…and this is a 
Ken Miller weighs in on Expelled
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 8, 2008 3:15 PM, by PZ Myers
Guess what? He didn't like it, nosir.
"Expelled" is a shoddy piece of propaganda that props up the failures of Intelligent Design by playing the victim card. It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science. In that sense, the word "expelled" may have a different and more tragic connotation for our country than Stein intended.
That's timely, since it's also a theme of Miller's new book, which argues strongly that creationism has destructive consequences for America's scientific enterprise.
Comments
Bu-bu-but I thought you mean nasty new atheists were going to drive off nice theistic allies like Ken Miller! The Masters of Framing told me so!
Posted by: themann1086 | May 8, 2008 3:21 PM
Nicely written article by Miller. Particularly revealing is this bit from an interview of Stein:
So Stein isn't just opposed to modern biology, but all forms of science. If he just would follow though on his convictions and go live in a cave somewhere and wear animal skins, we would be free of his bothersome whining. Aren't cameras against his religion, being products of demonic science? He should stay away from them.
Posted by: Mark B | May 8, 2008 3:32 PM
Miller's not the only one thinks that creationism has destructive consequences for America, so does this guy:
"12. Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind."
-- Benjamin J. Stein, "How to Ruin American Enterprise" Forbes, 23 Dec 2002
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 8, 2008 3:32 PM
Completely OT:
The Flying-Spaghetti-Monster manifests itself for the world to see!!!!
http://megagalerias.terra.cl/galerias/index.cfm?id_galeria=30734
(via, digbysblog.blogspot.com)
Posted by: travc | May 8, 2008 3:33 PM
I really can't wait for Miller's new book: it sounds great. I'm probably amongst the minority of non-believers who wasn't put off by the second half of Finding Darwin's God. It's not that I bought his theology, but then I didn't read it as him trying to convince me, a non-believer, of it in the first place. I simply enjoyed the spirit of someone willing to get creative with theology in light of science, rather than the other way around. And I mostly agreed with him about atheists scientists getting a little philosophically sloppy with slightly too grand declarations that strain the scope of science.
Of course PZ, if you'd get around to writing a book already, I'm sure wouldn't be able to wait for that either, but... tap tap tap...
I don't care if it's about atheism, zebrafish, or cephalopods. It just needs to happen already. :)
Off-topic: conservative religious journal First Things has decided that second time's the charm, and theologically explaining away the dangerous theological implications of the tsunami can do double duty for explaining away cyclones in Myanmar as well.
Posted by: Bad | May 8, 2008 3:34 PM
"Expelled" just opened here in Santa Rosa . . . Straight to the second-run budget theatre. Only two showings a day.
Bet you a nickel it will be gone after one week.
I'll try to talk to the ticket-seller later today & see if anyone is going.
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | May 8, 2008 3:34 PM
Damn, it would help if I got the link correct:
'Proof' of the FSM:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_fxJhAju65fo/SCMuf6a_UTI/AAAAAAAAABU/F6UQywE9Ce8/s1600-h/SCL200805022038JAMM+370.jpg
Posted by: travc | May 8, 2008 3:35 PM
Sure, but we know he's a covert atheist, since he accepts evolutionary theory, and thus we don't have to believe anything he says.
See, that's the great thing about being a loony religionist, you already know the answer to anything thrown at you.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 8, 2008 3:37 PM
Well. There's one theist who isn't letting the ID lot get away with their lies.
Now if we could only see something similar from all the other religious moderates.
Anyone notice how China is positioning itself to be the next leader of the super powers? India seems to be heading in the same direction and will not be relying on the US for protection from China. Reference; recent stories of nuclear sub bases. There are planners in China that are quite happy to see Americans rejecting science education.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | May 8, 2008 3:42 PM
Crosspost PT:
This is true.
1. Funding has been flat for years while inflation roars along.
2. The number of papers published by the US has also been flat. While the number of papers from the rest of the world goes up.
3. The present administration is hostile to whole branches of science, stem cell research, ecology, climatology, etc..
US science has always been world leading, the reason why the US is the world leader. Lose that and we are on our way to banana republic status. All civilizations fall but I was hoping the US one would hold together for my lifetime at least.
