…and this is a 
PZ Myers is such a LIAR!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 3, 2006 10:04 AM, by PZ Myers
In my review of the embryology of Jonathan Wells in PIGDID, I made a specific example of the abuse of a quote from Bill Ballard; I pointed out that he selectively edited the quote to completely distort Ballard's point in the cited paper, and used that to show how dishonest all of Wells' work was.
Now Tim McGrew of Kalamazoo wants to accuse me of intentionally distorting Wells' words. I didn't just selectively edit, he thinks I actively changed Wells' words to make my point.
Let me rephrase that: Myers has changed Wells's wording and then has the temerity to accuse Wells of misleading the reader at the very point where Myers himself has made the change in Wells's words.
Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest. And not a single commentator on Panda's Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers's quotation against Wells's actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.
Sal Cordova, sycophant of the ID movement, has of course leapt upon this claim at Uncommon Descent as well. Let's see how accurate McGrew and Cordova are.
Here's the piece I quoted from Wells' book:
It is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates" are more alike than their adults."
McGrew claims this is not in the book, and that he cross-checked it. He even notes that I'd specifically said this was on page 35.
The least interesting of the discrepancies is that Myers has apparently slipped in the page references to Wells: the quotation he finds objectionable appears on pp. 30-31, not on "pp. 35."
Hmmm. Not on page 35? Let's look. Everyone, open your copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design to page 35…oh, you don't have one? I don't blame you. It sucks. Here's a scan of the page for you.
Oh, wait. Maybe you're a creationist. Maybe your initials are S.A.L. C.O.R.D.O.V.A., and you've got the perspicacity of a twig. Here, the red arrows will help you find what I'm talking about.
Better?
My critics apparently looked at that page and didn't notice the big gray box dominating the lower right quadrant of the page—you know, the one with the great big font headline, the ugly graphic (of a lectern, I think), and the bold attribution of the quote to William Ballard. The publishers seem to have done everything they could to make that text pop out to the reader, and in the case of Tim McGrew and Sal Cordova, they failed. I saw it, no problem, and even thought this must be a particularly important point Wells was making. I don't know what the difference between us could be. Maybe it's that I'm not blind.
Let me help you out even more. Let's zoom in on that box.
Here's how I quoted those words:
It is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates "are more alike than their adults."
Uh, maybe I am blind, because I'm looking at those two paragraphs, and I can't see a speck of difference in their content. Is there a typo somewhere?
I'm afraid my quote was accurate. Wells did distort the quote to suit his ends. He quotes Ballard elsewhere in the article, too, but it's more of the same: he's trying to twist Ballard's words into some kind of refutation of the facts, to lie about what a distinguished dead (and therefore unable to rebut him) biologist had to say about the similarities of embryos. The point of Ballard's paper was to argue for the diversity of gastrulation mechanisms, but right there in the paper, in the paragraph above the one Wells' selectively quoted, he affirms that "the pharyngula stage…is remarkably uniform throughout the subphylum."
So who is the liar?
Let's watch Uncommon Descent to see how low they can sink. Someone posted a comment there pointing out that I'd rebutted their claim—they deleted it! People noticed the deletion, and here's a comment that came after that:
How long will that comment survive, I wonder?
Now I'm being accused by the loons at Uncommon Descent of "cherry-picking" the quotes. I mean, seriously, look at the scanned page: the quote I used is given enormous space. It's just bizarre to be told that I was supposed to ignore that and use something else in the text.
I've addressed this in the comments, but yes, there is another use of the quotation from Ballard on pages 30-31, and also from Elinson and Sedgwick. I could have used that one, too, as an example of a slippery elision by Wells.
The previous paragraph quotes Sedgwick (1894) saying that "...a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development." Then Wells says, "Modern embryologists confirm this," and uses the Bill Ballard quote. Bill Ballard did not confirm that at all. Ballard coined the term "pharyngula", and in that paper he specifically affirms his acceptance of the idea of great similarity at the pharyngula stage, as I quoted above.
I could have written the same castigation of Wells twice, I suppose, using both of Wells' different manglings of Ballard's words, but it didn't seem economical, so I went with the version that was most prominently highlighted in the chapter.
