All-Too-Common Dissent

Patrick Adkins - Ignorant, Hypocritical, Right-Wing Coward

2010-11-04T07:39:00.005-04:00

So, I'm back from hiatus, if only for this post.

I came across a Tweet (man, I HATE this 'communication' medium) from a person named Patrick Adkins, who posts on this blog here.

The Tweet states:

In response to this, he rightfully received a couple of angry emails. His response?

Why, it was classic right-wing hiding-behind-mommy style nonsense:

Hey, I make zero apologies for how I feel about the far socialist left. I would like to think that not all Democrats are like this; but I am really beginning to wonder.

I am no longer wondering what most right-wing Tea Bagger types I like - I think it is pretty clear. They want to be able to make Holocaust allusions about what they'd like to see happen to Democrats, and when people respond angrily, they want to accuse THEM of being 'unhinged.'

Typical.

Anyhow, I thought you all would like to see the venom that the left spews, when someone speaks their mind about the far left in this Country.

Ah yes, 'venom' in response to just a little old conservative doing nothing but speaking his mind - about how liberals should be treated like the Jews were by the Nazis.

If that is Adkins speaking his mind, then I don't think much more needs to be said about this pathetic waste of atoms. But I will...

Now, before some idiot liberal says it or asks — do I consider what I said to be hate speech? Nope. I reject that term “Hate Speech” entirely. That is a method by the liberal left in this control freedom of speech.

OK, great - anybody can make a complete ass of himself - Adkins just proved that. And hate speech? Nah - alluding to the burning to death of people simply because of their political views is not hatedful, it is just one cowardly right-wingers FREE SPEECH! But here is where it gets surreal:

I believe that ALL AMERICANS, should be free to say what they want. As long as that speech does not cause mass hysteria or panic. Example: Yelling fire in a theater. However, expressing one’s feelings about a group of political fiends — is not hate speech in my book.

So, put that in your pipe and SMOKE IT liberals! HA! Because you will be waiting a LONG time before you’ll be getting an apology out of me.

So you see, to the conservative Tea Bagger type nutcase, writing about putting liberals in ovens like the Nazis did to the Jews is not hate speech, it is FREE speech! And thinking that way is no biggie - heck, he didn't yell 'Fire!' in a movie theater - so it is no big deal. And he will make no apology for writing what he did - it is a free country! But hey - someone gets angry and responds with THEIR free speech rights, and they are spewing 'venom' and becoming 'unhinged' and making threats.

And that is the way of the world with Tea Bagger types - they perceive themselves as capable of doing no wrong; their opinions are facts; their views are pro-America.

Even when they are not.

Adkins received an email from a retired Army sergeant who did not like his allusions, and poor Patty felt that it was "borderline" threatening -

Secondly, I refuse to renounce my position. Feel free to come and get me. I’m a retirted Airboren Ranger, and will happily meet you with the welcome my grandfahters gave to the Nazis back in World War II: A hail of lead and an unmarked grave.

Not that an internet blowhard like you would ever actually do anything.

Get out of my country.

Douglas E. Berry
SSG, USA(ret)

OOOOO - So threatening!
Poor Patty - doesn't like to reap what he sows.
So much for that right-wing love of the military, eh?

I agree with SSG Berry - I will not renounce my views, and I dare right-wing fruit loops like Patty Adkins to come and get me. If he or his like-minded compatriots ever grew a pair enough to actually try it, they'd find that 'liberals' are not the pantywaists the right fantasizes them to be.

Hey, thats just me exercising my right to free speech.

John Sanford, PhD. Young Earth Creationist

2010-07-08T13:09:00.002-04:00

"At first glance, the above calculation seems to suggest that one might at least be able to select for the creation of one small gene (of up to 1,000 nucleotides) in the time since we reputedly diverged from champanzee. There are two reasons why this is not true. 1. Haldane's calculation were only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent muations could not happen in 6 million yrs because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs."
-pp 128-9

That quote is from a book written by a retired Cornell research associate (horticulture) who went through a religious conversion and became a Young Earth Creationist.

His name is John Sanford.
The book is called Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

The quote explains why I will not be wasting my time reading, nor my money buying, this book. If the reader needs an explanation, please ask. But if you support Sanford's claims as laid out in his book and you need an explanation, that may explain why you support Sanford's claims.

R. David Pogge, Christian Creationist Charlatan

2010-04-15T19:23:00.004-04:00

Over on one of the many cesspools of ignorance and disinformation, 'scienceagainstevolution.org', Ol' Do-While himself, David Pogge, software engineer and 'expert' on all things having to do with evolution, is up to his old tricks.

An associate emailed him the following:

I was amazed at how readily you demolished the decades of work by Robert Hazen by merely showing how it is all faith, and how software technicians, like yourself, have been "measuring complexity for 30 years."

I was wondering then if you can tell me how to measure the complexity of, say, a dogfish?

Pogge's response - remember, this is the response of a fellow with dozens of essays attacking the 'hoax' of evolution, who presents himself as an expert on complexity and information theory:

Engineers have a method for measuring complexity. It may not be perfect, but it is reasonable and rational.

As far as I know, biologists don't have any way of measuring complexity (other than, "Gee, this looks more complex than that.").

One will note that he does not even attempt a reasoned resply.

If you take the time to actually read some of his essays - or better yet, read some of the exposes of his crap that are on here - you will see why he did not answer the question.

He can't.

Oh well - back on hiatus....

Poor Ilion, still peddling gibberish

2009-10-22T15:30:00.002-04:00

I see that as off a couple of months ago, my old pal computer technicians and right-wing, birther, creationist, conservative Ilion was still peddling his anti-evolution claim that the human chromosome 2 fusion disproves evolution.
He's been peddling this claim - and refusing to budge despite having been corrected by at least 4 professional biologists that I am aware of - for about 8 years.

Briefly, humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes have 48. There is evidence that human chromosome 2 arose via a fusion of two other chromosomes, and that is why we have 46. Ilion claims that even if thi sfusion occurred, 2 problems arise - 1. depressed fertility and 2. the fixation in the population (not enough time, or something).

The short answer is, the human chromosome 2 fusion is not really an issue.

And we can say this by looking at living mammals who do perfectly well with altered karyotyopes fixed in their population (even some that maintain polymorphic karyotyes, which Ilion insists is a bad, bad thing and essentially impossible).

Let's look at one example.

The domestic horse has 2n=66. Przewalski's horse has 2n=64. The difference is a fission of the domestic horse's chromosome 5 (or a fusion of 2 of P. horse's chromosomes forming the domestic horse's chromosome 5, if you like).

Here is the clincher - they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

But they are not odd numbers you say?

OK - let's stick with horses.

The Caspian pony maintains a polymorphic karyotype.

Some are 2n=64, some are 2n=65, and they get along smashingly.

Ilion the computer tech's arguments are just mantras and nonsense.

Troy D. "Ilion" Hailey - right-wing internet expert on all!

2009-10-16T08:00:00.002-04:00

And a birther, too! Who would have thought? I had to come out of retirement for this clown...

A blast from the past:

I have written briefly about Troy D. Hailey before - a computer consultant who fancies himself an expert on, well, everything, but especially evolution (claims, as they all do, to have "disproved" it).
Well, it seems that even his fellow computer programmer-type folks are not very keen on the condescending, arrogant egomaniac.
Seems old Troy didn't dig it that all did not bow down to his superior intellect, and began a flame war of sorts, with the admins and participants at the board trying to decide how best to deal with him:

Chris Maunder wrote:I'm ready to just close it [the 'soapbox' forum] up
That's what Ilion wants. It seems that most - if not all - of the SoapBoxers are united in their opinion of the Ilion person. What you probably should do is find out who this guy's ISP is and report him for abuse,and then block the ISP's IP subnet from being allowed to post on CP.

In response to thje above:

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:That's what Ilion wants
Actually it isn't. What he wants is to be able to post his opinions and have them stay in view and not be voted as abusive. Whether or not his posts are abusive, spam, or even vaguely appropriate is another thing.
My understanding was that people were ignoring him, so he repeatedly startedposting the same thing and THEN they were marked as spam/abuse.

And to see that arrogant 'charm' from old Troy the self-identified 'nobody' (he is so humble...):

Chris Maunder wrote:Of course you do, as long as you do not abuse the forums or the site.
Mr Maunder, you've giving mixed signals here.
On the one hand, I should "probably just move on" if I want to try to discuss thing rationally/logically, because it's "abusive" (as per community consensus) to identify the illogical arguments/assertions others make.
On the other hand, if I'm not "abusive" (i.e. if I insult other persons right and left, as per community practice), then there is no difficulty.
I gotta tell ya' that's dizzy-making. To me, at any rate.

Wait - there is more (emphasis mine):

Look, most of the really active regulars here go out of their way to express contempt for Christianity and for Christians. And that's ok, I'm not complaining; Christianity can take it. And I can take it, so long as I'm allowed to demolish the so-called arguments.However, because I am trying to get at the illogic and/or absurdity of so many of the claims and/or arguments put forward on the anti-Christianity side of the ledger, I am apparently "abusive," as per community consensus. It isn't true in fact, and I do not appreciate it.
Now, if 'atheism' and/or 'atheistic' assertions have a privileged or protected status here at CP, I can live with that. As I told you, I came to CP for the programming, not for the Soapbox. However, it would have been nice to know about that special status beforehand.

Because after all, a computer cunsultant expert on everything cannot do anything BUT "demolish" all arguments of those that dare oppose his ideologies...
But, it goes on.. and on...

He's [Ilion] taking you for a ride Chris. If you trace back through the threads, you'llfind he was given ample opportunity to expound his arguments and he declined totake them. People, myself included, attempted to dispute points with him (despite his sillyness), but it was to no avail. When everyone began to ignore him (and rightly so) that's when he started bombing the forums. Despite his claims and protestations, he was treated no differently than anyone else. The difference was in him refusing to cease his obnoxious behaviour and his blatant disrespect for ALL PATRONS of this forum. On numerous occasions did several others and I ask him to stop yet he continued. I suggest you continue to monitor this forum for the next few days as I don't believe he is being genuine.

[I grew tired of trying to fix links at this point, but you get the picture...]

And on...

I am not sure what is worse, the constant posts by Ilion, or our response to it.Some of his messages have been deleted under 10 minutes. They are literallybeing removed before I can read them, although they seem to be the same 1 or 2posts over and over. I don't get what his point is, and I don't get why we don'tignore him. I don't remember Ilion posting before a week or so ago. He has fourarticles (I have not read any) and all of a sudden of deluge of incomprehensibleposts. I think we have all agreed that something is wrong mentally (some kind ofpsychotic break?), but do we need to poke the badger with a spoon?

And'>http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1930068&forumid=2605#xx1930068xx">And on...

A thread for Ilion to demonstrate....his much touted great intellect.Apparently you believe yourself to be beyond the intellectual capabilities of everyone on this message board. Well, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove it. Answer our questions, the ones that (so far) you refuse to answer. There are many of them, but you seem to believe it acceptable to make flippant statements without having to provide any form of cogent argument. Well, I'm putting you on the spot. Either prove you have something to contribute or finalize that once and for all that you're just here trolling these boards to irritate people and you are not to be taken seriously. Show us you're not a cheap pathetic hack...

It is interesting to note that Ilion did not reply once in that thread...

Hmmmm.....

And then:

He [Ilion] was annoying me because he was intentionally twisting my words.Having an argument with somebody is one thing. When somebody twists your wordsto deliberately misrepresent what you said is another. I have a problem withliars and hypocrites. I call them out. Ilion knows he's lying and deceitfulbecause he doesn't respond to my posts. He thinks he's a Christian - but it'scompletely obvious he's a hypocrite and a liar. He's less of a Christian than Iam and I'm an athiest.

Oh - you noticed all that, too?

Poor Troy Hailey - he can't even seem to get his fellow computer geeks to be on his side and bow down to his ubermensch status!

Because people like Ilion will just never let things rest. They HAVE to have it "known" that they "won", that they are "right". Even when they are not.
It is interesting to note that on that site, even the conservatives (well, one of them at least) thinks Ilion is a nitwit:

Ilíon wrote:Man, that's jest terrible! Political appointees being treated as political appointees.
Redstateler:You know, I read that and thought something odd. The "e" key is nowhere near the "u" key on a keyboard, so how could you mistype "just" (as a typo) unless you're so hopped up on acid that you have no control of your fingers.

He is, of course, welcomed with open arms on the ARN'>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=13">ARN 'Intelligent Design' forum - that is the sort of person that makes up the anti-evolution crowd - arrogant, overconfident, bombastic, and above all, underinformed. So, how can these folks deal with the arrogant blowhard?
I have an idea:

Stop talking out of your ass. Everyone on this message board is sick to death ofyour idiocy. Do everyone a favour for once and shut up. It's painfully evident that you don't know a thing about science, you just like to run your mouth and stick quotes around everything. Take your medication. It'll help to make you more lucid. You can't even address the questions I put to you, because when confronted head on you balk and hide. You're pathetic, ignorant and an idiot. That's quite the amazing combination, you should be proud. Not just anyone can achieve such infamy. Of course, you can always respond to the thread I directedat you and prove me wrong, but I know you won't because you can't. You're a sadlittle man with an inferiority complex. I pity you. If only you had the sense torealize just how idiotic you are, it would be a blessing for you AND thismessage board.

Boy - these folks figured Ilion out, alright!
And Ilion is God's one true messenger... Wow....

***************************************

Some things never change....

The Uprightbiped Chronicles...

2009-08-14T11:08:00.005-04:00

... or how a Dembski acolyte uses big words he doesn't understand... (like 'ad hominem' and non sequitur)...

Over on HuffPo, Barrett Brown wrote this article:

Intelligent Design, Online Edition

Sundry Dembski worshippers flocked to HuffPo from UncommonDescent to defend their Ideology. It appears that many of them, including one 'Uprightbiped' - were on autopilot, and responded to the article by complaining that Brown did not discuss the (pseudo)science of ID.

But you see, the article was about ID on the internet, specifically, how Dembski runs his blog and how he is a hypocrite, which any sensible, rational, intelligent person could see form actually, you know, reading the article.

But not Uprightbiped. Nosirree. You see, he thinks that because the title of the article had the phrase "Intelligent Design" in it, it is supposed to be only about the 'SCIENCE' of ID and nothing else.

And so, Uptightbiped decided to reply by first whining about how Barrett did not specifically discuss ID and how all he did was 'condemn' Dembski - which, amazingly, the ARTICLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT!!!

See for yourself:

Virtually every comment on this post has nothing whatsoever to do with ID -
neither does Barrets trivial condemnations of Dembki. One of the commenters here
visited Demski's UD site, stomped his feet and said "Where is your inference
coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based?"
I gave him the answer
here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-you-want-good-science-who-better-to-ask-than-barret-brown/comment-page-2/#comment-329383
For those who would rather KNOW than be just another link in the chain, you might
consider reading David Abel's peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Theoretical
Biological and Medical Modeling. He spells out the case in no uncertain terms.
Its available here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958There is also another from the International Journal of Molecular Science: http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdfOne thing is for
certain, no one here will address the evidence presented in either of these
peer-reviewed journals on its face. Building strawmen, as Barret has done, is
always more fun.

I guess I should also mention that Uptight (yeah, I know, namecalling - well, he took to calling me 'Scotty' at HuffPo, I guess that was supposed to be an insult, so back at ya, Uptight) seems as enamored with creationist David Abell as he is with Dembski.
Of course, Uptight's original post did not even acknowledge what Brown's article was really about. So, I replied:

Isn't is amazing?
A piece NOT actually intended to be about the vacuous
gobbledegook that is "ID" has nothing whatsoever about 'ID" in it!It is a
conspiracy, I tells ya!
Pro-ID zealots are a constant source of entertainment, to
be sure.

And it went on from there, with Uptight engaging in the usual hero protection and false accusations that I have grown accustomed to seeing from these people when things don't go there way.
In the end, his posts were little more than focused and constrained Gish gallops and argument via false authority. See for yourself, in toto, starting after my reply above:

Scott, Here is what is amazing: A peer-reviewed article appearing in the Journal
of Theoretical Medical and Biological Modeling, and a companion piece in the
International Journal of Molecular Sciences implicitly states:"The fundamental
contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this
paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each
configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language
will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each
combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and
destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings
in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a
cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71]."
"To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it:“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]:
physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems
requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit
integration.”
"A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis".
...and so you suggest this has nothing to do with the hypothesis that volitional agency is required to achieve function in the sequencing of nucleotides.Nice. What exactly did you think the author was talking about when he said the phrase “volitional agency”?http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958

One will note that he replies as if I had responded to him specifically about his links, which I did not. Specifically the last paragraph - Uptight seems to have me confused with others (which he basically admits later, but will not directly acknowledge). I reply:

Interestingly, your reply does the same thing to me that your earlier reply
did to Brown's article. It ignored it. That or you got me confused with someone
else.
Perhaps if I use simpler language - Brown's article was not about the lack
of scientific merit of ID, or even of ID in general, rather, it was about Bill
Dembski and his antics. Why did you expect his article to address ID when it was
not about ID?
And why would you have expected my reply to you to be about the
bafflegab-riddled articles that Trevors and Abel somehow got published when all
it was intended to do was point out that your earlier response was essentially a
non sequitur?
But since you are so enamored with Trevors and Abel, perhaps you can
explain how it is that an objective reader should take their claims seriously
when ALL of their 'conclusions' are premised on a totally unsupported assumption
that the genetric code was 'written'?

One will also note that despite his obvious adoration of Trevors and Abel, Uptight does nto once even try to answer my challenge in the last part. I continued:

Their 2004 paper contains this as a premise:

"How did inanimate nature write:
1. the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism?
2. a language operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and
replicate those instructions?
3. a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol
meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet
codon "block code" symbols (bytes) and amino acid symbols?... "

Fails from the get go.They start by assuming their conclusion - that
metabolism/genetic code was pre-planned and written, and that "inanimate nature"
cannot do this.
Theirs is an argument via analogy combined with an argument via defintion
combined with an argument via personal incredulity, gussied up with some
superfluous jargon and 'information theory' gibberish.

What about this peer reviewed scientific paper:Natural selection as the
process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolutionM.
KimuraGenetical Research (1961), 2:127-140 Cambridge University Press

Kimura demonstrated mathematically that adaptive evolution adds information
to genomes. Wonder why TnA never mention that...
I should also note the last sentence of the liked paper:"We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsificationof these null hypotheses."In other words, they've just tossed out some hypotheses. Which is fine. What is not fine is that their acolytes then proceed to present these hypotheses as some sort of unfalsifiable truths.

Uptight responds:

Scott, (Part 1)
You say: “Interestingly, your reply does the same thing to me that your
earlier reply did to Brown's article. It ignored it.”
My comment was targeted directly at the posts being
made in this forum. This might have been obvious by the first words of my
post, which were “Virtually every comment on this post…” And by the way, I noticed in your first post you suggested the paper I cited had
nothing to do with the inference to volitional agency – and in your
second post you’ve seem to have abandoned the claim.
You say: “Perhaps if I use simpler language - Brown's article was not about
the lack of scientific merit of ID…Why did you expect his article to address ID
when it was not about ID?”
An article with the words “Intelligent Design” in the heading isn’t about
“Intelligent Design”.
An article that suggests that ID proponents “can't get away with trying to
portray ID as a scientific theory” does not attack the “scientific merit” of ID?
So, having had to abandon your original comment as factually untenable, you’ve
been left to make observations that are demonstrably incoherent.
Tell me why anyone should take these observations of yours seriously.

Interesting... I've highlighted (in red) some interesting, if not unwitting, 'admissions'..
For how did I 'abandon' a claim I never made? Note also that Uptight has attempted to diminish anything I might write - I mean, why would anyone take me seriously when I abandon a claim I never made, right? One will see that, in typical IDcreationist fashion, Uptight later essentially accuses me of doing the same thing to his poor heroes...
I reply:

If your comment was directed at other posts, why reply directly to
me?

You write:"And by the way, I noticed in your first post you suggested the
paper I cited had nothing to do with the inference to volitional agency – and in
your second post you’ve seem to have abandoned the claim."

In my first post, I mentioned or implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I
did not even MENTION anything you had written - you seem to be coflating again.
The SOLE purpose of my first post was to point out that you, as have
several other anti-'Darwinists', lamented that Brown did not discuss ID when the
fact of the matter is that was not the intent of his article!
You go on, as ID advocates are wont to do:
"An article with the words “Intelligent Design” in the heading isn’t about
“Intelligent Design”. ... So, having had to abandon your original comment as
factually untenable,"

Projection.

" you’ve been left to make observations that are demonstrably
incoherent."

More projection.

"Tell me why anyone should take these observations of yours
seriously."

So, if the article has the phrase "Intelligent Design" in the title, it
must by some magical set of unwritten rules, be solely about ID in toto?
Please demonstrate how my comments are incoherent - I realise that to the
anti-'Darwinist', mere assertions count as irrefutable evidence, but to rational
folk, that won't cut it.

In the threaded world of blog replies at HuffPo, things get a little hairy, as Uptight also reponded with this:

Then you say:
“And why would you have expected my reply to you to be about the bafflegab-riddled articles that Trevors and Abel somehow got published when all it was intended to do was point out that your earlier response was essentially a non sequitur?”

Your original post was nothing but a petty ad hominem
attack on ID which made absolutely no mention of a “non-sequitur” in my
comments, nor did it provide any rationale that supported the idea that one
existed. You are digging a hole.
In truth, you portrayed my comment as “gobbledegook” trying to extort
a peer-reviewed paper as having anything to do with ID, and then after being
corrected you switched to portraying the Abel paper itself as “bafflegab”.
You even go so far as to imply that the peer-review process at the
International Journal of Molecular Science, and that at the Journal of
Theoretical Medical and Biological Modeling, should perhaps be called into
question. What is most clear is that amidst all of your repeated attempts to
slander the reputation of anyone that disagrees with you, you say nothing
whatsoever about the actual evidence.
Why is that?

and

You say:
“But since you are so enamored with Trevors and Abel, perhaps you can
explain how it is that an objective reader should take their claims seriously
when ALL of their 'conclusions' are premised on a totally unsupported assumption
that the genetric (sic) code was 'written'?”

Surely you are kidding? You are actually objecting to the completely common
phrase that the genetic code was “written”? Well, if that is your objection,
then you need to get your objection pen out.
You are going to be busy…“…genes were written in a code…” -Cornell
University
“…DNA sequence, as a book written in a special code…” -Michigan State
University
“…a text written in a language common to all life…” -Nat Geo
“…a code written in multiples of three bases…” -Nature“
…a sequence of words written in the alphabet A,C,G,T…” -Carolina
University

Truly you can’t be serious. Trevors and Abel used the
term “written” in the exact same way as the authors of the text above –
and it is an abject lie to suggest otherwise. So not only must you try to
slander the reputations of those scientists that disagree with you, you also
must misrepresent their work in order to do so.

Poor Uptight's heroes, so in need of his protection - so much so, that Uptight, as IDcreationists so often do, felt the need to drum up some well poisoning and false accusations against me. That is what these people do. One will note that other than admit that he takes metaphorical langauge literally, he never does actually show how Abel's claims have merit.
Of course, when one bothers to learn a bit more about Trevors and Abel, one finds that, in fact, they are not at all using the term "written" in the exact same way those other sources are. I guarantee it, and it is obvious for the loaded language that TnA use. But Uptight and his creatinist cronies turn off their BS meters when reading wrok from 'friendlies'...

But he goes on:

Finally, you say:
“They start by assuming their conclusion - that metabolism/genetic code was
pre-planned and written, and that "inanimate nature" cannot do this. Theirs is
an argument via analogy combined with an argument via defintion combined with an
argument via personal incredulity, gussied up with some superfluous jargon and
'information theory' gibberish.

Your finale is one long mischaracterization followed by a few ad hominem
arrows thrown in for flavor. Yet, never do you actually
address anything of the observable evidence at the molecular level
(almost none of which is even in doubt by scientist of any stripe). Nice defense
there, Scotty- - - - - - -
By the way, Kimura’s demonstration assumes
replicating/metabolizing cells. Abel didn’t mention it because it has
nothing to do with origins research (since it already assumes
replicating/metabolizing cells).

Never mind that TnA never actually mention any evidence - their papers are are purely hypothetical. So, I respond:

Ah, the old creationist stand bys - "ad hominem!" "misrepresentation!"
"You're being mean to my hero!"Calm down, fella.Surley, you know what
metaphorical languiage is, yes? I am fairly certain that the authors of your
sound bites do not think that the genetic and such were 'written' the way
creationist Abel and his pals do.

and

So, you read Kimura's paper did you? I did not mention any of the 'evidence' at
the molecular level at T and A do not actually present any.The fact is, the only
people who take their work seriously are themselves and a handful of
IDcreationist types, as evident from the dearth of citation.

Uptight didn't like that much, but he, perhaps, realized that he was in over his head and decided to bow out:

I didn't reply to you - Scott, ...you REPLIED to MY comment.
See how that works?In fact, you have now posted on my comment seven seperate times. Yet, you haven't addressed the actual content of my post even once, and indeed, in the your latest post you continue to attack everything but the evidence. I am willing to allow any readers to make of that what they will.
By all menas you may have the last word.

Poor fellow...

But I'll bet he's a regular HERO at Uncommondescent!
Note that in the world of the IDcreationist, quotes and disbelief that you don't agree with them count as a demonstration that their sources are correct.

Sad people.

Unlike the hero-worshipping Uptight, I plan on actually responding to what he has written. It might take me a few days (pretty busy this timie of year), but I'll get to it.

for Uprightbiped - let's see your stuff

2009-08-13T19:31:00.003-04:00

I realize that you are not under 'moderator' protection here as you would be at uncommentdescent, but go ahead.

HuffPo is hardly the place to engage in any real discussion, due in part to the limit of 250 words. But if you think Trevors and Abel's work is so great, let's see your stuff.

Be forewarned, however - false charges of 'ad hominem' and the like will not fly. Assertions do not work here. Argumentum ad verecundiam will not work here.

Man up.

I think I see the problem (RE: IDcreationist "information" claims)

2009-01-29T14:34:00.002-05:00

Well, one of them, anyway.

A few months ago, Jeff Shallit wrote about an article in The Scientist, and it got creationist Kirk Durston's attention.

