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

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

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?

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

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!

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

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

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!

*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

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

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?

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....

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

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?

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

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

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?)

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

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"

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"

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?