I suspect that if I'd used his misrepresentation of Ballard from pages 30-31, I'd now be hearing that I misquoted Wells maliciously, and they'd be pointing out the big bold box on page 35 and telling me I lied, and that I was blind as a bat, too, and gee, don't you think pulling it out for special attention meant I should have used that one?
All of this is a distraction. Wells misrepresents biology and reports on the scientific research inaccurately throughout PIGDIG. Now his pals are just trying to throw that same accusation at his critics, and doing so as incompetently and falsely as Wells does science.
OK, I see some people are still in doubt, and are demanding that I post pages 30-31. Here they are.
Satisfied yet? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Hartigan at the end of Sin City, hammering that yellow bastard into a slimy pulp.
Comments
I'm not much into the big MMO gamer segment, but I believe this qualifies as "pwnz0rd!"
Congrats on making the stupidity of your opponents ever more apparent, PZ. :)
Too bad most won't notice.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 3, 2006 10:10 AM
PZ, I hope you will comment on Xenoturbella soon.
Posted by: Vasha | November 3, 2006 10:14 AM
Ahah! Different font! You used a different font! Neener neener. Now, Mr. smarty Dr., defend that!
Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 3, 2006 10:23 AM
< parody> It is only your materialist-atheist prejudice that makes you completely blind, and uncapable to recognize that the two texts are completely different. O.K. You say, that the pictures are identical down to a single pixel ? But that does only show how oblivious are you to your reductionist presuppositions that cause you interpret identical pixels as identical text. </parody>
Posted by: T_U_T | November 3, 2006 10:23 AM
Uh-oh. Now PowerLine is going to come along and "prove" that I didn't type that with an IBM Selectric, and my entire case will fail.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 3, 2006 10:27 AM
Tune in next week:
Sal tries to 'detect' his ass with both hands.
Posted by: Rich | November 3, 2006 10:27 AM
Tim said:
He makes it sound so devilishly adventurous!
Posted by: Silmarillion | November 3, 2006 10:37 AM
I almost posted something on UD, but
A) I'm sure you could point it out to them directly without my help, if you wanted to/are allowed to/could without having to dunk your computer in disinfectant.
and
B) they require registration, and that's way more effort than it's worth.
Oh, and Bronze Dog, the most correct (per most google hits) spelling is really "pwnz0rd." C'mon, man, the other kids will make fun of you :)
Posted by: Fox1 | November 3, 2006 10:40 AM
Wow. Dr. McGrew's accusations are incorrect.
I'd be expecting a humble apology from him at any moment now, and a retraction on all the ID blogs, because that would be the ethical thing to do.
Posted by: calladus | November 3, 2006 10:43 AM
Uh, what? I can't see it there on p. 35.
And even if it is there now, how do I know it was there when Myers said it was? Huh? Darwinist will go to any length to make IDists look stupid, or at least some sort of people do that (X, they sure look stupid).
I'm looking forward to McGrew's next set of revelations, like maybe that Darwin didn't claim that natural selection drives evolution. Thank God Sal will be there when it happens, as he appears to be the best publicist for ID failures around.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 3, 2006 10:46 AM
Hey, what the heck kind of filter do you have running here? It turned the zero in my snarky correction into a lowercase 'o', just like in the referenced comment! Let me test here: pwnzor, pwnz0r.
If those look the same, then there's a leet-speak filter on, and, while I can't say that that's a bad thing to have in place, it kind of makes me look like (more) of a jackass, here.
If they look different, then.... uh, well, then I guess no one's making me look stupid but myself.
Posted by: fox1 | November 3, 2006 10:46 AM
Whoa, hey, someone else did post a link to your response on UD, and it was deleted within minutes without comment.
Interesting, but I didn't take a screenshot.
Posted by: fox1 | November 3, 2006 10:49 AM
Wow, who'd-a thunk "dumber than a box of rocks" could ever be an insult to... rocks. Of course, that IS the level of mental debility required to be a creationist.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 10:53 AM
Is someone saving that thread at UD? I have the feeling that it might disappear as quickly as the truth does at the CSC.
And I know that it's just one bit of a vast culture of stupidity associated with ID, but really, it's one of the best, particularly the posts complaining about the lack of checking and lack of intellectual honesty, all the while they are serving this special piece of tardity.
So try to save it if it is allowed, PZ. I'd hate for it to disappear without the possibility for recovery.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 3, 2006 10:59 AM
hahaha!
