A phylotypic stage. Part III: Fish and more 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