Shorter Casey Luskin: Waa, waa — they call me mean names!
Really, that’s the whole of his extended whine in US News & World Report, a long complaint that “darwinists” aren’t nice to him. It’s pathetic, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from Mr Squeaky. You really only need two pieces of information. 1) His opening paragraph:
Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.
And 2) the knowledge that he wrote a 6800 word opinion piece that never once mentions any of that hypothetical scientific evidence for ID. Not one tiny scrap. You know, if I had 6800 words that I began with the assertion that I had scientific evidence for an idea that a shadowy cabal was keeping from the public, I think I’d take advantage of that opportunity to reveal the hidden wisdom that had been suppressed. Funny how they never manage to do that.
For some perspective: my Seed column is about 1500 words. A newspaper column might be 6 or 700 words. Luskin took the opportunity to run off his mouth at extravagant length, and said absolutely nothing.
Rammstein were awesome back when they were 90s industrial powerhouses. Their first album is still one of my favourites, and their live BDO performance still stands as a highlight in my memories of any concert. These days they are becoming a bit too rock in their sound.
Nah, 60s every time, musically
The 2001 BDO was where I saw them – with the aforementioned milk-shooting dildo – and it ranks pretty highly on my list of gigs, which is saying something ’cause I’ve been to six BDOs plus a lot of other shows over the last ten years or so.
One of my favourite albums is the soundtrack to Lost Highway, which has two of their songs on it.
I haven’t heard much of their more recent stuff, but they were phenomenal back then. My ex-flamate has Live Aus Berlin on dvd, which is pretty awesome.
AnthonyK, I went back to Ohio but my video was gone.
80’s underground is what I know best and I loved these guys.
But I could not stay stuck in one place or time. I would just get bored.
DU… HAST MICH!
That is all. Move along, nothing to see here.
Owlmirror #440
No, my husband the scientist MD who received commendation in the area of genetics in med school –does not believe in common descent from one-celled amoeba in primordial soup –or common descent of apes and humans from an ape-like/human-like ancestor. he believes in the bible, -but also believes that science does not prove Darwin’s claim of common descent –because the various ‘kinds’ of creatures do not transition out of their category to another kind observebly today –or proveably in the past. And because of something about the complexity of the amino acids –remember, I’m not the scientist; I’m just doing the best I can as the little ol housewife — he sees God’s designing hand in the DNA molecule –in the way our bodies are –our brains –and doesn’t think any creature ever gave birth to a human being who was not herself a human being. “Each after its own kind” –that’s the way we propagate. No transitions. Even if you COULD find evidence of a neanderthal, it would not prove common descent –it might just be a matter of disease or nutrition that makes someone seem like a primitive form in his skeleton –or a normal variant of human being. After all, we are NOT all alike as humans –but we are all human –low brows, high brows, smart, low intelligence, good-looking, not so good-looking, tall, short, short-legged, short-armed, hairy, hairless –many races and many many traits to make us individuals –but in the end, none of us is transitioning to some more highly evolved bio-creature that will ever be significantly different from its ancestors–nor can anyone prove that we ever did.
Yet there is infinite VARIETY in humans –as in flowers, plants, and animals. But we are not animals –though some may act like it –and we were never animals. Though we share characteristics (DNA) with other mammals. Therre is just as much evidence that we were created with a genetic formula in someone’s vast mind –by design and not by random chance or adaptation or natural selection–real though these are in producing varieties of evey “kind” of creature.
Darwin was not wrong to theorize about natural selection –about the survival of creatures with certain traits over others –but for what he called the “origin of species,” he had/has no proof.
Oh look who is back.
This word evidence. You use it but I do not think you know what it means.
#506 “Though we share characteristics (DNA) with other mammals.”
errmmm… not just with mammals Barb!
#506 “But we are not animals –though some may act like it –and we were never animals”
Well.. it’s a tough contest, but that is maybe THE stupidest thing Barb has posted.
So your husband doesn’t believe in evolution because in his criteria for what should be observed by evolution is absurd by all scientific standing? Is your husband really rejecting evolution on a misrepresentation of the theory, or could it be that you just wrote it down wrong?
One kind cannot change into another kind that exists either today or in time past – that is impossible and the opposite of what evolution predicts. Instead with evolution you’ll see mutation leading to adaptation through natural selection. A cat will never turn into a dog, to suggest that this straw-man evolution is where the theory lies is really ignorant on the part of you and on the part of your husband.
Oh and if you want to prove me wrong barb, here’s a way. Show me one scientist who supports evolutionary theory who predicts that a cat should turn into a dog!
It’s a shame that (if, of course, this story is true), someone who’s bright enough to achieve an MD can be so intellectually dishonest as to lie to himself about science in order to suck up to an invisible sky-fairy who might just grant him a wish when he dies.
Sigh. A tragic illustration of the destructive power of religion on the human mind.
Here’s a chance to learn why you won’t see one ‘kind’ turn into another ‘kind’ of animal. http://kelosophy.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-cat-turn-into-dog.html
It’s important you understand how evolution works before setting off to disprove it. If you post a refutation based on ignorance of the theory, you are only going to come off as an ignoramus. Please take the time to learn about the position you are desperately trying to hard to destroy. If you don’t like evolution fine, but please actually get it right before saying it’s wrong.