I won't go through ANY of the details - Durston, like many creationists, prefers overly verbose rhetoric to concise language, but feel free to slog through all his patronizing gibberish if you'd like. Others dealt with the technical details of Durston's claims, but I found this short statement very informative:

The question is, is the functional information encoded in the gene that codes
for RecA an example of ID? (I choose RecA because it is an average length
protein, it is a universal protein found in all life forms, and I've done some
work on it.) To answer that question, we need a scientific method to identify
examples of ID that does not yield false positives, yet does not rule out
obvious examples of ID (such as Venter's 'watermarks', or laptop computers) and
is general (i.e., can be applied to forensics, SETI, archeology, and biology).

When I read this (re-read it, actually - I had read the entire exchange some months ago) this really struck me as profound.
And maybe I am just slow and others ahve already recognized this, but it seems ot me their entire line of reasoning regarding "informaiton" and how evolution cannot account for it rests on one little subtle assumption. But it is a big one - a great big foundational assumption which makes their entire 'no new infromation' enterprise little more than a tautology.

Can you see it?

It isn't about ID detection methods or the arcane mathematical details that accompany his boasts. It is this:

...is the functional information encoded in the gene that codesfor RecA an
example of ID?

The functional information ENCODED IN the gene.
Why would they think it is intelligently derived? Because that start out with the a priori position that the 'information' that the gene contains/possesses was PUT IN IT. It is ENCODED:

en⋅code
–verb (used with object), -cod⋅ed, -cod⋅ing.
to convert (a message, information, etc.) into code.

And how is this 'conversion' done if NOT by an intelligent agent, right?

They start out with the assumption that a gene did not arise via natural means and by virtue of the arrangement of it's nucleotides and ends up producing a useful protein, no they start out assuming that a specific protein was needed/desired and that the gene was then 'somehow' acquired in order to make this needed/desired protein.

In other words, they start out assuming what they want to be true.
To be fair, I suppose one could say the same of non-IDcreationists. They start out with the assumption that genes are natural entities, polynucleotides shaped by natural forces into a gene that when transcribed and translated makes something useful.

The difference is, the IDcreationist has mere faulty analogies to support their position.

'Materialists' have observation and experimentation.

Republicans 'admire' Rush Limbaugh

2009-01-29T14:04:00.002-05:00

Mike Pence (R-IN) says he "admires" Rush Limbaugh. He said this defending Limbaugh's latest racist screed about how we are going to have to "bend over" becaue Obama is black.

Sure, Mike - and every other Republican sycophant.. Admire away.

What is not to admire - and take marching orders from - a draft dodging coward like Limbaugh?

A family-values advocate with 3 divorces under his belt.

A good Christian man wio smuggles Viagra to the Dominican Republic. Why would he do that? He wasn't married at the time, so he didn't need them for intramarital relations. Must have been for the underage male prostitutes that the Dominacan Republic is known for.

Blow him some kisses, Mike! Maybe he'll take you with him next time.

And I won't even mention his addiciton to Hillbilly Heroin...

I think it says quite a bit about the people who would 'admire' and 'respect' such a pathetic hypritical pile of filth like Limbaugh.

Creationsafaris.com - cesspool of (purposeful?) disinformation

2009-01-20T08:06:00.004-05:00

I was reading through a creation/evolution discussion board recerntly and the website creationsafaris.com came up. Creationsafaris is the baby of David Coppedge, a computer scientist employed by NASA, who also happens to be a rather adept disinformation peddlar for Christ.
Now, I've read some of Coppedge's stuff before, but I'd not visited his site for some time, so I decided to pay a visit and I was reminded of why I hadn't been there in a while - to describe the site as inflammatory is putting it mildly. I searched his site for some issues of interest to me, and no surprise, I was soon rewarded with a number of highly misinforming/disinforming smug dismissals of legitimate science and that characteristic cherry-picking of quotes to employ as 'look how little evolutinists know!' fodder.
And let us not forget his condescending name calling and the like.Take a look at this masterpiece of flim flammery, sleight of hand, and inflammatory disinformation, my comments interspersed:

The Hopeless Task of Building Evolutionary Trees
07/25/2002
A paper posted in the online early addition July 25 of the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences starts out with an optimistic subtitle: “An
efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation,” but then
opens with a tone of despair:

Optimality criterion-based phylogeny inference is a
notoriously difficult endeavor because the number of solutions increases
explosively with the number of taxa. Indeed, the total number of possible
unrooted, bifurcating tree topologies among T-terminal taxa ... [corresponds] to
nearly 32 billion different trees for 14 taxa and 3 X 1084 trees (i.e., more
than the number of atoms in the known universe) for 55 taxa. ... As most
mathematicians expect that no such algorithm [i.e., polynomial time solution]
exists, one is forced to admit that no future civilization will ever build a
computer capable of solving the problem while guaranteeing that the optimal
solution has been found.

Instead of number-crunching the impossible, the authors propose a heuristic
approach. Heuristic approaches sacrifice the goal of getting an optimal tree in
hopes of getting one faster that has maximum likelihood (ML).

Um, no... I would think that a taxpayer-funded NASA "scientist" like David Coppedge would at least try to understand the material he is bashing, but I guess that is too much to ask of a creationist. Even a NASA employee. The whole point of a heuristic search is still to find the optimal tree, but to do so without having to examine every single possible arrangement of taxa.

Can a 'computer geek' like Coppedge really not know this?

As this applies to phylogeny searches, look at it this way (A spectacularly simplified example) - say you have DNA sequences from 4 taxa and you want to do a phylogenetic analysis. Their sequences are:

1. AGGGCCCCAAAATTTTT
2. AGGGCCTCAAAATTTTT
3. AGGCCCTCAAATTTTTT
4. AGGCCTAGAAGTTTAAA

We can note that sequences 1 and 2 differ by only one substitution; 1 and 3 by two; 1 and 4 by 8; etc., and we know that taxon 4 is not closely related to the other three. If we choose to root our tree (that is, if we recognize that one of the taxa in our analysis will be the most distantly related to all the others), there are 15 possible arrangements that could be produced (we can quickly see which taxon this is going to be, but we would want to test each one to be sure). Now, we could simply draw out all 15 possible arrangements, count up the number of nucleotide changes needed to 'describe' each tree, then pick the tree with the fewest changes as our optimal tree. But that would take, if we use 5 minutes drawing and calculating each arrangement for our example, 75 minutes. Now, if we employ a heuristic search algorithem, we do not draw and calculate every possible tree, because we can immediately discard 'bad' trees/arrangements without having to draw and calculate them.
For example, a quick comparison of each pair of sequences tells us what I wrote above ("We can note that sequences 1 and 2 differ by only one substitution...") and we can use this information, which can be generated in much less than 5 minutes, to see which groupings are the most likely. In our little example here, we can see that taxa 1 and 2 are the closest, with taxon 3 joining the group of 1 and 2, with taxon 4 as out outgroup. So we know that taxon 4 will be the outgroup, therefore, we only have to draw and calculate how taxa 1, 2, and 3 should group. And as we established that taxa 1 and 2 are the closest, there is only one tree that will do. This can be calculated in maybe 10 minutes, if we do it by hand, and use the "heuristic" I just described, which is essentially what computer analysis programs do (albeit, obviously, with much more rigor).
Coppedge is just trying to use the classic creationist "argument via big numbers" and relying on the fact that most of his acolytic readers will not know any different.
Or care.
Further, maximum likelihood is a search criterion, not an intrinsic value.
Coppedge is clueless. Perhaps for real.

Lemmon and Milinkovitch wrote a computer program that converges quicker on an ML model with larger number of taxa. They call theirs the “metapopulation genetic
algorithm.” It is a quasi-Darwinian model that tries to optimize trees based on
mutations and selection, and it can incorporate rate heterogeneity estimates
into the model. The authors try their program on real and imaginary populations
and compare their results with other heuristic methods.

The article in question came out in 2002. Coppedge writes as if such an algorithem is a new thing. To put this in perspective, I entered graduate school in 1999, and I started out using a computer analysis package that utilized maximum likelihood methods (as well as about 4 others) that was written nearly 10 years earlier. Below is Coppedge's snarky disinformative commentary:

Were you ever told in biology class that generating a phylogenetic tree from the
raw data was mathematically impossible, and that no future civilization would
ever overcome this barrier? Probably not, yet textbooks are replete with neat,
authoritative-looking phylogenetic trees. So how do they determine them? By
heuristic methods, which by translation, means guesswork, inference,
trial-and-error, hunches and hope. Their model incorporates a number of
optimization parameters, such as rate heterogeneity, which means that not all
genes mutate at the same rate, and branch length, the presumed evolutionary
distance between taxa.

Wow... Where to begin? No, Coppedge, heuristic methods do NOT at all mean "guesswork" etc. And for a NASA employee to denigrate trial and error??!?!?? Is he for real? One of my interests is spaceflight, and I have seen many programs about the space program, and NASA's history is little BUT trial and error! And the shock of a program incorporating rate heterogeneity! Imagine, incorporating what the evidence indicates! I have little doubt that one can find on Coppedge's site some snarky little essays decrying any notion that all genes mutate at the same rate. And as far as branch length goes - the programs FIND the branch length as part of the analysis! How can it incorporate something that is one of the outputs of the algorithem!
This guy is CLUELESS!

The tweak space is enormous, and they already have a mental picture of what they
want, so this whole approach is based on circular reasoning. If the program
outputs a tree that agrees with the evolutionary assumptions, is scores high;
otherwise, it is rejected.

Amazing. Coppedge - who should at least have a basic understanding of the terminology (since things like "heuristic searches" are common computer science terms) , is simply spouting nonsense. I challenge anyone here to read the actual paper and point out where the authors state that they already 'have a mental picture of what they want' and somehow force the program to spit out this desired result. The entire purpose of the paper in question was to outline the authors' procedure for producing phylogenetic trees using large datasets with many, many taxa more quickly than can be done with existing methods. Coppedge acts as if they are merely trying to find a way to make a program that produces what they want it to (he must be confusing real science with baraminology).
Of course, what they set out to do - to make a computer analysis program that can analyze large numbers of taxa in large datasets more quickly and just as accurately as existing but slower models all but requires them to 'know' what they want to get - that is how you test your model! Does Coppedgfe REALLY not understand this?

Does this provide any confidence that evolution is being confirmed empirically?
Is this how scientists in our universities should be spending their time,
playing Darwinian computer games?Instead of explaining how mutation and natural
selection could produce a Monarch butterfly or a finch or a peppered moth in the
first place, scientific papers on evolution seem obsessed with trying to uncover
phylogenetic relationships that are impossible to calculate objectively or
verify independently without begging the question whether common ancestry is
even true.

Is this how a taxpayer-funded NASA scientist should be spending his time -writing disinformation filled drivel to prop up his religious beliefs?
And the coup de grace - Coppedge at his sleight of hand best. We see this silly sentiment in many creationist rants - this whole 'those evos are ASSUMING evolution is true when they do their experimets!' as if that is a bad thing to do.
Do creationists assume creation is true when they do their experiments (I mean, if they did any)?
Do physicists assume that gravity is a constant throughout the universe when they plot spacecraft flight paths?
Of course they do - why, I'd even bet that NASA computer technicians like Copppedge assume certain things about the software writing programs they utilize and the models they make.

I would like to point out that this distortion-laden diatribe was one of the shortest I could find on Coppedge's site on this subject. I can only assume that longer rants have even more distortions and embellishments. But David Coppedge need not be concerned -his like-minded readers will believe everything he writes - he is a YEC AND he works at NASA, after all - and will think his smug insults are all well deserved by those evilutionists.

Sad

Oh, the NAME CALLING!!!

2009-01-14T17:12:00.003-05:00

A fellow who has left a couple of comments here decided to write about a comment I left for him on his blog. It is pretty funny:

I recently got a comment on my blog and I would love to share it with you. I will leave the name of this individual anonymous but see if you can see what is missing in his comment.

"I appreciate the spammed post on my blog. I deleted one and posted the other. No Darwin did not have an electron microscope, nor did he know about DNA. Had he, I predict that the would have really enjoyed the vast amount of evidence supporting his basic premise that one can find there". (Which this person commenting does not mention here!!!). " Are cells simple? Not really(not really, look at your science not at all!!!). But simply arguing that they are so complex that could not have arisen by 'chance' and thus evolution is false thus biblical creationism is true is just wrong on so many levels." (yet he does not mention or give facts stating how it is wrong!!) "And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the claims by the folks at ICR in the first place (which he offers zero evidence why other than they disagree with his ideology).- they require al of those associated with them to take oaths that they will never cast doubt on creationism (simply not true), and have a pretty good tract record of having their, shall we say, less than honest antics exposed (Which again he fails to mention one single occurrence.)

Did you see what was missing throughout this man's whole entire argument?? Facts? Again where are the facts, he has been reduced to name calling and empty allegations. Offer me one proof of anything you say. Read my blog post simply not simple in which I quote Charles Darwin!! Yet he offers zero evidence on which his position stands. Then the evolutionist like this man have the audacity to claim that we are the ones who believe in blind faith, who have no evidence. DNA has the amount of info to fill 500 books with a 1000 pages each, an incredible amount of information on a molecular level. Where does this information come from?? How would Darwin be overjoyed if he had an electron microscope?? WHat is it within a cell supports organic evolution?? Darwin himself said the opposite, he said "if it can be demonstrated that any complex organ exited which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (Origin of species) 1872, p.154

So this man who commented said Darwin would be overjoyed, when he himself wrote the quote above which is exactly what we see in a cell. Darwin wouldn't be overjoyed, he would calling for the glory that is due to the Great Creator...

I plan on dissecting this when I have the time, but could someone please point out where I called anyone names? Or is this persecution complex thing a common trait in these folks?

Correlation or causation or neither?

2008-12-15T10:59:00.010-05:00

Andras Pellionisz is an interesting fellow. He appears to have been a productive researcher, who then saw the chance to make some real cash and apparently started up a couple of companies.

Of late, however, he seems to be on a megalomaniacal tirade of sorts, setting himself up as the greatest thing in science since Crick (whose 'dogma' he (Pellionisz) has done away with), with his "establishment" of his "Principle of the Recursive Genome" (I won't even mention his malicious, self-aggrandizing historical revisionism on junkDNA...).

In short, Pellionisz claims that what we used to refer to as 'genes' interact recursively with what we used to call 'junk DNA' to produce structures that can be described via fractal mathematics.

He 'predicted' in 2006 that because of this 'principle', the Purkinje cells (P-cells) in cerebellums of fish (or other organisms with brains) of 'more recently' developed status, having larger genomes, will have greater branchings in their dendritic networks:

One of us (AJP) has previously proposed that fractal processes associated
with DNA are in a causal relation to the fractal properties of organelles such
as P-cells (FractoGene, 2002, patent pending). [let us ignore for now the odd
depiction of a neuron as an 'organelle'] This fractal postulate
predicts that the dendritic arborization of P-cells will be less complex in
lower order vertebrates.

Well, OK. A prediction that Fugu will have less arborized dendrites than mouse and human because ... well, let's see...

The prediction can be tested by systematic comparative neuroanatomy of the
P-cell in species for which genome sequences permit inter-species comparison.
The Fugu rubripes (Fugu), Danio rerio (Danio) and other species are lower order
vertebrates for which genome sequences are available and tests could be
conducted. Consistent with the fractal prediction, P-cell dendritic arbor is
primitive in Fugu, being much less complex than in Mus musculus and in Homo
sapiens. Genomic analysis readily identified PEP19/Pcp4, Calbindin-D28k, and
GAD67 genes in Fugu and in Danio that are closely associated with P-cells in
Canis familiaris, Rattus norvegicus, Mus musculus and Homo sapiens. Gene L7/Pcp2
exhibits strongest association with P-cells in higher vertebrates. L7/Pcp2 shows
strong protein residue homology with genes greater than 600 residues and
including 2-3 GoLoco domains, designated as having G protein signaling modulator
function (AGS3-like proteins). Fugu has a short gene with a single GoLoco
domain, but it has greatest homology with the AGS3-like proteins. No similar
short gene is present in Danio or in Xenopus. Classical L7/Pcp2 is only detected
in higher vertebrates, suggesting that it may be a marker of more recent
evolutionary development of cerebellar P-cells. We expect that a new generation
of data mining tools will be required to support recursive fractal geometrical,
combinatorial, and neural network models of the genomic basis of morphogenesis.

OK, great. Looks like he's onto something. Right?
Now, however, one finds a hyperbole riddled webpage announcing:

UPDATE (14 September, 2007) Question-marks raised by the "Fugu prediction
paper" [the paper mentioned above] have met tentative support. The
correlation - contrary to blogs whose ideology would prefer otherwise -
is further supported, there is no contradiction, no gaps, whatsoever.
Peer-reviewed presentation of evidence from independent sources will follow
whenever they are ready.

Please note the inconsistency between the first and second sentence - in the first, he states that 'question marks' in his Fugu paper have found "tentative support", but the second indicates that there is near certainty.

Anyway, the commentary there is hard to follow, but there are some figures apparently from the paper claimed to have supported his Fugu 'questionmarks' and their legends:

[original legends] Fig. 4. Sketch of the emerging field of comparison of
the complexity of the dendritic trees of P-cells, their genomic analysis,
calling for biophysical synthesis. Insert B shows the P-cell in the Fugu
rubripes (B is courtesy of Székely33), in which the genome size is 0.37
Gigabases. C will show the P-cell in Danio rerio (as it becomes available,
according to studies at an early stage to exhibit an interim complexity) in
which the genome size is 1.56 Gigabases. D shows the dendritic arbor of the
P-cell in the mouse (genome size is 2.6 Gigabases). Insert D is
fluorescent-stained photo, courtesy of Prof. Helen Blau40. E shows a
computer-reconstruction of the P-cell in the guinea pig21. The genome size in
the guinea pig is not known to date, but its sequencing was slated (at Broad
Institute and MIT) among other species. Insert H shows the P-cell of the
human27. The genome size in the human is 3.1 Gigabases.

[updated legends - 14 September, 2007] Fig. 4. Sketch of the emerging
field of comparison of the complexity of the dendritic trees of P-cells, their
genomic analysis, calling for biophysical synthesis. Insert B shows the P-cell
in the Fugu rubripes (B is courtesy of Székely33), in which the genome size is
0.37 Gigabases. Question-marks in C will be replaced by finalized results of
already known preliminary studies exhibiting an interim complexity, in which the
genome size is 1.56 Gigabases. D shows the dendritic arbor of the P-cell in the
mouse (genome size is 2.6 Gigabases). Insert D is fluorescent-stained photo,
courtesy of Prof. Helen Blau40. E shows a computer-reconstruction of the P-cell
in the guinea pig21. The genome size in the guinea pig is not known to date, but
its sequencing was slated (at Broad Institute and MIT) among other species, and
now preliminary sequencing results project the the genome size right in the
predicted range***. Insert H shows the P-cell of the human27. The genome size in
the human is 3.1 Gigabases.

Yes, that is pretty much exactly how it appears on his website (one of apparently a dozen or so that he maintains).
So, they show the P-cell in a Fugu with like 3 dendrites, and 'more recently developed' P-cells with greater arborization (hundreds of branches).

So this is where I get lost - the recursive genome claims appear to indicate a 're-visiting' to the genome areas associated with a particular structure or process by proteins/RNAs with the end result being a fractalicious outcome.

His 'support' appears to be a correlation between genome size and arborization of P-cells in the cerebellum.

While this may well hold true for P-cell arborization in a general sense, what we do NOT see is any indication of 'recursivity' at all - what the 'support' paper shows is that the 'more recently developed' organisms have more/larger genes associated with their P-cells:

L7/Pcp2 showsstrong protein residue homology with genes greater than 600
residues andincluding 2-3 GoLoco domains, designated as having G protein
signaling modulatorfunction (AGS3-like proteins). Fugu has a short gene
with a single GoLocodomain, but it has greatest homology with the
AGS3-like proteins. No similar short gene is present in Danio or in
Xenopus. Classical L7/Pcp2 is only detectedin higher vertebrates,
suggesting that it may be a marker of more recentevolutionary development of cerebellar P-cells.

And that was from HIS OWN paper! Implicit in his junk DNA claims is the notion that the recursivity is a function OF the junk DNA (and so it is not junk). To prop this notion up, he has made a great deal of noise about the fact that one can find stop codons in junk DNA. It has been pointed out to him that you can find ALL of the codons for ALL amino acids (including MET - start codons) in 'junk DNA' , too. But he insists that stop codons in junk DNA are special and supportive of his claims. Somehow - he won't really say how, just that they are.

So is the larger genome - more 'junk DNA' anyway - of a 'more recently' evolved oganism the cause of the greater arborization in their P-cells and thus Pellionisz's recursive genome principle is real and true? Or is greater arborization unrelated to genome size directly and the degree of arborization has a different cause - maybe arborization is influenced by inductive processes* that have little if anything to do with recursivity?

Like anyone envisioning him or herself as a paradigm-busting visionary - who also has a product to sell - Pellionisz seems to make reckless extrapolations and to ignore or downplay potentially disconfirming evidence (none of the 93 citations in his 'Principle' paper, for example, seem to even mention indiction).

Now, about that junk DNA revisionism of his.....

UPDATE:
While perusing the web for more interesting info on Pellionisz's claims, I came across his foray onto the Panda's Thumb last year. As I mentioned, Pellionisz cites as "evidence" for his claims the observation that Fugu has a smaller genome compared to 'higher' vertebrates and also has less arborized P-cells. Andrea Bottaro asks him to look at the lungfish, whose genome is some 10 times the size of our own, to see if they have 10X the arborization that human P-cells have.
Pellionisz's response was to engage in some ego-boosting and ranting but not once did he even mention testing his claims as Bottaro suggests. In fact, when it came up again later, Pellionisz only mentioned the guinea pig genome, which he declared to fulfill one of his 'predictions'. Apparently, he is afraid that the lungfish will negate the predictive power of his 'theory' (which he claims is true). Later, when pressed again, he punted, claiming that he believes that their larger genomes probaly have to do with metamorphosis and have nothing to do with the cerebellum... Cute, but it would clearly violate his claims re: the P-cells in Fugu, guinea pig and human. Not to mention the fact that lungfish do not undergo metamorphosis.

Later, it is pointed out that lots of people were research in junk DNA before he and his hero M. Simons came along, and that their claims of martyrdom were just to generate sympathy for their cause. Pellionisz responds to that by ignoring the fact that junk DNA research had been going on all along and instead merely trying to gain more sympathy by mentioning that Simons has a 'junk DNA-related' disease. Pellionisz also refers to promoter regions as "junkDNA", implying that research on such areas had 'also' been neglected. Such regions have been not only hypothesized but in fact known about for decades.

Also, when he was reminded that things like promoters had been discovered prior to Simons' work and that research into junk DNA had been going on all along, he disissed it by quoting a section from Brenner's Nobel speech in which he characterized junk DNA as useless. The speech was given in 1985.
Later in the comments, we see this:
" Perhaps he feels I have no right to comment, since my Ph.D. is in sociology, not science proper. But I must say, if my work in the sociology of science had played as fast and loose with historical accuracy as Dr. Pellionisz’s does, I would have been booted out of the program before I got my MA."

Indeed.

UPDATE UPDATE:

Pellionisz later (in the PT thread linked above) states:

"Since Malcolm (Simones, Pellionisz's 'partner') is widely known to be affected by a “Junk DNA disease” himself, after having pinned down that “junk was anything but” he is motivated having already spent two decades to finding out the best approach to what might exactly be the function that Darwinian theory actually required. "

More historical revisionism from Pellionisz. Simons published ZERO papers having anything to do with junk DNA or junk DNA diseases or anything until about 10 years after Zuckerkandl has identified promoters and hypoethesized about functionin junk DNA. Amazing.

*I am aware that only a few of the returns on those searches deal directly with the topic of arborization of P-cells, my point is there ARE other potential explanations which one can find by doing a little searching.

Republican Party in denial

2008-12-11T08:26:00.003-05:00

Amazing. I just listened to the chair of the Republican Natinal Committee claim on NPR that contrary to public opinion, the Republicans really have the best ideas on how to fix the economy (trickle down works!).
Further, he refused to address concerns from other republicans about the undue influence of the religious right.

Keep it up! The further they run to the right, the less they allow that their positions might not be the best, the more irrelevant they will be.

I really don't understand Conservatives

2008-11-15T13:03:00.003-05:00

At least not the politically active ones, be they advocates, pundits, spokespersons, or politicians themselves.

Read though a few 'analyeses' of this past election by them.

As usual, the blame game and revisionism is up and running at full speed in the right-wing fantasy land, where Obama's and the Democrat's victories, despite being above and beyond anything the Republicans have seen in decades, is diminished, where Bush's slimmer victories were heralded as 'mandates', Obama is already being blamed for the economic crisis despite not even being president yet, etc.

But what really baffles me is the notion, exhibited by many on the right including Sarah Palin, that republicans have to be MORE conservative to win again. They have to be MORE hawkish, MORE religious, MORE anti-immigrant, MORE tax-cuts for billionaires, MORE pro-death penalty, MORE in love with embryoes, MORE anti-Constitution, etc. That they must go FURTHER to the right because they somehow think that mainstream America is conservative like they are.

Are these folks for real?

Did they actually look at the election results?

Liddy Dole -right-wing bible nut W-is-my-hero lost in North Carolina!

Draft-deferment monger and reliable right-winger Saxby Chambliss won election to the senate with a 7% lead (at 53%) in 2002. This year, there will be a runoff election as nobody earned more than 50% of the vote.

Ted 'Felon' Stevens won his last election with 78% of the vote - this year, there is a re-count as it is too close to call, with his Democratic opponant holding a slight lead as of the writing of this post.

And so it goes. Even those conservative Republicans that held on to their seats did so with much less of a margin than in past elections, including Mitch McConnell, Wicker in Mississippi (winning his House seat with 66% of the vote in 2006, winning his senate seat this time with 55%), etc.

The "true" conservatives LOST their wide margins of victory, and in many cases LOST altogether.

Yet the true believers insist that to win, the party must go even further to the right!
It is like Robert E. Lee insisting that one more open field charge at Gettyburg would have won the battle for them*.

They keep saying that America is a center-right country, but this year's election says something different. The times are changing, and if the Conservative movement wants to survive, they are going to have to change, too.

Frankly, I've had enough of these people. I hope they DO go further to the right. I hope they DO put forth Palin as their presidential candidate next time around. She won't be able to hide from reporters as the Presidential candidate, and the more she opens her mouth, the more idiotic and incompetnet she makes herself out to be (which doesn't say much for the Alaskans who keep votinng for her). I hope they adopt a platform premised on a requirement that all Republicans must take an oath pledging to be biblical fundamentalists, to give tax cuts only to the wealthy (for we all kow how well trickle down works), to increase military spending and start more wars against the heathen, the execution of homosexuals and abortionists, the de-funding of public education, etc., etc., etc.

