The gang at the NCSE have put together Padian's testimony at the Dover trial with the slides he used. You may have already read the transcript, but with the figures added it acquires a whole new dimension — it's basically a wonderfully done primer in the basics of macroevolutionary biology. Next time some creationist tries to simper at you that he accepts microevolution, but that there's no evidence for macroevolution and he refuses to believe it, point him at this page. It's aimed not at scientists, but at the judges and lawyers at a trial, so it's eminently comprehensible to any intelligent layman … and it crushes the bogus rejection of macroevolution that they are so fond of using.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
The values by which we are to survive are not rules for just and unjust conduct, but are those deeper illuminations in whose light justice and injustice, good and evil, means and ends are seen in fearful sharpness of outline.
Jacob Bronowski
Recent Posts
- Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries
- Mr Deity brings me solace and hope
- The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- Correcting Ken Ham's standard omission
- Evolution in two minutes
- The cameraman speaks
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: What's pink and tubular?
- We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- A wonderful debate
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- dk on We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- Alyson Miers on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Richard Eis on Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries
- Martin Brock on The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- Laurie on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Roger Stanyard on Correcting Ken Ham's standard omission
- Brent on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Felix on Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries
- dk on The cameraman speaks
- nigelTheBold on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« WAAGNFNP declares war on Technorati | Main | Go ahead and talk about the Republican debate »
Kevin Padian explains macroevolution
Category: Evolution
Posted on: May 3, 2007 9:21 PM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/39752
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Caledonian | May 3, 2007 9:38 PM
It's pretty obvious. Any judge who actually thinks about the arguments presented before them would instantly see though the "no macroevolution" argument.
Posted by: Callandor | May 3, 2007 9:44 PM
Related to the above post, but still unrelated sadly. I watched the Republican debate tonight, and they asked the one important question to all the candidates: Do you believe in evolution? McCain said yes and explained a bit about feeling the hand of god when he looks at a sunset or some crap. Then everyone who did NOT agree with evolution raised their hands.
Three candidates did.
One for sure was Tancredo; the other two I think were Brownback and Huckabee but I don't know for sure.
And directly to this post, the slide show is awesome. Terrific resource to use for laypeople (like myself, sadly).
Posted by: Dustin | May 3, 2007 10:29 PM
Gee! You're right! I don't even know why they bothered with that slide-show!
Man, what the hell was that? Is that the way guys who jack off to Webster's say: "ZOMGQ! FIRST POST!!1!"?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 3, 2007 10:35 PM
The issue isn't whether the candidates 'believe' in evolution, but whether they'll permit 'alternatives' like Intelligent Design to be taught as well.
Science isn't religion - acceptance of doctrine just isn't a concept that applies.
Posted by: David Utidjian | May 4, 2007 12:48 AM
Wow...
A long read (far from done yet) but worth ever bit. Excellent discussion of HOW science is done as it relates to Paleontology... (which is as far as I have gotten).
-DU-...etc...
Posted by: Hans | May 4, 2007 1:20 AM
It's funny to see this after re-hearing Ken Hovind's performances on the InfidelGuy show (go ahead and pledge at www.infidelguy.com). Every time he gets argued into a corner, he likes to exclaim that "this argument would get you laughed out of a court of law!" In reality, it's his side's arguments that get laughed out of court.
Posted by: MartinC | May 4, 2007 3:53 AM
Nice presentation.
That would make a great Youtube clip - apparently the best way to 'frame' science for public consumption these days.
Posted by: James McGrath | May 4, 2007 10:15 AM
Thanks for sharing this. It was wonderful the other day to see someone on another forum offer a challenge 'Show me even one example where mutations have led to genuinely new characteristics and/or increases of information', and be responded to very quickly with numerous good examples of precisely the phenomena this person was trying to deny. Although obviously the internet also serves the ID and young-earth creationist camps by providing a means of spreading their ideas, scientific information also is getting out there. Keep up the good work!
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/
Posted by: Lucy | May 4, 2007 11:51 AM
I am bowled over. A great read and a brilliant example of clear and illuminating testimony. Makes me proud to be a scientist (of sorts).
Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2007 1:36 PM
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2XcvIgzmk3YJ:www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/Padian/Padian_transcript.html+http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/Padian/Padian_transcript.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca
Google Cache link since the page looks to be down.
Posted by: Carrie | May 4, 2007 3:13 PM
The page should be back up. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Posted by: Rose | May 6, 2007 7:33 AM
Am I the only one thinking jeez, those slides are horribly designed?