Posted by: raven | May 8, 2008 3:45 PM
"Now if we could only see something similar from all the other religious moderates."
I'm not sure how, at least on this issue, that we aren't seeing that. I mean, we've got most of the Catholic scientists, most of the liberal religious professors, most of the liberal Christians, and so forth. I don't see them being particularly silent on this issue. Heck, you think all the reviewers that gave Expelled 9% were atheists?
The problem is really that there aren't enough religious moderates in as many of the right places to provide a seeming balance in volume to the creationist firebrands.
Posted by: Bad | May 8, 2008 3:50 PM
Ken Miller, why did you call Dawkins an avowed atheist? Do people call you an avowed Catholic?
Posted by: BobC | May 8, 2008 3:52 PM
Old post on what science has done for us. If the fundies are successful, wave bye bye to our civilization. The Bush adminstration has done wonders wrecking it. If McCain/Huckabee get elected and they have a great shot at it due to the Dems inability to field an electable candidate, that might be it.
Not sure that you can run a program and get a value like 10 trillion dollars. But qualitatively it is correct and provable.
1. Look at highly religious societies and where they are. Most Moslem ones are still in the dark ages. The ones that are not are due to a geographic accident, they sit in deserts floating on oil. It is estimated that the Arabs imported a trillion dollars worth of western science and technology because they don't do their own. This estimate comes from Arabs who are now starting to put some money into science because they have more oil money than they know what to do with.
2. The USA is the world's last superpower, economic engine and so on. So what is our edge?
A. Is it natural resources? No, we have our share but the former USSR has more.
B. Climate? No. Europe is also temperate.
C. Population? No. China and India have the cheap skilled and unskilled labor niche with 2.3 billion people between them.
D. Is it science and technology? The USA spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D with 4.5% of the world's population. Our edge is being the world leader in R&D. That coupled with a relatively free political system and an entrepreneurial capitalist economy gives us...us.
Science + freedom + capitalism = prosperity.
The cultists Xians want to kill science while flushing our freedoms into the sewer. This is stupid and suicidal.
Toynbee predicted this. 18 of 22 civilizations that fell, fell from within. We might be looking at 23 here.
Another way to look at it qualitatively. Evolutionary thought plays a critical role in medicine and agriculture. We almost had a pandemic with SARS and are now watching H5N1 bird flu. Evolution predicts that sooner or later, a new bug will kill millions or tens of millions. One already has within memory, HIV/AIDS. Evolution only matters if you eat and want to live.
Posted by: raven | May 8, 2008 3:54 PM
And in other news, Ken Miller remains completely awesome.
Posted by: Josh Charles | May 8, 2008 3:54 PM
Little off topic, but I wanted to share this little bit of attempted videography with the group. I made it today. It is my third youtube video and at almost a minute, my longest yet.
Hillary - Going Out of Business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0oJzT9WIg
Enjoy.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | May 8, 2008 3:56 PM
Raven (#10), your points are all valid indicators that the US leadership in science is at risk at our very great peril. However, I'd like to expand your third point to include, not only the administration (and large number of the minority party in Congress), but a significant portion of our population in general who believes in fairy tales and pixie dust. As long as the voting population makes it clear through their actions that they, at best, simply don't care and, at worst, are actively hostile to science, things will continue to get progressively worse.
Posted by: Larry | May 8, 2008 3:57 PM
Wait, creationism has destructive consequences for science? But paleontologist Robert Bakker says the blame lies on atheists:
Militant Creationism?
No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.
http://tinyurl.com/6mf9pj
Posted by: H.H. | May 8, 2008 4:03 PM
travc,
Where you find the FSM, Christians can see the anti-Christ.
http://megagalerias.terra.cl/galerias/index.cfm?id_galeria=30734
Don't let any Rapturists see it.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | May 8, 2008 4:03 PM
Oops, that entire last bit was all supposed to be a direct quote.
Posted by: H.H. | May 8, 2008 4:04 PM
Brilliant piece, as usual from avowed Catholic Ken Miller.