I haven't looked at PIGDID lately (I don't own it, so I can't check right now), but I suspect Wells said nearly the same thing twice - the Tim McGrew quote on pp 30-31, and your quote on pp 35.
I suspect the bit on pp 35 differs only from that on pp 30-31, by replacing 'cleavage and gastrulation' with 'early embryo' . But then I've always thought it was common for shaded boxes to nearly quote other parts of the book, but in slightly shortened form, usually for no good reason.
This notion would explain why Tim McGrew is so sure of himself; he would see the pp 30-31 bit first, and because he was hoping to find some evidence of PZ's dishonesty, he immediately seized on the difference. He failed to see the box on pp 35 because he didn't look at pp 35 - why look at pp 35 when he'd already found the 'right quote' on pp 30-31. Besides, he knew he had to write a post describing PZ's malfeasance as fast as possible - at any moment, the Evil Darwinists might fly their Black Helicopters over to PT and change the text there, sending truth down the memory hole ...
Yeah - I don't think the obviousness of the box matters, because Tim McGrew never looked at pp 35. But it would be awfully nice if someone would look at pp 30-31 for me and discover whether my notion is sense or nonsense.
Posted by: llewelly | November 3, 2006 11:03 AM
I've got it. The excerpt in the book uses smart quotes. PZ's quote from it does not. That must be it.
Sal made a nice, oily post here a couple days ago, think he's got the guts to respond to this now? Doubt it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | November 3, 2006 11:05 AM
Wait, I'm confused here...
It maybe me still suffering from that Dayquil + sinus medication bender, but, so they're quote mining someone who quote mined you, and they're lying about it?
Posted by: Stanton | November 3, 2006 11:06 AM
Posted by: Jim Wynne | November 3, 2006 11:17 AM
Bronze Dog wrote:
In this particular case, I believe it should be capitalized a bit differently: "PwnZ0rd".
Posted by: arensb | November 3, 2006 11:17 AM
Yep, I did, but I don't expect it (or the thread) to last long.
Posted by: Allen MacNeill | November 3, 2006 11:18 AM
So much for moral prescriptivism.
I could have sworn it said something about not lying in that funny book of theirs. Maybe the Magic Pimp in the Sky spoke with him directly and told him it was okay just this once.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | November 3, 2006 11:21 AM
There is another use of the quotation from Ballard on pages 30-31, and also from Elinson and Sedgwick. I could have used that one, too, as an example of a slippery elision by Wells.
The previous paragraph quotes Sedgwick (1894) saying that "...a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development." Then Wells says, "Modern embryologists confirm this," and uses the Bill Ballard quote. Bill Ballard did not confirm that at all. Ballard coined the term "pharyngula", and in that paper he specifically affirms his acceptance of the idea of great similarity at the pharyngula stage.
I could have written the same thing twice, I suppose, using both of Wells' different manglings of Ballard's words, but it didn't seem economical, so I went with the version that was most prominently highlighted in the chapter.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 3, 2006 11:22 AM
PZ pointed out the quote mining of Ballard by Wells.
Then they claim that PZ had the quote mining wrong, not even the right page.
Here he's showing the quote mine and a scan of the page...
Taa daahhh!
Thus showing what complete dishonest morons they are.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2006 11:22 AM
I've caught PZ in yet another of his damn lies--it's a podium, not a lectern.
Posted by: Adam | November 3, 2006 11:24 AM
Sal's justification:
"I posted it for discussion, I wan the readers to decide and argue amonst themselves and provide data and links or whatever.
What is at issue is not what Ballard said, but Myers quotaion of Wells.
Sal"
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2006 11:28 AM
PZ, it's Leninist morality again. Your use of the words is objectively pro-Satan and therefore innately false. See, it's easy.
(Seriously, though, one does get a feeling of deja vu reading Lenin or Trotsky on debating methods and then looking at creationists.)
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | November 3, 2006 11:35 AM
Given the text McGraw quoted from pp30-31, is Myers, rather than lying, is just guilty of miscontextualizing the standout graphic?
If the quote box from pp.35 is meant to highlight what was already presented on pp.30-31, then Myers is wrong that Wells lied and McGraw is wrong that Myers lied. He simply missed that the quote was reviewing material covered a few pages earlier.