Let the rational people in this country - the REAL real Americans - see just how fucked up loony these people are so they can be officially marginalized - as they should be.

*Lee ordered an open-field charge (a march, really) by George Pickett's division (and others)- Pickett lost nearly half his division; Lee later ordered him to rally his division to defend the Confederate line, Pickett is said to have replied, "Sir, I have no Division."

Now that a Democrat is president....

2008-11-14T08:51:00.002-05:00

... with troops in the field, can we expect the Right to offer only unyielding support for his every decision?

After all, critics of W. were called traitors and the like for publicly disagreeing with the CinC while we are at war.

My guess is that they will suddenly abandon their pro-president 'principles'.

Because Conservatives' really have no principles.

Berlinski babbles on

2008-11-11T08:32:00.002-05:00

Pity that the poor poseur keeps getting pwned.

How ridiculous can this guy be?

The existence of mathematics is supportive of ID??

Come on....

But hey - the DI keeps paying him!

"Fair and Balanced"? Fake News?

2008-10-28T17:49:00.004-04:00

I have to laugh whenever I hear Fox News personalities carrying on about how 'fair and balanced' they are.

It is almost as if the pundits conflate actual news reporting - such as one might get with Shepard Smith (the one Fox News personality that retains some integrity) - with all of the propagandizing and agenda-pushing they do for the other 22 hours a day.

Here for example.

You can see 'anchor' Megyn Kelly getting indignant that Bill Burton states the truth - that their recent anti-Obama gibberish (such as the "B girl" hoax, which unfortunately was not mentioned) was a Fox embellishment/concoction.

She mentions that only 36% of news stories on other networks are positive for McCain.

As if there is some reason that all stations should have an exactly equal number of positive and negative stories about all political figures (this, let us remember, is the network that runs Obama=terrorist nonsense around the clock).

Let us consider this possibility - other networks report only 36% favorable stories on McCain because, I don't know, maybe the McCain campaign is 64% crap and lies and nonsense?

These people are just plain insane, and anyone that thinks Fox News really is "Fair and Balanced" should have their little pinheads examined.

Curious - Megyn didn't mention this poll, also done by Pew, showing that Fox news viewers are basically idiots.

Collin B., yet again....

2008-10-21T20:11:00.002-04:00

Collin the photographer had posted a reply (presented below in toto) to an exchange we had earlier (our initial exchanges on this blog are here).

I took a bit of a blogging break, and actually forgot about his histrionics, but now have gotten around ot this stuff.

My replies interspersed with Collin's claims:

***************************************************************************

Questions
on Evolutionary Theory, part II
In the first part I raised a question. In the follow-up I tried to clarify the question. In both instances the question was open to correction.

Well, not quite. Yes, you posed a 'question', but the question was exceptionally wrong-headed. When I pointed this out, you asked MORE wrong-headed questions, then got indignant. Open to correction? Hardly.

But so far no intelligent responses have been gleaned from the posts. It's sad because Doppelganger claims to be a PhD in the field yet remains anonymous to the world.

Yes, it is just a 'claim.' Must be. I remain semi-anonymous so I don't have mouth-breathing lunatics harrass my colleagues and superiors, like what happens to folks like PZ Myers.
Of course, the fact is that I corrected your misconceptions and answered you as was warranted. You didn't like the answers, so you insult me and ignore them. That is what creatinists do.

I think there is cause to question this in light of unanswered questions. I
don't mind being wrong. In fact, if I am wrong, I want to be shown precisely how
I am wrong.

No you don't. I showed you how and why you were wrong. You just kept rambling on with the same erroneous tripe. One can follow the links to see the exchanges, but I will offer but 1 example from our exchanges after my May 10 blog post. You had initially written that you felt there were millions of 'trait changes' between humans and chimps. I asked you to name 1000 of these millions. Your response was to claim that you thought there were more than 1000 trait changes!
You apparently cannot even understand the words written in response to your claims, how do you expect to be able to understand technical responses?

One would hope for civility, but alas Doppelganger would rather insult the
questioner than construct a meaningful and substantive response.

Ah yes, it is always the 'civility' issue. If only I were so civil, Collin would have admitted that his claims and 'questions' were bogus and accepted the informaiton I gave him.

So let's revisit the second post and change the question to something more
precise:
Give me the genetic changes in reverse that would take humans back
to the rodent stage, per the current model? (re: To the Yucatan impact of 65mya
fromhumans today.)It's a simple enough question -- what precisely happened? Not
what might have happened or what could have happened (which, when you read the
posts that came before, is all I got -- possibility, but neither probability nor
historical fact.) Don't give me a model. I've read that stuff. Give me the
detail? Is it there or not? Or is your "proof" a workable model but not a
working history?

Details? Details on all of the genetic changes that occurred between modern humans and the 'rodent' stage - and this is supposed to be a rational, reasonable 'question'?
Imagine - I was actually providinng tentative answers! How horrible! I guess Collin is more used to absolutist proclamations that the standard tentative nature of a scientific answer was interpreted as ignorance. Poor Collin, so confused and out of his league...
Of course, what Collin the creationist has done is set up a perfect little win-win scenario - he pretends to have produced a reasonable, rational 'question'. If I try to answer it, he will reject the answer by asking more. If I don't answer it, he will claim victory. Of course, none of this negates the fact that his request is silly - we do not and cannot know what the genome of the 'rodent stage' was.

The best we can do is compare a modern human with a modern rodent. That would produce an approximation of the changes that have occurred in BOTH lineages since they last shared a common ancestor. But since that woul dnot specifically address Collin's 'question', he will reject it.

As a commenter on Collin's blog prsented, he asked for the impossible, and I add, that he doesn't even know why it is impossible.

But I have to wonder - if I produce a pairwise DNA sequence alignment for a mouse gene and it's human homologue, point out the differences, and deduce what the 'original' sequence might have been, would Collin accept that?

The word is NUC-LE-AR!!!!

2008-10-03T12:17:00.002-04:00

Amazing...

Caught some of the vice presidential debate last night and Palin pronounces the word nuclear incorrectly just like moron Bush does - nuculer.

Is being stupid the new requisite for being a NeoCon politician?

Why so many Yellow Elephants?

2008-09-21T13:15:00.003-04:00

A Yellow Elephant is essentially a conservative republican that advocates military action yet has not or will not enlist themselves.

I came across this list, and it says much (any emphases mine):

==============================
Democrats
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, etc
Jimmy Carter: Lt. Commander in the Navy 1946-53
Wesley Clark: Army 1966-2000, Vietnam, Silver star, purple heart
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver/Bronze stars, Vietnam
Bill Clinton: Did not serve
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze star
Michael Dukakis: Army 1955-57
John Edwards: Did not serve
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs; Air Medal w/18 Clusters
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam as journalist
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74
Howell Heflin: Silver star
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze star
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver/Bronze stars, purple hearts
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII
Jim McDermott: Navy 1968-70
George McGovern: Silver star & DFC during WWII
Zell Miller: Marine Corps, 1953-56
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-53
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver star, etc
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze star, Korea
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-79; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
Chuck Robb: U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart

Republicans
Spencer Abraham: Did not serve
Eliot Abrams: Did not serve
Richard Armitage: Navy, three tours in Vietnam
John Ashcroft: Did not serve
Roy Blunt: Did not serve
Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve
George H.W. Bush: Youngest Navy pilot in WW II; awarded DFC
George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; didn't take physical; suspended from flying
Jeb Bush: Did not serve
Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Cleland's patriotism
Dick Cheney: Did not serve
Christopher Cox: Did not serve
Tom DeLay: Did not serve
Bob Dole: Army in WWII, Bronze star, two purple hearts
Bob Dornan: Enlisted after fighting was over in Korea
John Engler: Did not serve
Douglas Feith: Did not serve
Gerald Ford: Lt. Commander, Navy in WWII
Bill Frist: Did not serve
Newt Gingrich: Did not serve
Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer
Phil Gramm: Did not serve
Chuck Hagel: Served in Vietnam, two Bronze stars and purple heart
Dennis Hastert: Did not serve
Tim Hutchison: Did not serve
Jack Kemp: Did not serve. "Knee problem," continued in NFL for 8 years
Jon Kyl: Did not serve
Trent Lott: Did not serve
Richard Lugar: Intelligence officer in Navy 1957-60
John McCain: POW in Vietnam, Legion of Merit, Silver star, DFC, many more
Mitch McConnell: Did not serve
John McHugh: Did not serve
George Pataki: Did not serve
Richard Perle: Did not serve
Colin Powell: 35 years in Army, 4-star general
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
Ronald Reagan: Served in WWII making movies
Tom Ridge: Army in Vietnam, Bronze star
Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve
Karl Rove: Did not serve
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor
Rick Santorum: Did not serve
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base
Richard Shelby: Did not serve
JC Watts: Did not serve
Vin Weber: Did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve

Pundits, Preachers, and Judges
Bill Bennett: Did not serve
Wolf Blitzer: Did not serve
Pat Buchanan: Did not serve
William Buckley: Army in WWII
Charlie Daniels: Did not serve
Lou Dobbs: Did not serve
Paul Gigot: Did not serve
Sean Hannity: Did not serve
Bill Kristol: Did not serve
Jim Lehrer: U.S. Marine Corps
Rush Limbaugh: Did not serve
Chris Matthews: Did not serve
Michael Medved: Did not serve
Ted Nugent: Did not serve
Bill O'Reilly: Did not serve
Dan Rather: Army Reserve
Ralph Reed: Did not serve
Michael Savage: Did not serve
Antonin Scalia: Did not serve
Kenneth Starr: Did not serve
Clarence Thomas: Did not serve
John Wayne: Did not serve
George Will: Did not serve
=================================

See a trend?

Clearly, this list is not exhaustive and not all-inclusive. But the names on it are chosen wisely.

Sean Hannity - blowhard, coward

2008-09-21T12:29:00.007-04:00

On a whim, I signed up for the Sean Hannity Discussion forum today.

I went to the 'America at War' board, and made the following post:

title:

Did Hannity serve in the military?

body:

I was just curious as to whether his uber-patriotism has teeth.

A mere 6 minutes later, I went back to the forum to see if anyone had replied.

As I logged in, I got the follwong message:

You have been banned for the following reason:Troll / Contempt of Host
Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Imagine that....

Well, it is true that I have nothing but contempt for phony-patriot Hannity and his moronic fans, but it seemed to me that my question was pretty tame.

Of course, this is how conservatives maintain their facades - by controlling and quashing dissent. Even if such 'dissent' is little more than asking a relevant question, the answer to which may not act to add to the sheen on the Hero's Halo...

Must be a touchy subject for the fragile-ego'd Hannity.

He is a coward, no two ways about it.

John McCain has no Honor

2008-09-21T11:47:00.002-04:00

There was a time, many many years ago, when I would have actually considered voting for McCain. That was when I, like os manh people, actually believed the claimed 'maverick' status for him. Had I been better informed back then, I would have seen the he did not deserve the label - going against your party on one or two issues does not make you a maverick.

Being in Congress for 26 years does not make you a maverick. Voting with Bush 90% of the time does not make you a maverick. Calling Bush's tax cuts something he could not support in "good conscience" one year, then a few years later, while still at war, claiming that he would try to make them permanent, does not make you a maverick.
I could go on.

But for me, as a veteran, what I find perhaps the most deplorable - not the flip flops, not the lying, not the pandering - is the constant harping on his POW history.

It is as if they want us to think that because he was a POW, he is superhuman. He is the most qualified to be president (nevermind that the folks who are telling us this today, were telling us that this made him unstable and perhaps made him a traitor when he ran against Bush). He is excused for being such an out of touch millionaire elitist that he doesn't know how many mansions he owns.

This is disgusting.

This is pathetic.

This is disgraceful.

It seems every time he makes an ass out of himself, he pulls out the POW card. 'What's that? I flip flopped on issue X? Well you see, when I was a POW, I didn't even HAVE X!'

Give me a break, McCain.

Using your history as a POW to score political points, in my book, removes your cloak of Honorable service.
You are a disgrace and an embarrassment to the men who sacrificed for their country and are NOT using that sacrifice as a means of securing cheap political points and to cloud issues and to sway the ignorant rubes for whom bumpersticker patriotism is REAL patriotism.

These are the acts not of an American Hero, but an American Idiot.

For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee...

Sarah Palin - Right Wing Lying Loony

2008-09-14T10:27:00.005-04:00

While Palin's indiscretions and embellished personal history have not been secret for some time, the New York Times finally had the guts to print, on page 1, an expose of Palin and her antics. The caption for a picture reads, in part:

Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who
crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance.

Which means she is a lot like George Bush:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on
loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal
e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The
New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Nice. More Star Chamber sleaze.

Add to her description 'ignorant' (she thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance); religious nut (thinks God wanted the war in Iraq and is a Young Earth Creationist); and lying sack of stool (she STILL claims to have opposed the 'bridge to nowhere'), and she is W with a skirt.

Brief return - Collin Brendemuehl is upset that he is so wrong about things...

2008-07-17T14:17:00.002-04:00

Poor Collin Brendemuehl. Having been repeatedly humiliated at multiple blogs, he decided to try mine on for size, and it didn't go too well for him.

He had asked a couple of 'wrong' questions about evolution - wondered 'are there' "10 million" random changes were that were required to explain human evolution from a rodent-like ancestor. I explained that the questions did not even make sense. He didn't like that. He 'allowed' that it might only be 1 million. I asked him to name just 1000 of the 'trait changes' he believes exist. Ultimately, he could produce only those listed below, all dealing with the same structure, most of which are likley goverened by but a few genes. After several rounds of Collin trying to change subjects, dodge questions, and accusing me of all manner of things, I told Collin that until he decided to actually address the original issues, I would not allow more of his comments here. He called it 'censorship.'

I left the following reply (I've cleaned up a few typos):

Hilarious hubris...
I guess you ignored the parts where I explaiend that the 'parts' you seem to think require their own specific sets of mutations are actually all part of the same structure (a limb, for example) and I provided you a real example of how ALL those things can be affected by a single mutation.
In fact, I specifically countered each of your supposed structures and physiological issues, but you bailed.
Regarding an arm, you naively believed the following:

1. circulatory system
2. bone structure
3. muscles
4.
skin
5. foot/hand

Each of these has a variety of qualities that need
to change. Let'slist
a few. There are more, but this is a good
start.

1. circulatory system
1.1 Vessel size
1.2 vessel
capacity
1.3 valve strength
1.4 elasticity
2. bone structure
2.1
formulation
2.2 thickness
2.3 marrow capacity
2.4 strength
3.
muscles
3.1 tendon strength
3.2 size
3.3 strength
3.4
oxygenation
4. skin
4.1 sweat capacity
4.2 elasticity
4.3 hair
capacity
4.4 coloration
5. foot/hand
5.1 Shape
5.2 Nails
5.3
Surface
5.4 Thumb behavior

I provided the example of the FGFR-3 mutation in humans producing dwarfism that affects ALL of those things. ONE SINGLE mutation. I explicitly did not give that as an example of evolution, rather, as an example of how gene changes can ilicit major phenotypic changes.
ADDED COMMENT: But then, you insisted that getting a nail from a claw was a "major" phenotypic change requiring many mutations.
I explained how several of those 'individual' changes were actually
essentially the same thing - changing a vessels size will affect it's capacity;
making abone larger increases it's "marrow capacity", etc. To no
avail.

A rational person might want to quit while they are ahead.

And by the way - even if we are generous and grant that the 20 things you mention are legitimate individual changes each requiring their own suite of mutations (which they are not), YOU said there were MILLIONS, and I asked you to provide 1000.
You have 980 more to go. But I suspect that they, too, would all fall under the same umbrella of multiple changes that really are not multiple changes.
It is too bad that an untrained internet pseudoexpert cannot realize his limitations and actually acknowledge the possibility that he might not be up to snuff on the things he rants about.
Too much to ask, I suppose.
And by the way - discretion is not censorship. Post something of substance, and it will get through.

Internet creationist types also seem to like to try to imply - or state outright - that professors and such have some sort of obligation to put up with trollish behavior and address all manner of shallow nonsense presented as unasailable truth. Collin writes:

Now, if the terms I used were too colloquial, the list was certainly subject to
correction and clarification. A Ph. D. scientist should be able to competently
accomplish that.

Um, OK, well, the names were certainly colloquial enough, but that was hardly the issue, as I explained.
I can only imagine what he would have written if I had provided the anatomically-correct terms for each of the structures he had referred to - let me guess, I would have been labelled an elitist? I would have been accused of trying to embarrass the poor creationist? I would have been accused of trying to cloud the issues with minutiae?
In the end, clarification of terminology is the least of Collin's problems.

Ho hum... Back to vacation...

I agree with Wes CLark

2008-06-30T12:44:00.003-04:00

Retired General Wesley Clark stated recently that "... being shot down" doesn't qualify McCain to be commander in chief, and the McCain camp is "outraged."

But the problem is, it is the truth.

I have read that McCain finished in the bottom 1-2% of his class at Annapolis. That he lost 5 aircraft during his career - only once to enemy action. That is what is referred to as a 'Black Ace' (a feat shared with right-wing nutjob Bob Dornan, who used to brag about his stint as a fighter pilot - never mentioned that he somehow managed to stay stateside during Viet Nam and lost 5 planes while he was at it).

McCain's service is honorable. But getting shot down doesn't make you a hero, nor does it make you more qualified to be CinC than anyone else, especially when you intend to follow the failed policies of the Bush administration....

hiatus

2008-06-04T17:44:00.002-04:00

I've recently taken on additional duties at my place of employment, and so am taking a break from blogging (not that I was super active in the first place). I will placing comments on moderation so as to avoid junk posts and spam from accumulating.

See ya!

No wonder so many rubes find quacks believable....

2008-05-26T11:08:00.005-04:00

They don't know any better, and are easily swayed by legitimate-sounding arguments.

Well, duh... This is old news when it comes ot health-related issues. But for those of us interested in the so-called 'creation-evolution debate', it is not only old news, this folksy 'common sense' approach to technical issues it is one of the biggest pains in the neck we see.

I was perusing some old posts at the ISCID Brainstorms forum, a place where pro-ID creationists get together to pat each other on the back for no real reason. It was supposedly established, as the name implies, as a place where 'ID theorists' could come together to, well, brainstorm about 'Intelligent Design' and such. It quickly turned into the usual place where non-scientist creationists gathered to badmouth evolution. It died on the vine, more or less, as did the entire site (see this list of forums there, and look at the dates of last activity).

Anyway, I was perusing some old threads there, and the arguments of a creationist asthma researcher, Peter Borger, impressed at least one of the non-science types there:

“Can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?”
Zachriel [a biologist] wrote:
Nothing has been persuasive that evolution doesn't occur, or that it does
not continue to act as the unifying theory of biology.

From a perspective outside the field of biology PB's argument is persuasive...

Emphasis mine.

Funny how that works... A biologist says that none of the biolgy-related arguments he's seen are convincing, a non-biologist says that from outside of biology, they do.

PB's [Peter Borger's] argument is essentially that redundant genes falsify evolution, among other silly things.
No wonder so many people find the yammerings of creationists with biology-related degrees persuasive - they don't know any better because they are not biologists!

Well, duh...

HEY "Andrew"! Where's your website?

2008-05-12T20:46:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, some chump calling himself "Andrew" left the following comment in response to a post pointing out IDcreationist Sal Cordova's dishonesty:

slp, why do you have to be such an asshole?
I won't say YOU are lying, I just "lack belief" in your claims.

I guess 'Andrew' has a soft spot (or maybe it is a hard spot?) for his little sycophantic buddy Sal Cordova...
Clicking on 'Andrew's' blogger profile, you get a link to this website, The Brites, formerly run by IDcreationist and Baylor engineer Robert Marks, apparently as an attempt at parody or humor or something, which is now defunct. As of just a few days ago, when a particularly obnoxious pro-IDcreationist commenter at the Uncommon Descent blog calling itself 'Galapagos Finch' was 'outed' as being Marks.

And he thinks I am an asshole?

Sorry Bobby - you and your pals Sternberg, Dembski, et al. have got that market cornered.

Not a biologist? Not even a scientist? No biggie - all it takes to 'refute' evolution is a 'few years' of looking into it on your own...

2008-05-09T13:55:00.002-04:00

Or so banker and YEC cultist RK Bentley will have you believe:

OK, so you know that I’ve long since given up on evolution. After looking into
it for a few years, I realize the whole idea is untenable.

Oh, sure. Thats all it takes. A few years of looking into it... So, if I look into the bible for a few years and conclude that it is nonsense, my conclusions are valid, too?

His 'biography' on the right hand side of his blog says it all, really:

I don't believe evolution; it's that simple. I do believe in the account of
creation as described in Genesis. On this blog, I will discuss arguments 1) for
creation, 2) against evolution, and 3) the social/political topics surrounding
the issue.
Any aspect of the evolution/creation debate is fair game.
I'm not a scientist so please don't expect lengthy, technical
posts. These are intended for consumption by the ordinary person. But
though my posts may not be technical, I take great care to insure they are
accurate.
Rest assured I will gore many of the sacred bulls of staunch
evolutionists. I've donned my extra-thick-skin to prepare for the
insults soon to be directed at me. My objective though, is not to simply cast
aspersion but to change minds.
Your feedback is welcome. Honest, sincere questions may be the subject of
future blogs. Red Herrings will be dealt with appropriately. Insults will be
ignored for the most part - except perhaps to be used as examples of the lack of
substance in many evolutionists' arguments.

Humble, these people are not.
Of course, we shouldn't expect there to be much 'debate' on his blog - he moderates comemnts and seems to ignore the substantive comments he does let through.

Typical.

If it is enough to 'convict' Haeckel, it should be enough to 'convict' Dembski et al.

2008-05-08T15:22:00.006-04:00

Ernst Haeckel, of "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" fame, gets pretty rough treatment from creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. Essentially, Haeckel embellished his drawings of embryoes to make his particular hypothesis seem more 'right' - 130+ years ago. Textbooks often use his drawings (or renditions of them) to illustrate certain points. Time was, they were used to support his hypothesis. Now, they are generally used to demonstrate an historical example of rushing to judgement. Actual pictures of embryoes are more often used now, when they are available, and demonstrate that while Haeckel's original claims were not entirely correct, vertebrate embryoes do, in fact, bear striking resemblances to one another, especially early in development.

But this is only part of the story.

The rest is that creationists and their kind use this as an example of, among other things, how evolutionists supposedly lie to support their theory; how shoddy evolutionist scholarship is, since many textbooks still use the photos (they usually don't talk about HOW they are used); etc. They like to villify Haeckel and in the process, find evolution as a theory 'guilty' by association.

Now, let us consider another, shall we say, inaccurate representation of a biological entity, used to promote a paricular hypothesis.

This particular entity is represented as a perfectly symmetrical machine-like structure. Its parts are invariably shown intertwining with intricate precision. When animations of it working are produced it is always shown operating smoothly and precisely. In the presentations of IDcreationists, it looks like this:

Note the manafactured appearance of its parts - smooth, perfect angles, beautiful engineering, right? Well, that is the intended effect. What does one of these things REALLY look like?

Well, not quite like that.

Here are a few examples:

from Shahid Khan, Imran Humayun Khan, and Thomas S. Reese, 1991; "New Structural Features of the Flagellar Base in Salmonella typhimurium Revealed by Rapid-Freeze Electron Microscopy." Journal of Bacteriology 173:2888-09

Here is a 3-D model of the hook region as determined from molecular content:

Not quite the structures the IDcreationists like to present as their 'designed' argument, is it? No smooth interlocking subunits, no washer-like flat plates, etc.

The closest one can come to the stylized IDcreationist version is this:

But that is actually a composite picture, not an actual micrograph.

Of course, even if it did look just like that, we have to remember the scale we are looking at. The above structure is very, very small (less than 100 nanometers across - that is, less than 100 billionths of a meter), and when you get to this scale, molecules can only go together so many ways.
I remember the first time I saw a micrograph of a T7 bacteriophage I thought to myslef, 'That looks man-made.' Why? All those angles, those 'legs', etc. After some reading, however, I discovered that its shape is just the result of the interactions of the proteins that make it up. The shape is a byproduct of this interaction not a plan.

Anyway...

Why should the unrealistic portrayals of the flagellum by ID creationists NOT be considered just as 'dishonest' and those that use it to sway opinion not just as worthy of vilification as Haeckel was when he embellished his drawings?

Are people like Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Wells, etc. not doing the same thing Haeckel did? I would argue what they are doing is WORSE than what Haeckel did - it is likely that the optical quality of the microscopes of Haeckel's time lent to his 'embellishments' (think 'canals on Mars'), while the IDcreationists of today know full well that fancy, colorful computer-generated idealized/sytlized models are inaccurate representations, but they just keep on using them.

Why the double standard?

Why do these self-proclaimed Christians so readily - eagerly - engage in such deceptive practices?

*Hat tip to Monado at Science Notes...., and for other information to Mark Perakh at TalkReason.

What does a ceationist blogger do when one questions his claims regarding something he clearly knows little about?

2008-05-01T12:02:00.003-04:00

Why, he labels your posts "trolling", of course. And throws in an accusation that you are nto doing your homework, to boot.

Next step? Censorship... I can't wait!

See it all going down here. Some of you might find the blogger's name familiar - Collin Brendemuehl.

Here is how it is going so far, blog commments only (I've omitted comments by anyone but myself and Brendemuehl for brevity). What Brendemuehl wrote is in italics:

Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument.

Why not use a rational number instead of one that you pulled form thin air, most likely as a means of 'proving' what you already "believe"? You say you present the 10 million figure just for the sake of argument, but do you really think that there are 10 million substantive trait differences between a mouse-like rodent and a human? What are they? Can you make a list of, say, 1,000?My bet is that you cannot do even half that before you start repeating yourself.

So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!

When you establish unrealistic ground rules, of course your results will
look silly. That was your intent, was it not?

Let's try another route: Lucy is 3.9 million years old and (again, for the sake of argument) pretty close to human structure. That means very few changes from Lucy to today and a greater number of generational changes from Yucatan to Lucy. Again, not enough time!

A baseless assertion devoid of logic or rationale, and premsied on a totally fabricated foundation. Wonderful argumentation!
9:40 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:It is a hypothetical.But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000.