I especially like this part:
'Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily."'
Ah, yes... BOTH sides of the story would be confusing. We mustn't let the audience be confused by the opposing argument or evidence.
This is how creationists will want to "teach the controversy". Teach the creationism only, lest we confuse the poor children.
Posted by: Siamang | May 8, 2008 4:07 PM
Close, but no cigar.
Now, where is the shower curtain on which Lenin has appeared? That was convincing.
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 8, 2008 4:12 PM
"Science leads you to killing people."
But...but... Stein is right isn't he? I mean didn't science lead Ted Kaczynski to killing people?
doesnt stein look a little like Ted Kazcinski
PZ, be wary of packages from Stein or the expelled crew... Apparently science leads them to killing people.
Posted by: techskeptic | May 8, 2008 4:14 PM
Yes, someone elects those morons.
I don't think the voters will be too happy when we are sitting in the ruins of our US civilization. While our competitors and enemies run right on by us. And then a few scientists pop up with a cheery "I told you so."
This could be the end of the Death Cultist perversion of xianity. While they may have to take well earned credit for destroying the US with their theocratic nonsense, they aren't going to want it or like it.
Posted by: raven | May 8, 2008 4:14 PM
I think Ken Miller wrote the textbook I use for my biology class. o___O
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 4:17 PM
So what? He's wrong. That should be obvious.
Wow. Just... wow.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 8, 2008 4:23 PM
Obama is a newcomer and hasn't polled well against McCain in straw polls.
And who is McCain. The guy is practically a real zombie. 72, cancer twice, rumored to be showing age related memory problems. He has an unpleasant past record both personally and politically and all the charm and intelligence of a zucchini.
If Obama can't poll well against him now, chances are the race will be a tough one.
I would hope to be dead wrong but hope hasn't been very useful for the last 7 years.
Posted by: raven | May 8, 2008 4:23 PM
religion leads to killing people
Posted by: death adder | May 8, 2008 4:26 PM
Good article, but I wish Miller had spoken up a bit earlier. It doesn't matter, really. The only people buying tickets for "Expelled" these days are perverts, who know they'll have the entire darkened theater to themselves.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 8, 2008 4:28 PM
'If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science.'
I can't believe it, every science teach I ever had - cold blooded killers all of them. I am lucky to be alive.
CL
http://www.coulterlewkowitz.com/
Posted by: CL | May 8, 2008 4:30 PM
> This could be the end of the Death Cultist perversion of xianity
Nope. Won't happen like that. If Americans' continuing embrace of its death cult relegates it to third world status, the cultists will do what comes naturally to them: blame scientists, gays, and non-cultists. Look at how many of them jumped on board that wagon for 9/11 and Katrina, both disasters of our own making.
And secondly, what makes you think they wouldn't be perfectly happy living in a backwater theocratic caricature of the US? As long as there's sufficient money and infrastructure for "Who Wants to Be an Inquisitor?" and "American Idolaters" to air, they'll be just peachy.
Posted by: Jared Lessl | May 8, 2008 4:37 PM
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
I'm going to go with 'What is "not white", Alex.'
Seriously, he's going to have an uphill battle campaigning against the rampant racism in America today. But that's a battle that had to be fought eventually. If not now, when?
Posted by: Mark B | May 8, 2008 4:46 PM
Thanks for that link, H.H. I've wondered what Bakker, a minister, thinks about the whole debate.
However, I'm disappointed. The last part of the interview, in which he manages to spout off Nisbettian apologetics (in a way even less convincing than Nisbet, if that's possible), he totally crapped the bed.
Dawkins is humourless? Maybe so, but compared to whom? The Pope? All those nuns that still haunt the nightmares of Catholic school students? Pat Robertson and his war against 'teh gays'? Ted Haggard and his Jesus Camp? Yeah, those guys are all laugh riots, and boy, I'll betcha you could go up to any one of 'em and suggest that their theology is wrong and perhaps the Inca were right all along, and I'm sure they'd be happy to sit right down and investigate a few alternatives to their belief systems.
Right. Now that's comedy.