Posted by: Todd | November 3, 2006 11:36 AM
The problem, you see, is that they didn't want the quote box on page 35 to exist so they didn't see it. It's like all the evidence for evolution and an old Earth. You can show it to them over and over but they will still say that you aren't giving them examples. A certain flamer who tends to get disemvoweled is a particularly good example of that but they all do it. I'd be willing to bet that they haven't seen the link at either blog.
Posted by: Mena | November 3, 2006 11:37 AM
Nope. A podium is the raised dais that the speaker stands on. The lectern is the pillar and stand before him.
Using "podium" when you mean "lectern" is a common enough error that it has been accepted by the dictionaries.
podium |ˈpōdēəm| noun ( pl. -diums or -dia |-dēə|) a small platform on which a person may stand to be seen by an audience, as when making a speech or conducting an orchestra. • a lectern. • a continuous projecting base or pedestal under a building. • a raised platform surrounding the arena in an ancient amphitheater.
lectern |ˈlektərn| noun a tall stand with a sloping top to hold a book or notes, and from which someone, typically a preacher or lecturer, can read while standing up.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 3, 2006 11:37 AM
Excellent pwnage, PZ! Even more excellent because they are far too cowardly to face having their dishonest asses handed to them.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | November 3, 2006 11:40 AM
But PZ's last comment provided some of the context surrounding the quote on pp.30-31 which looks pretty damning. One can't reasonably argue that Wells was honestly applying Ballard's quote if he's using it in support of the notion that "a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development." Ballard was saying no such thing.
Of course, I doubt creationists will accept PZ's summary. Any chance someone could provide scans of the relevant pages?
Posted by: MartinM | November 3, 2006 11:44 AM
It doesn't matter how it's presented earlier in the book.
It's pulled out on page 35 to present it how the wanted it to be read.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2006 11:48 AM
Todd, desperately spinning, wrote:
"He simply missed that the quote was reviewing material covered a few pages earlier."
Wells's quoting of Ballard wasn't accurate, Todd. He provided two different ones, so both can't possibly be right.
Now, we have your buddies falsely accusing PZ of misrepresenting it literally and lying, so your backpedaling to the lame "misconceptualization" only makes you look dishonest, too.
Are your buddies Tim and Bradford going to apologize to PZ in every forum in which their false accusation has been discussed?
I doubt it.
Posted by: John | November 3, 2006 11:51 AM
Todd:
Replacing "'gastrulas' of shark, salmon, frog, and bird" with "the early embryo stages of vertebrates" isn't a lie? Isn't meant to imply all early embryo stages, rather than the distinction Ballard makes between gastrula and pharyngula? In the quote that's the far more prominently displayed of the two in question? When the quote your camp seems to favor is itself misleading, used, as PZ says, to support the claim that species are distinct throughout development, when the paper it's from argues for similarity at the pharyngula stage?
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2006 11:52 AM
No wonder he doesn't dare to show us the overwhelming truth (no doubt) to be found on the mysterious yet mighty pp 30-31!
The scanned excerpt uses curly quotes, the text version below it uses straight quotes: counting on a pixel level, that's no less than 12 specks of difference.
Therefore, the liar Myers is utterly disproven, McGrew & Wells are vindicated, and the awesome edifice of cdesign proponentsism triumphs above the shattered tower of cards of Babel of Darwinism forever!
Now, about those gays sabotaging our inevitable victory in Iraq...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 3, 2006 11:53 AM
Hey, c'mon Sal! We now know you've read this thread! Why don't you post here, come clean, admit your screwup, and share some of that Christian morality that makes you such a better person than all us 'secularists'?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | November 3, 2006 11:53 AM
Indeed. Vaguely reminds me of one of my old lecturers, who once told us "In time, you'll probably only remember one thing about this lecture, so let it be this:"
Unfortunately, it was that instead.
Still, the earlier passage is a nice hook on which to hang obfuscation, as Wells and his supporters are so fond of doing.
Posted by: MartinM | November 3, 2006 11:54 AM
re Fox1:
Check your font. I see 'pwnz0rd' with numeral zero in Bronze Dog's post, 'pwnz0rd' with numeral zero in your reply, and 'pwnzor, pwnz0r' - one with lowercase o and one with numeral zero - in you next post.
Posted by: llewelly | November 3, 2006 11:54 AM
To be precise, "Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally."