I had asked you to name 1000 of the millions of changes you believe exist. You did not even try. You see no 'reasonable' way to get a human rom a rodent in 1000 trait changes, but you ave not even explained what you mean by trait. You are just tossing big numbers around as if they mean something. And what ARE the trait changes you speak of, and how many mutations would it take to produce them? You seem to know. You think that there are 'millions' of trait changes between humans and rodents, yet you cannot even list a few of them. I was not saying that there ARE 1000, I was asking if you could actually list 1000 of the millions you say exist.

10M is not an unreasonable hypothetical figure when you talk about the complexity of genetics.

10 M what? Trait changes? Please explain what you mean by a trait. But sure, let us talk about the complexity of genetics. I just taught the genetics unit in my anatomy class this past week. Again I ask - How many mutations are requred to produce specific trait changes, as you call them? Do all trait changes require the same number of mutational changes? I fail to see why 10 M mutations is a 'reasonable amount' devoid of any rationale or explanation. Oh - and are we talking about fixed beneficial mutations, or phenotype-altering mutations in general?

But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.

Of course it is not simple. There is nearly no limit to what direction an evolutionary process could take. But human from rodent was not a goal. In fact, there is NO goal at all. What we see is simply what happened.

That's a field in which you are apparently strong. But for the sake of *your* position let's say it's a mere 1M. That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations.

Please show some of these 'neo-Darwinian' calculations you speak of. Where did you get your generation numbers from? You will need to establish, in order for your positon to have any merit, at the very least:
1. How many trait differences in 'kind' and not degree there actually are e.g., changes in the density of hair on the skin is a difference in degree, hair from no hair is a difference in 'kind'; differences in degree can be caused by neutral variation and other non-beneficial changes).

2. How many mutations would have been required for each such change.

It would also be helpful to know the population sizes involved and the generation times of the ancestral groups, but 1 and 2 above are the bare minumum that your position must have in order to be taken seriously at all. Simply 'not believing' it is insufficient.

Again, the numbers, even your more modest numbers, don't seem to add up.

I'm sorry - I provided no numbers. YOU did.

Now, if you enlighten me (the post was clear about my wish to hear a real alternative (see paragraph 2), I'm all ears. But make it realistic, please.

An alternative to what?I am unsure why a greater requisite for realism is placed on me when your numbers appear to have been pulled from thin air and to be premised not on any knowledge of genetics, but on an awe of large numbers. Rodents diverged from the rest of the placental mammals some 80 million years ago (depending on the source and the specific branching pattern employed, between 55-125 MYA). In terms of real anatomy and physiology, there is relatively little in terms of 'new' traits that primates possess that rodents do not.If there really are 10 M 'trait changes', what are they? And why is 80 odd million years not enough time?You cannot just toss out numbers and call it an argument.
6:57 PM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
I'm wanting to see "the work" where the number of necessary changes are clarified and the changes are identified.

That does not appear to be what you wrote in your blog post. YOU presented numbers of changes, YOU should identify them and then explain how many mutations would be required to produce them. It is YOUR argument.

That is why I raised a hypotheticall and asked for a clarification as to the reliability of such an estimation.

I'd say that the 'estimation' is orders of magnitude off. It is folly to claim that there are some certain number of traits to account for when no real definition of 'trait' is provided or suggested.

My assertion is for the purpose of gaining clarification. I'm *wanting* someone to show any real or apparent error and not just say that it's wrong.

Why is pointing out the wrongness wrong? I do not pretend to know exactly how many trait differences there are between humans and a rodent ancestor in part because I do not know what traits the rodent ancestor possessed. Do you?
But I do not feel that unless someone proves me wrong, I can make any assertion I want to on the subject. Human and mouse genomes differ by some 60%, 10x the difference between humans and chimps. This number is right about what would be expected had humans and mice diverged for a common ancestral population about 75 MYA ( see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5683/525.pdf). So what exactly are you looking to get corrected on specifically?
7:14 PM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
You asked me to name 10M changes?

Do you read the things you reply to? I ask in all sincerity, for I specifically asked - and later reiterated - if you could name 1,000 of the 10 M you proposed. I don't think that is too much to ask.

How many gene changes for walking upright?

Good question. Do you know? If not, it seems to me that tossing out numbers like 10 M are just BS.

For arms, hands, size, shape, intellect.

Do mice not have arms? Hands (as such)? This is why I asked about
differences in kind and not degree. Mouse forepaws have the same basic skeletal structure as a human hand does, just in different proportions and a slightly different configuration. How many mutations did it require to get a mouse-like forepaw to a human-like hand? Couldn't tell you, but personally, I would not feel comfortable tossing out numbers if I did not have a good reason to do so.

The minimalist approach of classic Darwinism is inadequate.

So you say, but do you really think just making things up is adequate?
Allow me to provide an example of why I do not believe some enormous number of beneficial mutational changes are required to alter the basic vertebrate body plan. I do not present this as an example of evolution, nor as an example of a beneficial mutation. I merely present it as an example of how small genetic changes can produce large phenotypic differences. There is a gene in humans that encodes one of the receptors for fibroblast growth factor. This particular gene is called FGFR-3. A single point mutation in this gene that alters an amino acid produces a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is not a developmental 'programming' gene like the HOX genes, it is just a gene for a receptor that would be found on certain types of cells.
Yet this mutation produces disproportionate limb growth, reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, and characteristic facial features. All from one little single nucleotide change. Now imagine what sorts of changes could occur as the result of minor changes in genes associated with, say, pelvis formation or neocortex growth. There is a big difference between gross genome structure changes and the acquisition of beneficial mutations.
8:21 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
We know that "arm" is not a simple 1-gene change. You have bone
structure, muscle structure, vessel structure, valves, everything including the
attributes of strength, size, shape, color, etc., with the various nuances of
each such as thickness, cell structure, etc.

I guess you missed the very informative point in my last reply - a single
point mutation in one gene altered ALL of those things in the limbs and head of the individual. You do NOT, in fact, need specific mutations to alter every part of a limb. That is just naive folk science.

Set up a chart and you'll see that 1000 is a very small
number.

A chart of what?

These things, it is proposed, came very gradually over millions of years. I'm merely suggesting that the proposed amount of time is inadequate.

I know, and you have offered exactly ZERO rationale, evidence, of
explanation for your position. You just toss out a huge number and say that there is not enough time. Sure you obliquely refer to some 'Darwinism calculations' or whatever it was, but you don't say what those are even after I asked for clarification. Your implied position on the apparent need for mutations for each and every part of an arm, for example, is not premised on any real understanding of genetics or development, rather a 'folk science' belief about how genes and organisms operate. You will continue to 'disbelieve' in the issue until you actually make an attempt to understand what it is really about.

Classic Darwinism is based on observation and, as I said, is
simplistic. The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.

I see no relevance to anything for that statement.

It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical
changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory
supposes.

Did you even try to understand the points I made? You might be better
off getting your information on genetics, development, and evolution from actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists than from religious philosophers (Plantinga)and the like. Your replies are disjointed and you do not even attempt to address the details. It is almost as if you don't really want the answers you claim to.
But maybe I am wrong, and you will soon provide a list of trait changes
between the LCA of rodents and humans, how many mutations would have been required to get those changes, etc.
12:31 PM
Collin Brendemuehl said...
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the
work. Your trolling is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
5:22 PM

Boonton said...
Pot, Kettle, Black
9:07 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin comically writes:
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the work. Your trolling
is tiresome. Enjoy your week.

How quaint, how creationist. Collin, my doctorate is in Anatomy and Cell Biology and my graduate research was on the molecular evolution of primates. My papers are cited by the Tree of Life web project and one of my papers has been cited more than all of Dembski's and Wells' actual peer reviewed publications combined. That I do not accept your bland, unsupported assertions at face value is not a rational excuse for accusing me of 'trolling' and not understanding the issues. It is not my fault that your ignorance of development and genetics and evolution has led you to propose absurd scenarios and even more absurd 'challenges'. If you feel that labelling my comments as trolling is a good way to avoid admitting that you are in over your head, well, so be it. Pride and hubris seem to be requisite qualities for internet creationists. I took the time to check out your comments on Brayton's and Rosenhouse's blogs, and it would appear that only one of us qualifies as a troll, and it is not me.
If you ever feel able to actually produce valid, meaningful numbers for
your scenarios as opposed to things pulled out of thin air and premised on a poor understanding of biology, or worse, on your understanding of the issues via creationist books and essays, let me know and I will gladly discuss it with you.
Until then, I plan to document this exchange on my blog.
9:32 AM

Lots of irony and hypocrisy in there so far....

Note - Brendemuehl has also accused the other active commenter there of trolling. Apparently, the creationist uses this tactic of labelling and accusing people of trolling when he realizes that he can no longer keep up with the level of technical sophistication sought by his opponants.

Ben Stein is a degenerate moron

2008-05-01T11:54:00.002-04:00

In my opinion, of course.

Stein, whose claim to fame is being the boring guy who said, "Bueller... Bueller" in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and, of course, beinga speechwriter for Richard Nixon, had the following to say about scientists on some silly religious program, in an interview with televangelist Paul Crouch:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers
[i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was
thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them
what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that
was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this
is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch:
That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads
you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing
people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.

Ben Stein, you are an idiot.

Cordova, up to his dishonest antics... as usual...

2008-04-08T13:19:00.002-04:00

I came across a couple of examples (not new things, just old things I hadn't seen before) of creationist Slavador Cordova's sickeningly dishonest antics today.

In one example, he shows up and posts a response to a post on Mark Chu-Carroll's blog which has been inactive for over a month, and when, 2 days later, nobody had replied, he trumpeted it on a creationist blog as some sort of victory.

The other example - well, many examples, actually - are in a series of exchanges at the Panda's Thumb. If you can stomach such things, check out 'Slimy Sal's' sickening sleaze-fest...

Creationists like Cordova do not seem to have any decency or honesty at all.

From their silly and spurious attacks on someone who died over 100 years ago...

Apparently such operations were too much for Darwin’s feeble brain, but perhaps I should not make light of the fact Darwin was not well endowed with the kind of mind like that of mathematician Bill Dembski who could make such calculations in his sleep.
...It would appear then, Darwin did not have as much brain power as Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, nor even lil’ ole me. That’s pretty pathetic...
So, I’ll kindly remind my critics that if they view me as an imbecile, by way of
inference, in light of Darwin’s math skills, Darwin was an even greater imbecile. And that’s pretty pathetic if a YEC has substantially more brain power than Charles Darwin….

as if Darwin's math skills had anything at all to do with his collecting and interpreting evidence, something that the 'math genius' creationists Cordova all but gets an erection over could not do with the help of a tutor.

...To their unwarranted elevation of the status of their fellow creationists:

outlined the basic mathematical reasoning here (inspired by YEC Cornell Professor and renowned geneticist, John Sanford):

'Renowned' geneticist? Here's the funny thing about that - He is known for breeding raspberries or something, and has a few patents, not for any groundbreaking research. He is also a young earth creationist. He is only renowned in the minds of drooling sycophantic liars like Cordova.

One should wonder why 'Christians' like Cordova engage in thses deceptive and dishonest practices.

Salvador Cordova and Frank Tipler, morons for Christ

2008-04-01T12:45:00.002-04:00

This is too much... A religious physicist (Tipler) writes something really stupid, and a creationist zealot (Cordova) hails it as amazing!

See for yourself:

For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent
with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really
cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific
kinds of sub-atomic events. He details his research in Physics
of Christianity..

So, I have to wonder - did Tipler the theoretical physicist, whose good buddy and sometimes co-author John Barrow once declared that biologists are not scientists, do much "research" on basic biology? Or don't super-duper smart theoretical physicists with creationist leanings have to bother with actually undetrstanding that sort of thing when they write silly pro-religion, pseudoscience books?

Here's a clue for you two wizards - a human with two X chromosomes is a female.
XX = female

Granted, there is a rare syndrome in which a male can be XX (XX male syndrome), but this is a defect - the result of abnormal crossing-over during meiosis. It results in sterility, abnormal penis and teste development, gyneconmastia, and effeminate characteristics. Does Tipler really want to claim that about his Lord and Savior?

Not to mention that original reports state that XY blood was found, not XX (and if it hjad been XX, how could they tell it had been a male?). Why would it matter?

Well, if Jesus was really born of a virgin, according to Tipler's folk biology/theology, He would have had to have been XX, since Mary would have been XX, and the only outcome of this is an effeminate, gynecomstic infertile man with an abnormal penis and small testes.

All Hail the Son of God!

And Cordova, the BS in physics/engineer creationist, while not enthusiastic about it, reports on it favorably... Anything for the cause, I suppose.

This site goes into more detail on Tipler's nutty claims, including providing this somewhat comical quote from his XX-Jesus chapter:

The full results of the DNA testing of the Shroud were published, he [Tipler] says, in an obscure Italian journal, which included "a computer output of the DNA analyzer."

A computer output of the DNA analyzer... Hmmm.... That is a bit like someone describing a picture taken through a telescope as "an optical output of the far-away object viewer."

Amateur...

Conservatives: Monumentally stupid or monumentally dishonest?

2008-03-27T11:54:00.002-04:00

Or maybe a little of each? Or perhaps just plain deluded?

You be the judge.

Not only do they seem to be utterly ignorant of history*, but they demonstrate their true disdain for the military that they pretend to love so much.

4000 dead AMERICAN soldiers? No big deal....

*Jonah Goldberg, for example, demonstrated his stupidity in his latest book in which he claimed, in part, that Hitelr was a 'leftist' because the name of the Nazi party had the word 'socialist' in it...

David Scott Springer - tough guy for IDism

2008-03-26T12:21:00.003-04:00

David Scott Springer - Davescot - is supposedly a former marine, retired Dell uber-wizard millionaire, who is now the main deleter/censor/banner of Bill "Ted Haggard of Informaton Theory" Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.

Here is what this tough guy just had to write in April 2006 about a biologist:

Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists
pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Wow, tough talk from the tough guy.

The same tough guy who backed out of a face-to-face meeting with a professional clown whom he had been insulting a while ago. Even told the clown in so many words that he would be packing heat, have his dogs with him, would employ chain saws in his defense, and would call the police if he showed up.

David Scott Springer - ex-Marine, extreme mesomorph, built like a boxer or a linebacker (according to himself):

(isn't that cute - big tough guy truck and all) afraid of a clown.

How typical...

"Intelligent Design" has NOTHING to do with religion - nope - all science!

2008-03-22T12:26:00.003-04:00

So they tell us.

But have a look at this - it is a list of screenings of the movie. Note the locations of almost all of them.

Just a coincidence, I am sure.

Conservative Christian Republican Sally Kern put in her place

2008-03-14T10:06:00.003-04:00

Sally Kern, right-wing anti-gay fruitcake, has received a letter from a teenager. It is a great letter, and sadly will likely be ignored by the bible-thumping mouth-breather Kern and her allies:

Rep Kern:

On April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed my mother and 167 others. 19 children died that day. Had I not had the chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more. Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still suffer through their permanent wounds.

That terrorist was neither a homosexual or was he involved in Islam. He was an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.

As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worst than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you.

I was five years old when my mother died. I remember what a beautiful, wise, and remarkable woman she was. I miss her. Your harsh words and misguided beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance for themselves.

As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very clearly you are absolutely wrong.

You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?

I've spent 12 years in Oklahoma public schools and never once have I had anyone try to force a gay agenda on me. I have seen, however, many gay students beat up and there's never a day in school that has went by when I haven't heard the word **** slung at someone. I've been called gay slurs many times and they hurt and I am not even gay so I can just imagine how a real gay person feels. You were a school teacher and you have seen those things too. How could you care so little about the suffering of some of your students?

Let me tell you the result of your words in my school. Every openly gay and suspected gay in the school were having to walk together Monday for protection. They looked scared. They've already experienced enough hate and now your words gave other students even more motivation to sneer at them and call them names. Afterall, you are a teacher and a lawmaker, many young people have taken your words to heart. That happens when you assume a role of responsibility in your community. I seriously think before this week ends that some kids here will be going home bruised and bloody because of what you said.

I wish you could've met my mom. Maybe she could've guided you in how a real Christian should be acting and speaking.

I have not had a mother for nearly 13 years now and wonder if there were fewer people like you around, people with more love and tolerance in their hearts instead of strife, if my mom would be here to watch me graduate from high school this spring. Now she won't be there. So I'll be packing my things and leaving Oklahoma to go to college elsewhere and one day be a writer and I have no intentions to ever return here. I have no doubt that people like you will incite crazy people to build more bombs and kill more people again. I don't want to be here for that. I just can't go through that again.

You may just see me as a kid, but let me try to teach you something. The old saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom. Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.

Sincerely

Tucker

Outstanding.

But, Republicans are Republicans:

If any further proof was needed that the GOP is the party of hatred
and intolerance, the Oklahoma Legislature’s Republican caucus has
refused to condemn Rep. Sally Kern (R) for saying – among other bigoted anti-gay remarks – that gays pose a greater danger to the United States than terrorists. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com
(http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/03/031208ok.htm): Thousands of emails have flooded into the state mailboxes of lawmakers demanding an apology but House Speaker Chris Benge (R) tells the Oklahoman newspaper that he has no plans to
punish Kern.

Nice...

It gets worse - Kern's husband is a Baptist Minister and she is a member of liar for Christ Phyllis Schlafly's 'Eagle Forum'...

Casey Luskin, propagandist for Christ

2008-03-11T09:32:00.006-04:00

The Energizer Bunny of the Anti-Evolution movement, Casey Luskin, is up to his usual pathetic antics.

He was recently on a 'chat' for a San Francisco newspaper and he made the following claim, (about 1/3 of the way down) in response to a question asking him what evidence compelled him to espouse ID:

(4) Genetics: Genetic research continues to uncover functions for "junk-DNA,"
include functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements. ID
proponents have long said that DNA was designed, then junk-DNA will turn out to
have function, whereas neo-Darwisms's support for junk-DNA would turn out to be
a science-stopping view. It turns out, ID proponents were right!

Ah, yes - "neo-Darwinism" is a science stopper when it comes to 'junk DNA'. Right - so, when we look into this matter, the publications - if any - should be dominated by Intelligent Design creationist 'scientists', right? We should see predictions by creationists or IDists going back decades espousing function for all junk DNA, and we should see evolutionists claiming that it was totally junk and useless and actively discouraging research on it, right?

But wait - Luskin takes this further. A few questions later, he writes a screed laced with innuendo, nonsense, and that oh-so-creationist tendency to ignore reality.
It is a lot of garbage to wade through.

ID proponents long-predicted the death of the junk-DNA paradigm, while most (but
not all) neo-Darwinsists were defending it. (please see http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437
for details).

I dissect that article at the link Luskin provided below. Suffice it to say, Luskin's take on junk DNA is a bit misguided, at best.

Regarding the percent-similarity between human and chimp-DNA, the 98% statistic
is often based upon studies of functional-proteins, so I'm not sure if junk-DNA
would apply here.

In fact, the numbers generally refer to ALL DNA, 'junk' and not. Of course, the fact that Luskin refers only to 'similarity' indicates a rather shallow grasp of what the analyses actually show.

Nonetheless, it's worth commenting on this statitistic by asking 2 questions: 1)
Is the ~99% Human/Chimp DNA-similarity statistic accurate? While recent studies
have confirmed that certain stretches of human and chimp DNA are on average
about 1.23% different, this is merely an estimate with huge caveats.

Actually, recent studies have confirmed that most functional genes are much more similar than that - closer to 99.4% similar or only 0.6% different.

A recent news article in Science observed that the 1% figure "reflects only base
substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted
in the genomes." (see Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,"
Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).) In other words, when the chimp genome
has no similar stretch of human DNA, such DNA sequences are ignored by those
touting the statistic that humans and chimps are only 1% genetically different.
For this reason, the aforementioned Science news article was subtitled "The Myth
of 1%," and printed the following language to describe the 1% statistic: -
"studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to
believe"; - the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired"; - the 1%
statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help"; - "the 1%
difference wasn't the whole story"; - "Researchers are finding that on top of
the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in
gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification
of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'" Indeed, due to the huge caveats in the 1%
statistic, some scientists are suggesting that a better method of measuring
human/chimp genetic differences might be counting individual gene copies. When
this metric is employed, human and chimp DNA is over 5% different.

True, however, what Luskin fails to note is that if we are to adopt this "new" method of comparison, than ALL DNA 'similarity' numbers between ALL species will have to be increased, not just the human-chimp numbers. Of course, what Luskin fails to note - and likely understand - is that there is a good rationale for not counting the individual nucleotide differences in insertions and deletions - they are one-time events. That is, when a "chunk of [missing] DNA" is removed from a genome, it happens all at once. A 1000 base deletion does not take 1000 events in which a single nucleotide is lost, it is ALL lost in one event. Thus, most researchers had 'counted' such occurrences on par with single nucleotide substitutions. Luskin also fails to mention that any two humans have different numbers of genes! I guess humans must not be related to each other... Poor humans... And, what is more, the author of the article Luskin quotes from, Jon Cohen, caught wind of this Luskin article and wrote the following letter to him:

From: Jon Cohen [snip]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Casey
Luskin
Cc: [Snip]
Subject: Errors in your posting
Mr. Luskin,

I wrote the Science news article that you refer to in your recent posting on the
Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views.” Given that “misreporting of
the evolution issue is one key reason” for that site, which complains that “much
of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly
biased,” I wanted to point out that your own post contains several errors and
apparent misunderstandings. I realize that you are largely reporting what others
have written, but you do it selectively and out of context–and you also fail to scrutinize what the original reports said.
As I wrote in my article, chimps and humans do differ genetically by more than 1%, but our genes–in contrast to what the Scientific American posting states–are only 1.23% different. The bulk of the differences between chimps and humans exist in noncoding regions of the genome that regulate our genes and in gene copy number variation/segmental duplication, which ultimately determine how much product (typically protein) they produce.

You also state that my article “reports” that copy numbers differ by 6.4%. Not only does this misleadingly imply that humans thus differ from chimps by 6.4% (it’s probably closer to 5%), you fail to note that my article was not the source of this figure: I was citing a report that was done by a computational genomics researcher. In other words, it’s a model, which is another way of saying it’s an estimate, not a hard fact. (The 1.23% is a hard fact: It’s based on sequencing the entire human genome and the chimpanzee genome.)
The claim that humans are as different from each other as was previously thought we were different from chimps also is misleading and inaccurate. No credible study that I know of ever suggested that one human’s genes differ from another human’s gene by 1.23%. The Scientific America posting–which is referring to an AP story in USA Today that’s referring to the PLoS Biology paper about Craig Venter’s genome–does not explain that Venter reported a 0.5% difference between his inherited genome from his mother and father, which once again is measuring not simply gene differences but differences in noncoding regions that include inserts and deletions (that may sometimes contain copied or deleted genes or may impact regulation).
None of the original studies I cited in my article or Venter’s genome paper suggest in
any way that their findings challenge Darwinian evolution, and I doubt that any
of those researchers would support that conclusion from their data. And indeed,
the fact that we differ genetically by more than 1%, largely for gene regulatory
reasons, was predicted in Science more than 30 years ago (again as my article
notes)–and the 1975 article was co-authored by one of the world’s leading
evolutionary biologists at the time, Allan Wilson.
The bottom line is that your post is so distant from the sources that you have completely garbled the data to support Intelligent Design. It’s sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased.
Your are welcome to post my e-mail in its entirety, but given the
errors that you made in your post by selectively quoting from other posts,
please do not excerpt this for a public posting. I’m also attaching original
papers that discuss these issues. It’s complicated stuff, and I hope these
papers help clarify the details.
Jon Cohen

Of interest is the date of Cohen's letter - October 20, 2007. Recall that the 'chat' in which Luskin took part occurred just a few days ago - Mar. 11, 2008. So Luskin is STILL using disinformation that had been corrected for him. Will the good little IDcreationists out there in listener/reader land care? Doubt it... Luskin posted a 'response' to Cohen's letter here (no comments allowed, of course), which I will take a look at in a later posting.

But new findings in genetics show that gene-coding DNA might not even be the
right place to seek differences between humans and chimps. But there is a deeper
question: (2) If humans and chimps were truly only 1% different at the genetic
level, why should that demonstrate common ancestry?

Perhaps because that is not all that such studies indicate? I predict that Luskin has never seen DNA sequence data, certainly never analyzed any. The reporting of % similarity is interesting and informative in and of itself, but it is only part of the story - in reality, what indicates descent is not just the similarity between any two sequences (genomes), it is the patterns of unique shared mutations among many species' genomes.(see the section on cladistics).
The next section of Luskin's gibberish merely provides more evidence that he does not truly understand what the "% similarity" figures truly mean, and does not understnad what phylogenetic analyses entail.

Similarities in key genetic sequences may be explained as a
result of functional requirements and common design rather than mere common
descent. We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why the 1% difference value is
considered powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution, and at what point does the
comparison cease to support Darwinian evolution? What about 2% different? 3%?
5%? 10%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here, or are Darwinists
putting forth a fallacious argument for human / chimp common ancestry? In my
view, intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry,
but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans
and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between
humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes
the possibility of intelligent design. Just as intelligent agents 're-use'
functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels
for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and
chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic
programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan.

It could be, but then, so could de-novo genetic elements. With a Designer, any and all phenomena are explained by His - oops, I mean "it's" - folly and whim.
See? Just spewing goo for the rubes. Luskin is clueless, or is being purposefully deceptive. All for his beliefs.

*******************************

Luskins IDEA center article, linked to in the 'chat', my comments interspersed:

Two recent news articles are discussing the death of the junk-DNA icon of Neo-Darwinism.

One, what does he mean by 'icon of Neo-Darwinism'? Apparently, Luskin is trying to indicate that this is a major issue for evolution. As he frames it, it is not.

Wired Magazine has an article pejoratively titled "One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure" that emphasizes the positive point that intelligent design has
made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA."

That's funny - I cannot wait to see these 'predictions' . The article only quotes Discovery Institute hack Stephen Meyer as claiming that function in junk DNA is an 'empirical' prediction of ID and it disconfirms evolution, which noit only shows what a sleaze Meyer is, but that he is an out and out liar, to boot. But I digress.