Re-reading that part I’m convinced barb is less educated than I originally thought. And that’s saying a lot. Because anyone that would compare the Neanderthal to the variations we see in humans currently is a working at a level of idiocy that takes some seriously willful energy into remaining that dumb.
Just what transitional fossils are you looking for there Barb? Need some fish to amphibian fossils? What about Reptile into mammal? Do you need reptile into bird too? The evolution of the whale from a land animal? What about non-human into human? I could compile a list of these if you would like. Though I don’t know if you are off the YouTube persuasion and like information in video form – if you are, search for the user DonExodus2. In his series of videos he has a video series on transitional fossils which is several videos all looking at the major pivot points.
He also has videos on other factors of evolution, like how mutations work, how adaptation and natural selection work, he even has a video on the question “can a cat turn into a dog?” He’s also Christian but that really shouldn’t matter. This is science after all.
Just to re-iterate guys, SHE THINKS WE ARE NOT ANIMALS.
She clearly doesn’t understand evolution, biology, physiology, anatomy etc etc., but I assumed even a 2 year old knows we’re just animals.
It’s just plain weird.
Barbb,
We all believe things that people we trust say. You don’t trust people on this blog; that’s fairly clear. You appear to trust your husband and your church. The bible actually has very little to say about evolution, which is why most Christians don’t have a problem with evolution and common descent. After all, the bible is not a science text book, and was never meant to be that.
Do you trust Baylor College?
http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=27622
Barb, still not citing the peer reviewed scientific literature, so you have nothing other than opinion. Which is worth the paper it is printed on. We concede you belief in creationism. But to get us to believe in creationism, you have to cite 10 papers from the peer reviewed scientific literature of the last five years. Failure to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature means you have nothing. And you have nothing to date.
Well, that’s just weird. Because Michael Behe does. In fact, I just checked using Amazon.com’s “search inside” feature, and I found the following in The Edge of Evolution, page 72: “Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent-even the common descent of humans and chimps-although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial.”
See, this is what I don’t understand. You cite Behe, Collins, and Miller on the science, and that they all believe in God. But Behe, and Collins, and Miller, all agree that the science of common descent is true, and they certainly agree about the science of the age of the earth.
It doesn’t change the science that they all believe in God. I don’t, and if Collins or Miller really felt like debating God with me, I would argue with them on that basis, and I might refer to what they agree is true about science, but we would be arguing with the understanding that the scientific consensus is correct. (If Behe showed up, I would probably bring to his attention how Miller showed him up at Kitzmiller v Dover)
But you disagree with them all on the scientific consensus about common descent and the age of the earth. You think it’s all “speculative hooey”. And it looks like your husband thinks the same way.
So: Do you think that you, and your husband, are smarter and more knowledgeable than Behe, Collins, and Miller? If so, why even bother offering them as authorities? Clearly you value your own and your husband’s intellects more than you value theirs. If it were really true that common descent is false, and the earth is young, then Behe, Collins, and Miller aren’t scientific experts at all! By your standards, they’re all scientific frauds, just like every other scientist who accepts evolution and a 4.5-billion-year-old earth!
So why even offer them as authorities?
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Look, could you ask your husband to write up his explanation formally, explaining what it is Francis Collins (and every other geneticist) has gotten wrong about genetics and post that?
Oh, and could you add his explanation of why he’s never submitted this brilliant explanation of how the complexity of amino acids (or whatever the hell it is) prove that common descent is false to any journal on genetics, or molecular biology, or biochemistry, or evolution? I mean, if he genuinely thinks he has a scientifically valid explanation for there being no common descent, why wouldn’t he write it up and publish it?
How are we not animals? Many religious biologists would agree that we are indeed animals — with souls tacked on as extras.
98% the same as chimps, don’t forget that. What part of the 2% difference makes us “not animals”?
Blah blah blah. If there is evidence, then it would be or should be published in the scientific literature. Talk is cheap. Passing peer-review is hard… but not impossible, if there really is evidence.
I apologize for polluting Pharyngula with IDiocy, but here’s more by Behe stating that common descent is true:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1449
Again, Barb: Why cite Behe as an authority on science when you think he’s wrong on the science that he’s supposedly an authority on?
So Barb came back but is still assiduously ignoring, rather than addressing, the perpetual motion heart issue which she raised back in #90:
Come on, Barb. What does your husband, the MD (from whom you apparently believe you’ve magically acquired scientific expertise merely through the medium of marriage), have to say about the energy requirements of hearts. That’s the one piece of your idiocy which is most definitely at least partially within his medical field, and at a pretty basic level of it, even without him knowing much science. He wouldn’t have to be a heart specialist to have had to study hearts at medical school.
Since you persistently claimed he’s a scientist (despite the evidence against that) he should be able to do a lot better than you or even a low grade medical student. Unless, of course, he really is as incompetent as he appears to be, eg from his being a creationist. He certainly wouldn’t be the only doctor to be scientifically and medically incompetent. I’ve encountered plenty of them.