Which is awkward enough at the best of times, but an impressive achievement in writing.
Posted by: MartinM | November 3, 2006 11:57 AM
Edward Gibbon had the same problem with Henry Edwards Davis, an incompetent ecclesiastic critic whom he completely shafted in 1779:
Ballard doesn't even have that feeble excuse.
Posted by: Bartholomew | November 3, 2006 11:57 AM
Posted by: Graham Douglas | November 3, 2006 11:59 AM
"Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally."
'Literally'? Does Tim somehow know how PZ was holding his jaw when he wrote the passage that offended him so?
Do any of these doofuses know what 'literally' actually means?
I suppose it's a miracle they aren't spelling it 'Meyers'.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | November 3, 2006 12:03 PM
Todd:
The "standout graphic" is the piece that will "stand out" in people's memories and be picked up upon by those thumbing through it for important points/quotes/etc. It is therefore important that this piece accurately reflects Ballard's views.It is really no justification when you lie in large letters to point out that what you say in small print is less dishonest.
Posted by: Hrafn | November 3, 2006 12:04 PM
How about just post a scan of pp.30-31? I see standout boxes with abbreviated quotes in many textbooks, magazines, etc. If the material in the box is an abbreviation of a fuller context quote within the actual text, I hardly see how it is a lie or misrepresentation to anyone but those who only read what is written in the standouts.
Is it so hard to just admit such a simple error?
Posted by: Todd | November 3, 2006 12:05 PM
Sal has pulled the old "I only posted it to generate discussion" scam on many, many occasions.
It's an act of drive-by intellectual vandalism.
"Sorry, Mr. Myers, I was trying to throw the egg OVER your house, not AT your house."
Uh, right, Sal.
Posted by: Doc Bill | November 3, 2006 12:08 PM
Okay, Todd, I ask again:
How is replacing "'gastrulas' of shark, salmon, frog, and bird" with "the early embryo stages of vertebrates" not a lie or misrepresentation, even if accidental? How is using the Ballard quote (still misquoted) on P.31 not also misleading when it is used to support a claim the paper specifically undermines?
Looking at UD, the discussion seems to be degrading into debates over the definition of "early embryos" and claims of simple editing errors.
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2006 12:08 PM
Absolutely unbelievable. I cant believe that they didnt see that big grey box on P 35.
Is it a sign that creationists cant see the "facts" right under their noses? Hmmmmmmm...
Well done PZ, well done! Your integrity, intellectual prowess, and reading comprehension skills serve to make the ID/creationist community a total laughing stock. I think this little fiasco needs to be spread around the net by everyone as much as possible. This post should be linked multiple times in the comments sections of every blog post at every creationist website for the next 6 months!
Posted by: Aaron KinneyAaron Kinney | November 3, 2006 12:10 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 12:11 PM
Todd, desperate as ever, wrote:
"How about just post a scan of pp.30-31?"
Why? PZ didn't cite anything from those pages.
"I see standout boxes with abbreviated quotes in many textbooks, magazines, etc. If the material in the box is an abbreviation of a fuller context quote within the actual text,..."
It is dishonest to put such an abbreviation within quotation marks.
"I hardly see how it is a lie or misrepresentation to anyone but those who only read what is written in the standouts."
We're asking how Tim determined that PZ's accurate quotation of this was "lying through his teeth," remember?
"Is it so hard to just admit such a simple error?"
PZ didn't make an error, Todd. Your friends, however, either made a grave error that needs to be corrected by prominent apologies, or they were lying. Their behavior in the next few hours will tell us which hypothesis is correct.
What's your guess?
Posted by: John | November 3, 2006 12:16 PM
Sal Cordova = pwn3d.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | November 3, 2006 12:17 PM
To be precise, "Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally."
To be perfectly honest, when I read that, my eyeballs popped out. Literally! ;-)
Frankly, I credit Dembski with some brains and I cannot imagine how much longer he is going to swing that little yo-yo, Sal.
And then the comments! This says a lot of Wells' book where the opposition has to make stuff up in order to attack his book. Yeah, it says a lot about the opposition that PZ has to post the same page of a book three different times! Uugghhh.
UD is my only soap opera, but now it has become as boring as The Real World when it ran out of amusing spats. At least the producers of the The Real World had the brainstorm to get everybody into the hot tub when the show's ratings slumped like Ted Haggard's masterpiece after his "Art"-istic endeavors. UD has become another lemonaid-and-pretzles "Solomon said" party. No fun anymore to crash.