The article reports: [A] surprising group is embracing the
results: intelligent-design advocates. Since the early '70s, many scientists
have believed that a large amount of many organisms' DNA is useless junk. But
recently, genome researchers are finding that these "noncoding" genome regions
are responsible for important biological functions.The Wired Magazine article then quotes Discovery
Institute's Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent
design that was largely unexpected under neo-Darwinian thought:
"It is a
confirmation of a natural empirical prediction or expectation of the theory of
intelligent design, and it disconfirms the neo-Darwinian hypothesis," said
Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery
Institute in Seattle.The Wired Magazine article openly and unashamedly
confuses intelligent design with creationism,

Indeed - ID advocates are creationists, whether Luskin wants ot admit it or not. Of course, the article glosses over some important facts - like the little fact that it was evolutionists that discovered that some junk DNA has funcxtion, and that even the originators of the phrase "junk DNA" did not assert that all noncoding DNA was useless, and mistakenly gives the creationists more credit - much more credit - than they deserve. And Collins - I just wish that guy would keep his mouth shut.
Anyway, these 'predictions' by ID creationists - where were they published? They weren't. What we really see is creationists taking papers indicating function for some junk DNA and claiming that they would 'expect' this. 'Expecting' something after the fact is not a prediction.

Well, it goes on and on, and frankly, like all lies, it takes much longer to correct them than to make them, and I don't have the time or pateince to go through each of this person's distortions and contortions.

But you get the picture.

Did OK on the Asvab? SATs? YOU TOO are therefore an uberexpert on all things scientific!

2008-03-10T15:56:00.005-04:00

*UPDATED MARCH 26*
Scroll to the bottom

Pooua (aka Richard Alexander) is a creationist. He works with lasers (an AAS degree).

On a forum discussing the creationist propaganda movie, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', he wrote:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

I emailed and asked him what tests he was referring to, he replied:

I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first
such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade,
though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3
or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was
admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also
established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I
never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was
administered a battery of standardized IQ tests). I also took the military ASVAB
each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who
took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM
employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had
indexed. Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't
fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I
don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them
up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and
aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent
of the nation.

See? THAT is why this creationist's opinions on evolution should be taken seriously - he did good on the ASVAB!

Now, none of those standardized tests have any real bearing on one's scientific aptitude - that is just Richard puffing himself up, as these folks often do.
He, of course, insisted that both the ACTs and SATs do in fact test for scientific aptitude, but I suspect that anyone who has taken such tests can tell you that they do no such thing.
Pooua quickly became unhinged and began ranting - it was pretty funny. At one point, after I had mentioned that I went on to earn a doctorate in the sciences, he said it didn't matter much since what it takes to get such a degree is not standardized and measured nationally. He gave me tacit permission to publish our exchange, so, here it is thus far, oldest first (I edited my many typos and changed some formatting to make reading smoother):

*********************************************
2/14/08

Hi there,
Did you write this:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

If so, I am curious - what standardized tests are you referring to?

Thanks,Doppelganger

****

2/14/08

Yes, I believe I wrote that several weeks to a few months ago.
I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade, though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3 or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was administered a battery of standardized IQ tests).
I also took the military ASVAB each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had indexed.
Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent of the nation.

Richard

****

2/15/08

Hi,

Ok, so which of those says anything of your scientific abilities? None of those tests have any particularly specific science content, as best I can recall.
I took the ASVAB also, and ranked in the 99th percentile, and one of the questions I distinctly remember asked what came out of an automobile's tailpipe, and the possible answers were: smoke, broken glass, battery acid, and nails. Not exactly a test that scoring well on would rank one up there with Steve Hawking.
You see, I ask because in addition to doing well on the ACT and the GRE and the ASVAB, I went on to earn a doctorate in Anatomy and Cell Biology at a major research institution where my research was on the molecular evolution of Primates, and the usual arguments against evolution I see are, frankly, garbage, and such arguments are frequently accompanied by claims of superior intellect by the arguer.

So, I was just curious. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Doppelganger

****

Richard didn't like that response...

****

2/15/08

The SAT and ACT test for scientific literacy. Others simply test for intelligence.
But, thanks for trying to restart in the middle of a discussion I had months ago. You demonstrate exactly what I expect of an evolutionary scientist: arrogance, contempt for others, an obsessive need to destroy the reputation of anyone who doesn't worship evolutionary theory.
That is the reason that evolutionists tell the lie that Creationists are ignorant or stupid. I guess you are telling me that Stephen Hawking is the lower scientific threshold, that anyone not on his academic plateau is unworthy of holding an opinion about science. In my world--the real world--it does not make any practical difference whether evolution explains our origins or not. Like most honest people, I work a job, pay my bills and go about my business.
But, what does matter a lot are ivory tower jerks who think their years in academia make themselves demi-gods. It's really too bad that you have the attitude you do; I was always an enthusiast of science. Now, I am increasingly of the opinion that science can tell us nothing that is worth having the scientists. Instead, I am increasingly interested in politics.

Don't play this game with me, that "I'm a bigger scientist than you are, so your opinions are all dirt."

Richard
****

2/20/08

Hi Richard,

You seem fairly hostile, and your conclusion jumping says much.

But you say the SATs and ACTs measure scientific literacy - I find that interesting because the ETS - the company that makes them and grades them - website says this about the SATs:

The College Board's SAT® Program consists of the SAT Reasoning TestTM and SAT Subject TestsTM. The SAT Reasoning Test is designed to measure critical reading, math, and writing skills needed for academic success in college. The SAT Subject Tests are designed to measure knowledge and skills in particular subject areas.

No mention of scientific literacy. For basic information on the SATs, you can try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Similar information comes from the group that does the ACTs:

The ACT® test assesses high school students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work.

Again, nothing about scientific literacy. Sorry.

You then yammer on about MY arrogance and all this, yet YOU are the one that embellished your own abilities in an attempt to make your anti-evolution position seem reasonable from a scientific standpoint.
And as for Steve Hawking - I guess you missed the point, which was sort of a joke. No surprise, really, but I would have thought someone with such a high IQ - like you - would have got it.

Your ending rant about 'jerks' like me smacks of pure envy, jealousy, and contempt - all of which I am also used to from creationists who embellish their intellectual 'credentials'. I plan on writing this up ion my blog at some point. Feel free to check it out.http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/
Take care, Richard. But please stop trying to puff yourself up so much. It makes jerks like me envious...

****

2/20/08

The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.
BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.
When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science. I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't.
My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.

Richard
****
As determined not from any professional performance or educational goals met, mind you - just from his ASVAB scores and such... But no, I am the arrogant one....
****

2/22/08

Hi Richard,

The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.

I took them about 25 years ago, myself. And yes, there is another section now, and the scoring is not the same, but the content IS basically the same. I don't remember anything specifically about scientific literacy in them at all.

BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.

True, and the SATs, ACTs, etc. are really only indicative of how well one does taking standardized tests. I have seen students with stellar SAT scores flunk out of Introductory Biology, and I have seen students with SAT scores that barely met our minimum standards for admission get straight As. I also had to take the GRE, and I did exceptionally well, and just this past year, I was recruited to write and review questions for the Biology major field test, so I guess I must have done OK...

When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science.

"Legally" I could have put your emails on my blog without your consent, but I would have paraphrased them had I not informed you, and had you insisted that I do not post them, I would not.
You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what? It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something, any more than the opinions of laymen dictate whether or not evolution occurred.
When I have a clogged sink, I call a plumber. When something is wrong with my car, I take it to my mechanic. When I have a question about evolutionary biology, I ask an evolutionary biologist. What I do NOT do is seek out an average layman who boasts of doing well on standardized tests.
That is not arrogance, that is common sense.

I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't. My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.
Richard

Yes, that is your claim, and it seems arrogant and at best specious, based on the 'tests' you referred to and is irrelevant in regards to the "problems" with evolution. What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions. For example, on a discussion board I used to frequent, a creationist claiming to possess a doctorate in mathematics once presented what he described as a major problem for evolution, the "no new information" assertion. His entire premise was a quote, a link, and an assertion about how evolution 'can't explain it'.
I asked him to define information in the relevant context. No answer. I asked him to explain why this was a problem. No answer. I asked him to explain how it was he knew that his creationist source's claims had merit. No answer.
There are a multitude of such examples. It is in part why boasts of 'scientific literacy' and the like are irrelevant and pitiful in this so-called debate.
Take care,
Dop
****
2/22/08

"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

Richard
****
2/25/08

"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

Your statement spoke for itself - it was a means of trying to puff yourself up as if your amazing feats in standardized test taking put you on par with those who have spent years of their lives studying and researchinhg particular subjects. No sense trying to minimize that now. As far as propaganda goes, well, I've been perusing your website, and you seem to have a pretty good lock on that. The exchanges with Dave were very infromative - I'll bet you think you came off pretty well in that exchange, don't you?
I found this statement: "Just because I disagree with your world view does not mean I am ignorant."
Pretty funny, given the context.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. I know - I've taught doctors. What does that have to do with a layman's opinions having relevance in technical scientific issues?Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place. Of course. Because only events that can be observed in the here and now are relevant.

Like the Resurrection, or Creation, for example.
As for math, well, our program here requires up through calculus. I did not have to take calculus when I was in school, but I aced statistics and everything up to that.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.

Yes, I do realize that. But a simple search showed me your website. And frankly, the ONLY thing of yours I read from the review site was what I presented to you. But your exchange with Dave has only cemented my initial impression.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Richard

Actually, I am, but I fail to see any relevance in writing such a thing.

****
Richard goes full-bore creationist on me:
****

2/25

You confirm what I said the last time; regardless of credentials, education, experience or test scores, you are determined to say whatever you must in an attempt to discredit creationists. But, my statement still stands; I am more scientifically literate than the majority of people (including evolutionists) on this Planet. However, your arrogance and hostility is of the type that I only see from atheists.
Richard
****
3/13/08

Richard,

I am hurt. And confused. The only creationist I discussed at all was... YOU.
You HAVE no credentials of relevance, you HAVE no relevant education or experience, and the test scores you boast of, you misrepresented and they are irrelevant, to boot. I guess you are so mad at me because I was not prone to swooning over your amazing high school standardized test scores - forgive me for not being impressed.

As for arrogance and hostility, well, YOU are the one that seems to think that because you did well on some teenage tests that your opinion is a major blow to evolution; YOU are the one that engaged in unwarranted insults.
So, I guess I'd have to mention the glass houses cliche at this point. I am thinking of delving into your exchange with Dave from Princeton. Your reliance on similarly underqualified professional creationists as your sources of information says much, but it could be fun if I have the time.

Bye.
****

Last exchange thus far.

***************************************************************************

UPDATE

Pooua responded:

You are the one who chose to make a major issue of a simple factual statement that I made on a movie rating forum. You are the one who tried to twist my statement into a proclamation of professional credentials, so that you could then boast of discovering that I had no professional credentials (aka, Strawman Argument).
You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters. For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless. I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does, but so many evolutionists can't handle the fact that someone can be scientifically literate and be a creationist, they try to impugn my intellect. That statement does not mean that I hold a Ph.D. It simply means that evolutionists like to lie a lot about creationists to make themselves feel better.
There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields. It seems to me that you ought to be writing to them.
Richard

********

Wow. I ask the reader to peruse the previous exchanges and ask yourselves if Richard's hostility and indignation are warranted, and if his interpretation of the exchanges is accurate.

More later.

Sally Kern - Why Southern Christian Conservatives should never be elected to office

2008-03-10T15:50:00.001-04:00

This... creature... is repugnantly ignorant and evil....

And the worst part - people actually vote for her and support her.

Jonathan Wells - incompetent (liar?) for the Rev. Moon

2008-03-04T09:44:00.004-05:00

Jon Wells, Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute, has once again churned out some ignorant bilge on an issue he knows nothing about - science. See the smack-downs here and here of his latest idiocy.

On the one hand, I can't blame Wells for engaging in this sort of disinformation. His 10+ year stint as a graduate student at UC Berkely netted him a whopping two whole multi-authored papers on neither of which did he receive top billing (There are rumors - RUMORS only - that he only got his degree there after his department was pressured by a couple of UC Berkely pro-ID heavies and an implicit threat of legal action if his degree was not awarded. I reiterate that therse are mere rumors, however, given the level of discourse Wells seems capable of the fact that he is on a religious mission to 'destroy Darwinism' and the fact that ZERO science has been produced by ID advocates that actually supports ID, I do not have any real reason to doubt the rumors...), and the poor DI has just about nothing to show for all the money it has spent.

What else can the poor sap do?

The sad part is, of course, that there are multitudes of sycophantic hangers-on out there who hang on every word a shill like Wells writes.

***ADDENDUM***
Larry Moran makes some good points...

Caroline Crocker: Victim of the Darwinist Establishment?

2008-02-24T14:34:00.003-05:00

Or dishonest creationist hack?

Crocker is featured in the upcoming anti-evolution movie Expelled which purports to demonstrate the callous disregard for scientific truth by the 'Darwinian establishment' and how terrbily those who dare to tell the truth get treated. Crocker was an adjunct biology lecturer at George Mason University and her contract was not renewed. She blamed Darwinism. Her reviews* say something else.

She is also writing a book (aren't they all?) about intellectual honesty in science.

Which is very ironic, considering that she has a hisory of engaging in patently intellectually DIShonest hackery in her 'attacks' against 'Darwinism.'

'Tiny Frog' has a very nice write up in which the depths to which 'intellectually honest' Crocker will go to prop up her fantasies. Seems Crocker gives these 'anti-Darwin' lectures, and her slide show was unwittingly made available on the web (now unavailable, I suspect). She makes some, shall we say, interesting claims in her intellectually honest pursuits. Some gems follow...

Darwin was a "rich kid" who enjoyed "partying","gambling", and "drinking."

Not sure what the evidence - or relevance - of that is. But the IDcreationist crowd does seem to favor the cult of personality, and so attacking Darwin to them is the same as attacking evolution which is the same as propagandizing for Jesus, so it is all good.

'Birds' were found in the same 'layer' as the Archaeopteryx fossil was, and that there was only one such fossil. (there are at least eight, and no, modern birds are not found in contemporaneous strata)

Eohippus (fossil primitive horse) is the same as the modern day Hyrax. Not sure where that bizarre nonsense came from. I suspect it came from Eohippus' former name, Hyracotherium, which means 'hyrax-like beast.' Here is a picture of a reconstruction of Eohippus fossil bones:

And here, a hyrax skeleton:

I report, you decide - shouldn't a biologist (even a molecular biologist) be able to tell the difference? Or does Crocker just rely on the fact that her target audience will not and even if they did, they would not care?

On just two slides of her presentation, one can find innuendo, nonsense, incompetence/dishonesty - and she and her followers want America to believe that the reason that she can't seem to keep a job at a college is because The (Darwinian) Man is keeping her down?

AND she is writing a book pontificating on "intellectual honesty"?

Should Crocker have been 'expelled'? You bet. But not because she 'went against orthodoxy' in teaching the garbage she did, but instead, for incompetence and spreading disinformation.

*Reviews from her next teaching gig show much more of the same...

Surprised? Not me....

2008-02-20T12:42:00.002-05:00

ANOTHER Republican hypocrite is arrested:

GOP's McKee Resigns After Home Is Searched

This time, it is an anti-child exploitation legislator caught with - yup - child pornography.

Oh sure, he's embarrassedand all, and he is seeking the 'prayer' of his family and firends.

I guess all the praying he surely used to engage in didn't help.

Now mind you, this is not meant to indicate that all non-Republicans are fine people, but it is to remind us of the sheer hypocrisy of many such folk.

We have anti-gay activist Larry Craig caught soliciting sex from a man in an airport.
We have 'Book of Values' crusader Bill Bennet admit to a million-dollar gambling problem.
We have Mr. Family Values - thrice divorced Rush Limbaugh going to the Dominican Republic - a place known for it's underage male prostitutes - with a bottle of mislabeled Viagra.

And so on..

Software developer PROVES that there is no junkDNA*... and other stuff

2008-02-19T15:31:00.006-05:00

Well, the Intelligent Designer is at it again...

In a new post on his blog (see below), he all but declares that there just cannot be any junk DNA in the genome - or well maybe 5%, tops. He further declares that I for some reason 'need' there to be lots of junk DNA, and that when I responded to his silly previous commentary about junk DNA I presented no facts, just insults.

Poor Randy Stimpson, creationist software developer.

He thinks he's got this great analytical mind, but he just didn't get it.
He didn't get that the primary purpose of my post here was not to 'prove' that there is lots of junk DNA, but to prove that a creationist software engineer with minimal understanding of evolution and genetics nonetheless believes that BECAUSE he is a software engineer that he has special insights into what MUST really be in the genome. And, of course, since he KNOWs that there is not much 'junk' in software, there cannot be much junk in DNA. Because after all, DNA is just like software (even though he admitted it isn't).

I also set out to show that you were clueless as to who actually coined the term 'junk DNA' and how % sequence similarities were determined, which I did.

Then, recall, you couldn't actually define "complexity" or how "complex" the human genome should be to 'code' for a human, which was, by the way, one of the linchpins of your argument! But far be it for a creationist with no relevant education, experience, or training (much less understanding of) in the relevant sciences to pontificate on such matters - it is what they do.

Then, Stimpson got all upset because I did not bow down to his software developer supremacy and whined, to which I responded here.
Still no definitions of terms or attempts to justify his claims.
Remember - I had not declared anything specific about junk DNA at all, really, except for the fact that I know that there is some.

So then I commented on his silly blog post about how entropy disproves evolution or some such gunk. He got all in a tizzy about that, too. It was in his entropy post that he declared outright that because he is a software developer, he has some special insights into things having nothing to do with software.

So anyway, Randy went a way after being again unable to support any of his claims and hurling a bunch of false accusations about me using "ad holmiums" and such (the great analytical mind of the creationist software developer diod not bother to try to even learn how to spell "ad hominem", much less find out what it actually means).

And then he tried to write an opus on his own blog, using his amazing engineering insights, to explain how there must be little or no junk DNA in the human genome. So confdent is he that he titles his post Most DNA is not junk. So what else can I do but demolish it?

Here is the relevant portions of it, with my commentary interspersed:

In my blog entry Junk DNA is a Myth I spouted off about how it was ridiculous to think that 97% of our DNA is junk. I could believe 5% junk due to entropy but not 97%. This blog entry came under criticism by Professor Scott P. who seems to have a vested interested in believing in junk DNA. In his criticism, he never provided any proof that the vast majority of DNA is junk, just ridicule. This ridicule may have been a knee-jerk reaction to my blogging alias “Intelligent Designer”.

Actually, my only vested interest is in reality. I do not know the exact amount of truly 'junk' DNA in the genome, but I know it does exist, for I have seen it in my research. As I have indicated - and as my blog posts here pretty clearly indicate - it was not my intent to prove any such thing about junk DNA at all, rather it was to expose the naive manner in which non-biologist, non-geneticist creationists, especially those with engineering/computer backgrounds, attempt to assert their superior authority on all matters (the reader may find it funny that after I had shown Randy how wrong he was on several issues that his recourse was to try to goad me into taking some silly 'IQ' type quiz so that he could 'prove' that he was better at figgerin' stuff out than me because he did pretty well on this quiz).

The ridicule was for your pompous yet error-riddled pontifications and arrogance.

And, of course, you are forgetting the fact that I showed many errors in your claims. Yeah, let's not mention that.

In my defense I am going to make a stab at guesstimating a plausible amount of non-junk DNA in the human genome.

Why re-invent the wheel? Why not look at actual analyses of genomes? Why do you think you 'guesstimates' will be any better than such analyses? Because you are a creationist with a software engineering background? I don't get it.
Here are a few examples of what has been written on the issue:

here
here
here
here
here
here

etc...

I can already hear Scott laughing away in his office now.

You must have very good hearing.

So let’s begin. In this estimate I will be using the word “information” to denote DNA that is not junk and “data” to denote DNA which may or may not be junk. I will also be talking about the data in terms of bytes and MBs [megabytes]. A nucleotide can be represented with two bits of data, a string of 4 nucleotides by a byte of data, and 4 million nucleotides by a MB of data. Thus 3.2 billion base pairs of the human genome is equivalent to 800 MB of data. Professor Page believes the human genome has only 24MB of information and that the rest is junk – that make me laugh.

You may laugh, but that is (more or less) what the actual data indicate. Of course, you have never given a good biological reason why that much 'information' is too little, only reasons that are inapt analogies.

A bacterial genome has 4 million base pairs of DNA and according to Professor Larry Morgan [sic], a bacterial genome doesn’t have junk. So I think it is safe to say that there is at least 1MB of information in the human genome.
Now there are 210 know cell types in the human body. I’ll assume that each cell type requires at least 1MB of information. These cell types share a lot of common features so I’ll assume there is a lot of common information. Just how much of the information is shared between these cell types is a guess. I am going to assume that 90% of the information in each cell type is shared and 10% is unique. This means that 210 cell types require 1MB + 209 * .1MB of information. Rounding this implies that there is at least 22MB of information in the human genome.

That assumption is erroneous. ALL of the "information" is 'shared.' It is a matter of which genes are turned off or on and/or for how long. This is yet another reason why arguments from analogy are largely inapplicable. The genomes of a skin cell and a liver cell are identical (excpet for the odd random mutation incorporated during mitosis). No 'unique' informaiton is in either one, rather, the difference between a liver cell and a skin cell - what makes them what they are - is a matter of which genes are activated and which are not. Skin cells, for example, will have very active genes involved in the making of keratin, while liver cells will not. But a liver cell still has the genes required to make keratin.

But this is just the information needed to construct the different cell types. More information is needed for spatial orientation and to coordinate activity among cells to perform complex functions like vision, motor control, digestion and tissue repair.

Spatial coordination? Whaaa?
Its funny - several years ago, there was a chap on a discussion board - who also had a computer science background - who insisted that each cell had to have encoded in it it's own unique 12-digit grid coordinate so it would know 'where to go.' I asked - repeatedly - if this information changed every time you moved. No reply...
Anyway - this is not an issue that needs addressing, rather, it is an issue of ignorance of development.
Cells DON'T 'know' where to go, because most of them don't actually 'go' anywhere**. The cells that make your hand do not start in one place and 'go' to the hand, the cells are merely 'there' - undifferentiated masses of tissue that are induced to activate and deactivate particular genes at particular times and they become the cells of the different tissues of the hand.
Same goes for 'coordinating' activitities in cells - there is no 'coordination' as such, rather, cells react to various stimuli to produce various outcomes.
It is all too easy to look at a 'finished product' and be in awe ofd its 'completeness', but this post hoc analysis neglects the history and processes involved.

Since the most efficient algorithms to just sort n objects have an order of nlog(n) I am tempted to guesstimate by multiplying 22MB by log(210) to get a lower bound. But that would be bad applied math and just plain lazy. But then again I am not exactly getting paid to do this (wink).

And you are assuming that genetic 'algorithms' are just like those you might employ as a software developer. Why?
Had you even considered the mere possibility that genomes might not really operate just like computer software?

I can think of two other approaches that could be taken. For one of them I need some data points. In particular I need size data about genomes of the simplest multicellular life forms that are well studied and believed not to have junk.
TO BE CONTINUED

Shouldn't you have retrieved such data BEFORE pontificating - laughing - at how much 'information' folks like me supposedly believe are in the genome?
And shouldn't you be able to define "complexity", and be able to produce a viable measurement of the complexity of a human so that you can apply your 'guesstimates' , before any of this other stuff is done? After all, your original claim was that the genome couldn't possibly have enough "information" to encode so "complex" a structure like a human, remember?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Or, at least he plans to...

**a few cell types do migrate during development, such as the cells of the neural crest and the undifferentiated gametes, but these are the excpetion and do not "know" where to migrate to, either - they are 'compelled' to migrate by following chemical gradients.

**ADDENDUM**

Seems PZ Myers didn't dig Stimpson's gibberish, either...

INtelligent Design Creationists censoring scientists and having secret meetings?

2008-02-07T15:35:00.000-05:00

Say it ain't so! That bastion of free speech and open scientific inquiry, the Discovery INstitute, sponsored/organized a conference last year in Boston, and when it was over, I guess they realized that it did not go the way they had planned and are/did try to keep it under wraps.

Read about it here.

Seems such folk often engage in this Big Brother antic of controlling the fututre by controlling the past - recently, DI fellow Geoffrey Simmons debated developmental biologist PZ Myers and was thrashed - even the commenters on Dembski's blog admitted this. Then, suddenly, all the comments disappeared. No more mention of the 'debate'...

Hmmmm..... Aren't these folks supposed to be the crack scientists that will topple 'Darwinism'?

Creation 'scientists' plagiarize, too

2008-02-07T15:26:00.001-05:00

Why wouldn't they? Conservative propagandists do it.

Now, somehow, a crappily written creationist 'paper' made it into the journal Proteomics (at least the online version). It is pretty bizarre, and what is more, some, if not much of it, appears to have been plagiarized... Read here for more details.

Poor creationists...

FINALLY - Intelligent Design Scientists are putting their money where their big mouths are

2008-02-06T13:41:00.001-05:00

The Discovery Institute has established and funded an 'institute' for the purpose of doing "biological research." It is about time. They've been doing nothing but nitpicking the work of others and distorting that work at that. So, let's see what this new institute is up to...

It was up and running in late 2005, so they should have something to show in 2+ years. Right?

The Biologic Institute.

bfast - another Salem Hypothesis datum point (or, Why do software engineer creationists think they know more than they do?)

2008-02-01T13:48:00.000-05:00

These people are just paragons of arrogance, not to mention Dunning-Kruger poster boys.

bfast, a regular at Bill Dembski's censorship-riddled 'blog' Uncommon Descent, writes the following:

Gil, how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any
“brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to
voice his incredulity.

This is in reference to evolution. Because, afterall, software engineers have some sort of special insight into biology, even if they don't know anything about it...

But wait, it gets better - the very next comment:

Well, I am a software engineer and I don’t know much about biology. I always
suspected that Darwinism was bogus but what got me convinced is my interest in
artificial intelligence and the brain. I eventually learned enough about the
human brain to know that it is irreducibly complex. The way the different parts
of the brain work to complement each other’s function could not have evolved
gradually a la Darwin. It was designed, without a doubt.

Incredible....

American Taliban

2008-01-16T08:14:00.000-05:00

And it isn't this guy:

Nope, it is THIS guy:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family. "

And this Christo-fascist has lots of supporters.

What a sad state of affairs.

"Professor Smith"

2008-01-04T19:57:00.000-05:00

A person calling him/herself "Professor Smith' has a blog up here.

I've tried to leave several comments, but "Smith" is not letting any of them through - creationist censorship and all.

He (I suspect it is a he for reasons I will expand on later) makes a number of very idiotic claims and assertions, and in typical creationist fashion, doesn't seem willing or able to support any of them.

