We all had a good time at the Darwin on the Palouse event, but for one thing: Jen got all the batty creationists, and I didn’t. My blood lust was not sated.
It was primarily two people who were especially obnoxious last night. One was a guy in the back of the room who got the microphone, pulled out a notebook, and started reading a long, rambling, incoherent statement, the gist of which was “There are creation scientists, and they really are too scientists, and evolution is not a science”. He was allowed to babble on far too long; Jen and Fred Edwords answered his question, dismissively and honestly, and then he reiterated the same nonsense. The audience was geting exasperated and fidgety, and people were telling him to sit down and give other people a chance to ask questions…flipped to another page in his notebook and started stammering out more longwinded creationist cliches. He was an inconsiderate and arrogant moron who was only parrotting stupid creationist tropes. He finally got his microphone taken away.
And now he has a supporter expressing his dismay on Facebook!
The presentations this evening at the U of I campus were well presented, thought provoking and alarming. Unfortunately, the question and answer period was cantankerous, disrespectful and all together unproductive. Surprisingly this behavior appeared to be initiated and sustained by members of the host organization. If this is how Palouse Coalition of Reason intends to treat their guests, I fear that future attempts to promote ideas centered around critical thinking and scientific understanding will be limited to a narrow group of like minded participants. Or perhaps this is the intent?
Sorry, Mr Warwell: not only was the creationist not expressing ideas, not only was he treated with excessive courtesy when he insisted on presenting an ill-thought out, ignorant manifesto, but he was an asshole, too. Please do not bother to “contribute” to other discussions on this issue: his performance was embarrassing and really deserved far harsher ridicule than he got.
The second creationist started his babble with noise about Mt St Helens and amazing whale fossils in Peru that are supposed to support the claims of the Genesis Flood. I already knew this story: it’s a classic example of a creationist quotemining the scientific literature, and it’s actually something I dealt with in a recent comment, prompted by that inane twit, David Buckna. The Peruvian whale fossils were the result of multiple deposition events, not at all compatible with a single great flood, and were produced in a sheltered harbor where whale carcasses drifted and were swiftly buried by diatom blooms. I got a bit irate and shouted him down; I told him it was not evidence for his myth, and that he was simply cherry-picking the data.
Someone else wrote in complaining about the event.
Actually, I Dislike this page now after seeing the embarrassing performance last night. I believe in evolution certainly, and I also know that since none of us can say for sure what the history of the Earth is, my reality is just that–a belief. I expect campus groups to have respect for everyone, and a respect for differences amongst us, and what went on last night was an outrageous disrespect to anyone with a religious faith, or anyone who questions the conclusions of scientists. This is the way to turn people away from one another and against each other, and an excellent way to turn religious students and community members away from the idea of evolution. You guys did no one any favors last night.
NO. This is po-mo shallow bullshit. We do not have to have respect for discredited, disconfirmed, dishonestly presented nonsense, like those creationists were doing. In a discussion of matters of empirical reality, strong skepticism is essential and useful…a meeting in which we were expected to show deference to liars and frauds and ignoramuses like those two creationists would not be a productive event.
There’s a place for more conciliatory, compromising tactics, but there’s also a place to take the muzzles off the wild dogs and turn them loose on the misleading crackpots of the young earth creationist movement.
Maybe that’s why these guys didn’t appear at my talk: they didn’t want to get shredded.
But you got to be rude to Peruvian whale fossil guy. What more could you ask for?
I shut him down with two choice barks. I could have worried the corpse with relish for another half hour.
This was Jen & Fred’s event. I had to throttle myself a bit.
I don’t suppose this was caught on tape?
Ooh, somebody violated the sacred Doctrine of Equivalence. The Doctrine of Equivalence states that all religious and philosophical (and even scientific) beliefs are a matter of personal choice and therefore equivalent. Nothing can be known for certain; therefore nothing can be known with any certainty at all; therefore all conclusions come down to being expressions of one’s identity. Religious beliefs are especially precious: they say so many wonderful things about the believer!
When they say they want “respect for differences” they mean that the differences themselves should be respected, ie left unchanged. “Well, I don’t agree with your viewpoint — but isn’t it wonderful that you hold it! We don’t want all people to be the same. Diversity is the spice of life!” And so forth and so on.
It’s the standard drill you get from people who confuse factual claims with self-expression.
Perhaps people should learn that creationists who never bother to read, let alone understand, the numerous responses that their lies have received is in fact not the slightest bit responsible, open-minded, or courteous. Repeating stupid PRATTs is entirely rude.
Also, unless they can actually make sense (not just say God did it) of biology, like evolution does, there is no compelling reason even to consider their BS.
Glen Davidson
If you “question” them without understanding their bases, and without anything scientifically cogent, there is no reason to respect such rubbish.
Glen Davidson
We’re rude to ‘anyone who questions the conclusions of scientists’?
Um, isn’t that what scientists do to each other? Question each others conclusions? You just have to do it in a respectful, if not playful way, with evidence.
The creationists keep bringing shit to a snowball fight and wonder why they’re disrespected.
Creationist # 1 (Marcus) appears to be a Geneticist, if this is indeed him. How interesting.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/profiles/?last=Warwell&first=Marcus+V
Interesting where clicking through Mr Warwell’s Facebook page – to his ‘profile’ – leads… Of all things, he is a geneticist with the USDA, studying towards a Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour…
How… odd.
I could care less what creationists think. They’re going to keep believing their nonsense no matter what, for as long as they cling to fairy tales. The idea that this even would have converted tons of people if only PZ had been more gentle is laughable.
When people say stupid, factually wrong things, someone should call them on it and that’s what happened. End of story. No one was wronged here.
So, at Darwin on the Palouse, Jen got all the louses?
How about stating loudly at the beginning of the Q & A session that a one minute limit for stating one’s question will be strictly observed? Lots of people don’t seem to know how to phrase a question. Tough luck for them.