Posted by: Kristine | November 3, 2006 12:19 PM
Todd:
"If the material in the box is an abbreviation of a fuller context quote within the actual text, I hardly see how it is a lie or misrepresentation to anyone but those who only read what is written in the standouts."
The problem is that this quote is a complete Frankensteinisation of what Ballard said. 40% (14 words out of 34) weren't even said by Ballard at all. The remaining 60% (24 word) was patched together from three different fragments (the longest of which was 9 words long). This sort of thing is prima facie dishonest, as it has no possible purpose other than to twist the quoted writer's words.
Posted by: Hrafn | November 3, 2006 12:20 PM
That is very funny indeed.
Posted by: Andrew Brown | November 3, 2006 12:21 PM
No, John, see, UD and Sal didn't make an error. They just threw up Tim's item for comment. Clearly, they knew it was wrong and were just looking to test the skills of their commenters in deducing such, and hoped to start a discussion about the definitions of embryo stages for educational purposes. ;)
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2006 12:21 PM
Well, missing the big gray box should certainly embarrass McGraw, but then Myers is quoted saying Wells was deliberately hiding the distinction between pharngula and gastrula, when in the context of the pp.31 quote, he was not. Are sharks, birds and fish vertebrates? Is Wells' book meant for popular consumption or for those who know the particulars? I don't see how substituting 'vertebrates' for 'shark, salmon, frog, and bird', is so misleading.
Posted by: Todd | November 3, 2006 12:22 PM
Posted by: quork | November 3, 2006 12:24 PM
Oh, Kristine, how can you possibly be bored of DaveScot's antics? He's currently trying to argue that because cleavage and gastrulation are early embryo stages, it's acceptable to replace references to those stages with references to all early embryo stages.
Posted by: MartinM | November 3, 2006 12:25 PM
John said "It is dishonest to put such an abbreviation within quotation marks.".
But that isn't what happened. The actual quotes were interspersed with more succinct unquote words, which seem to accurately, though more generally represent what was actually written.
Posted by: Todd | November 3, 2006 12:25 PM
Over at the uncommonlydense comment-fest, Dave_Scot is calling PZ's reprinting of the contents of that quote-box "cherrypicking".
"Myers evidently cherry picked this box quote and ignored the text on pp. 30-31 where Wells included the gastrula stage clarification that Myers objects to as being left out."
Just *try* unpeeling all of the layers of irony.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | November 3, 2006 12:28 PM
PZ,
In fairness to Wells, his publisher was Regnery.
This box was probably written and added to the book by them. Regnery has a history, according to its authors, of adding things to books that the author's don't endorse. Bethell made the same claim about things written on the cover of his book when he debated Chris Mooney on the radio. Ramesh Ponnuru also said that they added copy to the cover of his book with which he did not agree... There are probably others.
That doesn't excuse these guys of course, their names are on the books. But accusing Regnery publishing and its employees like Ben Domenech of dishonesty, well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnery_Publishing
that's kind of old news at this point.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | November 3, 2006 12:28 PM
Todd:
Now you're just playing dumb. You know as well as I that my comment had nothing to do with "vertebrates vss sharks/fish/birds," but with "gastrulas vs. the early embryo stages."
You're also declining to notice the more fundamental problem of Wells using a quote that he had to know, in that quote's original form and context, clearly undermined the point he was trying to make. If Wells was being honest (but within his claims), he would have said something like: "Species are distinct through their embryonic development to adulthood. Ballard partially agrees [Ballard quote here] but disagrees in that he claims pharyngula stages are remarkably similar."
Not saying that, and omitting the entire context of that quote, while further using it to support the "distinct embryos" claim, isn't deliberately hiding Ballard's distinction? This would be like a person claiming the sky is nearly always orange quoting an essay on how best to paint blue skies in support of his claims, by pulling out a remark about how it's best to use orange and red pigments when painting the occasional sunrise or sunset.
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2006 12:32 PM
John said "It is dishonest to put such an abbreviation within quotation marks.".
Todd: "But that isn't what happened."
Todd, you're completely full of shit. The words WITHIN QUOTATION MARKS were different.
