The Sensuous Curmudgeon lays it on creationism

| 233 Comments

One of my favorite bloggers is The Sensuous Curmudgeon. He exemplifies the holy writ of curmudgeonhood, “The Curmudgeon’s Handbook,” a compendium of extracts from historical curmudgeons (Mencken was prominent among them) that I read more than four decades ago and can no longer find. I can only dream of aspiring to the heights SC regularly reaches. He recently vented about creationism in a post titled The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Creation Science. (Well, he actually vents regularly, but this one is a keeper.) Highly recommended!

233 Comments

Creationists don’t follow the evidence, they try to explain it away.

Except when they either ignore evidence and/or its implications, that it. True, similarity doesn’t necessarily imply common ancestry, it’s the sort of similarities that we actually find in life that confirm evolutionary predictions, and that creationists themselves accept so long as it isn’t the sort of “macroevolution” that they neither allow nor can determine using the evidence. You’d think that the difference between evolution and design would be rather noticeable, in fact, while for them the two quite different processes blend seamlessly until fake probabilities supposedly tease them apart.

IDiots are every bit as good as ignoring that inconvenient fact as any other creationists.

Glen Davidson

There are lots of talking points in the Sensuous Curmudgeon’s article which can be used by voters who want to ask embarassing questions for Rethuglican candidates at every level, from dog-catcher and school board races to Congressional and Presidential races. The long-running Rethuglican War On Science™ has brought all sorts of scientifically illiterate fundagelical ignoramuses out of the woodwork, and their willful ignorance should be exposed at every opportunity. As we get closer to the November elections, Americans who care about science should become informed about the candidates’ positions and ask them questions to expose their ignorance. Between now and then, of course, we can practice on our loyal opposition, our resident science deniers and fundagelical trolls.

If I may return the compliment, Richard, this could be your best post ever.

Glen Davidson said:

You’d think that the difference between evolution and design would be rather noticeable

Glen Davidson

Ah, but we know the Designer is such a tease, He/She/It loves to yank our chains ;)

Once you really know the true Designer, it’s no longer strange that a Designer would have the same defective genes in the exact same places (often with exact matching defects) in many primates, including humans. Ultimately we have to listen to what the Designer says, we have to read the Word of the Designer.

Ouch, that sarcasm hurts.

It’s not just that creationists come up with ad hoc hypotheses to justify their views. It’s that they never attempt rationally to test those hypotheses or even to reconcile one ad hoc hypothesis with another. On the rare occasion that they do, they discover they’re wrong and abandon the idea. A good example is the “ice canopy” hypothesis: In an attempt to explain where the water from the Flood came from, some creationists hypothesized a shell of ice surrounding the planet, which came down in the form of rain. A creationist then did some actual calculations of the effect of such a canopy and concluded that the greenhouse effect of such a canopy would make the earth more like Venus. As a result, this has joined Ken Ham’s list of “arguments we shouldn’t use”. Needless to say, they’ve since invented a scriptural reference that allows them to abandon the idea (Psalms 148:4 says “waters above the heavens”, so it couldn’t be ice), although this doesn’t explain why “waters above the heavens” wouldn’t have the same greenhouse effect as “ice above the heavens”. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a creationist to test that idea.

When has a creationist taken the “speed of light changed” or “radioactive decay has changed” hypotheses and followed the implications on other implied physical phenomena to test it? To take a simple example, a change in the speed of light would change the De Broglie wavelengths of elemental particles. Has any creationist examined the physical consequences of this?

Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn’t look for some signal that might be “intelligently designed” and then say “Ahah! there’s intelligent life out there!” They proceeded to try to disprove the “intelligently designed” hypothesis by asking if there’s a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the “quasar theory”, because he doesn’t “stress test” his hypotheses.

John S said:

Psalms 148:4 says “waters above the heavens”, so it couldn’t be ice

I once tried to use the “ice isn’t water” argument (NOTE: It was for something completely unrelated to creationism. Frankly, I was trying to be funny in a smart ass kind of way.), until a real scientist (a biologist who is currently on a 3 month expedition on Antarctica) rightly pointed out, “Uh, yes, it is. Ice is one of the three forms of water, the solid form.” (NOTE: And as a result, I had my ass handed to me…) Such basics of science should be pointed out, at every opportunity, to those who would try to put such nonsense as you quoted into the science classroom.

It’s that they never attempt rationally to test those hypotheses or even to reconcile one ad hoc hypothesis with another.

Maybe it’s the way you said it, or maybe it’s the font used on this website, or maybe the way the lamp light falls on my screen. This clicked a lightbulb on. Yes, we constantly stress “Where’s the positive evidence for creationism and not just the negatives of why evolution doesn’t work?” But we should follow that up with the “and not only do you need to show positive evidence, you need to show how all of your evidence from many different disciplines converges”. In other words, when creationists spout some evidence, ask how that evidence converges with all of the other “evidence” (heh) that creationism espouses. Mind you, just was with SteveP, FL and Robert Byers here on this site, they’ll probably change the subject or completely ignore you. But it will be fun to watch.