@8 and @9
If that’s him…
“Warwell MV. 2008. Review of ecological adaptation in temperate and boreal forest tree species”
What? How? Huh?
Lice
I agree that before questions from the audience are allowed, that some ground rules are given to the audience.
Questions must be concise and no more than a given number of words.
Questions that have been asked so many times that having to respond again would be unproductive, perhaps have for these people a pre-written response to these anticipated questions printed on flyers available at the event and simply refer them to the flyer and move on to the next question.
Ask for original questions, not rephrasing of some other religious person’s opinions.
Ask the questioner if they want what they believe to be true. It is difficult to discover what is really true when blinded by a desire for something in particular to be true.
Just some ideas.
Palouse is pronounced pah-loose.
Yes, as a member of the community I find that there’s a simple rule of thumb to follow when trying to decide who to believe — the vast majority of experts in the field or those who are challenging them: how do they treat me?
Who is nicer? More tactful and sensitive? Which group seems to respect and empower people, and which side appeals to values I can understand, like love and hope and knowing that you have to search deep inside yourself to discover a world view that works. Science is hard. Make it easy. It’s dull. Make it sing to me, and about me.
Evolution or creationism, chemistry or homeopathy, physics or free energy, global warming or hoax, vaccinations or “safe vaccines,” archaeology or Ancient Astronaut Theory? If people can’t smile and be polite, then they’re obviously aware that their views are wrong. Look for a soothing voice, a grand explanation, a story that makes sense to the deeply felt truths you already know. A little empathy and understanding for people indicates a reliable grasp of the basics in any area.
What does each group promise? Which promise sounds more like the sort of promise you hope will be kept?
And cookies. Chocolate, if possible. Snacks: which group provides more tasty or nourishing treats? Is the group happy and accepting with a nonjudgmental spirit and a safe haven for everyone’s opinions? Or do they just seem to want to get into a lot of arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong? An idea that’s true will be recognized by the positive way it makes you feel. We know more than we think we know.
If you don’t want to turn people away from your ideas, then you damn well better treat us well. Relate on our level. It’s just basic strategy, if you’re going to appeal to religious people and other members of the community. Don’t say you have not been warned.
As in: “Three hours after she tied him up, Ma let Pa loose”?
“Deeply felt truths”????
Truth has nothing to do with feelings.
That could be phenotypic adaptation: trees will grow quite differently depending on their surroundings, like how crowded they are, how deep the soil is, the prevailing wind, etc.
susanrobinson,
Sastra is being sarky – very gently, as is her way.
Susanrobinson, Sastra is a bit like Modusoperandi on Dispatches From the Culture Wars – a satirist, making fun of the other side by impersonating it. Of course, Poe’s Law holds steady as is obvious right now.
Sorry, Up With People is no longer available to perform at events like this.
But this sort of “every idea is equal” crap is what happens when you allow a set of beliefs to become your identity. Any challenge to those beliefs becomes a threat to selfhood, and suddenly no one is allowed to tell you you’re wrong about anything. Celebrating diversity becomes another version of treating faith as a virtue–it disables the reality check that keeps your beliefs from spiraling into dangerous nonsense.
I am curious, though, as to how exactly Mt. St. Helens fits into the global flood myth.
Killed By Fish
I am not joking about the cookies, though. For me, scientific questions will always be decided not by peer review — but by pastry. I hope that future attempts to promote ideas centered around critical thinking and scientific understanding will include a dessert buffet.
You have to appeal to the masses.
You are mistaken here. Sastra knows her new age speak because she came out of that area, much like the former fundies who know what scripture to quote. Sastra is not doing a Poe, she knows how these people think and speaks the language.
Science as potluck?
Science as potlatch?
I attended your talk last Thursday at WSU and thoroughly enjoyed listening to your ideas and those of Dr. Dennett. I am always glad when I hear those who do not neuter their messages of rational thought to keep from offending those who believe in supernatural fantasy. Like Christopher Hitchens always said, there is a time where rudeness is necessary. Christian apologists believe that it is alright to disrespect athiests, but the general population seems to hold religion above criticism. Keep up the good work!
Those are your two best arguments, “why are there still monkeys?” and “paintings have painters”?
Christ, but you people are morons.
Or Poes.
Pathetic attempt shieldofchrist777. It’s like you aren’t even trying.
And Jesus doesn’t need you.
And right here, you show everyone that you don’t understand the theory:
Dumbass, if you understood the theory, you would understand why it doesn’t work like this. You’ve refuted nothing, only babbled the same tired, made up crap that we’ve grown so weary of.
Criminy, it’s like playing whack-a-mole, only the mole just pops up in the same place every time.
@20
Hmmm, we ecologists call that “acclimation” as opposed to adaptation. Acclimation is a change suffered by an individual, adaptation is an evolutionary response by a population.
The abstract talks about “intraspecific ecological adaptation” which in our lingo usually means an evolutionary process.
This work was presented during a symposium so finding a copy seems a bit harder than expected…
You mean, there had to be a god who created it? Or, if not, why not?
Do we see a clay pot and say that the supernatural created it? Of course we don’t, it’s just stupid to say that a demon did it, rather than a known cause.
Consider that complexity, and how it is arranged–just as if it happened via descent with modification. And there’s the platypus tooth, basically functionless (there may be a developmental function, as is often the case with evolution) before it falls out of the gums of the juvenile platypus. How does that comport with “design,” rather than known reproduction with mutation and natural selection?
Why is that complexity composed as if it had evolved, is the question. If you dunces could answer that, you would. Because you don’t and can’t, we know that you have nothing.
Look at the complexity of an ecosystem. How come that isn’t designed? How come weather systems, which we could very well consider to be functional to us and to the rest of life, aren’t considered to be designed? It’s because complexity isn’t the mark of design in the slightest. We look for signs of rationality in computers, so conclude design. We don’t find such rationality behind it.