Have you considered reading before arguing? This speaks volumes about the intellectual integrity and ability to evaluate evidence of people like you.
"The actual quotes were interspersed with more succinct unquote words, which seem to accurately, though more generally represent what was actually written."
What? "Seem to accurately..."? Todd, have you read the paper by Ballard, or are you being completely dishonest here?
Posted by: John | November 3, 2006 12:39 PM
This is all just a big misunderstanding! It's like the Catholic insitence that transubstantiation, where the wine and bread become the blood and body of Christ, is literally true. They will acknowledge that it is not true materially, but is true "in essence." So it is with PZ's quote of Wells: it is the same letters, in the same order, but he missed the "essence" of the original.
Boy, lying is harder than I thought. I think I'll stop now.
Posted by: quork | November 3, 2006 12:40 PM
In case you missed it when jumping to the latest comment, I've added scans of pages 30-31 to the article now.
That really should about cover it. That is, until someone decides that the fact that Wells accurately cited the title of Ballard's paper in the notes excuses him for any and all misinterpretations of its contents. I expect that any minute now.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 3, 2006 12:47 PM
Todd,
You still don't get it. There is no error here.
From the beginning, PZ explained that, by deliberately distorting Ballard's words, Wells is trying to make it look like he is supporting HIS view, that is, that species are distinguishable from the very earliest stages, and all through the development. Ballard says no such thing. He specifically refers to the gastrula stage, and points out the amazing similarity of the pharyngula stage later on. PZ explains all that in his article.
If it was just an omission for simplicity (assuming even that is acceptable), then, to maintain the meaning of Ballard's words, the quote should read "SOME OF the early stages of vertebrae developement", not "THE stages". Wells deliberately obscures and generalizes in the standout graphic, to make the quote serve his purpose.
There is where the dishonesty lies.
Can you understand this simple fact?
Posted by: Sotiris | November 3, 2006 12:48 PM
PZ likes lying so much that sometimes he has to tell the truth in a way that seems like it's a lie (to idiots) just to be able to at least sort of lie as many times as he desires. Is that about right? Somebody hook me up with the shit they're smoking. It's good shit.
Posted by: pough | November 3, 2006 12:52 PM
I wonder if Sal Cordova is slapped across the lips hard enough, will his lower lip will split open and bleed a little bit? Then he will look really silly when the tears start rolling down his sick lying face.
I just can't wait until the day it happens. I hope somebody has a camera.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 3, 2006 1:01 PM
Mr. smarty Dr., you may have "explained" your interpretation of "reality" by using a lot of clever sciencey stuff and facty stuff and you may have cleverly slipped by the lecturn/podium/apple debacle and controversy (for now) but you still evade accounting for the "accidental" font disparity. And this:
The scanned excerpt uses curly quotes, the text version below it uses straight quotes: counting on a pixel level, that's no less than 12 specks of difference.
12 specks of difference!!
It is this kind of blatant blatantness that you literally just can't run or figureatively hide from - especially on the intertubes of truth! Sir, will you now return to...what was that other interblog place, Unfettered Dimwittery?, to post the appropriate apology? Or, will you just once and for all admit here and now that all of your science learnings id the phoeey? Or, will you just keep on ignoring your critics?
(pssssst D. Scott, call me, we can team)
Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 3, 2006 1:20 PM
I like the fact that even UD's new, bestest friend Allen MacNeil has called out Sal and UD on this.
Kristine - Don't be depressed! This is the new, Reality Soap, Daze of ID Lies. ...and starring Buffalo Bill Dembski as the Beaver.
Posted by: J-Dog | November 3, 2006 1:22 PM
I assumed it was weighing scales - looks like that to me and fits with the "weigh the evidence" thing
Posted by: G. Shelley | November 3, 2006 1:23 PM
Wells' lawyer makes his case:
'We object, your honour. On the grounds that my client would vastly prefer to be tried for a slightly different crime, committed a day or two earlier...'
'Sure! Sure it's different. See, on the previous occasion, we can show my client lied in a slightly different way! These proceedings are a sham, your honour! We move to dismiss.'