Most of his posts there are just whines about "Darwinists", but the following exchange took place here:

factician // January 3, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’ve already stated my view on this, that evolution should be taught (fully taught, meaning the strengths and weaknesses)

Which weaknesses did you have in mind?

professorsmith // January 4, 2008 at 11:33 pm
The weaknesses that are swept under the rug, of course. Wells has pointed out some. Others are there if one dives in with any sort of eye to find the weaknesses,
like my recent post on whale evolution where a bone is being called a supposed
precursor of whales, found thousands of years after the cetacean split. The uses of vestigial organs could be discussed or the spectacular failures of the predictions of junk DNA, or the failures of evolutionary simulations, etc. There are lots of examples. That none of them are presented means it’s all about indoctrination, not learning.

Now, I won't mention the fact that 'Smith' is likely not a professor at all, and is quite likely a physics major in a non-research Master's program and Intelligent Design/Creationism activist. Nor will I mention the fat that this 'professor' can't spell common biology terms like pheromone and does not seem to have a very good grasp of evolutionary biology and seems to get all his information from creationist/ID sites. Nor will I mention that he refuses to say what his field supposedly is... [for some interesting discourse on this 'new' blog, see this thread on Antievolution.org).

I'll amend this post later to discuss 'Smith's' nonsensical claims re: Wells, vestigials, and junkDNA ...

And ever more from "Intelligent Designer"

2008-01-03T15:45:00.000-05:00

I know, I know - more "ad holmiums"...

But old Randy just keeps plugging along with his fallacious 'reasoning' and argument via (pseudo)authority:

"Now since I am a software developer, mutation (development) and selection (testing) of complex systems is an everyday activity for me. So there are similarities between what I do for a living and the concept of evolution. This difference is that DNA is considerably more complex than software. Yet no one develops software by random mutation and testing alone. Instead of random mutation the software development process employs intelligent design. I don't believe that random mutation has any place in the software development process -- so why should I believe in evolution?"

Emphases mine.
Incredible, eh?

I mean jeepers - Randy Stimpson knows software development, by golly, his opinions on biological evolution are beyond reproach!

I don't know Randy, maybe because folks who are just as smart as you have dedicated their professional careers to studying the concept and doing research and that sort of thing and have concluded that evolution happened and happens? Because that is what the evidence indicates happened?

Why on earth is what you do in software development relevant in any way, shape, or form to the process of populational phenomena like evolution?

Amazing....

Well, to be fair, here is the rest (first part) of his post, interspersed with my comments:

Probably one of the most annoying laws of science is the fact that entropy
tends to increase.
I am reminded of this whenever my wireless mouse stops working. When that
happens it means that the batteries powering my mouse have reached maximum
entropy. Well maybe that's a bad example of how annoying entropy can be because
if it wasn't for entropy the mouse wouldn't work at all. But when I look into
the mirror that's when entropy really annoys me. That's when I notice that I
don't have as much hair as I used to and that it is turning gray.

This should be good...

Basically I notice that I am growing old. Human aging and its associated
diseases and conditions can be traced to a gradual increase in cell division
errors in tissues throughout the body.

Well, some of them can. Let's not use too many wild extrapolations...

This process begins slowly and increases gradually with advancing age. We can do
things to slow the increase in cell division errors (or speed it up) but we can't stop it. If not by accident, we all eventually die due to the increasing entropy of our own DNA.

Well, the accumulation of 'errors' in DNA due to cell division are not really examples of entropy in the normal sense. Since you like to use Wikipedia as your primary source of information, you should check out the entry on entropy. You willnotice that DNA is mentioned nowhere in it.

Now what I have just said is based on indisputable scientific fact which is readily observed (unfortunately) by every single one of us.

What is? That cell division increases entropy, or that peopel age and die?

But cell division errors not only affect us as individuals they also affect groups of individuals when these errors are of the type that can be transmitted to offspring. These errors are genetic disorders which vary in severity and there around 4,000 genetic disorders that are currently known. Most disorders are rare and may affect one person in every several thousands or millions. Others, like early onset lactose intolerance, are more prevalent. Entropy predicts that over time inherited genetic disorders will become more prevelent within a species and will eventually cause extinction.

Entropy predicts this? Really? Amazing. Do you have a non-Wiki reference for this prediction? And is it really genetic disorders that necessarily cause extinction?

This prediction is confirmed by the fossil record and is contrary to the
belief that genetic mutations lead to superior genetic organization, that is,
evolution.

Whoa, hold on. The fossil record confirms this "prediction" that 'entropy' leads to an increase in genetic disorders? Talk about leaps of faith (not to mention 'logic'). Tell us all, Mr.Software Developer - how is that "prediction" confirmed by the fossil record?

Evolutionists argue that genetic mutatution plus natural selection has resulted in evolution.

Well, that is the simple version, sure. Namely because there is no evidence to the contrary and there is evidence supportive of this position. Doubts by those lacking sufficient understanding of the subject are irrelevant.

This leads us to the cosmological question: Is natural selection sufficient enough to overcome entropy?

I don't know - is a refrigerator sufficient to overcome entropy?

More from "Intelligent Designer"

2007-12-26T14:58:00.000-05:00

The Intelligent Designer that I have been discussing here replied to my comment on his blog some time ago and I never read or replied, as I wrote my own post about it (see link). But I finally checked to see if he had replied, and he had.

From here, interspersed with my commentary:

Doppelganger said:
what special insights into genomes and genetics does being a software engineer provide?

I had asked this since Stimpson had indicated that software engineers had some sort of special insight into things that they have no knowledge of, namely, genetics.

I have spent a significant portion of my career working on embedded systems such
as on board flight computers, data acquisition and control instruments and bar
code readers.

But no biology classes? No experience with genetics? Huh... Imagine that...

To design these things software, mechanical and electrical engineers were
required to pool their knowledge to accomplish the task. No one person or group
of persons belonging to only one engineering discipline would be able to
it.

I wouldn't doubt it. This gives you insights into genetics and genomics how again?

In like manner, to untangle the mysteries the human genome, which has a much
grander design than any of the things I have worked on, it will require the
combined knowledge of people with specialized knowledge from several
disciplines.

A couple of issues.... Not understanding everything about the genome does not indicate a 'grand design.' And I am still not sure how not understanding anything about biology/genetics (as Stimpston does) gives anyone special insights into it, regardless of their actual backgrounds. I know engineers can and have contributed ot DNA research, but these were engineers that actually took the time to learn about and understand and gain experience working with DNA, genetics, etc., as opposed to simply believing that BECAUSE they are engineers, they have some special insights and can pontificate on the matter because superficially, genomes seem to act sort of like computer software.

A computer scientist with a grasp of information theory and design patterns
could certainly bring something to the table that a Professor of Biology like
you could not.

Indeed. But such a person would have to understand how to apply their knowledge appropriately, and employing direct analogies and claiming them as evidence simply will not work.

I would wager that it would be easier for a group of biology professors to
design a kidney dialysis machine or a prosthetic hand than to decode the human genome.

What do you mean 'decode'? While there is certainly much to learn, I think you are coming at this with a 1980's mindset (scientifically).

Doppelganger said: How much experinece[sic]/education do software engineers
generally get in the course fo[sic] their educations/careers?

So what’s your point?

I think a few words got cut off their - my point was - how much education/experience in the biological science/genetics does a typical software engineer get. I think it a valid point.

But the Randy saw my blog entry here, and got upset:

On his blog Professor Scott P. [Doppelganger above] criticizes this
blog entry on Junk DNA. His argument includes ad holmium [sic] attacks,
psychoanalysis, insults, misrepresentations, poor logic and some information.

Perhaps, but one will notice that Stimpson did not bother to actually point out any of these supposed transgressions. But let's take a look.

Well, I did write that being a creationist with an engineering background seems to produce some sort of narcissistic psychosis. A bit harsh, I suppose, but how else to describe the notion that simply being an engineer and a creationists gives one some sort of all-powerful insights into things that the person does not actually understand very well? Such folk certainly believe that they are intellectually superior, that much is trivial to document.
I did mention that Stimpson's post on Junk DNA was silly and such, but then I went on to explain why. I did not claim that Stimpson's opinions on the matter are wrong BECAUSE he is an engineer, a creationist, or anything else - no, those are just window dressing. His opinions are wrong because they are wrong.
And sure, I was sarcastic and smarmy. Big deal. I still made my points and had some fun doing it.

Others chime in with condescending remarks. Even Professor Larry Morgan chimes in from his blog to add insult. I try to be nice and stick to the topic of the debate but can’t resist the occasional sic.

I'm sure. And picking on my typos - which I advertise, by the way <Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)) - when you outright misspell something is a bit... silly.

But Randy - who I am sure is a nice fellow - has yet to be able ot support his claims, defend his assertions/position, or show where I have been wrong.

IOW - a creationist.

**ADDENDUM**

Perusing Randy's blog, I found a couple more gems:

"... I think the most commonly believed alternative (evolution by random mutation) is ridiculous. "

No explanation why, of course. But hey - Randy has experience with software engineering, so surely his opinions on evolution are very valid and important...

Are we surprised by this?

2007-12-10T09:27:00.000-05:00

I'm not:

W. Thomas Smith., Jr., the controversial web-based reporter who wrote disputed stories from Lebanon, has resigned from his position as a contributor to National Review Online's The Tank blog. Smith had been the subject of a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post raising questions about the accuracy of his
work...

In addition to writing for NRO, Smith, a fomer Marine, is the director the Counterterrorism Research Center at the Family Security Foundation, and the
executive editor of World Defense Review. He co-authored The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design.

Right wing politics, dishonesty, and anti-evolutionism seem to go hand in hand.... in hand...

Another creationist computer software-type pontificates on things he has no business pontificating on...

2007-12-02T15:16:00.000-05:00

So, what is new...

Being a creationist with an engineering/computer programming background seems to produce some odd narcissistic psychosis. These folks just seem to think that they have some special insights into... well, everything. And this fella is no exception.

I was persusing Sandwalk the other day and came across some comments by him, and decided to check out his blog.
I left a few comments there, and instead of just replying to me at the comments section of his blog, or emailing me at the address contained in my blogger profile, he apparently tracked me down and emailed me at my office. That says something right there.

But I came across this blog by him, and it contained so much hubris, ignorance, and sheer nonsense, I just couldn't let it go...

I reproduce the bulk of it here for critique, and will provide commentary where appropriate.

Junk DNA is a myth

Probably one of the most absurd scientific ideas that I have ever read about is the idea that approximately 97% of human DNA is junk. Wikipedia (June 26, 2007) says that:
"About 97% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including
most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this
sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose,
some is believed to function in ways that are not currently understood.
Moreover, the conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of
evolution may imply an essential function."
It's hard for me to believe that any thoughtful person could believe such
an absurd theory.

Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity. The argument from personal incredulity is essentially an argument from ignorance coupled with the arguer's overconfidence in their own powers of comprehension and deduction. As of Dec. 2, 2007, the Wikipedia entry on junk DNA now reads in part:

About 80-90% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. ... Some consider the "junk" label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it apposite [sic] as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term "noncoding DNA" (although junk DNA often includes transposons that encode proteins with no clear value to their host genome). However it now appears that, although protein-coding DNA makes up barely 2% of the human genome, about 80% of the bases in the genome may be being expressed, which supports the view that the term "junk DNA" may be a misnomer.[1]

But let us see why this software writer thinks that it is absurd that anyone that accepts what the evidence actually indicates...

On what authority do I make such a claim? Well, not much. I am not a geneticist
or a molecular biologist. In fact, I only know slightly more about DNA than the
average college educated person.

Indeed. And this is one of the reasons that people like Randy Stimpson come to the conclusions they do. It is not uncommon for people to draw erroneous conclusions when they do not grasp the issues under discussion. But this is no obstacle for the "Intelligent Designer," Randy Stimpson. He doesn't NEED to understand DNA or genetics of molecular biology. Why? Becuase he writes computer software!

However, as a software developer I have a vague idea of how many bytes of code
is needed to make complex software programs.

Actually, you have an idea about how many bytes of code is needed to make complex computer software programs.

And to think that something as complicated as a human being is encoded in only 3
billion base pairs of DNA is astounding.

It may be astounding, but that's all there is, Jack. This should be the first hint that a genome is NOT, in fact, just like computer software. But no sirree- not to Randy Stimpson, software engineer!

To be more specific, since DNA alphabet consists of 4 nucleobases, we can represent a nucleobase with 2 bits data. This means that 4 base pairs can be represented by a byte of data and approximately 4 million base pairs can be represented by a megabyte of data. This means that the entire human genome can be represented by only 750MB of code. From my experience as a software developer, this would have to be highly efficient code. To suggest that 97% of DNA is junk implies the implausible -- that less than 23MB of DNA is not junk.

Ok.... So this software writer - with no real understadning of genetics or molecular biology, who nevertheless apparently believes that the genome is not just analogous, but the rough equivalent of a computer program - believes that the "code" in the genome must be highly efficient in order to encode something so 'complex' as a human.

So, sit back y'all - an in-depth, verifiable, justifiable, empirically derived series of explanations describing just how complex a human is must be forthcoming, for how silly and truly absurd it would be to declare that a human is so complex that there must not be any junk DNA unless one actually knows just how 'complex' a human is quantitatively...
Right?

By comparison, Microsoft Word has a size of 12MB.I think it's more probable that
the human DNA which we have discovered so far doesn't contain all the
information required to produce humans.

WOW! So there is some 'hidden' secret DNA that darn it - those silly biologists just haven't discovered yet! But wait a sec - how does Randy Stimpson know this? Let's find out - it MUST be coming up!

I wouldn't be suprised if more DNA, or some other kind of information, is
discovered some time in the future.

Oh, right - because you know, us stupid biologists just don't know where to look for extra DNA in cells and such...
But I am still waiting for Randy's explanation for how complex a human is, and what size 'program' would be necessary to code for it... I DO hope this very relevant information will be forthcoming - maybe Randy is just a master showman and will bring it out near the end.... ?

On a historical note, the term "junk DNA" was coined by biologist Roy Britten who once explained junk DNA in this way: "Trash you throw away. Junk you keep in
case it may be useful." This guy is one of the two scientists that "determined"
that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA differ by only about 2%. People who often
quote this so called fact are probably under the impression that this 2% number
is based on some kind of molecue-by-molecue comparison. The number was actually derived by measuring the temperatures at which matching DNA of two species comes apart.

Ah, yes.... Where to start?

No, Randy, Roy Britten did not coin the phrase, it was M. Ohno (at least most attribute it to him). And I can't believe that so clever a creationist software engineer would be so uninformed on what the % similarity figures are all about. I suspect that Stimpson just got that bit of disinformation from Don Batten's "Answers in Genesis" gibberish on the subject, or perhaps from Sarfati's terrible propaganda tome (he 'borrowed' Batten's slop for his book).

Well, here you go "Intelligent Designer" - the REAL story on the percent similarities. No need to reinvent the wheel - I am cut and pasting this from my Amazon.com review of Sarfati's tripe:

***
In reality, the % 'similarity' figures had been batted about for a few years [prior to the Sibley and Ahlquist paper that did employ the techniques alluded to by Randy Stimpson above] - it was the Sibley paper that got quite a bit of attention because
1. DNA-DNA hybridization compares the entire single copy genome
2. Sibley and Ahlquist were accused of fraud because they did not explain the techniques they used in deriving their figures and when others replicated their work, they came up with slightly different numbers.
The original numbers were gleaned from direct DNA sequence comparisons, and, sadly for Sarfati's readers (and Sarfati himself), the numbers have been borne out by ever more studies using many more loci.

Studies pre-dating the S&A paper cited in Sarfati's book:

Chimpanzee Fetal G-gamma and A-gamma Globin Gene Nucleotide Sequences Provide Further Evidence of Gene Conversions in Hominine Evolution.
Slightom et al., 1985Mol Biol Evol 2(5):370-389.
This paper found a 1.4-2.25% nucleotide difference, depending on which sets of alleles are compared.(1.8 kilobases). That is 97.75-98.6% identity.

Primate Eta-Globin DNA and Man's Place Among the Great Apes.
Koop et al., 1986.Nature 319:234-238.
This paper found a 1.7% distance measured by direct comparison of aligned nucleotide sequences (2.2 kilobases in a pseudogene). That is 98.3%.

Just one paper of many post-dating it that come to similar conclusions:

A Molecular View of Primate Supraordinal Relationships from the Analysis of Both Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences. Stanhope et al., 1993.
In Primates and Their Relatives in Phylogenetic Perspective. MacPhee, ed.
This book chapter discusses Epsilon globin gene, (~4 kilobases), 1.1%. That is 98.9% identity
***
There are in fact dozens if not hundreds of papers on the topic, all employing direct sequence comparisons. You'd think an "Intelligent Designer" would not be so gullible as to believe everything written by creationist propagandists.

So, no, Randy, the percent figure is not just "derived by measuring the temperatures at which matching DNA of two species comes apart", thoug that is one way to compare essentially the entire genomes of organisms, it is through direct sequence comparisons.

Perhaps if researchers started thinking more like software engineers and less
like evolutionary biologists our understanding of human DNA would grow faster.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Say - where was the "Intelligent Designer's" detailed explanation of the complexity of a human?
Where was his explanation for how many bytes a 'code' should have to produce a complex human? Or is his personal incredulity supposed to convince us all?

Another Salem Hypothesis/Dunning-Kruger data point.

Where, oh where is "Intelligent Designer"?

2007-12-01T18:38:00.000-05:00

Found another Dunning-Kruger/Salem hypothesis data point - this one calls itself "Intelligent Designer"...

test

2007-11-02T08:35:00.000-04:00

nevermind

A Creationist sets me straight on the Neutral Theory

2007-10-25T15:53:00.000-04:00

Well, not really. But "L317e" (registration required)sure is confident in his misinterpretations.

On a Creation/Evolution discussion board, a creationist computer graphics person wrote:

Let me make “simple” calculations for you 99.9% of mutations are of negative functional consequence, while occasionally, less than 1% “may” be beneficial…
simple formula:

99% > 1% = Natural evolution is owned! by REALITY!

I replied:

Please provide documentation of your assertion that 99.9% of all mutations have a negative functional consequence, for I have never seen any such number. In fact, Kimura demonstrated in the 1980s that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations is equal to the mutation rate. So your claim does not seem to jive with what is actually known.

And the creationist, overconfident rube that he is, responds:

Have you ACTUALLY read the Neutral Theory by Kimura? Does not sound like it…
As a matter of fact, I am glad you bring it up, as I have pointed to this reality.
Neutral Theory does not actually support the Darwinian Position in regards to beneficial mutations doesn’t it. Actually Kimura is WELL known for providing an evolutionary model that contradicts the Darwinian model you support.
YES, I strongly believe that God designed the human genome to be able to EXIST in midst of such large amount of deleterious (80%) and neutral mutations (~9.6%). This Neutral Theory establishes the neutralizing of such deleterious mutations and at the same demonstrates the neutralization of those beneficial calculated to be only about 0.04%. The mutation load is at a significant disadvantage to beneficial mutations, not excluding the significance of background selection affecting both deleterious and beneficial ones indiscriminately. ANYONE who understands genetics understands that deleterious mutations are by far more common than and slim possibility (if ever occurring) of beneficial ones. This is not rocket science, and genetic equilibrium is an awesome ingenuity of design.
It actually contradicts the complexity you hope for.

The creationist's obvious ignorance of the Neutral Theory notwithstanding, I think this part is pretty funny:

YES, I strongly believe that God designed the human genome to be able to EXIST in midst of such large amount of deleterious (80%) and neutral mutations (~9.6%).

In the original posting, the 80% was a link to this paper:

Prediction of solvent accessibility and sites of deleterious mutations from protein sequence

From the abstract:

This proposition was tested on six proteins for which sites of deleterious mutations have previously been identified by stability measurement or functional assay. Of the total of 130 residues predicted as sites of deleterious mutations, 104 (or 80%) were correct.

The only time 80% is mentioned in the paper is in reference to their predictions of already known deleterious mutations.

This computer graphics creationist 'expert on everything' could not even interpret so simple a concept as that.

This is the type of folk that populate this 'discussion' (creation v. evolution) on the creationism side - people that are totally ignorant of the issues yet fancy themselves nearly 'expert' on them. And what is worse, they lack the knowledge to understand how little they understand, hence their unwarranted confidence.

And these people vote....

**UPDATE 11/15

Levite has now informed me that I am arguing form ignorance on this, because Kimura was not the only proponant of the neutral theory:

"...you have demonstrated that you think that Kimura is the only proponent of
Neutral Theory and that his position is the only existing one."

Hmmmm... I am waiting for Levite to reveal the name of this mystery scientist who has an ancillary theory - also called the neutral theory - that IS about "neutralizing" mutations...

Not holding my breath though....

Why does Rush Limbaugh hate the military?

2007-09-28T14:16:00.000-04:00

I mean, besides the fact that he is a draft doging sissy?

It seems that Limbaugh has been a hater of the mi,itary for some time. Or at least a hater of those in the military that do not share his personal opinions and right-wing ideology (shades of mAnn Coulter...).

See, Limbaugh referred to a Gulf War veteran who became an outspoken opponant of the war a 'staff puke', and said he joined the military to 'pad his resume' (isn't that what Quayle and W did?).

And recently, he claimed that those in the military that donot support Bush's oil war are "phony soldiers" - this, remember, from the chickenhawk that got out of Viet Nam for having a cyst on his ass... Or not - it all depends on which phony story you want to believe.

But that is not enough - Limbaugh now actually refers to Jack Murtha - yes, combat wounded veteran Jack Murtha - as one of the 'phony soldiers.'

These right wing chickenhawks have no sense of decency at all...

Conservative 'think tank' - classic oxymoron

2007-09-28T14:13:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Sandwalk.

Another Conservative lets slip how they really feel about the troops

2007-09-13T18:46:00.001-04:00

Boehner declares American deaths in the Iraq quagmire a "small price" to pay....

But he supports the troops, oh yes he does...

Apparently, in the Right-Wing lexicon, "support" means "see as an expendable pawn to further a ideologically-driven conservative foreign policy."

Who is the most arrogant of them all?

2007-09-05T14:25:00.000-04:00

Consider the following claims:

There are many specific items in this wide world that none of us know off hand however, being intelligent and a biologist allows me to solve such problems. An intelligent biologist can research the required specifics and understand how to use it. Thus mechanical engineering and its concepts are only a bit of research for a biologist....

Apparently you are not aware of the same things I am since you are arguing biology with a biologist. You are not taught biology as part of engineering, nor have you persued instruction past your field as is evident by your failure to understand biological principles.

If you are an engineer, what feeling do you get when you read the above statement? Do you agree with it? If not, why not? Do you disagree with it perhaps because you understand the amount of hard work it took to become an engineer, and how much work it takes to be a successful one? Because you realize that not everybody - intelligent or not - can be an engineer and understand engineering concepts and principles?

Now consider your impresssion if the above statement had been made by a biologist attempting to dismiss criticisms of the fact that something he had just claimed regarding mechanical engineering was shown to be in error? And that the biologist continued to declare that his erroneous mechanical engineering claims were really true, and he knows this because he is a biologist and you, being a mechanical engineer, are just too blinded by your indoctrination to understand your own errors?

Did reading the above statement bug you a little? Maybe make you a bit angry to see those in your profession belittled in such a way?

Well, now you know how I feel. The original quote:

There are many specific items in this wide world that none of us know off hand however, being intelligent and a mechanical engineer allows me to solve such problems. An intelligent mechanical engineer can research the required specifics and understand how to use it. Thus biology and its concepts are only a bit of research for an engineer....

Apparently you are not aware of the same things I am since you are arguing mechanics with a mechanical engineer. You are not taught engineering as part of biology, nor have you persued instruction past your field as is evident by your failure to understand mechanical principles.

The answer the title question, Who is the most arrognat of them all?, then, becomes pretty obvious. Creationists with engineering backgrounds.

Amazing peer-reviewed "Intelligent Design" journal jam-packed with credible science scares evolutionists!

2007-09-04T12:32:00.000-04:00

Just kidding.

Creationists often complain that due to the 'anti-creationist' bias in mainstream scientific journals, they can never get a fair shake and their amazing creation-supporting scientific research will not get published.

So, they start up their own journals - many of which are peer reviewed, even*.

Perusing a few samples from the creationist peer-reviewed scientific literature should be plenty of evidence for the explanation as to why such 'research does not make it into legitimate scientific outlets.

Then, along came the Intelligent Design movement. It was invented to make creation 'science' seem more palatable, scientifically and first amendment-wise, by not explicitly referring to God and cloaking itself ina veneer of legitimate sounding science.

The Intelligent Design advocates wanted to avoid all together the oppression of the Darwinian orthodoxy, and so started up their own peer-revierwed journal. It came out regularly when it first started up, filled primarily with pre-exisiting essays and articles or gussied-up versions of the same. This was 'proof' that ID was not just creationism with a new coat of paint, but alegitimate scientific movement and research paradigm.

Then, they ran out of pre-fabricated essays, and the new, original 'research' that they had promised was forthcoming never came.

This is the output of the Intelligent Design movement's scientific research wing.

Nothing worthy of publication - much less filling the electronic opages of a journal - since November, 2005.

And they want to have their 'science' pushed in public schools and universities?

*It appears that to a creation 'scientist', a peer is but another creationist, regardless of their actual areas of expertise

Weird - why do some folks refer to themselves in the third person?

2007-09-04T11:58:00.000-04:00

Some may recall the Seinfeld episode in which the gang encounters 'Jimmy' at the gym, who refers to himself as 'Jimmy' when talking about himself. Jerry and the gang are rightly confused and find it all a bit odd.

So, consider this:

Excuse me? ReMine's paper was peer-reviewed by evolutionary geneticists (including James Crow and Warren Ewens) who acknowledge it is correct. You have
no reason to brush that aside. 4.158.231.1 07:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC) WalterR

WalterR is Walter ReMine, the ReMine that ReMine refers to as ReMine.

I have read that doing this is a sign of megalomania, which, considering the source of the above quote, makes perfect sense.

As an aside - ReMine and his cronies are conflating issues, as usual - yes, his submitted manuscript was reviewed by the people he refers to and at least one other person. His manuscript was rejected for a couple of reasons, and none of them were what ReMine and his cheerleaders want us to think they were. Among the reasons were the unoriginality of the conclusion - ReMine comes to the same conclusion that Haldane did (re: cost of substitution), he just derived it in a different manner, another was the non-academic, non-scientific style of the paper. His original submitted version (which, I understand, has been 'cleaned up' for "publication" in a creationist venu) contained a number of dismissive statements and some self-aggrandizing, which is frowned on in scientific publications. ReMine did not attempt to re-submit nor did he attempt to submit his manuscript anywhere else. Anyone who has had a scientific paper published knows that a huge proportion of manuscripts are turned down initially. Typically, an author will make corrections, take advice from the reviewers, etc., and resubmit or will try to have the paper published elsewhere. ReMine did not do this - his original manuscript was rejected and he decided to engage in a multi-year martydom-fest.