Fuck you Bakker. You don't know squat, asshole. You think thousands of years of handwaving about God's 'mysterious ways' equates concern on the part of the religious?
You've got to be kidding us.
Damn it but my BP is going up again.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 8, 2008 4:48 PM
travc, (#4), those photos are amazing.
Posted by: mona | May 8, 2008 4:48 PM
Of course, I formulated my answer in the form of a question, but forgot to use the correct punctuation. Damn you, blog commenting software. I'm in jeopardy of making a fool of myself.
Posted by: Mark B | May 8, 2008 4:50 PM
Re HH
Before lavishing too much praise on Bob Bakker, it should be noted that he is one of the last holdouts disputing the Alvarez asteroid collision theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Posted by: SLC | May 8, 2008 4:55 PM
These questions are of little interest for the Dawkinsians
hey, are you telling me that we're no longer Darwinists?
man, that's progress, I tells ya!
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 4:58 PM
Brownian, I agree. Bakker's comments were disappointing to say the least.
Posted by: H.H. | May 8, 2008 4:58 PM
Mark @ #2
"...and go live in a cave somewhere and wear animal skins..."
Actually, I think a strong argument can be made that the human sensory experience is scientific at its core. Essentially, our brain collects data from the "outside" world. But it does this (normally) by not just using 1 data-source. It uses multiple data-sources and applies filters (reason and logic) to reduce the noise and make sense of the surroundings. The eyes cross-check what the ears detect, the nose cross-checks the food in the hands about to be eaten, etc.. So, if Stein truly sees the scientific method as evil, or the road to evil, he should poke out his eyes and ears, cut out his tongue, burn out his nostrils, and acid wash his skin. That way he can minimize all of the evil evidence gathering that leads to the scientific method. (He shouldn't worry too much about his "filter" though, it's already past the point of being empirically useful)
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 4:59 PM
How, please, is Obama unelectable?
considering that he regularly outpolls McCain, I'd say that's some righty's wet dream instead of reality.
OTOH, most of us thought Gore had the presidency in his pocket in 2000.
It wouldn't surprise me (and it no longer would even shame me, since I'm bailing out of this sinking ship) if McCain won the presidency.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 5:01 PM
its good to see expelled at 9% rating on rotten tomatoes.
ok so that doesnt mean much per se but im very happy that its not there with 75% with intelligent reviewers saying 'oh dear, i didnt realise all this was true about big science' no, instead intelligent reviewers can see it for the nonsense it actually is. perhaps creationists really are represented by stupid people afterall, dont they generally think twinkie bars are good food also??
Posted by: extatyzoma | May 8, 2008 5:01 PM
re: Bakker:
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 8, 2008 5:02 PM
You guys are falling into Chicken Little Syndrome. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party will fold for his candidate, Hillary and the few supporters she still has will fall back in line, because, honestly, what do you believe the polls are going to indicate when both candidates are strong in a race? McCain's numbers have peaked, because once the democratic party begins to suture itself back together the Democrats will be on the upswing. The media is not focused on McCain now, which is the best thing for him as he has few redeeming qualities when closely examined.
Also McCain picking Huckabee as a running mate would be extraordinarily retarded. McCain sucked enough dick over the past eight years to feel safe with the religious right, and picking Huckabee would risk him losing some of the key immigration and economically conservative constituencies which are still unsure of his candidacy.
But in actuality, creationism is only a symbol of the greater problems with our entire education system. American middle and high schoolers are consistently outperformed in science and math by other industrialized nations on international standardized tests. Creationism is just a symptom of the greater seeping gonorrhea that is American education system.
Posted by: Andrew Carnegie | May 8, 2008 5:09 PM
Raven, there's one big error in your reasoning - thinking that opinion polls mean anything.
Posted by: ndt | May 8, 2008 5:13 PM
Yep, it appears Bakker is one of those:
Wow, "discoveries in paleontology go hand in hand with the best interpretations of Genesis" -- that should be interesting.
Posted by: Tulse | May 8, 2008 5:17 PM
[quote]Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. [/quote]
I would agree, if anybody were actually going to see it.
Expelled BO through 4/27 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/business
Those are, by the way, really bad numbers.