Look, I know you’re an obvious Poe, I’m just answering the only “argument” that the IDiots happen to have–and it may very well be that creationist lurkers are more common now, for the obvious reason.
Glen Davidson
Funny. I was telling Rip Steakface that Sastra is not a Poe. And behold, a poorly done Poe shows up.
And for Pascal’s sake, PZ, you should forbid shield and his gang of sinners praying for you. With “friends” like that…
Well, someone wanting to be obvious about it.
Trouble is, it’s easy to miss the marks (I did at first) because one doesn’t read the whole mess of delusional tripe, having seen it so often previously.
Glen Davidson
The irrational assumptions of your arguments are what we don’t accept, not your conclusions. You can’t have serious conclusions with delusional assumptions.
The idiot Poe is implying that blind people are mentally defective. You are truly a great person.
If you are serious about this, here is the first thing you must do; find out how a scientist defines a theory. Here is a clue, it is not a hunch.
I’m traveling right now, which limits what I can do, but I really don’t need a lying godbotting Poe cluttering the place. After I get home, this ‘shieldofchrist’ idiot will be banned and his comments deleted. And if he adds more inanities after this declaration, he’ll be ip-banned as well.
I am so very tired of the whole Poe thing. If someone does it well then you get to argue over nothing, and when it is done poorly, it is simply obvious and boring. Bring on the real creationists.
Two birds with one stone.
What exactly isn’t reproducible, may I ask? We have done artificial selection for years and quantified natural selection in the wild.
We have done speciation experiments with several animals and observed the rise of reproductive isolation barriers (Jerry Coyne at why evolution is true is a specialist in this topic if you’re interested).
We have observed the appearance of new plant species by allopolyploidization, we have observed the traces of natural selection in DNA variation, etc….
And this is only about natural selection…
What part of it isn’t reproducible?
Richard Lenski
So, uh, people don’t see the same things when they look at Archaeopteryx or determine differences between phyla?
IDiot creationists don’t count, btw, since stupidity isn’t sufficient for doing science.
No, the observations are abundantly reproducible, and reproduced. Fuckhead pastors like winthrop know nothing about science, and don’t mind telling egregious lies about it.
Glen Davidson
Why hasn’t PZ banned the godbotter yet? Travel?
No.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/08/01/pharyngula-standards-practices/
He is not silencing you, he is kicking you out.
Thou shalt not bear false witness…
Yawn. Boring trolls are boring.
Where are the True Believers™ on fire with Jebus ready to do spiritual warfare with the godless hordes?
These two got no game.
shieldofchrist: The argument from design was never a good one. Snowflakes are complex and look designed, but they aren’t. They arise from simple geometrical relationships between ice crystals.
As for the “monkeys don’t give birth to humans” argument: have you ever seen anyone who looks exactly like either of their parents? No? Hey, look at that…each generation in a lineage is a little different than the one before it. That is the scale on which evolution works–on an entire population (not individuals) over many generations. The theory doesn’t suggest that one species changes into another in a single generation. The fact that you use this argument shows that you either don’t understand the theory of evolution, or that if you do, you’re simply arguing against a strawman.
Science is based on testing hypotheses to see if they make accurate predictions regarding what one is going to observe.
Evolution is tested every time a fossil is dug up. And it keeps passing the test. How many million times does it need to do this to convince you?
What predictions does creationism make? If a supernatural, all-powerful being existed, why wouldn’t there be crocoducks? Literally anything would be possible, including monkeys giving birth to people, sofas materializing on the football field, etc. etc.
If you think evolution is open to wild speculation and interpretation, what can you say about a belief in an omnipotent creator not bound by any physical laws?
Fuck.
The A/V lab called. They want their projector back.
It always amuses me to see them take this track. Cause ok, fine we’ll grant that and say that we have an irrational standard of evidence for science. So…what else do you think we’ll have to throw out?
PZ
Every time you delete a bunch comments, we, the commentariat, look a little demented.
Is that really what you want?
hmmmm?
Do you want Them™ to think your Hoarde®
areis crazed?DOH. Note to me read rest of post
Ing, I was waiting for you to catch up.
Has ShieldOfCretin been fully outed as a Poe yet? There is no way (unless Ignor-Allen Poe is 8 years old) that anyone could have such a hysterically inept grasp of animal kingdom biology to make the suggestions (they) made and then say that the logic is airtight.
The second argument is broken down by knowledge of chemistry and bonding and the research is looking very close at explaining how something not alive becomes alive. The recent paper about proteins in ice was quite compelling as it ties in nicely with the idea of cometary bombardment.
And just for pure pedantry, Walmart has one ‘L’. If you honestly worked there, how the ‘L’ could you not know how to spell the name of your own workplace?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, keep checking in periodically and see how well that prayer thing is working out for you with regards to conversions to Christ.
Is “ip-banned” worse than “banned”?
If the goading continues, will jesus’slittlehelper return and ensure bamnation?
Will the pastor, too, be bamned?
Stay tuned.
From the abstract of:
Richardson, BA, MV Warwell, M-S Kim, NB Klopfenstein, G I. McDonald. 2008. Integration of population genetic structure and plant response to climate change: sustaining genetic resources through evaluation of projected threats. In: Proceedings of advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. July18-20, 2006 Boulder CO., p. 35-65.
Emphasis mine.
Maybe this Warwell is one of those micro vs. macroevolution guys. However, with what he must know about genetics, it is odd that he would make this distinction.
Odd.
There are evidently adults in this world who think that the “argument from bananas” is logically airtight. Yes, people really can be that ignorant.
As for Shield O’ Christ, he/she hasn’t come back with the “neener neener, made you think I was stupid” bit that always makes me want to crash heads in, so Poe or not I don’t know. I don’t even particularly care if it’s a Poe, because I suspect there are people dumb enough to come here, read that crap, take it seriously, and think we don’t have answers if we don’t do a bit of dismantling.
And we’ve been encountering pastorwhinethrop on other threads. He hasn’t broken character yet, so I’m starting to think he really believes what he’s saying.
And there’s just something about people who believe in a magical being that can do anything lecturing me about scientific rigour…
When you get ip-banned the Suidly OL reveals all your most ticklish places. On the internet.
heh…Squidly.
This fycking keybroad
AE
Ah, I see.
I hate keybread, too.
I like a good Poe. The kind that contains a message cleverly concealed in its sarcastic insides. Sastra does good and clever Poe. It doesn’t even need to be terribly clever – just enough to make the mockery obvious.
ShieldofChrist, though, that is some BAD Poe. It’s boring; it has no extra clever little kick to be found. It’s not witty to just copy the morons, there has to be a twist to make it actually worth reading. Unless you’re very sure of your wit, it would help to use LOLspeak or /sarcasm or /poe tags.
Wait, now, is pastorwinthrop also a bad poe? I can’t tell. All those antique canards – it can’t actually be serious, can it?
I’ve just had a eureka-moment.
The bible-thumping wack-jobs use “evolutionist” and “Darwinist” to be rude.
I don’t think he (do you doubt it?) is a real “pastor”.
Who makes a 12-year-old into a pastor?
No, the transitional fossils showing up at the right time are evidence of evolution. You’re just fucking stupid.
Shithead, the problem is that speciation blurs the boundaries. Christ, you’re a dullard.
Bullshit, lying fuckwit. The shared developmental genes of fruit flies, humans, and other metazoa is powerful evidence of common ancestry of said developmental machinery. Lying hound.
Like science does, while moronic theists blither on, whining about science while explaining not a damned thing about life.
Speculation is how new ideas arise. Liars hate the truth being tested and discovered.
Asshat, in the first place we have reproduction and mutation, a hell of a lot more than frauds selling magic formulas have.
And then we have evo-devo, among other programs of discovery that give us a deeper understanding.
The heart develops out of a tube, much as evolutionary comparisons would suggest happened. We develop three kidneys, one of which is never used, another which is used a short time and then is discarded/develops further, and then the last one.
Evolution explains these facts quite nicely, stupid shits like you only attack science, rather than explaining anything. Total intellectual dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
One of the lesser issues, actually. Look at both fossils and development to show how whales developed (young baleen whales have the vestigial teeth to show that baleen whales evolved from whales with teeth).
It’s not like we don’t even have seals which took a somewhat different route, and remain more terrestrial.
I don’t especially care if winthrop is a good Poe or not, the real point of the Poe is that either the fakes or the moron creationists would vomit up the same old shit every time, as winthrop regularly does.
Glen Davidson
Bahahahhahaha!
[meta]
pastorwinthrop:
So, if PZ bans you, the pursuit of freedom and truth will prosper?
(Your admission is noted)
If only being banned from this blog actually stopped idiots from ranting anywhere else. Still laughing.
“Pastor”, you are about the most stupid pile of shit to get dropped here. Being banned from commenting here will not prevent you from pursuing freedom and truth, you are doing it all yourself.
No one is being locked up, no one’s rights have been violated. Shit, if this is you trying to be funny, you failed.
Just fuck off, you said nothing that a thousand other mynah birds have already squawked.
This from somebody who either tells lies deliberaterly (Poe), or through ignorance (real). You wouldn’t recognized the truth if it kicked you the nuts while saying “god is great”. Poor, poor non-thinker.
There are no prisoners of conscience in the dungeon. They are all stupid fuckwits without concscience. Because, if they had a conscience and were intelligent, they would either realize a joke can be taken too far (you if a Poe), or are too stoopid to acknowledge they deserve to be segregated from intelligent folks.
By the way paster*, since you failed to acknowledge it in the other thread, have you stopped raping children yet? That would be a good reason for being tossed into a non-cyber-dungeon.
*Hm, I kind of like that tpyo.
Oh, and there is a reason Johnny Carson talked about the three joke rule. Same holds true for Poes.
Get some rest, Nerd.
(I warned you that I would do this.)
This? Gave me a REALLY good laugh at the end of a kind of crappy day.
I guess a laugh can be had if you like rather vapid humor.
I swear I’ll be asleep by 10:30pm Janine. I don’t guarantee when I’ll finally get up though.
re: the pustor
What is the difference between a Poe and a troll?
(not a riddle, I’m asking)
Ok, so I’m a moron compared to the rest of you. I did not what Sastra was doing. Because the cookie thing is so valid you know. How was I supposed to know the rest of it was not also as valid??
Poe would be a species of the genus troll
pastorwinthrop:
I preface this by saying that all of the explanations that you seek are easily found. I suspect your problem is the disinterest in availing yourself of these explanations.
But whatevs:
The process of speciation is well understood, minimally involving reproductive isolation among segments of a population and subsequent divergence of these populations. Ultimately, if divergence is significant, segments will not be capable of reproducing if brought back into contact, and if we are lucky, they will also evolve recognizable morphological differences. The reason that species concepts are so diverse is that they incorporate these elements (reproductive isolation, lineage divergence, and recognizable difference) in different degrees. A species is in fact easy to define (a metapopulation lineage) but the criteria for recognizing incipient species evolve simultaneously and at different tempos.
The literature is replete with such evidences. Darwin himself explained what evidence would suffice to explain the evolution of an eye. Again, you need only avail yourself. Incidentally, this thing you call an eye likely evolved several times.
Again, it is only unique if you ignore the wealth of fossil evidence recovered and described by Gingrich, Thewissen, and the like. I’m not a paleontologist/anatomist, but the flukes on a whale are no more unique than any other modification of a tail.
Insert the word know between not and what in 88.
@9, others,
Yes, to our shame, that Creationist crank is actually a Phd student in biology at WSU. This is the first time he’s “outed” himself, and in public no less. I hope his colleagues give him all the derision he so richly deserves come Monday.
I note with amusement the increasing desperation of the creationists. They used to just say “you can’t prove whales evolved” – now with the fossil trail so nicely outlined they’ve resorted to throwing in “through random changes”, as if that wasn’t already a dead goose.
Whales have hips.
Think about it
Dear Creotards,
One of the characteristics of any good scientific theory is that it contains the seeds of its own destruction; that is, it specifies its own potential falsifications. An unfalsifiable theory is not a theory; a falsifiable theory that has withstood decades of challenges is about as close to the truth as is humanly possible. So, if you want to destroy the theory of evolution, you have two challenges at hand:
1. Falsify evolution. Plenty of ideas on how to do that here; for example, “In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.” Get cracking.
2. Once you’ve managed to falsify evolution, tell us how we could falsify whatever theory you choose to replace it with. If you want to say that god done did it just like the bible said, what evidence would contradict that claim?
Actually, it’s quite common. I suspect it’s because these people have a rather unique definition of logic: Anything that makes sense to me.
I think this must be their definition, since it perfectly fits their behavior. They must be going on the core assumption that they’re logical and therefore, anything they believe must be logical also. Conversely, anything they don’t agree with is illogical, regardless of what arguments or evidence is given in its favor.
This would make a good t-shirt or billboard.
“EVOLUTION:
Whales have hips.”
What a Maroon in #95:
These liars pretend that their claim that evolution is falsified by their stupid lies. Lets skip the tedium of more lying and stupid blither.
They claim to have real science [of course they are lying] and to be dedicated to the scientific method [an even grosser lie because of its extra added taint of hypocrisy]; lets just go straight to their answer to the second question.
So, Creotards: Answer question #2 in comment # 95. Put up or shut up.
The real question is why they give science so much reverence. Surely the knowledge contained in the Bible is sufficient, and needs no bolstering of its credibility with confirmation from observation of this fallen, sinful world?
PZ: The guy who wrote the first comment is NOT the creationist from the back of the room. This is a different guy – he was the one I was talking to after the talk about atheism vs. agnosticism. He’s an agnostic, not a YEC.
@desoto: I disagree; a Poe is not always a troll. Some Poes are indeed trolls, they do it for effect only. Other Poes are writers of satire, and they can be very entertaining. The trouble is when the satire is unclear – and the line there is hard to draw because a) Poe’s law – you can’t do a parody that is at some point not actually credible to someone; and b) many people aren’t as funny and clever as they think they are. I like to err on the side of caution and include winky smileys or say ‘like totally’ or ‘elebentyz!’ as a hint.
Darwin explained this 150 years ago in the Origins of Natural Species. E=RM + NS.
The troll’s scientific understanding of biology is 150 years out of date.
BTW, whales sometimes are found with atavistic…legs.
Hitch / Razor
Warwell needs to be insulted for being an accomodationist to nonsense. But not for being an asshole or creotard wanker.
Please correct this as soon as possible.
Warwell’s issue seems to be this: “I fail to see how they could possibly bridge understanding and/or educate.”
However, I fail to see how he thinks entertaining and allowing creatonists to hijack Q&A sessions and spew nonsense freely WITHOUT the consequence of ridicule allows understanding and education to happen.
pastorwinthrop is an obvious Poe, “evoking” Darwin like that.
Please, stop wasting your time responding to him.
@105
What exactly is “unique” about whale anatomy? There’s at least fifty species of extant cetaceans, and they all differ, in physiology, behaviour and genetics. It can’t be that they’re ocean-going mammals – we’ve got otters, pinnipeds and sirenians, after all. It can’t be the sonar thing – plenty of chiropterans use it too. So what exactly is unique about them, and why are _they_ a problem for evolution as opposed to, say, mouth-breeding frogs or lungfish or sundews or nylonase-using bacteria or giraffes or whatever?
[meta]
pastorwinthrop:
FSTDT.
Why should anyone care what you “seriously doubt”? If you were an honest enquirer after truth, you would have presented us with your alternative explanation for how whales came into existence – I get the impression you think you have one – along with the evidence for it, and against the theory that this occurred by mutation in the genome and natural selection, starting from land-living mammals. But since you are a dishonest intellectual and moral coward, you merely make unsupported statements of personal incredulity.
I have to question the honesty of someone that states they are on a quest for truth and then fights that search by disseminating the most anachronistic and ignorant fabrications regarding the point they are arguing.
A large number of people frequenting this blog have been on the other side of the argument and are very knowledgeable about their past religious belief. Their integrity in seeking after truth and reality allowed them to cast aside the false promises of their pastors and priests and learn the falsifiable methods to determine fact from fiction. There are far too few people arguing creation who have given both sides of the argument that same opportunity to be weighed critically and with the insight of scientific education and method to back it up.
If someone came in here and started arguing the fine points of even just one of the many fields that pertain to proving evolution, such as biology, genomics, paleontology, etc. and used KNOWLEDGE and FACT as the basis of their argument, I could give them credit for being honest in their statement for seeking truth.
However, Winthrop comes in here and says the same garbage that is on web blogs and creationist sites and offers backwards arguments with no basis in factual research and we are supposed to be swayed that a magical being is responsible for everything and we should all fall over ourselves in prayers of thanks (this being completely ASIDE from the horrible inconsistencies, contradictions, grotesque suggestions of violence, etc. that the book for the basis for his beliefs are based on).
I mean be honest, if you were really looking for the foundations of reality you wouldn’t be arguing about what Darwin did or did not do. Darwin was the originator of a new branch of science. Expecting his early volumes to refute every argument and fine point would make him, wow, some sort of deity! What has happened SINCE Darwin is where you should be basing your arguments. Since you can’t identify on your own why this is important and integral to your talking points I can only assume you are utterly disingenuous about your intentions of finding truth and are doing what every other science-class dropout does upon arrival here. Proselytize, proselytize, proselytize.
Fuckwitted idjit, what makes you think Darwin was the last word in evolution? Your ignorance and stupidity of course. That is because you believe in an imaginary deity and mythical/fictional holybook as being inerrant, both lies. But there is no change in your outlook. It is all from the fallacious idea of revealed authority. In your case, that authority doesn’t exist, no evidence for it, just presupposition. That is not how science operates.
Science is a dynamic endeavor. Meaning it is constantly striving to improve itself, and changes as changing evidence becomes available, and is good as its last piece of data described yesterday. Darwin got several things wrong with his initial theory, like a method of heredity. But later workers were able to correct these mistakes while staying within the framework of his overall idea. The present ToE is called Modern Synthesis, and incorporates genetics, DNA, molecular biology, and other area unknown to Darwin. For instance, we know what it takes to make an eye. So, quit lying to yourself about Darwin being the last word in evolution. He was only the first word, and isn’t considered infallible.
Oh, and fuckwitted idjit, you need more that slogans and empty rhetoric to show science is wrong. You need more science, and that would be found in places like this, not in your book of mythology/fiction. So, start educating yourself at a real institution of higher learning. I suggest UMM, where PZ can get rid of your delusional thinking.
More stupidity from idiocy. Developmental genes, as any fool with a modicum of knowledge would know. What a delusional fool.
Science will get there with further work. As I said, science is constantly improving.
Lets compare this to your delusion. Where are your predictions and evidence for your imaginary deity? Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Time to put up or shut the fuck up pastor/fuckwit.
As I predicted, the dishonest intellectual and moral coward fails to put forward any evidence against the theory he doubts, or any alternative theory. Of course all the details of how the developmental differences between mammals come about have not been elucidated: that is the subject of much current work, which will continue for decades if not centuries. But it is already quite clear that mutations in specific genes cause differences in developmental timing that can indeed lead to considerable morphological changes.
So the flawed idea that a god did everything should not be stuck by just because you don’t understand science? Is that what you are saying pastor? Otherwise that would be dishonest.
pastordishonestintellectualandmoralcoward,
I’m not a biologist, but it is clear that protein transcription factors and miRNAs, which regulate the transcription of DNA into mRNA and are themselves coded for in the genome, and the sites they bind to, are extremely important in regulating development. HOX genes constitute only a small proportion of transcription factors, and as I understand it operate mainly in early development, when all mammals have much the same morphology – hence they would be expected to be highly conserved. Human DNA codes for around 2000 transcription factors in total. Here: Evolution of Transcription Factor Binding Sites in Mammalian Gene Regulatory Regions: Conservation and Turnover is an article on the evolution of such factors and sites. I quote from the abstract:
Now to your remaining dishonest nonsense:
Ah, the stale old “there are no favourable mutations” bullshit. Of course major morphological change is “almost always” injurious, but “almost always” is not “always”, and when we are talking in terms of thousands or millions of generations, the difference is crucial.
You clearly don’t know what “null hypothesis” means. Look it up. You have not shown that the theory that developmental differences among mammals are due to differences in the genome is flawed, and it is dishonest to pretend that you have when all you have done is express personal incredulity; and it is also dishonest not to admit immediately (as you now have, belatedly) that you have no alternative theory.
That’s awesome news, Winthrop! Now, please, please describe what work creationists are doing on “this problem”.
(How do creationists do science? How can they when they don’t create falsifiable theories and then test them with observations?)
pastorwinthrop @ 116;
The Pharyngula commentariat is nothing if not diverse. While there are plenty of non-scientists such as yours truly, there are also several professional scientists in all manner of fields including evolutionary biology. The fact that they do not agree with you does not in itself mean that they lack scientific education. Afterall, even I can tell that you have yet to make your case. A claim as extraordinary as yours requires the most stringent standards of supporting evidence. I await that evidence with interest.
But a mouse an a human are both mammals – in terms of evolutionary time frames we are not so greatly seperated from one another. In any case, a high degree of conservation is not the same as being unchangeable. The time frames we are talking about here are substantial, afterall.
‘Almost always’ is not the same as ‘always’. ‘Unusual’ is not the same as ‘impossible’. Don’t forget the sheer number of iterations we are talking about here. Imagine a one in a million chance of something happening – it’s pretty unlikely to come to pass, right? Now imagine performing a billion iterations; suddenly the odds aren’t so long.
Also, we are not dealing with a purely random system here. The mutations themselves are random, but the selection pressures from the environment are not. Thus, those random mutations that confer a competative advantage are more likely to be passed on than those that are neutral or acively harmful, and so will come to influence the entire genepool over time.
Time frame and iterations – these concepts are big and can be hard to conceptualise on such a large scale, but they change your perspective when their import is considered.
Without evidence to the contrary the null hypothesis must hold in any rigorous scientific pursuit. If evidence is cast aside, then all claims are equal, and a person could assert that Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghtetti Monster or the Pink Quantum Unicorns were reponsible for the development of life with as much authority as a person might put it at the feat of Yahweh or Allah (or any other mainstream deity construct) or as the result of a naturalistic process.
Even if evolutionary theory is as flawed as you claim (which, on the evidence, I honestly find doubtful), it is still the best explanation we have. If you want to replace it with something else, then you need the evidence to back your hypothesis up. You may not recognise the fact, but evolutionary scientists are perfectly prepared to be convinced that the theory is wrong if the evidence to the contrary is strong enough – something like a genuine Precambrian rabbit would be a good start.
Throwing out a theory that is supported by masses of evidence becase it conflicts with one’s religious beliefs, however, is the very antithesis of science. The scientific method requires that we follow the evidence and interpret it as rationally as possible, even if it leads to conclusions that we may not like. Are you honestly prepared to do that? I have already pointed out that evolutionary scientists are prepared to be convinced by evidence – is there any evidence that would cause you to re-evaluate your position? Or does your faith ultimately trump all evidence in your mind?
No, the science does not point that way. And creationists aren’t working on anything except justifying their world view with absolutely no evidence for it, merely a belief in an old text put together by people a long while ago to attempt to explain things without science being available to them.
pastordishonestintellectualandmoralcowrd
You’re a liar. Quoting extensively from the abstract, and linking to the whole paper, cannot be descirbed as “quote-mining” by anyone but a liar.
The activation or inhibition of genes can and does bring about major morphological differences. Differences in binding regions are functional differences – they control whether and when particualr proteins are produced – and it is either dishonest or stupid to claim otherwise.
As I noted, we would expect mutations to be disadvantaeous far more often than advantageous. But as it happens, we do know of at least one mutation in a regulatory gene that has produced a functional change in humans that is advantageous in particular circumstances: lactose tolerance, enabling adults to digest milk. The mutated form is found almost entirely in populations which have kept cattle or other animals kept for milk, and hence has clearly been seelcted for in those populations.
Again, you show that you are either ignorant or dishonest. For a small number of species, we have the sequence of DNA bases in the genome. That does not tell us which parts of the sequence get transcribed, or whether the RNA they are transcribed into is translated into protein (or used as RNA, or discarded), or how the proteins coded for fold, or what they do. At least a large proportion of that knowledge will be needed before scientists can give a full description of development, and that will take, as I said, decades or centuries to complete. Meanwhile, it is simply indicative of either dishonesty or stupidity to claim that knowledge of the sequence of bases should tell you what the organism would look like.
Citation needed, or shut the fuck up. All they cause is change. May or may not be bad. After all, a mutation is gene for hair color would cause a different pattern of color. What a fuckwitted loser.
No, you don’t understand science. You must prove your imaginary deity exist if you claim it exists. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???? (citation required to the peer reviewed scientific literature). I don’t see any.
Oh, and pastor, still no solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You lose by default if you have no evidence for your imaginary deity after 2500 years, and no work being done on finding any.
So what? Segregating different genes to different spatial and temporal compartments (which is what transcription factors do) is what allows different cell types and tissues to signal to each other and cooperate into forming organs.
This is the vital role of transcription factors, organizing interactions and specifying compartments.
? The function of transcription factors is mainly related to when and where they are expressed, not just what genes they activate or inhibit. What directs when and where these transcription factors act is their combination of cis-regulatory factors which are bound by other transcription factors.
Transcription factors work in cascades activating each other sequentially.
Some do, most mutations don’t do anything at all and very few may be positive.. Especially considering how redundant and degenerate are cis-regulatory regions.
Hox genes are close to the top of the transcription factor cascade, they just specify the main antero-posterior compartments. Most mutations in morphology don’t involve Hox genes, they involve downstream effectors.
Like the mutation that caused enlarged beaks in the finch natural selection experiment: it only changed BMP4 expression in a compartment, it didn’t change the entire identity of a compartment (which is what a Hox mutation would do).
You may want to read this article here, btw
Wow, you really like making spurious claims. We have a pretty good idea of how cells interact with each other to cause morphogenesis and what proteins and ncRNA (genes) they use for this task.
What we aren’t close to knowing are the specifics for every case you can think about, goalposts guy.
Or maybe Poe?
pastorwinthrop #108
The creotard not only doesn’t understand whale respiration, he doesn’t understand how diesel submarines operate.
A surfaced submarine uses its diesel engines to propel the ship and to run electrical generators. The generators provide electrical power for various pieces of equipment and to charge the large batteries all submarines have. A submerged submarine running just under the surface (what’s technically known as “periscope depth”, around 60 feet/20 meters) can raise a tube called a snorkel to bring air into the ship to run the diesels. This is called, oddly enough, “snorkelling.”
If a diesel submarine is below periscope depth, the diesels are turned off and the ship operates on electrical power from the batteries. Electric motors turn the propeller shafts, driving the sub through the water.
Compressed air is stored in tanks aboard submarines. Certain valves are pneumatically controlled, the crew needs oxygen to breathe, and air is blown into the main ballast tanks to surface the ship. This air is not used to operate the diesels.
The advantage nuclear submarines (and certain other submarines using air-independent propulsion) have is the ability to operate for long periods without recharging the batteries. Most diesel submarines can operate for about 24 hours without recharging, but sooner or later diesel boats have to surface or snorkel because the batteries are discharged.
–‘Tis Himself, ex-MM1(SS)
What do you mean by spatial segregation of genes?
[ot]
‘Tis,
Learning you were a submariner increases my already high esteem for you! I guess I’ve never come across a mention of it before. :)
Do diesel submarines have hip bones?
Guys, seriously, he’s just a Poe trolling and congratulating himself on how he supposedly “got” people as he tries to get it stiff enough to fap. The little turd isn’t worth your time. He’ll be gone soon, since he so clearly outed himself in this thread.
fukuda,
Thanks for the info on ecological terminology earlier, and for the much more detailed account of what transcription factors do than I could provide.
coyotenose,
Even if pastorwinthrop is a Poe, and I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that he is, his lies and idiocies need answering. In any case, why the fuck do you feel the need to tell other people that they should not answer him?
Coyotenose, our replies aren’t so much for the idjit pastor as they are for the lurkers. Showing that stating something in a confident manner is not the same as showing evidence for the argument. Besides, it says something to another godbot who may want to try the same or similar spiel; you will be challenged, and you will look like a fool before it is all over.
No, silly. The Intelligent Designer didn’t give them any.
Having read accounts of many of these events, a few predictable features have appeared.
1. A few creationists will show up. They are mentally wrecked zombies who will ramble on for it seems forever, repeating every lie the creationists have thought up in the last 150 years.
The organizers and presiders should plan for this so they aren’t always caught flat footed and improvising on the spot.
You can always demand that they ask a question rather than reading from Ken Ham’s book of cuckoo reasoning for half an hour, i.e making a statement rather than asking a question.
2. Sooner or later there will be someone or a group that is more disruptive. Fundie xians can be and are occasionally violent. They have their own xian terrorists. There needs to be a security plan in place. No point in waiting until a suicide bomber or mall type shooter event happens. More likely will be sublethal forms of disruption.
Don’t roll your eyes. I’m sure Gabbrielle Giffords never thought she and 17 other people would get shot in a Safeway parking lot for being…Democrats.
@Alethea H. Claw
I didn’t consider the intent factor.
Just so you guys know, “Pastor Winthrop” is actually “Atheistoclast”, aka “Joe Bozo”, who has been trolling third-tier science journals by getting his silliness published. Not sure if he was banned here or not but he is likely over here at PZ’s place because he’s not getting the attention he wants anymore at TalkRational due to a newer, fresher chewtoy showing up.
Here’s the thread from when he first came over to TalkRational, http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=12800
Atheistoclast admitting that he is Pastor Winthrop. http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=648519&postcount=71 And I see that he is, indeed, in the Dungeon.
GRRRR. Fucking asshole.
Cleanup in progress. All of pastorwinthrop’s comments are about to be deleted.
Bozorgmehr or whatever your goddamned name is, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO COMMENT ON ANY OF MY BLOGS OR ARTICLES. YOU ARE A MORON.
@128
Not the physical genes per se (the DNA molecules), I meant spacially segregated expression of these genes commandeered by transcription factors.
An example would be cell adhesion molecules during neural tube formation (the hollow tube that will form our spinal chords and brain). There is a family of membrane protein, cadherins, that keep cells together, these proteins have better affinity for their own kind of cadherin than for other kinds of cadherins.
At the beginning, the cells that will give rise to both epidermis and neural tissue aren’t differentiated and express E-Cadherin which glues them together forming a sheet of cells.
Shortly after, a diffusible signal from the cells underlying this sheet induces some of the overlying cells to become neural tissue.
This differential signaling in space causes the activation of different transcription factors in the induced cells that will end up (among other things) activating the expression of another cadherin, N-Cadherin, and the repression of E-cadherin. The cells with N-Cadherin will detach from the ones expressing E-cadherin(they have greater affinity for N-Cadherin) and form a hollow tube that will give rise to the neural tube.
The differential expression of transcriptional factors in space has led to the spatial segregation of cadherin types which also led to the detachment of neural cells from the epidermis, creating a cascade of responses.
I always thought pastorwinthrop was a Poe. Posing common creationist canards so that someone else in the group could provide real answers. As a way of sharpening the “debating” skills of the group and disseminating accurate information about an area of science interest without actually lecturing on a subject.
Because the actual science posts generate orders of magnitude fewer comments than ones dismantling creationism.
Heck, for a little while in an earlier thread, I thought it was PZ in disguise.
Funny that. Poe’s law really does work.
Dr. Dennett gave us a wonderful concept to work with on Thursday. He advocated ‘taking back’ the word ‘design’ such that it not need a designer. In other words, it is OK to look at the intricacies of the cell and observe “This looks like it was designed.”, just as god-bots might. But we need to grow our definition of ‘design’ to allow that there need not be a designer.
Dennett gave the excellent example of our current use of the word “atom” from “atmos”, which means ‘indivisible’. We know, of course, that they are divisible, but that doesn’t mean we have to abandon the historical term. So, too, can we have something that is ‘designed’ without a ‘designer’.
But, assuming the ID of him as Atheistoclast is correct, he isn’t a Poe. It sounds right, too, since Bozo Joe not only denies evolution, he denies that development is a “materialistic process” as well (although this is contrary to the surviving quotes where he’s whining that mutations in Hox genes cause gross deformities–the guy never could keep his stories straight), so the ID fits very well.
He’s a creationist troll, however he’s not a Poe. I almost thought he was a Poe when I read his demand that PZ comply with human rights, but again, Bozo Joe indeed writes that stupidly.
Glen Davidson
I was at this event, sitting two rows behind PZ and whatever claims are being made about inhospitality toward differing beliefs are, frankly, bullshit.
Q&A sessions are not a dialogue between one creationist and the members of the panel. There were many people in the room who wanted to ask questions. The reason I started shouting the fellow in the back down (I was the loudest of the down-shouters) was because he’d already asked three questions.
First I said:
“There are other people who would like to ask questions, please give up the microphone”
Others joined me in their agreement.
Then though the moderator walked toward him and reached for the mike, the man held it away from him and flipped the pages in his notebook and began reading another question. I again shouted, “You’ve had your turn, please give up the microphone.”
He contined to read his question, and I shouted at him (along with others),
“No one is going to answer your question. Give up the microphone.”
At which point the noise of the crowd and the persistence of the moderator forced him to give up the microphone.
His silencing was not due to any desire to suppress his ideas, he was just being very rude and monopolizing the microphone even after he’d been asked repeatedly to give it up.
(These are my recollection of the event, I may not have remembered everything verbatim…)
There need to be strong moderators at any Q&A, to enforce a one-minute time limit and one question per person.
Nerd of Redhead: Thanks, that’s a good answer. I should have been more specific in wondering why he was getting numerous, time-consuming responses instead of the quick, brutal shred after demonstrating his dishonesty, but I reckon you cleared that up also.
KG: Why are you so angry that you feel the need to misrepresent my comment in order to have something to grind your fucking teeth about?
Really hilarious. I was at the first talk on the Palouse and laughed the whole time, but not at the creationists. PZ is an embarrassment. Anyone can stand up and mock an opponent. Most children do that quite nicely. Anyone can use derogatory language and make an audience of 400 people laugh. But like PZ said, most people aren’t educated. So it doesn’t take much to make them laugh. My high school history teacher referred to them as the mass ass and he was right. So we are glad they are on your side. It was an New Saint Andrews student who could read the Darwin fish and the same one who asked the first question. We can easily send our students to an atheist event and yes, they can see though all your false arguments. But yours weren’t hard. There weren’t any. So carry on PZ. You are resembling the men who begot you.