John_S said: When has a creationist taken the “speed of light changed” or “radioactive decay has changed” hypotheses and followed the implications on other implied physical phenomena to test it? To take a simple example, a change in the speed of light would change the De Broglie wavelengths of elemental particles. Has any creationist examined the physical consequences of this?

This is one example of a creationist argument being in conflict with another creationist argument. In this case, consider the “fine tuning” argument, which says that if some of the constants of nature had even slightly different values, then life could not exist.

Yes, we constantly stress “Where’s the positive evidence for creationism and not just the negatives of why evolution doesn’t work?”

And none is ever given (nor are the arguments against evolution ever valid). Incidentally, I also ask them to account for all the evidence that favors standard physics, geology, cosmology and biology.

But we should follow that up with the “and not only do you need to show positive evidence, you need to show how all of your evidence from many different disciplines converges”.

That’s a good idea, but you can’t follow up something that never happens in the first place.

(I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of “historical” sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science. Other than model-building, it’s impossible and would probably be grossly unethical to do a lot of experiments involving plate tectonics, but experiments that demonstrate and confirm evolutionary mechanisms are done every day.

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of “historical” sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

True, but it’s the historical part that creationists reject. I guess it’s the micro-macro thing.

There are different words in ancient Hebrew for “water” and “ice” and “snow”:

Water is mayim Strong’s Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang[…]trongs=H4325

Ice is qerach Strong’s H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang[…]trongs=H7140

Snow is sheleg Strong’s H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang[…]trongs=H7950

Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than.

Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water:

Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of “historical” sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

True, but it’s the historical part that creationists reject. I guess it’s the micro-macro thing.

In many cases they deny the experimental results too. See, for instance, the Lenski affair.

John_S said:

Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn’t look for some signal that might be “intelligently designed” and then say “Ahah! there’s intelligent life out there!” They proceeded to try to disprove the “intelligently designed” hypothesis by asking if there’s a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the “quasar theory”, because he doesn’t “stress test” his hypotheses.

Well actually I think that you are thinking of pulsars, not quasars. The first pulsars were not found as part of a SETI search, but rather as a search for scintillation of radio sources by the interstellar medium. While Bell and Hewish did nickname their discovery LGM-1 (for Little Green Men), they did not seriously consider that they had found interstellar communication. When they found their second pulsar, they dropped the name LGM-1.

George Martin

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

If I may return the compliment, Richard, this could be your best post ever.

[choke][gasp][wheeze]

gmartincv said:

John_S said:

Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn’t look for some signal that might be “intelligently designed” and then say “Ahah! there’s intelligent life out there!” They proceeded to try to disprove the “intelligently designed” hypothesis by asking if there’s a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the “quasar theory”, because he doesn’t “stress test” his hypotheses.

Well actually I think that you are thinking of pulsars, not quasars. The first pulsars were not found as part of a SETI search, but rather as a search for scintillation of radio sources by the interstellar medium. While Bell and Hewish did nickname their discovery LGM-1 (for Little Green Men), they did not seriously consider that they had found interstellar communication. When they found their second pulsar, they dropped the name LGM-1.

George Martin

Comparing ID/creationism to SETI is just the same false analogy as comparing it to archaeology and forensics.

SETI seeks a natural “designer” with human-like characteristics. The “designer” that would be detected by SETI, hypothetically, would rely on purely natural radio waves to send a signal into space.

What WOULD be the exact equivalent of ID would be to claim that pulsars have no possible purely natural explanation and must have been magically created by an “intelligent designer”, and then to demand the taxpayer funded public schools deny standard physics and teach this, while simultaneously making it clear that this is meant to imply that the “designer” is the right wing authoritarian fundamentalist post-modern Protestant God of the Anglosphere, especially but not exclusively the southern United States.

I read stuff by creationists and it immediately reminds me of the types of arguments that went on between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. I have no doubts that creationists would angrily denounce God for completely misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the words in the bible.

Harold said:

SETI seeks a natural “designer” with human-like characteristics. The “designer” that would be detected by SETI, hypothetically, would rely on purely natural radio waves to send a signal into space.

Exactly. The difference between SETI and what Dembski does is that we already have one indisputable example of an intelligent being capable of producing radio signals. We’re just trying to find another one who might be using the same technology. Dembski has no objective evidence that any intelligent designer exists nor is he aware of any existing technology capable of doing what he proposes the designer did.

As a YEC i see just the same old accusations that don’t work in the modern world. Its fine to assume a witness origins. The bible has and is been seen this way. In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence. Not about overthrowing the premise of revealed religion first. So on the evidence. Ken Ham, a very effective and notable modern creationist by any measure, is right in stressing origin subjects are not observable and so investigating them is not like regular subjects. Ones presumptions matter more and distort things.