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 3, 2006 1:25 PM
The UD trolls have come a calling.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2006 1:28 PM
Or a'crawlin', as the case may be.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 1:30 PM
re Todd:
No. 'early embryo' is appears to be a simplification of 'cleavage and gastrulation'. But it is an incorrect simplification - the phrase 'early embryo' often includes other stages in addition to 'cleavage and gastrulation', up to the pharyngula stage and sometimes beyond, especially in longer gestation vertabrates. As PZ's review points out, the remainder of the chapter conflates 'early embryo' with pharyngula - it takes advantage of the vagueness of the phrase 'early embryo' and the variations in its use. PZ interpreted the quote in the same context Wells presented it in. That the pp30-31 quote uses 'cleavage and gastrulation' rather than 'early embryo' does not change the deceit in the pp35 quote.
Wells seemingly misquoted himself to make it appear that Evo Devo was based on 'semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence' and 'bending the facts of nature'. That the deceit in the pp30-31 quote differs in character does not make Wells misquote of himself any less false.
More importantly, both quotes deliberately emphasize the phrases 'semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence' and 'bending the facts of nature' to make it appear that they describe how the entire field of evolutionary science is constructed, rather than describing certain overzealous presentations of recapitulation, which have since fallen by the wayside, and are no longer part of mainstream biology.
PZ's review shows that Wells misrepresented Ballard's valid criticism of a subsection of evo devo as being a revelation that the entire field was dishonest. Both the pp30-31 and pp35 quotes attempt to do this. Both use re-arrangement of Ballard's phrases as the primary strategy. The pp35 quote also uses a direct falsehood as a secondary strategy.
No - Both quotes are misleading, but one includes a direct lie as well. Myers is not wrong - he is incomplete, in that he confined his review to the most egregious offenses rather than cover every nit-picking sentence.
More or less. I don't think McGrew read the second (pp35) quote before commenting. He leapt to a conclusion, wrote his comment, and found he'd landed on an alligator. All because he was so eager to find dishonesty in his opponents that he couldn't read 5 more pages.
Posted by: llewelly | November 3, 2006 1:34 PM
If I got that lectern/podium thing wrong (I haven't looked it up, but if PZ says I did I'm betting I did), I am dutifully literally chagrinned. (No one cares, but I gotta post this if I want to say anything more, which I do.)
PZ, they've given you your opening on UD. They're waiting for you to explain your point and, I presume, paying attention. I encourage you to reply. Be polite!
(Damned biology professors. But what can you do, right?)
Posted by: Adam | November 3, 2006 1:35 PM
Ooh, the trolls have delusions of grandeur too. Naturally anybody who has had enough fun hanging around one of their intellectual cesspits and goes back to more interesting things must be "slinking". Whereas, of course, trolling under a name that sounds as though it were made up by a 3-year-old" is not "slinking". Nossir.
By the way, moron, my name is Steve. I comment under my real name, wherever I comment.
Hilarious.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 1:38 PM
That reminds me, Gil, of how you slinked away from Heddle's blog because you were not surrounded by like-minded rabble there (as you are here).
R.O.
By the way, have you read what Heddle thinks of Dembski and Sal recently? I assume you agree with him?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | November 3, 2006 1:41 PM
And I affectionately refer to you as "moron". Oops, no I'm not being affectionate. Oh well.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 1:44 PM
At issue is what you apparently said, PZ:
I hardly think Wells saying the word "gastrulation" 3 times on pages 30-31 consitutes an omission of the word "gastrula". Tehcnically they're aren't exactly the same words.
An for the record, I never accuse people publicly of lying, not even you. :-)
I don't see how Wells is pretending it's the pharyngula stage when he actually refers to gastrulation. Did I miss Wells using the word Pharyngula?
Let me say to the readers here at Pharyngula "PZ is an insigutful guy". I even said so recently at Pharygula and agreed with you, PZ, in your assessment of Pat Hayes.
So I expect you havea good reason for accusing Wells of of omitting the word "gastrula" when Wells used the word "gastrulation" 3 times.
Posted by: Salvador T. Cordova | November 3, 2006 1:45 PM
Yeah, PZ, you have further shown how the UD people are liars. It seems to get easier every day. What cracks me up is how again Davescot comes off looking like an idiot in this whole mess: he copped up to deleting links to this response, and he tries to claim he's just "being fair."
When I think Davescot can't sink lower or make less sense, he does just that.
Posted by: Ric | November 3, 2006 1:50 PM
GWW:
Get an f'ing life. Your obsession with Cordova is creepy.
LOL! I'm s