Have you even asked your husband, the MD, about your heart claim yet, Barb? Or are you afraid to find out how much of an embarrassment to him you are; or reveal to us just how medically incompetent he is?
Barb (#506):
Hmm. I seem to recall pointing out earlier in the thread why organisms reproducing “after their own kind” is entirely compatible with evolution – organisms will still reproduce after their own “kind” even if the “kind” changes.
But since you ignored the point then (that oh-so-convenient hair appointment), I’ve no doubt you’ll continue to ignore it, and continue to flail away at your imaginary strawman version of evolution.
That kind of folksiness is a lot less cute than you think it is.
Not trying to be cute, Iain. Just excusing my shortcomings as a defender of creationism or id theory –i.e my terminology may not be sophisticated.
If each produces after its own kind, when, exactly, does the “kind” change, as you allege? It never changes out of its “kind.” There is much variety in the genes of the “kind” –and mating brings in more variety –and mutation usually brings in negative, less healthy change –but there is no justification, just because of mating and mutation, to think that a dog will ever produce anything other than a variety of dog –no matter how many millions of years pass.
Most mutations are neutral. But the whole point of natural selection is that those mutations which are beneficial are more likely to be passed on.
15,000 years ago there were no dogs. Dogs were bred from wolves. A National Geographic article, “Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of the Dog discusses how dogs are descended from wolves:
Sure there is. It’s the same inference made when a seed grows into a tree: small changes accumulate over time.
The numbers of changes in a species may be small over hundreds of thousands of years, but multiply those hundreds of thousands by ten, or by a hundred, or by a thousand…
Of course, I’m sure you’ve heard all of that before. Please don’t bother responding if all you’re going to say is “speculative hooey”. I am willing to grant that that is what you think.
But, can you answer what I asked @#518/#519? You don’t think species can possibly change over millions of years, but Behe, Collins, and Miller do, and yet they still believe in God.
Do you think you’re smarter than they are? Do you know more about genetics or developmental biology or science in general? And if so, why cite them as authorities?
… and yet earlier you were boasting about how good you were simply because you’d married an MD. We already knew, from your posts, that you were rubbish. The trouble is that you didn’t know and you almost certainly still don’t fully grasp or accept the extent of it. You’re far more likely to be being dishonest again instead, with phony self-effacement. Otherwise you would have recognised you weren’t well-educated enough to have an informed opinion on the faulty assertions you made in the rest of your post #522.
Meanwhile: have you asked your husband, the MD, about your heart claim (viz. “hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source” from your post #90) yet, Barb? Or are you afraid to find out how much of an embarrassment to him you are; or reveal to us just how medically incompetent he is?
Take that one step back there and just remember what dogs are – all bred from a single back of wolves. So all that variation, all those different breeds – they are not only dogs but they are wolves too! And therein lies the problem of creationist thinking. A dog won’t produce anything other than a dog. A wolf won’t produce anything other than a wolf. But dogs are all wolves yet not all wolves are dogs.
So say great danes and poodles are only kept to their breeds. Eventually not even artificial insemination will produce fertile offspring. So that means that these “breeds” will now be two separate species, both still dogs. And all the offspring will still be dogs too. But what if these poodles lost their canine teeth? What thousands of generations has selected for the poodles to walk on their hind legs only? They would still be dogs, just as we still are our ancestor species. A dog will always be a dog, but it’s ancestors weren’t always dogs. They will always be wolves, but their ancestors weren’t always wolves.
I got here from FSTDT and read the entire thread. I have been greatly amused, so thank you all.
I freely admit to not being a scientist except for in a very informal way–and admittedly low on sleep while I type this.
I have three points in this post, two observations, the other a question that has always bugged me for the apparent plethora of scientists here.
In my opinion there’s nothing exceptionally wrong with believing in ID in a very very very VERY basic sense. like the XKCD comic with the mouse over text that REAL programmers set up the laws of the universe so the program they want will be written for them. One can believe in your religion and in evolution at the same time.
But it’s that very lack of…mental flexibility in the religious that disappoints me time and again. “No!” They say, “It must be wrong! It’s completely wrong!” While, scientists will use crock like Luminferous Aether, even when they know it’s wrong, simply because it works. (All the while looking for the real reason.)
It’s because of this, even if Evolution was disproved, we’d still use it at a working model until the scientists made a new theory. For the same reason why Newtonian Physics is taught in schools. Because even if it’s wrong, it’d be right 99% of the time, and that makes it a useful tool. And really, that’s what science is about–tools.
I am amazed by the muscular distinctions in the human body. According to this book I have there’s a bunch of things that some people have and some people don’t. And it’s not all atavism, like the Sternalis muscle and Psoas Minor. But there are also things that seem new–like some people have a third head to their Gastonemius.
Even if you don’t believe in evolution, there’s mutation at work, and not just in tiny little microchanges, but macroscopic changes in your musculature.
So, my question is…Where is the invisible (to me) dividing line between species? When do you get to say “Okay, this is a new species that evolved from that species,” or is it only visible in retrospect?