We say evolution and company don’t prove their case and show us we are wrong. The linked commentator here demonstrates the poverty of evidence for the conclusions about evolution. a short list of unrelated subjects to biological conclusions. Past and gone events and processes really do demand careful and strict attention to evidence since the conclusions are not testable or repeatable by any simple understanding of these terms. Creation science is as much/or little scientific as evolutionism etc. Figuring great things out from limited data. Its not just genesis but great Christianity one is dealing with here about truth of origins of the universe.

John_S said:

Harold said:

SETI seeks a natural “designer” with human-like characteristics. The “designer” that would be detected by SETI, hypothetically, would rely on purely natural radio waves to send a signal into space.

Exactly. The difference between SETI and what Dembski does is that we already have one indisputable example of an intelligent being capable of producing radio signals. We’re just trying to find another one who might be using the same technology. Dembski has no objective evidence that any intelligent designer exists nor is he aware of any existing technology capable of doing what he proposes the designer did.

With what did he do it?

- With magic, dear John, with magic…

I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

John Kwok

P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

John Kwok

P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

This is actually germane to a general discussion of creationism.

For those who may not know, James Shapiro is an eminent biochemist who now claims, late in his career, that “natural genetic engineering”, by which he apparently means seemingly conscious mutation choice by cells, is required to explain biological evolution (I defend this as a fair paraphrase, and if anyone thinks it isn’t, please provide a rational rebuttal with an adequate number of citations of recent original statements by Shapiro). He does not make overt religious creationist statements. Technically he is literally a classic Lamarckist. However, he is becoming beloved by creationists for contradicting mainstream evolutionary theory.

So far HuffPo is the closest thing to a forum allowing critical feedback that he seems to have ventured into.

I tried to leave a comment asking him a few questions, but I was late to the party, and HuffPo comments on his thing are limited to 250 words, without much ability for html formatting.

Therefore, I will put some questions here. Either a Shapiro supporter will answer the questions or they will just sit here.

1) If cells have the ability to consciously create mutations, why are there ever any harmful mutations; why don’t they use that ability to always repair all harmful mutations?

2) If harmful mutations arise randomly, why not accept the idea that beneficial and neutral mutations arise the same way? Why a cumbersome separate mechanism for beneficial mutations?

3) What would be a good experiment to distinguish between adaptation via random mutation with selection (drift, etc), versus adaptation via “natural genetic engineering”? What about Lenski’s E. coli experiments? Why do the cells in those experiments not adapt more quickly, via “natural genetic engineering”?

4) What are some possible mechanisms of “natural genetic engineering”; how do cells “know” which mutations will be beneficial to their offspring in future environments?

5) Why is life so diverse? Why couldn’t early cellular life make up its “mind”, and use “natural genetic engineering” in a consistent way?

harold said:

This is actually germane to a general discussion of creationism.

For those who may not know, James Shapiro is an eminent biochemist who now claims, late in his career, that “natural genetic engineering”, by which he apparently means seemingly conscious mutation choice by cells, is required to explain biological evolution (I defend this as a fair paraphrase, and if anyone thinks it isn’t, please provide a rational rebuttal with an adequate number of citations of recent original statements by Shapiro). He does not make overt religious creationist statements. Technically he is literally a classic Lamarckist. However, he is becoming beloved by creationists for contradicting mainstream evolutionary theory.

So far HuffPo is the closest thing to a forum allowing critical feedback that he seems to have ventured into.

I tried to leave a comment asking him a few questions, but I was late to the party, and HuffPo comments on his thing are limited to 250 words, without much ability for html formatting.

Therefore, I will put some questions here. Either a Shapiro supporter will answer the questions or they will just sit here.

1) If cells have the ability to consciously create mutations, why are there ever any harmful mutations; why don’t they use that ability to always repair all harmful mutations?

2) If harmful mutations arise randomly, why not accept the idea that beneficial and neutral mutations arise the same way? Why a cumbersome separate mechanism for beneficial mutations?

3) What would be a good experiment to distinguish between adaptation via random mutation with selection (drift, etc), versus adaptation via “natural genetic engineering”? What about Lenski’s E. coli experiments? Why do the cells in those experiments not adapt more quickly, via “natural genetic engineering”?

4) What are some possible mechanisms of “natural genetic engineering”; how do cells “know” which mutations will be beneficial to their offspring in future environments?

5) Why is life so diverse? Why couldn’t early cellular life make up its “mind”, and use “natural genetic engineering” in a consistent way?

Good ones Harold. We could add a few more:

6) How do cells know what is adaptive in a given environment and how can they predict how the environment can change and what will be adaptive in the future?

7) When is the “decision” made in a multicellular organism? Is it at the gamete or the one cell stage, or can the “directed changes” occur in every cell later on? Obviously there would be problems inherent in all of these scenarios.

8) Assuming that the cell can “know” what mutation is required, what mechanism is used to actually make the changes? Is it a DNA polymerase, a repair mechanism. a known enzyme or an unknown one?

9) If cells have this ability, why is the vertebrate immune system still dependent on random mutations?

10) If cells have this ability, why is there cancer in multicellular organisms, or any other genetically predisposed disease?