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 8, 2008 5:41 PM
I wonder, does Mr. Stein think things were better under the theocracy that prevailed before we had science?
Posted by: beagledad | May 8, 2008 5:42 PM
Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science.
I would agree, if anybody were actually going to see it.
The thought has been raised on occasion that by being so horrendously outrageous and yes, stupid, Stein is actually doing more for the other side of this issue than he is for the side he got paid to represent.
"O Lord make my enemies ridiculous."
-Voltaire
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 5:51 PM
These shrill uber-Christianists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious and non-religious traditions except the narrowest group of their own. If you're an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim or even a Catholic, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.
FIXED!
Posted by: Siamang | May 8, 2008 5:56 PM
Raven, I think you're worrying about the wrong approaching disaster. Resource shortages and environmental problems - most notably but by no means exclusively anthropogenic climate change - are a far greater threat to US civilisation (and of course, the rest of us), than being surpassed by China or India, both of which are going to be hit by these problems sooner and harder. Of course, that doesn't mean growing irrationality and fundamentalism are not terribly dangerous, but primarily because they encourage denial, scapegoating and wishful thinking. And nationalism and irrational faith in capitalism are at least as dangerous as religious forms of fundamentalism - with which, particularly in the USA, they tend to overlap.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 8, 2008 6:06 PM
I received an e-mail from someone who got to my blog from here, and accused me of having "faith" in evolution and failing to understand blah blah blah. I'd invite all scientists interested in giving a chemist with little understanding of biology and the study thereof a good workover. I've posted his e-mail on my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/05/scientists-responses-solicited.html
Have at it!
Posted by: James McGrath | May 8, 2008 6:13 PM
Because that's how our nervous systems register physical trauma.
If he wants a different answer, he can go sit with the small children wondering "Why is there something instead of nothing?".
Posted by: AC | May 8, 2008 6:16 PM
My favorite Jurassisc Park( can't remember if it's I or II) moment is when the Bakker-cowboy hatted character runs out of the cave only to be eaten by a dinosaur. Bakker may be a paleontologist but he's still a nutcase.
Posted by: Jsn | May 8, 2008 6:28 PM
Like Brownian, my immediate response to Bakker's little quote...
... was along the lines of: fuck you. But much, much worse. I'd just come away from the article linked to by Bad (#5) and found this horrific little gem. How's this for an answer, Reverend Bakker?
Courtesy of David B Hart. Theologian.
Now read that again. Especially the 'happy knowledge' part. Am I wrong or is this where theological handwaving actually tips over into evil?
Posted by: pedlar | May 8, 2008 6:32 PM
"As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child I do not see the face of God, but the face of His enemy."
What about all the babies that died in the alleged "great flood"?
Not only is his statement not true, it is disgustingly scary.
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 6:35 PM
For those interested, the American Scientific Affiliation has posted an invited review of Expelled on their home page:
www.asa3.org
It's on the right under the "Expelled Exposed" link, entitled
"From Jeffrey Schloss, Westmont College"
Note: this is easily the longest review of Expelled to date (running over 30 pages!) but it is well worth the read.
Posted by: gabriel | May 8, 2008 6:55 PM
well worth the read?
hmm, maybe, but I tend to think he overplays his had with comments like this one, early on:
there are many xians who do NOT think there is "evidence for a creator in creation"; who in fact consider this as a form of idolatry.
If the author intends to represent xianity in 'where he is coming from' he is not being accurate, nor precise.
It's like stating:
"for the next 30 pages, here is the bias that will guide my hand"
Frankly, there is little to be said in defense of the movie, or the tactics of those who produced it.
period.
It hardly requires 30 pages to determine this.
In fact, one could rightly stop when he notes the following:
not just possible, but obvious.
If he then goes on to detail the evidence in support of evolution, or discredit the thesis of darwin->hitler, that's already been done, many times, by both 'xians' and non.
Not saying this might not also be a good treatise on the subject, but I saw no compelling reason for it, either.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 7:11 PM
My nightmare is McCain picking Huckabee as VP, and then winning. McCain is old and could very well die in office. Then we would be stuck with an uber anti-science president who would make Bush look like a High School science teacher. It is my worse case scenario.