Anyway, the conflation is this - even if ReMine's reformulation of Haldane's model is 100% absolutely correct, it is not in any way support for his application of Haldane's model to human evolution, which is ReMine's bread-and-butter argument.

But this simple fact will never deter the militant anti-evolution faction of the creationist crowd. Being honest and factual comes in a distant second when it comes to spreading rhetorically attractive yet irrelevant claims.

HILARIOUS creationist projection

2007-08-31T12:23:00.000-04:00

Over at ARN, I read with curiosity a thread started by Albert deRoos. The thread title - so typical of the hyperbolic nonsense that one finds in creationist/IDist rantings sets the tone and gives those of us who have followed the IDcreationism public relations scam for any length of time a preview of the tone one can expect upon reading it:

The endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria a hoax?

A hoax. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. A hoax? It is certaily possible that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is wrong, but a hoax? This is the usual creationist/IDist loaded word usage that they are so fond of employing. I will not recount all of deRoos silly line of argumentation here, but to sum up, it goes like this:

-mitochondria don't look exactly like bacteria (and he provides some pictures to prove it!)
- using some types of visualization techniques, mitochondria look like they are part of the reticular system of cells
- therefore, he thinks they ARE just specializations of the reticular system, and that they are not endosymbionts, and those promoting ther notion they are are perpetrating, well, a hoax

To bolster his claim, he links to some typical graphical representations of mitochondria in textbooks and the like (that is, drawings) , then links to some electron micrographs and immunofluorescent photos and such and essentially says'Gee - the real pictures don't look like the drawings, and neither really looks like present day bacteria, so they must have derived in another way.'

It is pointed out by some commenters there that his 'theory' does not explain the presence of bacteria-like DNA in mitochondria, does not address the fact that mitochondria can divide and make their own ribosomes and proteins, etc. It is also pointed out that some of the photographs he links to are computer graphics images*, that some appear to be immunofluorescence pictures which targeted protein fibers and such, etc.

And de Roos response to these and other criticisms?

...The proponents of the endosymbiotic theory have not even started to make mechanistic scenarios because every high school student understands that it will take 100s of mutations in complex systems before that will happen. Natural selection of those intermediate forms will be difficult because tinkering with them generally decreases fitness. Failure to address these things before declaring the theory to be true means bad science. I would be happy if consensus would be 'we can't rule out other scenario's and we don't have much evidence, we still believe that mitochondria were endosymbionts but we're open to alternatives.

Now, they don;t have a coherent theory, but are not open to
alternatives. Bad, bad science.

Note what I bolded... Recall, he labelled endosymbiotic theory 'a hoax'...
The hubris and arrogance these people exude is beyond reason.

*If such things are not explicitly pointed out in the threrad, they are alluded to, and they are certainly very good points that de Roos ignores

And on it goes - an underinformed yet overconfident computer technician and a retired actuary use insult and diversion to try to 'win' a non-argument

2007-08-30T09:16:00.000-04:00

Ilion and LifeEngineer - what a wonderful pair, what a pair of wonderful ambassadors for Intelligent Design... what a couple of cranks...

Make an argument that you just "know" is right but actual evidence shows is wrong? Why, just insult those explaining your error! Make up silly monikers to use when referring to them! Write the same things over and over, because there is no need to modify a claim you KNOW is right!

That is what a combination of supreme arrogance and monumental incompetence - sprinkled with a dose of religious fervor - does to people...

Pseudo-mathematician David Berlinski on whale evolution

2007-08-30T08:46:00.000-04:00

In 1999, Justin Kruger and David Dunning published a paper titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. ] 121-1134). Among their interesting conclusions was this:

We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

David Berlinski is a Philosopher specializing in mathematics (at least this is concluded by judging his actual published work - I am unable to find any actual peer-reviewed mathematical contributuions - or any other for that matter) and bashing science, who probably became best known for writing verbose, pompous articles for conservative magazines. One of his targets is evolution, which, of course, he calls "Darwinism," and as a 'senior fellow' with the anti-evolution Discovery Institute, he occasionally takes the time to bloviate about how evolution cannot be.

Of late, he has beein in a video in which he 'concludes' that whales could not have evolved from cows, and his primary argument is that he counted - yes, counted - the supposed differences between whales and cows and they are, darn it, just too many! He claims to have stopped at 50,000. As was pointed out by a commenter at Pharygula, counting 1 characteristic per second would have required 14 hours, and it is unlikely that Berlinski actually sat around contemplating the supposed differences between cows and whales for 14 hours. And I don't think it is necessary to actually point out that nobody actually claims that whales evolved from cows. Nor that Berlinski doesn't actually provide a list of his 50,000 differences, but he does display his ignroance of basic biology (expressing disbelief due to the fact that many of these changes would have to be "coordinated" with other changes and so on) and his ability to set up silly and dishonest strawman arguments to prop up his fantasies (among which seems to be his importance in world affairs).

But, that 'truth-seeking' organization, the Discovery Institute, saw no problem hosting such a ludicrous, supercilious, deceptive/dishonest video. And why would they? It is anti-evolution, and none of its target audience will bother to see if any of the implicict claims are accurate or menaingful.

A philosopher prattling on about evolution.

Kruger-Dunning data point.

======
update:
And if Berlinski actually took a whole 10 seconds to ponder and write down the 50,000 differences he dreamed up, it would have taken him 5 days... nonstop.... 24 hours each day...
What a liar...
Biochemist Larry Moran takes Berlinski to task also...

Response to Aaron

2007-08-26T14:23:00.001-04:00

Over on Operation Yellow Elephant - a blog established to point out the hypcritical positions of many Iraq-war supporting Republicans who themselves refuse to enlist for various (usually lame) reasons, I posted a few innocuous comments here, and became the target of a hysterical 'radical libertarian', Aaron, who seemed unable but to engage in the antics he accuses me of engaging in. As I did not want to take up too much space at OYE, I thought I would reply to Aaron here. To save space and for readability, I have edited some of Aaron's statements (e.g., removed multiple examples supporting a claim).

=============================================

Aaron said...
Oh, Doppelganger, I’m going to have a field day with this response. Ant it'll be loooong, so set some time away from your otherwise pressing World of Warcraft tournament to read this, because I am interested to read your response:

Isn't that clever? A little personal dig there. Not that I mind - I often employ self-deprecating humor and don't mind taking a hit as long as it is actually funny. That one wasn't too bad. A little trite perhaps, but not bad. What is ironic, however, is the fact that Aaron takes me to task for getting 'personal'. More on that later.

“What is your opinion on, say, Ann Coulter’s writings and statements, Aaron?Just curious”…” ... Unless you find the opinions of these people repulsive and you are willing to condemn them for the inflammatory nature of the lies and msrepresentations they spew, again, your implicit claims to the ‘high ground’ are without merit.”

First, my friend, you guess wrong about me.

Fair enough. Considering the rush to defend the president of the Orange County Young Republicans in question, I suppose I could have jumped to a sensible, albeit incorrect, conclusion. But let's see where Aaron goes with this, long-winded fellow he is...

My opinion of Ann Coulter, “Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, etc.” is this: I think they are polarizing, deconstructive, pompous and sometimes downright wrong... Angry, loud people are present on all political sides. But it does not give you or “The General” a speck of permission to spread the fight to all Republicans and moderate Democrats.

That is all well and good, but this is Aaron's extrapolation, not my intention. I was not 'justifying' what he erroneously perceives as an 'attack' on all Republicans and Moderate Democrats (I can scarcely understand where that one came from). It has been my experience that "mainstream Republicans" find the inflammatory gibberish of the Coulters and Hannity's of the country to be 'funny' and meant as 'humor' and they will often say that if one is offended, then they just don't get the jokes. Yet actual 'liberal' comedians are villified and labeled 'traitors' and the like. To fend off the predicted 'response', no, I don't have statistical data for this, as I stated, it has been my experience, and that comes from reading blogs, letters to the editor of several newspapers (both local and national), television and radio interviews, book reviews, etc.

You are only fanning the flames of ignorance and factionalism.

For asking your opinion? I had no idea that I wielded such power!

And for that you should be ashamed.The long and short of it: do not use thea ctions of one, two or ten idiots to justify your own idiotic actions.

Now I - one who has but a low-traffic, seldom updated blog - on occasion posts comments on blogs like OYE - am being equated in influence to people like O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. And 'idiotic actions'? Making offhand comments in a blog comments section is an 'idiotic action'? Well, then I guess Aaron engages in idiotic actions, too!

You, and you alone, are responsible for your motives and doings, not Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly or anyone else with whom you disagree.

I will ask the point what the top of your head looks like...

“Fago’s associations were merely pointed out, his own self-assessment was indicated, and it was openly questioned when he would be enlisting to serve as he appears to support the militaristic goals of the administration.”

Why? What is “The General’s” point/goal/motive?

I think his motivation is made clear by the subtitle of his blog: "It's their war. Why aren't they fighting it?" I think there are many, many more people out there that feel this way than you seem willing to admit.

Why Shawn? Why Hager? And what gives our high-ranking friend the credibility to do such random call-outs?

Well, as is pretty obvious by now, Shawn is the PRESIDENT of the Orange County Young Republians. Orange County is not exactly some rural backwater, and the OCYRs is not exactly some two-bit collection of yahoos who get together a couple time a year to drink beer and complain about city council. As such, he represents an organization that ostensibly supports the present administration's status quo, which seems to be little more than '9/11 gives us the right to ignore the Constitution' and 'war is good because a couple of Big Corporations that donate to us get lots of tax payer money becasue of it'. I don't know who Hager is. As far as 'credibility' for these 'call outs', I suspect it is the same 'credibility' that you have for writing your nearly hysterical response, or the just-as-anonymous-as-me 'Media Lizzy' from making her webcasts and the like. I assume that 'The General' is against the war, and if so, then his not enlisting to fight is at least consistent.

All you two seem to be are liberal computer nerds who want to bully those with whom you disagree, regardless of their desire (or obvious lack thereof) to confront you.

I wish I was a computer nerd - I could probably make a lot more money than I do. But I am not sure how anything that is done here (more precisely, at OYE)- certainly nothing that I have done - can be considered 'bullying.' Posting my opinion on the issue and replying to comments made by people like you is not bullying. If anything, the hysteria being exhibited by you and Media Lizzy in your steadfast defense of Yellow Elephants, by attempting to make us stop pointing out their hypocrisy via insults and laughable attempts at intimidation, is bullying.

Perusing a few of the posts on OYE, I noticed that those that are called out are in some way 'public' individuals. I exhanged a few comments last year in the thread on Antony Mantova, who had written Op-Ed pieces for a newspaper advocating for the invasion of Iran, as I recall. He, of course, had no intention of serving, either. Your friend Shawn, as I reiterated, is the President of a large, politically active, young republican group. Another guy is a former editor of the New Republic, a liberal, who supports the war. And so on. These folks are not "private citizens" just minding their own business. These are people in the business of trying to sway public policy (the Orange County Young Republicans website, for example, states that one of its goals is to get Republicans elected, from local school boards on up).

Also, I don't really consider myself a liberal, at least not in the 'usual' sense. I'm more of a moderate, but I do certainly havemany liberal values.

“The propensity to serve in the armed forces these days seems to be related to the following: one’s family or personal wealth, regardless of one’s position on the war – relationship: inversely proportional; one’s degree of advocacy for not just invading Iraq, but Iran and Syria and anywhere else: inversely proportional. There are other factors, of course, but those seem to be big ones these days.”

Where do you get that information? Is there statistical proof to back up your statements, especially with your reference to “these days”? Unless you can provide some compelling proof using statistically sound and politically unbiased research I can only reason to add Bullshitter to the list of negative terms you represent.

My, so personal! And what terms do you represent to me? Say - I like that little game there - a clever little way of claiming that you are not getting personal by merely associating 'negative terms' with me. Sleazy and pathetic... are the terms you represent to me, but clever, nonetheless.

Anyway, those are merely my impressions. Statistical proof? No. The comment was left on a blog, you might recall. A place for opinion. It is not a peer reviewed publication. It is not a legal affidavit. So please do not treat it like one as a means of gaining rhetorical points. It makes you represent terms like 'cheap' and 'childish' to me.

“Pointing out hypocrisy in Republicans is exceptionally easy. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable quality. Those lacking admirable qualities have a harder time convincing people to vote their way. At least among the rational.”

That’s just insulting. You do not know any of the people you attack personally.

Who am I attacking? It is amazing how you folks can so rapidly elevate a situation beyond any measure of rationality. I - and many, many others - find it hyporitical to support a war but refuse to fight in it. These Yellow Elephants may very well be nice, well meaning folk. But calling out those that do this (advocate war but will not fight in it)- in particular those who are 'public' figures' - can hardly be considered a 'personal attack.' But many on the right seem to use this victim/martyr issue at the drop of a hat. A great exhibit of character, I suppose.

You do not know Shawn. You do not know Mr. Hager. You do not know me. It is appalling that you would so immaturely define a person simply by the political party with which they register

You do not know me, either, but that has not stopped you from attacking me. Oh, wait, I mean posting negative terms that you think I represent...

I am so terribly sorry, Aaron, that you are so appalled by something I did not do. It would make your case a bit stronger if perhaps you could stop engaging in what is known as the strawman fallacy. I'm sure you are familiar with the term, but basically it is 'making up' an opponant's position in such a way as to make it easier to attack. A reasonable person can see that any "attacks" were done as a result of the perceived hypocrisy exhibited by the folks in question (again, I see no reason that Hager was brought up as I have not made any comments about him). Additionally, it should not need to be pointed out that Shawn has both a Myspace site and is the president of the Orange County Young Republicans wich also has a website and upon both of which one can find out more than just what one's political affiliation and position is.

and further stereotype them based on a dumb, statistically anecdotal online survey they took about their political leanings. You just exemplified the epitome of ignorance with that series of statements. Rational my ass.

I am sure that your ass is rational, perhaps more so than your head, but that is another story. What series of statements do you refer to? You mean the ones in which I indicated where and why whoever it was that made the original post (the General) might have gotten their information that they used to formulate their opinion from?

“All true, but then again, the focus of this blog is the War and its supporters that will not serve. Support for one’s country though political activism is not the same thing as volunteering to fight in a war that one advocates. I should think such a distinction would be obvious.”

Your “All true” statement is all I need. Thank you. But in order to dignify the time you must have poured into devising some way to save yourself the embarrassment of actually conceding an argument to me, I will respond further.

I am forever amazed at how arrogant and condesending yet totally clueless some people can be. Let us re-examine what I considered 'all true'. Aaron had written:

In reference to your blog’s overall mission, there are multiple ways to serve your country. The armed services are a few options, but political activism, within administrations, organizations and campaigns, are also equally effective methods of showing support for policy and one’s country.

Those things are all true, but they do not negate the hyporisy of those that advoacte war yet will not fight. I fail to see how agreeing that those things are true is a concession, since those things do not nullify the position that I, the OYE blog, and many, many folks like me, hold. But apparently, Aaron is always right about these things. One often runs into the 'always right' types on the Internet.

As a person who, I’m assuming, advocates the power of diplomacy over violence (let me know if I’m wrong), you should look highly upon those who use the power of words to encourage political policy. Isn’t that the path your ideal administration should take?

I do, and yes. As any rational person can see, the present administration is likely paying lip servoce top those ideals. One can only cringe upion hearing W's latest saber-rattling regarding Iran. I suspect that if a Democrat wins the presidential election in '08 (likely at this opoint), a lme duck W will send troops into Iran or Syria as a parting gift, just like Daddy did when he lost to Bill Clinton.

And I will concede that you are right that activism and fighting in a war are not the same things. They are completely different. Just like multivitamins are completely different from oranges, but they both still give you your daily dose of Vitamin C. Hence, they are just as effective. I think you get where this analogy is going.

Yes, it is going south. It is irrelevant and shallow. Being a political activist is fine. But mere political activism does not necessarily entail war advocacy. And being a war advocate - even if implicitly (e.g., Shawn supports Giuliani in 2008, and Giuliani thinks the war is great!) - should entail a modicum of integrity which includes things like the willingness to serve for what one advocates. Again, there is a real and fairly obvious difference between being patriotic and doing things like volunteering in political campaigns and advocating war but refusing to enlist. To me, these folks are more like the losers in the stands that yell "You suck!" to an NFL player when they drop a pass in the Superbowl than they are like an orange giving you vitamin C. Because, afterall, this Republican administration has also done things like fought against pay raises for troops, cut veterans' benefits, etc., so it appears that their love for the troops ends where their wannabeism begins.

Additionally, you assume incorrectly that all of your targets and respondents “will not” serve in the military, as if it is not an option in their wildest dreams. Personally, I simply have not served. I may never, but it is not an option to be ruled out. And I feel confident in saying that others you so vehemently oppose feel similarly.

Silly me - I guess the fact that they are not serving even though recruitment levels are down, troop deployments are on their second (or is it third? I've lost count) mandatory extension, more National Guard units have been activated and deployed for longer periods of time than they were in WWII, etc., doesn't mean they never will. And I was unaware that I 'vehemently opposed' anyone. Oh, I forgot - if one is not in lock-step with this Aaron guy on the Internet, then you must 'vehemently oppose' what he stands for....

"Do you watch Fox News? ... Is that an attempt to harmonize the nation? When Ann Coulter says when you talk to a liberal you should use a baseball bat, what is that? ... You might want to engage the services of a mirror.”
Hmmm…looks like we’re getting personal now. I love it when a political opponent stops debating policy and starts attacking the person. It really shows the true you. And that I mean in a bad way.

I love it when some dude on the Internet tries to play this holier-than-thou schtick. It usually means that they are covering their own tracks. I 'defend' myself against implicict charges that I am divisive and the like, and I am accused of getting 'personal.' Funny.... Of course, an intelligent person could peruse this blog and see that nobody is really discussing policy, unless you consider the hypocrisy of so many young neocons top be policy... Another red herring from Aaron.

... And again, I’ll reiterate what I said in my first paragraph: the actions of others, especially if they are not done directly towards you, are not legitimate justifications for what you are doing now. You are responsible for the inflammatory crap you write.

So, now it is inflammatory to call out neocon hypocrisy? Is it inflammatory to point out that Larry Craig is either a closeted gay man or perjured himself in a court of law? I guess so, in the world of the always-right Internet dude.

If you are so threatened by them, start directing your blogs at Ann Coulter et al., not
unsuspecting individuals like Shawn Fago.

I am not threatened by them. I find them divisive, inflammatory, dishonest hacks. And again with poor Shawn - he is only the president of one of the largest 'young republican' groups in the scond largest and one of the 'richest' counties in the country.

In reference to your “Is it harmonizing and visionary” rant, you seem to be directing the focus of your frustration on those who do not deserve it, nor want it. Shawn did not shut the other major political party completely out of policy discussions and briefings. Shawn did not hire the administrators. Shawn did not force protestors to stay behind chain-link fences a mile away from political events.

True. He is just the president of the Orange County Young Republicans who supports a candidate for president who supports the war in Iraq but will not enlist, and who - we can only assume - supports the present administration and its policies (for there are certainly no disclaimers on theier various websites). Excuse me - has not enlisted despite the military's obvious need for young healthy heterosexual males.

Nor did I; nor did Mr. Hager. There is no need for mirrors or introspection because we are not responsible for the actions of others, nor did you stay on topic in the least
bit from “The General’s” unprovoked attack on Shawn Fago.

I strayed a bit from the major topic because I was induced to do so. By YOU. You had written:

Shawn, I and the other individuals who commented have chosen that route. We choose to fight you (so to speak)—individuals who try to push our country into unwise, shortsighted policies by polarizing our population, picking fights with those who do not desire a confrontation, and calling your opponents cowards, hypcrites or other heinous names rather than discussing policy like an intelligent human being would.

Remember? Not only did YOU get personal, YOU are the one that brought up policy! YOU are the one that indicated that 'individuals like me' are polarizing the nation by not discussing policy! No wonder you decided to omit that from your reply - keeping it readily available to a reader would have dimiished your attack. Best nix it for rhetorical points! Cheap and sleazy, those are terms that you represent to me.

“Then they should strive to be a little more proactive and visionary, rather than looking to see what they think will win them the next election at any expense – especially if that expense is the blood of real patriotic Americans. And why, I wonder, do war-advocates always seem to think that those that are not pro-war for some reason want weak security?”

Proactive and visionary? What better way to be proactive and visionary than to actively pursue a cause that would guarantee a representative who advocates they same policy as they?

Here is a better way - realize that the status quo is a failure and advocate for real positive change.

Your definition of “patriot” also seems to be a little warped. Patriotism is an ideology—a belief system. It is not an earned badge. “Patriot” and “Nationalist”are synonymous, and do not require military service as a condition to be considered one.

pa·tri·ot /ˈpeɪtriət, -ˌɒt or, especially Brit., ˈpætriət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pey-tree-uht, -ot or, especially Brit., pa-tree-uht]

Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

Of course one not need have served in the military to be a Patriot, but that is just your latest attempt at redirection. AGAIN, since many seem to have a hard time understanding this, the issue is the advocacy - either explicit or implicit - of military action for purely political or reasons (let's be honest - the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 'freeing' Iraqis or 9/11 - any rational person who follows politics at all knows that an invasion of Iraq was in the works before 9/11) despite an unwillingness to actually fight. I think this attitude is in part responsible for the cavalier attitde so many neocons have toward war - they are not going to have to fight, their kids will not have to fight, so let's go invade anyone that we don't like! Or has oil!

And why do you clump us into the overall “war-advocate” mold?

Why did you write that I and those like me are liberal computer nerds?

Are you assuming that we just love to send our troops to any old place and kill darker skinned folks? Honestly, my friend, have we become so demonized in your twisted little mind that you cannot fathom a more dynamic though process is going on in our minds?

So, so personal... MY twisted little mind? Ah, the bravado of distance...

Although I cannot answer directly for Shawn, I am pretty sure he shares a similar opinion to my own with the following remainder of this paragraph: I do not advocate war in its general sense. I advocate the use of alternatives as a first resort. When there are none left—that is, when the government in power chooses to remain non-transparent, saber-rattles to the point of suspicion, lends financial support to known terrorist organizations (families of suicide bombers from the Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations in Israel), and has a history of prior megalomania—it is appropriate to consider military action as a viable option.

This is funny. It seems that the policy chiefs in Washington should have actually understood the Arab culture a little better. Maybe actually been experts, instead of just claiming to be. For if they actually understood, they would have known about the importance of saving face and all that for them, and known that brazen public confrontation and threats only makes matters worse. And should we have not been able to understand that Iraq did not actually pose a threat to us? They had no long-range ICBMs. They had no nukes. They had no long range bombers. They did not support Al Qaeda. The saber rattling was primarily ours. ALL of the major predictions by the supposed 'experts' ended up being totally wrong. No statues to Bush (and that one statue of a soldier supposedly made by an Iraqi craftsman, thankful for our 'freeing' them - turned out to have been commissioned by the DoD), no parades, no end after a few weeks, no Iraq paying its own debts, etc. And let us not forget - Hussein was a big pal of ours under Reagan.

The Iraq war was obviously mismanaged during it beginning phases. Our military leaders did not take into account the power vacuum that emerged from the fall of the only political powerhouse there (He killed off any possible opponents).

Let's not blame the military for this. The military did what it was told to do, and did it well. It was the planning and prosecution that was flubbed - those in the military that did not 'fall in line' with the fantasy plans of the Rumsfeld cabal suddenly retired. Remember all that? Shinseki says that it would take 500,000 troops and many years - gone. So much for listening to the commanders. It takes more than bumper stickers and voting republican to actuallu support the troops.

There are very few rational Americans who believe that the tactics used immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein were the most efficient. However, that does not mean we leave. There is still a power vacuum present in one of the most resource rich, regionally central and religiously active states in the Middle East. Republicans do not want to stay indefinitely; they want to stay until Iraq is stabilized. Only then do we withdraw troops and bring them home for good. So when I say mention weak security or shortsightedness, I do not mean that you want it. ...We are in a power struggle with entities that wish to become more powerful than we. It is in our best interests to subvert these opponents in order to preserve our international dominance, and, hence, guarantee our security.

And what better way to accomplish all this than to encourage young, fit, heterosexual patriots to enlist so we can do it expeditiously! I find the whole 'well, we're there, so let's stay and finish it' argument crude and shallow. But it seems to be the best the neocon element and its sympathizers have. We can never guarantee our security. That is a fantasy. We can help to ensure it, and act to do so, but there are no guarantees in life. Iraq was much stabler before the invasion than it is now. Intelligence agencies cite the invasion as a major recruitment tool for terrorist groups. And as for preserving our 'internatinal dominance' - wel, I will only say that we are not an empire and should not strive to be one (though those in 'power' now certainly seem to think otherwise).

You have every right to disagree or even call me heartless, uncaring or the other plethora of words I have already heard. It’s old news. And I don’t think we’re going to convince each other to bend on our ideals, especially in this forum.

Sometimes, heartless acts have to be undertaken in order to preserve a way of life/to protect oneself. I do not think that this is one of those times.

“Ah, the College Republican ‘tough guy’ act. Yes, I am sure that works with the frat boys and freshman, but this former-paratrooper finds it pathetic and it is just as hypocritical as the refusal of pro-war right-wingers to serve. ...What’s nex – you can like the Yankees but not be a baseball player? You can be for tougher laws but not be a policeman?”

Wow, another personal attack.

Funny... A 'personal attack' in response to... a personal attack. It is very common for those making sucvh accusations to be unable to see their own words for what they are or can be interpreted as being. Here is what Aaron did not include or allude to in his quote of me, to which I was responding:

Now that you have our attention, come out of hiding. Let us meet you and discuss your actions face to face—that is, if you’re not "yellow" (or an ass).

In the world of the Internet always-right guy, the above is just words and carries no meaning or connotation.

*snip gibberish about not being rich*

Stop basing your entire arguments on half-assed assumptions. So far you’re doing a great job of providing further proof for the “ass out of you and me” saying. Try asking questions and getting to know your opposition before you make sweeping, ignorant generalizations about them.

All very funny stuff, considering the things Aaron has written about me and others at OYE...