11) What is the evidence for this mechanism, is it just personal incredulity, or is there some experimental evidence? Where is this evidence published? Why has no one else discovered this evidence?

12) Does this have anything to do with photons being processed in the magnetic field of the earth?

Swimmy said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of “historical” sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

True, but it’s the historical part that creationists reject. I guess it’s the micro-macro thing.

In many cases they deny the experimental results too. See, for instance, the Lenski affair.

They will deny anything, period. I agree that the Lenski affair was an especially scandalous example of that. Much to his credit, Lenski has been speaking out more forcefully against creationists since then.

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

John Kwok

P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

This is actually germane to a general discussion of creationism.

For those who may not know, James Shapiro is an eminent biochemist who now claims, late in his career, that “natural genetic engineering”, by which he apparently means seemingly conscious mutation choice by cells, is required to explain biological evolution (I defend this as a fair paraphrase, and if anyone thinks it isn’t, please provide a rational rebuttal with an adequate number of citations of recent original statements by Shapiro). He does not make overt religious creationist statements. Technically he is literally a classic Lamarckist. However, he is becoming beloved by creationists for contradicting mainstream evolutionary theory.

So far HuffPo is the closest thing to a forum allowing critical feedback that he seems to have ventured into.

I tried to leave a comment asking him a few questions, but I was late to the party, and HuffPo comments on his thing are limited to 250 words, without much ability for html formatting.

Therefore, I will put some questions here. Either a Shapiro supporter will answer the questions or they will just sit here.

1) If cells have the ability to consciously create mutations, why are there ever any harmful mutations; why don’t they use that ability to always repair all harmful mutations?

2) If harmful mutations arise randomly, why not accept the idea that beneficial and neutral mutations arise the same way? Why a cumbersome separate mechanism for beneficial mutations?

3) What would be a good experiment to distinguish between adaptation via random mutation with selection (drift, etc), versus adaptation via “natural genetic engineering”? What about Lenski’s E. coli experiments? Why do the cells in those experiments not adapt more quickly, via “natural genetic engineering”?

4) What are some possible mechanisms of “natural genetic engineering”; how do cells “know” which mutations will be beneficial to their offspring in future environments?

5) Why is life so diverse? Why couldn’t early cellular life make up its “mind”, and use “natural genetic engineering” in a consistent way?

Harold, if you post a series of questions keeping it at or below the 250 word limit, you should be able to get through. I encourage you and others too, since only a mere handful have been critical of him and those of us who have been his most vociferous critics, tend to be “featured” in a rebuttal essay.

Anyway, yours seems to be an apt assessment of Shapiro’s thinking who, while claiming that he understands “population thinking” - as coined by Ernst Mayr - and population biology, refuses to concede that one needs to think about how the changes wrought by “natural genetic engineering” will manifest themselves within populations.

John Kwok

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he’ll drift that far), but even if he does – so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn’t produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn’t understand. That doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, and it’s certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe’s colleagues ignore him. That’s the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at.

Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

DS -

Great questions

An example of minds thinking alike…

9) If cells have this ability, why is the vertebrate immune system still dependent on random mutations?

I had actually thought of this. The immune system relies on broadly programmed but random mutations to create a vast number of unique receptors, so that unpredictable future pathogen molecules are likely to interact with at least some such receptors. This is a classic example of something that seems “magical” at first glance, acquired immunity, but that, it turns out, can be explained naturally by mainstream science.

If cells can do “natural genetic engineering”, why would such a system evolve? Why don’t T-cells and B-cells simply wait until a pathogen arrives, and then naturally genetically engineer the exact receptor they need? Why waste resources creating receptors that not only may never be used, but which each may create a small risk of autoimmunity?

(And why did early cells’ natural genetic engineering result in a world where pathogens compete with immune systems…see my question “5” above.)

I may pop over to HuffPo later and see if I can post these questions.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

I respectfully vehemently disagree. Don McLeroy of the Texas State Board of Education is an anti-science/anti-history crank. Ignoring him has been a disaster for science and history. See Katherine Stewart’s article at http://www.alternet.org/story/15551[…]_on_history/

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he’ll drift that far), but even if he does – so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn’t produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn’t understand. That doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, and it’s certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe’s colleagues ignore him. That’s the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at.

Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

I think you should because he is not simply a crank, but a distinguished biologist who thinks it is okay for high school teachers to teach biology without using the word “evolution” (even if they do teach some of the principles of Natural Selection to their predominantly Christian public high school student class), claims that Darwin didn’t understand Natural Selection until he received Wallace’s 1858 essay, thinks it is okay to post at a DI website simply to correct an IDiot like Bill Dembski, and refuses to acknowledge that one must think of population thinking in order to explain how the “Neo-Lamarckian” “natural genetic engineering” evolutionary changes are spread within the affected population. Anyway, Larry Moran of Sandwalk has had no hesitation in critiquing Shapiro; I think you should too since you’ve been quite on target in dealing with creotards and their fellow travelers (which, alas, may include Shapiro himself).