Posted by: ddr | May 8, 2008 7:32 PM
It is my worse case scenario.
I for one, am not waiting around to find out if you're right.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 7:36 PM
Re #10 and 13:
'Prophet!' said I, 'thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that still eludes us - by that God we both abhore -
Tell us now without dissention if, within the distant future,
We shall still command attention as we did hereinbefore;
Will the world treat US with awe?'
Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore.'
(Where's Cuttlefish when you need him?)
Posted by: Elwood Herring | May 8, 2008 8:50 PM
I must admit I got to preview the article, along with a couple others, particularly one person who may be in a "Beyond Expelled" talk tonight handing it out. (If they could make it.) If PZ checked his old @pharyngula email he would have seen it pre-release too!
Good article, and right on the money. Makes me think of a few revealing questions if I ever got the chance to talk to Mathis et al.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | May 8, 2008 8:56 PM
Here is what I meant about McCain winning. The poll is the facts. It is early, anything can happen. But given the absolute horrors of the last 8 years, the fact that McCain is over 25% is cause for concern. Gas is 3.85/gallon, two of my friends are dead in Iraq, I stopped reading most US news years ago because it was too depressing, and still......IT CAN ALWAYS GET WORSE.
Wishful thinking hasn't been a winning strategy lately but we can hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
PS And for you Euros and Canadians, if the USA sinks into theocratic banana republic status, enjoy your schadenfrude while you can. The Europeans might be innoculated against such after a millenia or two of religious rule and wars but what happens in the US tends to diffuse across our borders.
Posted by: raven | May 8, 2008 9:42 PM
I for one, am not waiting around to find out if you're right.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Posted by: wtf | May 8, 2008 9:57 PM
On the Scientific American interview with Mark Mathis, SA confronted Mathis about the "godly ID vs atheistic Darwinism" false dichotomy and asked why a theistic evolutionary biologist such as Ken Miller wasn't included in the movie. The exchange is, like so many of them, simultaneously hilarious, depressing, and revealing. It starts at around 1:08 in Part 3.
Mathis says, and I quote:
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 8, 2008 9:57 PM
But the Stein prostitute wasn't paid for fellatio, or to be fucked up the ass then!
Posted by: shonny | May 8, 2008 10:26 PM
btw, before he irritates everyone on this thread too,
wtf=Some Dude=banned
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 10:36 PM
Anyone see Ben Stein's op-ed on CBS Sunday Morning a couple few weeks back? He positioned the money set aside for the mortgage bailout ought to go to the abandoned pets instead.
They were the real victims after all.
Posted by: Christie Otching | May 8, 2008 10:39 PM
wtf=Some Dude=banned
Ichthyic=PZ=probably 80% of the regulars here.
Posted by: wtf | May 8, 2008 10:39 PM
Oh, and I'm a PZ sock puppet, and Kseniya and Ichthyic too.
You can tell because we all write the same way.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 8, 2008 10:41 PM
If you hadn't noticed yet... you're a troll. Hump and all.
Also you're a fuckwit. Do you have any idea how many hits this blog gets a day???
Shut the fuck up and go away.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 8, 2008 10:43 PM
Oh, look: he follows Ichthyic wherever he goes, like a little puppy. How adorable!
Make him do a trick, Ichthyic!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 8, 2008 10:44 PM
A bit off topic but it is expelled related. Don't ask me why but I decided to check out the expelled blog. The most recent entry had to do with the Yoko Ono lawsuit. Scanning through the thread, it became apparent that the conversation was much more generic than 'Fair Use' doctrine. Anyway, the conversation delved into why the octopus eye was better designed than a human eye. I decided to add a comment to the thread and it went into moderation. OK, I understand that I shouldn't expect it too clear moderation immediately, but it's been 5 days now. hmmmmmm......
Posted by: rmp | May 8, 2008 10:46 PM
If you hadn't noticed yet... you're a troll. Hump and all.
Is that you too, PZ?
I'm so confused!