Remember? I'm just some liberal computer nerd, hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet... But, in terms of explanation, I am not basing my comments on assumptions so much as genealizations form experience - and that is what we ll have, right? In my experience, chickenhawks are nearly universally conservative (with a few notable exceptions), and those who defend the same are susually, well, the same (also with a few notable exceptions). I - and everyone else -am clearly not always correct or justified in the use of such genralizations, but speaking for myself, I have a pretty good track record. Of course, the comments section on a blog is hardly the place one goes to 'get to know' one's apparent opponant on any given issue, and I notice that you and the other defenders fo YEs did not ask many questions of us, merely hurled epithets and accusations and defended a fellow YE at all costs.

And, yes, I understand very well now after the 10-20 times you wrote it that you served bravely in our military—and jumped out of planes to do so no less.

Actually, I believe that I have mentioned it only 3-4 times, and only to make it clear that I am also not a hypocrite and am talking from experience. I guess in the world of the neocon and their allies, that is a bad thing.

Lastly, yes to both of your last questions. You do not have to be a baseball player to like the Yankees, and you do not have to be a police officer to want tougher laws. End of story.

Yes of course one need not be a baseball player to like the Yankees. But many YEs have claimed that being a Yankees fan but not being a baseball player is akin to if not identical to advocating for war but not enlisting.

That might have some merit if professional baseball players were tools of the implementation of a president's foreign policy. It might have some meaning if baseball players were required to kill opposing players and/or be prepared to be killed themselves during games. But I don't think even the shallowest neocon or their allies would dare to make such an argument.

The real end of story:

One need not have served in the military to be patriotic. A president need not have served to command the military. But the military should not be seen as a group of expendable pawns through whom incompetent and ideologically driven politicians can implement their fantasy policies. To compare the advocacy of sending troops off to fight and die in wars but being unwilling to enlist and fight to rooting for a baseball team is insulting to those who actually enlisted and do the dirty work of this nation.

Another arrogant egomaniac - "island"

2007-08-21T10:08:00.000-04:00

I came across a couple of arrogant, condescending comments by someone calling itself "island" at the Dispatches.. blog, and I decided to see what this person had to say on his own blog.

As is almost always the case, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to rely on name calling and assertions and appears to be among 'island's' primary means of discussion. It is laughable to see 'island' declare himself an "honest scientist" when he relies on what I consider philosophical musings as a basis for his 'scientific' claims.

Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would like to explore one example of this self-proclaimed "honest scientist's" method of 'science'. In a comment left on the Dispatches... blog (same one linked above), in response to island's asserting "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists," a commenter writes:

"there is no scientific evidence for "design."

To which the "honest scientist" island replies:

LOL... um you clowns wilfully denied every point that I made without directly
addressing it:
island: there is no scientific evidence for "designTranslation...
island... we refuse to recogize that a tree is a functional pump

What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance.

But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory.

This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.'
Thus is island's "argument."

Island then writes:

[quote from a google group]In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature.

I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other
engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when
claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex
and integrated working systems. Ben
[end quote]

So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them.

Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct.

I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists.
It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole.

But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style:

Before somebody REALLY stick their foot in their mouth by saying that the human construct of design isn't a part of nature:
island:
there is no scientific evidence for "design." The assertion that there is "design in nature" is unprovable, and undisprovable, in and of itself.
I see... so what is it that design engineers do if there is no evidence that these
creatures of nature do anything. The capability for "design" doesn't just pop-out of humans if the potential for its emergence doesn't pre-exist within physics that constrains the force constants of nature, so only sheer unadulterated human arrogance gives one the unmitigated audacity to "believe" that design can ever reflect anything greater or less than the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need.

Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either...

And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place:

No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design.

And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up:

Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing.

Of course, island, as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions:

My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it.

And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc.
Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton:

But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last).

And one last bit of island superior wisdom:

If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang.

[ellipses in original]
But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup...

And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time.
So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies.
===================================================================

Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science":
On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle
And duhppelganger

How clever! Island, the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority!

hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists."

No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that
fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear
Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists",
rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like
yours that does not match the observation.

So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me.
I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island. Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island, I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle:

The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it.

But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island, the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting.

Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are).

Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island, I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's.
Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate:

The WAP is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it

Allow me to expand.
Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states:

The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must
be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism.
So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct.

And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do.

True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy.

I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends.

I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters.

The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists".

No?
Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive

There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) :

[re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]:

The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at
some stage in its history.

And why must it have those properties? Because it does. And what life are we talking about? Us. Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not.

Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science.

One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks.

What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope?

Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog:

You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing.

Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems.
Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment.

As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again.

=====================
*From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger:

His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that:

We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.

Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that:

The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must
be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Henry Rollins interview

2007-08-19T14:03:00.000-04:00

I was never really into the Punk scene, and I never really cared for even 'mainstream' punk, but the more I read about Henry Rollins, the more I like him.

An interesting interview with Henry in Mother Jones.

Creationist Engineers just know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!

2007-08-15T11:26:00.000-04:00

It is just so amazing...

Why this fella - Kevin Clark [aka KBC1963]- a mechanical engineer from Georgia, just KNOWS that similar genes cannot possibly 'encode' similar structures in organisms (e.g., limb bones in humans and chimps, or the upper and lower limb bones in the same organisms). Why? Why, because he is an engineer, and when HE designs similar things even in the same machine, he has to use 'different coding':

To say those three [femurs from different animals]are the same is not true. I
make 3 dimensional models and I have modeled many items that have similar
appearing forms and they are not coded the same. Each of these bones is
distinctly and spacially different just as the parts on a model car differ from
a real car. To assert what you have is to overlook a huge mechanical and coding
difference.

I mean, genetics must conform to the manner in which a mechanical engineer designs things on a computer...
But here, Clark explains why he can dismiss the musings of non-engineers on matters dealing with mechanics:

Apparently you are not aware of the same things I am since you are arguing
mechanics with a mechanical engineer. You are not taught engineering as part of
biology, nor have you persued instruction past your field as is evident by your
failure to understand mechanical principles.

I wonder - is biology taught to mechanical engineers?

By the way - this is the guy that claimed cells are spheres, carbohydrates are the points of attachment for all cells, etc....

[additional links forthcoming]

What happens when matter and anti-matter collide?

2007-07-31T12:04:00.001-04:00

Or, in this case, what happens when two of the most clueless yet supremely arrogant and bombastically overconfident anti-'darwinists' on the Internet turn on each other?

Comedy ensues, starting in this thread!

A klassic klaim from that klown 'Ilion' (Troy D. Hailey):

"(*) Though, not every thing he says is inherently silly, any more than is everything you 'modern evolutionary theorists' say. LE's silliness arises from the same source as yours (plural): a prior committment to scientism rather than to logical reasoning."

So, Troy really thinks that HE engages in logical reasoning???? Anyone who has read more than a few of his posts will realize how utterly preposterous such a notion is...

Red America (?)

2007-07-29T09:11:00.000-04:00

While doing some Googling for Tammy Bruce, I was reminded of the claims of 'Red America' after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Electoral maps like this 2000 one from the official website of the Electoral College (red and blue reversed):

and this one from 2004:

were widely touted as 'proof' that America is truly Conservative. That in America, conservative Republicans are the mainstream. Maps like this one from the 2004 election:

from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ ( a site endorsed by Brit Hume and David Brooks, among others) can be found scattered throughout the right-wing blogosphere as well as having been discussed on FOX news and all over talk radio. I distinctly remember Mary Matalin gushing on one of the Sunday news shows about the number of counties that went for Bush (as seen above).

Interestingly, few if any of the pundits like to mention that in 2004, for instance, Bush won by but 34 electoral votes (286 to Kerry's 252). If America is a red as the pundits want us all to believe, why wasn't the margin of victory something like, oh I don't know, maybe a 220 vote margin (as in Clinton's 1996 victory over Bob Dole, 379 to 159)? Neocons were apparently too busy telling us that Bush's 34 electoral vote, 3% popular vote win was a 'clear mandate' to notice that the actual numbers undercut their propagandistic rhetoric...

But what do these maps really tell us? Is it true that all those counties were 100% pro-Bush? Is it true that "AMERICA" is almost totally conservative, with 'librals' only found in a few hold-out rural cesspools?

Well, Mary Matalin and the neocons might be proud of the acreage of dirt and nothingness that went for Bush, but I find color-coded maps that actually portray the numbers of votes - from actual people - far more interesting. Like this one:

Not quite as 'clear-cut' as those maps hawked by right-wing pundits and absolutist knownothings, eh?

I also like this one, which takes actual numbers of votes into account:

(the above maps from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/)

Or perhaps the following very informative histogram of 2004 presidential election results will shed some light on the heat. It graphs out results by county for each candidate:

We see something far more interesting there than we do in those bland 'red state' maps. Looking at the actual votes by county, we see that there are relatively few 'pure red' ones or 'pure blue' ones. While there are more 'red' counties overall than blue ones, there are clearly more blue voters in the major population areas of the country. And in the end, it is people that vote, not plots of land.

What does this tell us? Well, I am not claiming that the country is liberal, for that would be as wrong as claiming it is conservative. But I think it shows that the coutry is clearly not one extreme or the other, with many so-called 'swing voters'. The last two presidential and congressional elections - the 2004 one in particular - were pretty clearly won on fear-based rhetoric and a base of single issue voters (indicating to me that the 'swing voters' are fairly gullible when it comes to being scared), but that over time, even they will grow tired of the punditry and being taken advantage of, if this 2006 congressional election map is any indicator:

Tammy Bruce's recurring theme

2007-07-29T07:48:00.000-04:00

Flicking through the channels last night, I stumbled across a talk being given by Tammy Bruce on 'Youth and Conservatism' at, perhaps, the Reagan Library (I only watched about 10 minutes of it and the location was mentioned, but I did not take note of it, though she did mention the 'several beautiful' pictures of Reagan in the room). I usually don't stop to watch the 'talks' on CSPAN, but I heard something that caught my attention - something about how 'professors' were trying to intimidate conservative students into keeping quiet.

Being a professor, and knowing that in none of my classes does anything political typically come up and knowing that I certainly wish MORE students would speak up during discussions, I thought I'd give this 'talk' more than my usual 30 seconds. The talk was a bit rambling and disjointed, but the gist was that 'liberal' professors were trying to quash conservative ideas; socialism is responsible for all genocides in history; liberals have a deep self-loathing and hatred for this country and all people, including themselves; conservatives are really the majority in this country; liberals want to force conformity on everyone; liberals want to silence those with differing views; etc. OH, and if you didn't think socialism was bad enough already, she took great pains to point out that Hitler was in the National SOCIALIST Worker's Party, therefore, Hitler was clearly a leftist.

And that was just in the 10 minutes or so that I could stomach. I found a number of the claims contradictory, wholly unsupportable by facts, and, frankly, pretty stupid and not at all reflective of anything I have experienced. It seems a common theme for conservatives to attack academia like they do - they don't want their conservative youth to actually realize that not everyone conforms to their ideology, after all - claiming that professors are intolerant liberals and the like. And so many conservatives claim to have been victims of this. Now, I can certainly see that there are classes in which the professor might be a liberal and might express their beliefs, say, certain English classes, Political Science classes, maybe some Philosophy or History classes. But I think in general, one's political philosophy does not really enter into what one's area of research or teaching is, at least not in my experience. I had one adjunct instructor - in an American Government class - who came right out and stated that he was a liberal and that he had worked with various Democratic politicians and the like, so we all knew exactly where he came from. At the beginning of each class, we had about a 15-20 minute 'current events' discussion (these were classes that met twice a week for about 90 minutes), during which he would bring up an issue and let the class discuss it. He tried at every turn to instill his liberalsim into the class, berating conservative students and embarrassing them into submission... Oh, wait, no he didn't. At worst, he brought up counter-points to the conservative students' typically poorly thought out statements (the class, like society in general, was roughly 30% conservative, 30% liberal, the rest in the middle). Most students said very little. There was one non-traditional (i.e., older) female student that sat in the front row and always had some angry conservative retort to anything said, and two 20-something right-wingers that sat in the back next to me. They always had some snide irrelevant barbs to toss out. I distinctly remember one issue that came up - tax-funded abortions. I believe it was a case in which the military would not pay for an abortion (or would, I don't remember the specifics of that issue), and the non-traditional female student was vehemently opposed to her tax money being used to pay for something she did not believe in. The instructor, playing Devil's Advocate, said, "Well what if I'm a pacifist and I don't want my tax money being spent on the B-1 bomber?" (I think I just dated myself there...). Non-trad just clenched her jaw and stared at him - she had no comeback.. Classic...

So, back to the topic - Tammy Bruce then claimed that she has had atheists come up to her and say that considering the beauty and grandeur of everything around us, it is hard to deny that there is something greater than us out there. Yeah, I'm sure that atheists just walk right up to Tammy Bruce all the time and say such things. Anyway, Bruce was busily spewing her 'people on the left hate themselves' gibberish to a sparsely populated hall - which seemed to be about the size of my living room - when I had had enough. I popped in the newest George Carlin DVD that I had rented and laughed for an hour. The contrast was incredible...

This morning, I got to thinking about this person, whom I had never heard of before, yet supposedly has a syndicated radio talk show (don't they all?) on 160 stations, according to the blurb on the CSPAN screen. So, I did some googling and was amazed to discover her history - lesbian, former NOW president, feminist, that, darn it, just seems to have a problem with minorities... and liberals...

And that is not all - she claims (or at least did in 2003) to be a progressive Democrat! And it seems her 'they hate themselves' schtick is old-hat, too. IN 2003, she was claiming that it was black America that hated itself:

According to Bruce, Cosby and Mfume are part of the Black Elite—people who are “motivated, whether consciously or unconsciously, by a deep-rooted hatred for their country and themselves, which leads them to attempt to destroy the future of their own people and, indeed, everyone else.”

These people have no ethics, no morals, and no sense... And ALL of them seem to have a radio talk show.

Casey Luskin and the junk DNA conspiracy

2007-07-25T10:59:00.000-04:00

Creationist lawyer and Discovery Institute propagandist Casey Luskin recently wrote yet another standard conspiracy theory hack-job, this time concerning 'Junk DNA.'
This time, he seems to have a compatriot - an actual researcher who claims to be experiencing suppression at the pro-evolution website The Panda's Thumb. This scientist, Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz, claims that The Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how "he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function" and that "suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists. " Pellionisz alludes to a supposed 'confrontation' of sorts between fellow 'junk DNA' denier Malcolm Simons and some unnamed pro-junk DNA 'darwinists':

How do you think his fellow-Darwinist scientists received his assertion (1987) that "Junk DNA" had a function?

"When I showed the professional geneticists the data, which indicated to me that the 95% non-coding region wasn't junk, and was ordered…The reaction was smiling disbelief at best - you're off your friggin' head and if you're any good at squash - stick to your day job [MJS]"

Note the date - 1987 - it is important.

If we are to believe Luskin and Pellionisz and Simons, 'darwinists' prevented any research from being done on junk DNA and are therefore somehow responsible for the people that have 'junk DNA'-related diseases.

Has the making of a good story. Has the making of spreading all sorts of angry feelings in the populace regarding those wicked 'darwinists' whose mind-schackling worldview prevented groundbreaking research from going forth in order to prop up their ideology.

The problem is - it is utter and total bullshit.

It seems that the whole story is one of self-promotion (primarily by Simons, but not too much less by Pellionisz) and a tendency to gloss over some basic facts. Simons, for example, has the following claim on his company's home page:

Dr Simons pioneered the concept that 'Junk' non-coding DNA could not be 'Junk' because the DNA sequence differences were ordered, and were conserved between humans of the same coding gene type. The ordered sequence patterns marked lengths of chromosomes, including adjacent and remote genes.

Simons pioneered that concept? Not likely... Got a patent onit, yes. Pioneered it? Not so sure.

An uneducated media is no help - in a story in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002 (at least this is what is claimed at the 'junkDNA' site linked to above) the following statement can be found:

"In a provisional patent application filed July 31, Pellionisz claims to have unlocked a key to the hidden role junk DNA plays in growth -- and in life itself."

So, what does that imply? It implies that it was not until July, 2002, did anyone think 'junkDNA' did anything. That nobody thought there was a role for 'junk DNA' in 'growth and life' - and that it Andras Pellionisz and his radical bunch of compatriots that found it all out. Let's forget, for the moment, that Simons was trying to wear the mantle of 'genius of Junk DNA' for some time prior to that.
Again, this all makes for a wonderful story and plays very well into the hands of the anti-evolution crowd - the suppression of the maverick truth-seeking scientists by the darwinian orthodoxy, poor fellows just looking for the truth and the big, bad, evolutionist machine tells them NO!. But they soldier on in obscurity until they - and they alone - amass such evidence that cannot be ignored anymore, and the Establishment STILL will not give them their due!

But the media like controversey, and by doing such a smidgen of digging, I discovered that this sort of story - that everyone thought junk DNA was all just junk and that anyone daring to suggest it had a function was at best scoffed at - has been around a while. I found an interview with Francis Collins in 2003 in which he was asked about patents involving genes and the like. This exchange is most telling, any emphases mine:

What was known in your view about the non-coding genes, the so called junk DNA back in the early to mid 1980s, was it regarded by most geneticists as mere junk, as meaningless?

Collins: We've known for as long as we've had a decent grasp on human DNA by methods that came along, even before we could sequence it, that there was a lot of repetitive information in the human genome, perhaps half of it was consisting of the bland material that didn't seem to be very information laden. When sequencing came along, we got a much better fix on that and so certainly by 1980 it was quite clear that vast stretches of the human genome were not involved in coding for protein. Furthermore we knew that that could still be useful because information along a chromosome is in fact not independent of its neighbours and way back in 1978, W. Y. Kahn showed that you could measure a place in the non-coding DNA, look at its spelling, and predict whether there was a cycle mutation up stream of that, quite a number of thousands of base-pairs away indicating that while the non-coding DNA might seem not so interesting, it could still carry marker information that told you about what was next door that could be very interesting. And that was generalised by general advances made over the next two or three years by people like David
Botstein, published in distinguished journals and Alec Jeffries in the United Kingdom showed us in 1981 that in fact there was a lot of variation out there between individuals, maybe two or three places every thousand letters in the code where people would differ and that could be useful in terms of tracking what was happening, not necessarily of that particular spelling change but what was downstream or upstream from it that might have a medical consequence. So all of that information was well understood by the mid 1980s.

Did the discoveries made by Malcolm Simons which gave rise to the patents now held by Genetic Technologies, are they widely acknowledged, widely read, widely referred to in the genetic world today?

I don't believe most people were aware of Malcolm Simons' work until fairly recently because of the attention now focussed on this patent application and of course the patent was filed in 1990 and 13 years have really passed before much of anybody that I know was aware of the content of that particular patent which of course was disclosed as soon as the patent issued. So no I don't think scientifically there has been broad recognition of Dr Simons' contribution.

Does that mean that in your view his work was not especially significant, I mean we would have got by without it, would that be fair to say?
It's hard to judge the scientific contribution from reading a patent application, certainly when one looks at the claims of this patent, they are very broad and certainly when one considers the context of the work of many others over the preceding 20 years that breadth appears to many people somewhat surprising. To the extent that Dr Simons published his work in the scientific literature it did not attract a lot of attention which is the usual standard by which we evaluate the contribution to a particular body of scientific knowledge.

It is not like the reporter was convinced of the 'truth' of the spin that Simons and what I think can be called his worshippers has put on it, not at all. It is not like the reporter is asking leading questions, no sir. What it appears to boil down to is that Simons applied for and received a patent regarding 'junk DNA', and because nobody else had done such a thing, he is for some reason seen as a major player in the field and is receiving all manner of recognition that is not really warranted. He was certainly not the only one that thought junk DNA does something. And this can be proven by merely looking here, for just one example:

Cell. 1975
Feb;4(2):107-11.

The general affinity of lac repressor for E. coli DNA: implications for gene regulation in procaryotes and eucaryotes.

By equilibrium competition experiments, the dissociation constant (K(RD)) of lac repressor for E. coli DNA carrying a deletion of the lac operon was measured at a variety of salt concentrations. These data are used in the consideration of several aspects of protein-DNA interaction: Quantitative estimates of specificity are made. Specificity changes only slightly with salt concentration. We calculate that in vivo, 98 percent or more of repressor is bound to DNA predominately at sites other than the lac operator. Inducers shift repressor from operator to nonoperator DNA, but do not free it from DNA. The general affinity of repressor for E. coli DNA is sufficient to support a model where repressor slides along DNA for significant distances. The effective dissociation constant of repressor for operator (K(eff)) is very sensitive to the total DNA concentration. We propose that "junk" DNA in eucaryotes functions to maintain total DNA at an optimum concentration. We consider the lac operon in the nucleus of a lymphocyte, point out that severe difficulties would be encountered, and suggest possible solutions.

Note the date. 1975. A full 12 years prior to Simons' supposed confrontation with genetics researchers who supposedly told him to 'stick to his day job' for suggesting that junk DNA did something as reported by Pellionisz. It is irrelevant as to whether or not the authors were correct in their proposal - the fact is they were considering functions for it in 1975, 3 years after Ohno coined the term 'junk DNA'. It should also be noted that Ohno did not appear to think 'junk DNA' did nothing, rather he was just attempting to describe how he thought it came to be, and he was referring to a particular type of noncoding DNA, not all of it. But don't tell Luskin and pals!

But let us do a quick search to see if Simons deserves the title 'genius of Junk.' A Pubmed search [for "Simons MJ"] reveals a rich publication history going back to the 1960s.
Now Ohno supposedly coined the term 'junk DNA' in 1972 (there is some scuttlebutt that someone else said it at a conference preceding Ohno's claims), and this was the date at which, supposedly, orthodox darwinism shut down research on noncoding DNA. Let's take a look at Simons' post-1972 publications and see which ones reveal his insights into 'junk DNA'...

The first paper I can identify which seems to have anything to do with DNA at all came out in 1984 - 9 years after the paper I cite above (there were earlier ones, but that was the first one with an available abstract), and judging from the abstract, it does not appear to be concerned with junk DNA. The first one I can find that appears to have any implication for functional noncoding DNA, again judging by the abtract, is this one published in 1989, 2 years after his supposed run-in with the orthodoxy-protecting geneticists who insited that junk DNA has no function (there was one other mentioning noncoding DNA, but it was in the context of describing a newly sequenced gene).

Can it still be that Simons is the genius of Junk? That he was the one that proposed/discovered that junk DNA controls things and regulates things and such?

If so, his discovery must have been cryptic, as it seems that Zuckerkandl scooped him, publication-wise, in 1981:

It is proposed that a general function of noncoding DNA and RNA sequences in higher organisms (intergenic and intervening sequences) is to provide multiple binding sites over long stretches of polynucleotide for certain types of regulatory proteins. Through the building up or abolishing of high-order structures, these proteins either sequester sites for the control of, e.g., transcription or make the sites available to local molecular signals. If this is to take place, the existence of a c-value paradox becomes a requirement. Multiple binding sites for a given protein may recur in the form of a sequence motif that is variable within certain limits. Noncoding sequences of the chicken ovalbumin gene furnish an appropriate example of a sequence motif, GAAAATT. Its improbably high frequency and significant periodicity are both absent from the coding sequences of the same gene and from the noncoding sequences of a differently controlled gene in the same organism, the preproinsulin gene. This distribution of a sequence motif is in keeping with the concepts outlined. Low specificity of sequences that bind protein is likely to be compatible with highly specific conformational changes.

Seems Zuckerkandl scooped all the IDcreationists who claim to have 'predicted' function in junk DNA as well...

So, anyway, back to Luskin and his disinformation campaign...

Pellionisz seems to have found a pal in the IDcreationist movement, as he has been cited by Salvador Cordova as an ally. No wonder he decided to confide in Luskin regarding his supposed 'suppression' at Panda's Thumb.

Of course, reality does not stop the ID creationists from, well, lying (or at least embellishing) about the history of junk DNA. In fact, on their slick disinformation site 'researchintelligentdesign' (which, by the way, contains no research), we see claims that it was ID creationists that "predicted" functions for junk DNA that were borne out by research done by... well, not any of them. This page indicates that ID 'theorists' were 'predicting' functions for junk DNA as far back as - get this - 1986! YEARS after there were already publications 'predicting' (and demonstrating) junk DNA functions by evolutionists! Boy, those IDers don't miss a trick! Making predictions in the present about things that had already come to pass - incredible!

Luskin and pals remind me of the castle guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who, after watching Sir Lancelot run across an open field and kill the other guard then proceeds to run through the castle gate, which the guard was supposed to be, well, guarding, calls after him "Hey!"

Troy D. Hailey - another labeling creationist!

2007-07-23T14:09:00.000-04:00

Poor old Troy D. Hailey. We remember him - the internet creationist computer programmer that thinks he is smarter than everyone else...

Seems he found out I posted about him, and he's labeled me a stalker.

Not just any kind of stalker - but a psychopathic virtual one! Pretty cool!

Because, afterall, viewing the 'source' of a photograph that HE posted and following the trail is 'stalking'. Which is odd, since he is a super-smart computer programmer and all, you'd think that he would at least try to cover his tracks, if he was so concerned about it. Surley, he knows how? Creationists like to label people. Weird...

But old Troy is right about one thing - he is, most certainly, a "no one."

Or is he? Look at this amazing proclamation:

This attitude explains why ID is eating your (plural) lunch ... I mean, even aside from the painfully obvious fact that at no time going back to 1859 did you 'modern evolutionary theorists' ever have a real scientific theory in the first place. You people seem actually to imagine that you can use governmental force to silence criticism of your anti-rational pretend theory.

WoW! He got us! No scientific theory according to an internet creationist computer programmer! Who else would we ever go to to hear such truths? And the bit about 'governmental force' - gut punch! Because the government should allow religion to be presented as science, that is for sure!

And this lunch-eating... He must be referring to the fact that ID's own journal is chock full of irrefutable science supportive of creationism/ID!
Old Troy, what a card...

And I am so flattered - I am Troy's favorite psychopath!

Do you actually imagine that I am somehow intimidated because you're apparently in contact with my favorite "Darwinist"

LOL!

What a fella...

*update*

It seems that ARN is preventing direct links (or something), so try this:

http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30332343&amp;amp;amp;page=0&fpart=6&vc=1

**UPDATE 7/25**

It seems that Troy "Ilion" Hailey just can't help himself... [scroll about 1/4 way down page 1, also on the second page]

What a great ambassador for Christ, he is...