John Kwok

Paul Burnett said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

I respectfully vehemently disagree. Don McLeroy of the Texas State Board of Education is an anti-science/anti-history crank. Ignoring him has been a disaster for science and history. See Katherine Stewart’s article at http://www.alternet.org/story/15551[…]_on_history/

I am in full agreement with you here, Paul. Moreover, Shapiro needs to be taken to task since he is posting at HuffPo and claiming that he has developed a “Third Way” to distinguish himself from “Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy” and Intelligent Design. (While I am in agreement with Shapiro that current evolutionary theory needs to be updated, I disagree vehemently with his rationale, especially when he isn’t interested in considering such issues as multilevel selection, evolutionary stasis and ecological stasis.

John Kwok

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he’ll drift that far), but even if he does – so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn’t produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn’t understand. That doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, and it’s certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe’s colleagues ignore him. That’s the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at.

Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

What SensuousCurmudgeon chooses to write about is his own business. He’s a guy with a blog.

Cranks can be ignored, that is true.

I strongly agree with Paul Burnett and John Kwok that it would be a very poor idea for the science-supporting community overall to ignore James Shapiro.

He has is a faculty member at a highly prestigious university, with a long history of scientific achievement, who has chosen to write a book for lay people about evolution.

Unfortunately, the book contains very confusing and incorrect ideas, which he also voices in other public forums, mainly where informed critique is either not present, or massively diluted by adulatory comments.

That would be bad enough if we were not in the midst of a period of anti-science political activity, but we are.

harold said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeas[…]AbTpY-#b1375 said:

Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he’ll drift that far), but even if he does – so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn’t produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn’t understand. That doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, and it’s certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe’s colleagues ignore him. That’s the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at.

Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

What SensuousCurmudgeon chooses to write about is his own business. He’s a guy with a blog.

Cranks can be ignored, that is true.

I strongly agree with Paul Burnett and John Kwok that it would be a very poor idea for the science-supporting community overall to ignore James Shapiro.

He has is a faculty member at a highly prestigious university, with a long history of scientific achievement, who has chosen to write a book for lay people about evolution.

Unfortunately, the book contains very confusing and incorrect ideas, which he also voices in other public forums, mainly where informed critique is either not present, or massively diluted by adulatory comments.

That would be bad enough if we were not in the midst of a period of anti-science political activity, but we are.

I agree with you that Sensuous Curmudgeon has the right to decide what he should write on his blog, but I also believe that he should take a look at Shapiro, merely because of Shapiro’s HuffPo platform, in which he has been echoing sentiments consistent with the Disco Tute, often expressing much of the same criticisms that they have toward “Darwinism”. He has refused to acknowledge his error in diminishing Darwin’s importance in discovering Natural Selection even after I pointed out to him that Darwin had conceived of - and coined the term “Natural Selection” - by 1842, years before Darwin received Wallace’s essay on Natural Selection in early 1858. And for some odd reason, he still thinks of me an as advocate of “Neo-Darwinism” even after I told him I endorse the views expressed by Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and Massimo Pigliucci with regards to creating an “Extended Synthesis”. (However, unlike Shapiro, I am willing to accept that the Modern Synthesis remains the best scientific explanation for biological evolution, even if I think it is in substantial need of an “Extended Synthesis” update.)

I also encourage others here at PT to join with me in critiquing Shapiro over at his Huffington Post blog, not least because his most devout fans are Intelligent Design creationists and sympathizers. (There is one, Berthavan, a self-described Liberal (which is the case judging from her non-scientific commentary) for commending the Discovery Institute for being the “lone voice” in condemning “Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.) Shapiro thinks it is okay to listen to anyone, regardless of the person’s religious or political association, as long as that individual is making a good point.

John Kwok

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines. The like parts equals like DNA is from a serious original creation and not later minor adaptations.

I am saying their are two forces going on here and that logically there is no reason to see just one frorce. Two points I’m making. It could only be that like parts equals like DNA from a like blueprint and creator. So all of biology has like parts with variation and like DNA with variation. So a primate looks like us and has like DNA with us but it could only be this way without it logically meaning we are related. then the second force is a special case where we being from Adam/Eve have ever since had very close DNA because of actual relatedness.

Its been a logical flaw, if not a actual factual one(though it is that too), to say all DNA can be tracked back to connect creatures. To insist and be persuaded by this has been wrong.

Both forces can be operating at the same time.

Byers has no answer to the fact that DNA similarities among humans are exactly distributed according to the generational distance of their last common ancestor. This, he is quite happy to concede, implies that all humans are commonly descended. But extinct human species, such as neanderthalis and erectus, show an exactly similar pattern of greater divergence. This implies that extinct human species and our species are also commonly descended. Byers is less happy with that, but he’ll probably go along with it.

But chimpanzees, gorillas and ourangutans, in that order, show the same, and then all primates, and then all mammals, and so on for all life.

Which also implies that we and the apes, we and the primates, we and mammals, and we and all life, are commonly descended, with the DNA differences moving in exact lockstep with the generational distance of our last common ancestor. Byers balks at this, and wants there to be some point where common ancestry is no longer implied.

There is no such point. There is no such barrier. It exists only in the Byers imagination, along with his other fantasies, such as that he has the faintest clue what he’s talking about, or that his miserable ignorance is not blatantly revealed every time he presses a key.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines. The like parts equals like DNA is from a serious original creation and not later minor adaptations.

I am saying their are two forces going on here and that logically there is no reason to see just one frorce. Two points I’m making. It could only be that like parts equals like DNA from a like blueprint and creator. So all of biology has like parts with variation and like DNA with variation. So a primate looks like us and has like DNA with us but it could only be this way without it logically meaning we are related. then the second force is a special case where we being from Adam/Eve have ever since had very close DNA because of actual relatedness.

Its been a logical flaw, if not a actual factual one(though it is that too), to say all DNA can be tracked back to connect creatures. To insist and be persuaded by this has been wrong.

Both forces can be operating at the same time.

Once again Robert, you disprove your own nonsense. So, “dolphins are from land creatures”! So I guess they EVOLVED from land creatures. And according to you, this happened in the last ten thousand years. So how exactly is this compatible with your make believe “barrier”? This is not a “minor adaptation”, this is a fundamentally new body plan. The genetic similarity between dolphins and terrestrial mammals completely destroys whatever insane point you think you were trying to make. But then, it was pointed out to you weeks ago that your ignorant idea was not based in reality.

As has also been pointed out to you, “like parts equals like DNA” isn’t even close to being true. The actual pattern observed is completely consistent with common descent and completely inconsistent with the creator fairy tale.

For the last time, we share many genetic features with other primates, many having nothing to do with morphology, adaptation or design of any kind. Indeed many are deleterious and can only be explained by descent with modification. Your refusal to learn condemns your argument.

All DNA can be traced back to a single common ancestor. Here is one tree of life and it reveals that all organisms are genetically related. You are dead wrong once again. You can post midnight drive bys until the sun starts going around the earth, but you will never be right. Your brain is atomic and unproven. GO away.

DS said:

Once again Robert, you disprove your own nonsense. So, “dolphins are from land creatures”! So I guess they EVOLVED from land creatures. And according to you, this happened in the last ten thousand years. So how exactly is this compatible with your make believe “barrier”? This is not a “minor adaptation”, this is a fundamentally new body plan. The genetic similarity between dolphins and terrestrial mammals completely destroys whatever insane point you think you were trying to make. But then, it was pointed out to you weeks ago that your ignorant idea was not based in reality.

Yes: Robert Byers the Idiot For Jesus has previously stated that he believes in magical hyperevolution that magically occurred after Noah’s Ark docked at Mt Ararat. As, according to Idiot Byers, it’s perfectly sane and logical to assume that God caused cows to magically hyperevolve into dolphins and spermwhales within a decade, but, it’s totally crazy, illogical and downright stupid to believe what scientists say about people being related to apes and other animals, or about organisms in general evolving over the course of millions of years. Because Robert Byers knows so much more and so much better than those stupid, evil scientists who know absolutely nothing about everything.

GO away.

It would be nice if Idiot Byers could follow this piece of advice. But, as was the case at Pharyngula, Idiot Byers needs a great deal of help in going and staying away.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert,

Thank you for elaborating. You say, “dolphins are from land creatures”. Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don’t look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don’t have any. Dolphins appear to share only “a few like parts” with “land creatures”.

Robert: YOU can’t tell the difference between an emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tree_Boa]) and a green tree python (Morelia viridis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelia_viridis]). They look so much alike that it takes knowledge and experience with snakes to tell them apart. They have pretty much identical “parts”. So they should have pretty much identical DNA, by your thinking, right?

Well, they don’t. The emerald tree boa has DNA much closer to the giant boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), which it looks nothing like. The green tree python has DNA that makes it related to the giant reticulated python (Python reticulatus)–but NOT to the emerald tree boa–which it looks almost exactly like.

Any layman (YOU), asked to decide which of those 4 snakes was related, based on their “parts”, would unhesitatingly put the 2 small, green, identical-appearing snakes as maybe brother and sister, and the 2 giant ones as maybe kissing cousins. You would be WRONG.

You see, very different DNA can make almost identical “parts” (that’s called convergent evolution), like the two tree snakes. And much more similar DNA can result in very different “parts”, like it does with the tree and giant pythons.

So your notion that DNA is similar only because “parts” are similar is just plain wrong.

In the reptile house of our local zoo, the tree boa and tree python are displayed in side-by-side enclosures. Keepers are constantly asked why two examples of the same snake are kept in two separate cages, under two different names. People have a hard time believing that the boa from the Amazon is not closely related to the python from New Guinea. But they’re NOT. The boa is related to other boas, and the python to other pythons. Their DNA doesn’t lie. And it tells a very different story from their “parts.”

Robert,

Which group of land creatures were ancestral to the dolphins? How do you know?

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not.

Biologist Ken Miller explains these points in this lecture (starts at about the 2:10 mark)

Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

So, when humans share like genes with other primates, the appearance of a nested hierarchy/common descent is just an illusion? Even when humans and other primates share many of the same defective genes (like the broken Vitamin C and hemoglobin genes)? Even when these defective genes (or pseudogenes) often have exact matching defects?

Really, does an all-knowing Designer purposely put defective genes with exact matching defects in both humans and other primates? If so, it sure gives the appearance that this particular Designer, if not being an inept plagiarist, sure loves to yank our chains.

Getting into the details of genes is beyond what my points are here. Like problems would create like replys however. It all works.

Byers should make the details of genes his points, but we know that’s probably asking too much.

The odds of the same genes breaking and getting the exact same defects would seem astronomical (for example, one of many defects on the broken hemoglobin gene is an accidental triple copy of a stop switch - this is in both humans and in chimps/gorillas). About like the same person winning the lottery multiple times in a row. If anything, the lottery player may have better odds.

It’s not just broken genes giving evidence of common descent.

Functional genes can have much redundancy within a DNA sequence, which allows certain mutations to happen but with no basic change in the gene (like the DNA that makes up the Cytochrome C protein). These mutations also show nested hierarchy/common descent when compared to different species.

PS: There were only two short minutes between Byers’s reply to a previous post and his reply to mine, yet the provided Ken Miller link is much longer than two minutes. Now, if Byers checked Miller out after posting his reply to my post, fine. But what are the odds he did this?

BTW, while were on the topic of genes, many of our PT trolls claim that all humans alive today came from Adam & Eve. Here’s a few relatively brief links that explain how both “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-Chromosomal Adam” were calculated - and how the dates of both M.E. and Y-C Adam are vastly different, as well the likelihood that there were many other humans living alongside M.E.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

http://biologos.org/blog/understand[…]omosome-adam

http://biologos.org/questions/the-m[…]hondrial-eve

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert,

Thank you for elaborating. You say, “dolphins are from land creatures”. Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don’t look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don’t have any. Dolphins appear to share only “a few like parts” with “land creatures”.

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

Just Bob said:

Robert: YOU can’t tell the difference between an emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tree_Boa]) and a green tree python (Morelia viridis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelia_viridis]). They look so much alike that it takes knowledge and experience with snakes to tell them apart. They have pretty much identical “parts”. So they should have pretty much identical DNA, by your thinking, right?

Well, they don’t. The emerald tree boa has DNA much closer to the giant boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), which it looks nothing like. The green tree python has DNA that makes it related to the giant reticulated python (Python reticulatus)–but NOT to the emerald tree boa–which it looks almost exactly like.

Any layman (YOU), asked to decide which of those 4 snakes was related, based on their “parts”, would unhesitatingly put the 2 small, green, identical-appearing snakes as maybe brother and sister, and the 2 giant ones as maybe kissing cousins. You would be WRONG.

You see, very different DNA can make almost identical “parts” (that’s called convergent evolution), like the two tree snakes. And much more similar DNA can result in very different “parts”, like it does with the tree and giant pythons.

So your notion that DNA is similar only because “parts” are similar is just plain wrong.

In the reptile house of our local zoo, the tree boa and tree python are displayed in side-by-side enclosures. Keepers are constantly asked why two examples of the same snake are kept in two separate cages, under two different names. People have a hard time believing that the boa from the Amazon is not closely related to the python from New Guinea. But they’re NOT. The boa is related to other boas, and the python to other pythons. Their DNA doesn’t lie. And it tells a very different story from their “parts.”

Thats fine about these squeezers. There is only one snake kind. Only one kind off the ark. So these snakes could be figured out by DNA backtracking. It doesn’t affect a bigger concept or force that a creator in making kinds of creatures has a general law of DNA. there is no reason not to have primates and us look alike with like DNA but unrelated by reproduction tracking. its just a parts department. tHen it would be that from a original couple the case or force of reproduction being the origin for DNA closeness and so now backtracking can be done. Its been a leap of faith to go from people to primates with dna tracking. Even if true, it isn’t, it would still be a leap of logic to insist its true. A creator would also have like DNA for unrelated creatures with like parts.

Those two posts can’t be improved upon. For sheer demented refusal to parse reality, they are epic.

The hubris (“There is only one snake kind”) is monumental. Byers not only knows more than the world’s herpetologists, he knows the mind of God Almighty. Not even the myth in the Bible says that there was only one snake kind, but Byers knows anyway.

Dolphins, which are attested on Minoan vase and wall paintings dated to 1600 BCE, evolved from tetrapodal land animals in less than a millennium! And this is a mind that balks at general evolution!

The man’s doolally.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert,

Thank you for elaborating. You say, “dolphins are from land creatures”. Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don’t look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don’t have any. Dolphins appear to share only “a few like parts” with “land creatures”.

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

So where is the evidence that demonstrates that you are right, and all evolutionists are wrong?

Can you bother to provide it, or are you going to cowardly claim that doing so is “off topic,” proving how you are a hypocrite on top of a Liar For Jesus?

“There is only one snake kind. Only one kind off the ark.”

Green anacondas.

Spitting cobras.

Coral snakes.

Diamondback rattlesnakes.

African rock pythons.

Banded sea snakes.

Common garters.

King cobras.

Seriously. All evolved within a few centuries after the Ark. Can you quote a creationist “authority” on that, or did you just make it up? After that 3rd sentence, it became pretty much unreadable–and I have a LOT of practice deciphering illiterate 9th grade writing. But I THINK you’re saying that we have DNA like chimps because we look sort of like them. And green tree pythons and emerald tree boas have very different DNA because they look almost exactly alike. Uhh…right.

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Scott F said:

Robert,

Thank you for elaborating. You say, “dolphins are from land creatures”. Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don’t look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don’t have any. Dolphins appear to share only “a few like parts” with “land creatures”.

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

Robert, thank you for your response.

While you’re use of pronouns has me a bit confused, one thing seems clear: “marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood”

Would you agree that “marine mammals” are different species than “land creatures”? Among other things, the “marine mammals” have different numbers of limbs and different breathing systems from “land creatures”. These differences seem pretty significant to me, and are not “a few details”. Did the marine mammals “adapt” to life in the seas by loosing their legs?

Whales and dolphins have been known by human fisherman to exist in their present forms all over the world since the earliest recorded history. Did the marine mammals lose their legs in less than 1,000 years?

Yet you say, “Its just within kinds”. Are “marine mammals” of the same “kind” as “land creatures”?

You say, “Two forces are going on…” Fine. I think we agree that of those two forces, the one “within kinds” is heredity and DNA, like among different groups of humans. Would you agree with that? In your view, what is the other “force”? Did God cause “marine mammals” to “adapt to the seas” in less than 1,000 years?

I look forward to your helping me understand your position.

So that would be a no. Robert has no idea what group of land creatures dolphins are descended from and no way to find out. All he has is intuition, uninformed by mere facts. In other words, he is completely worthless.

In the real world, comparative anatomy, paleontology, genetics and developmental biology all give the same answer. Cetaceans are descended from terrestrial artiodactyls. Robert has no clue about any of this evidence and no explanation for any of it. Pity the fool.

I would suggest that this discussion shows one reason why advocates of “Intelligent Design” don’t want to get into the details of “what happened and when”: When creationists start specifying details, they only raise problems. It’s much safer just to say “something, somehow, is wrong with evolution”.

Great read! If Creationists truly rely on archeological evidence to bolster their arguments, I wonder what they make of Mrs. God, for whom ample evidence has been piling up for decades. Though Mrs. God was largely written out of Old Testament texts, several dozen references remain. Oh-oh!

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Scott F said:

Robert,

Thank you for elaborating. You say, “dolphins are from land creatures”. Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don’t look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don’t have any. Dolphins appear to share only “a few like parts” with “land creatures”.

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

Robert, thank you for your response.

While you’re use of pronouns has me a bit confused, one thing seems clear: “marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood”

Would you agree that “marine mammals” are different species than “land creatures”? Among other things, the “marine mammals” have different numbers of limbs and different breathing systems from “land creatures”. These differences seem pretty significant to me, and are not “a few details”. Did the marine mammals “adapt” to life in the seas by loosing their legs?

Whales and dolphins have been known by human fisherman to exist in their present forms all over the world since the earliest recorded history. Did the marine mammals lose their legs in less than 1,000 years?

Yet you say, “Its just within kinds”. Are “marine mammals” of the same “kind” as “land creatures”?

You say, “Two forces are going on…” Fine. I think we agree that of those two forces, the one “within kinds” is heredity and DNA, like among different groups of humans. Would you agree with that? In your view, what is the other “force”? Did God cause “marine mammals” to “adapt to the seas” in less than 1,000 years?

I look forward to your helping me understand your position.

We are straying away but I am here to enlighten.

There are kinds. they came off the ark in kinds. some of these kinds adapted to the seas. Seals and dolphines are from different kinds off the dry land. Yes this happened and by biological mechanism. I don’t know the mechanism but I know it was there. no problem within decades for all creatures to have adapted to their niches and since only extinction has happened. Yes lost legs and so on. Evolution invokes long processes with mutation help. no evidence and just wrong and not within biblical boundaries. it was a sudden process with no evolution as such. no intermediates but only diversity.

Robert Byers, what makes you think gods exist? As far as I can see, there aren’t any.

Robert Byers said:

I am here to enlighten.

There are kinds. they came off the ark in kinds.

BYERS.

Here to enlighten.

Words have completely failed me.

Here to enlighten.

Words have completely failed me.

Think of glow worms shining in a fetid swamp, glowing decay in rotting stumps.

That makes some sense of such a statement.

Glen Davidson

… I am here to enlighten.

And from where did you get the light?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 20, 2012 2:21 PM.

Video game for teaching biology was the previous entry in this blog.

Opuntia macrorhiza 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 4.38

Site Meter