LOL
Posted by: PZ | May 8, 2008 10:48 PM
I understand that I shouldn't expect it too clear moderation immediately, but it's been 5 days now. hmmmmmm......
welcome to wonderful world of trying to post on creationist blogs.
Have you ever tried to post on Uncommonly Dense?
the "moderation" there is even more amusing, if that's possible.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 10:51 PM
For what it's worth. Since I'm VERY IGNORANT about the evolution, here is what the particular discussion was about. Someone made the comment about how human eye's are not that intelligently designed. Another comment pointed out how squid/octopus eyes are superior. Then a creationist says that why would evolution transition us from superior eyes to not so great eyes.
OK, for a second I thought it as a valid point. Then I thought that he was implying that humans were a direct descendant of squid and that was probably bogus. I 'assume' that when we trace our lineage back to where it intersects the lineage that includes squid, we don't find a the sophisticated eye that squids now have. Is this accurate?
On another/similar note, if I were to look at my 'inner fish'. Would I find that my fish ancestors had a more/less/similar eye to what I have now?
Thanks for tolerating an ignorant (yet reasonably intelligent individual who will happily buy the beer if the opportunity permits).
Posted by: rmp | May 8, 2008 11:08 PM
More hot news at my place: Expelled -- Dropped by More Theaters. Another 254 theaters will be dropping "Expelled" this weekend. The theater count will be down to only 402, compared to 1,052 for the film's opening weekend. Poor Ben Stein.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 8, 2008 11:19 PM
Then I thought that he was implying that humans were a direct descendant of squid and that was probably bogus
it is:
http://tolweb.org/tree/
which is a good place to go if you wish to see the phylogenetic relationships between various critters.
you have to consider the fact that the last common ancestor of molluscs and vertebrates was hundreds of millions of years ago.
I 'assume' that when we trace our lineage back to where it intersects the lineage that includes squid, we don't find a the sophisticated eye that squids now have. Is this accurate?
yes, and no. it depends on how you define "sophisticated", the basic structures that identify something as a functioning eye (including lenses) appeared around 550 million years ago, IIRC.
another thing you have to include when thinking about the evolution of any given trait, is that evolution has no "final goal" it is not linear. for example, if complex eyes were always selected for, we wouldn't see blind cavefish that have lost them.
It's a common creationist misperception that evolution proceeds on a "ladder" each rung representing something "better" than what came before.
it's not like that at all. It's more like a flowing river with many branchlets, whose individual course is shaped by the structure and composition of the earth it is flowing through.
for a more detailed presentation of the evolution of the eye, I can't think of a better one that what PZ himself wrote just a few months back:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
enjoy!
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 11:25 PM
just to clarify, by it is:
I meant, yes, his claim that humans directly evolved from squid is bogus.
if you look at the tree i posted for you, you will see that at one point, long, long ago, we shared a common ancestor.
again, this relates to creationists thinking all of evolution is some ladder that inevitably leads to "us".
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 11:27 PM
Can't I just take a pill and know all this stuff. I'm tired of all the reading.
PS: Thanks Ickthyic. I am trying to come up to speed.
Posted by: rmp | May 8, 2008 11:28 PM
On another/similar note, if I were to look at my 'inner fish'. Would I find that my fish ancestors had a more/less/similar eye to what I have now?
yup.
fish have eyes that are quite similar to humans, including the 'reverse' wiring.
another article, written by Ian Musgrave a while back, goes into more detail:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 11:32 PM
Can't I just take a pill and know all this stuff.
lol.
someday, maybe, or maybe something like what you see in "The Matrix", where you can just plug yourself into the net and have all the relevant information automatically parsed directly into your brain.
until then:
reading is fundamental.
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 8, 2008 11:34 PM
OK, I just checked out the http://tolweb.org/tree/ web site and came across the penis worm. For whatever reason, I find that as a signal to go to bed and find out how sleepy my wife is.
Posted by: rmp | May 8, 2008 11:35 PM
@#74 rmp --
Yes, the human/octopus eye is a well-studied case of convergent evolution. Interestingly, a large number of highly conserved eye-related genes are shared by the two organisms, indicating a common evolutionary process involved in the development of both eye types: