…and this is a 
How are the creationists reacting to the discovery of Darwinius masillae? With denial and outrage, of course, but one thing that is an interesting datum is that they are all responding to the extravagant hype surrounding it. The fossil is important and has a significant place in the evolutionary record, but the way its purchasers and the media have described it with overblown rhetoric has actually damaged public perception. It's an interesting transitional form from an early point in the history of primates, and the sloppy media coverage had people expecting a revivified Fred Flintstone carrying a video camera that had been left running for 47 million years.
Rapture Ready is hilarious. They are deeply offended that Google used a doodle of Darwinius as their logo yesterday. It's a sign of the End Times (but then, everything is a sign of the coming rapture to those loons), it's actually the bones of the Nephilim, and besides, they never use Google anyway, because it's a liberal search engine. Rapture Ready is always a guaranteed source of insanity.
Ray Comfort focuses only on the hype. The news is reporting Darwinius masillae as the missing link that finally confirms evolution (a claim that all the scientists I know have laughed over), so therefore the evil Darwinists have been lying all this time when they say evolution has been long confirmed. Then he gets to have it both ways by finding a news report that advocates more caution in interpreting the fossil, so — a-HA! — the evilutionists don't have proof after all! It's typical Comfort-logic, that is, lunacy.
Answers in Genesis belittles the whole find. It's only an "extinct, lemur-like creature" that doesn't even look like a chimpanzee. They also focus on the hype that has annoyed so many of us, citing that horrible Sky News report that claimed "proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" (how anyone could have written that phrase and still claim to be a science journalist is a bit of a mystery — it's so bad, it's not even wrong.) Oh, and its preservation is evidence of a global, catastrophic flood.
It's really too bad. The media provided a distorted image of the find, aided and abetted by a grandstanding scientist, and now we're going to hear creationists claiming for years that there wasn't any evidence for evolution before, and when we did come up with something, it was "just" a dead lemur.
Bad science reporting, even by journalists who seem to be sympathetic to evolution, is destructive to good science. There are about a dozen writers I can find with minimal effort and the assistance of that liberal search engine who need to be taken out to the woodshed. And a certain Dr Hurum has caused a self-inflicted wound to his own reputation, as well.
Comments
Posted by: Aquaria | May 21, 2009 8:18 AM
Our media is in very sad shape in every field. It's not a surprise that they're in the worst shape with science.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 8:22 AM
infotainment echhh!
Posted by: Vole | May 21, 2009 8:23 AM
BBC radio 5 yesterday morning invited only one person to comment on this fossil - a creationist. I didn't catch his name. When I complained, they asked me where was my sense of humour.
Posted by: Kel | May 21, 2009 8:25 AM
I watched the BBC report yesterday. I found it funny. "Could this be the missing link? Some scientists say yes. Other scientist say it is an outdated concept that holds no real meaning"
pfft, it's one more in a long line of fossils demonstrating that evolution happened. Media is hyping the rwong element of this story.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2009 8:27 AM
Well it's no crocoduck that's for sure.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 8:36 AM
*broken record hat on*
Science journalists seem to hinder popular science education close to as often as they advance it. I will again point to the person, at a very respected sciencey organization, who told me a while back that it really is okay to write promotional pieces that refer to Mesozoic marine reptiles as aquatic dinosaurs, because, well, that's the public perception of them anyway.
*broken record hat off*
Posted by: Widgetas
|
May 21, 2009 8:36 AM
I dislike the hype immensely and was trying to explain the problem to my geneticist housemate. She didn't seem to understand my point.
I'm waiting for Ben Goldacre to write about it all :)
Posted by: Hurin | May 21, 2009 8:37 AM
Not to excuse the media, but you knew the creatards were going to distort and misconstrue the entire episode regardless of how it was reported, just as they do any time anything is discovered.
Posted by: Happy Monkey | May 21, 2009 8:39 AM
Vole - the creationist was none other than Stephen Green, of Christian Voice. A loon of the highest order.
PZ - Unfortunately the media's desire for a snappy headline outweighs any real need for accuracy. Anyone who enters the industry because they are interested in actually informing, rather than entertaining, the public, ends up giving up pretty soon.
The disillusionment would be manageable if most journalists were earning anything like a graduate salary, but you don't get any cash out of journalism unless you've got your own show, or column with your own smiling face at the top.
Only the credulous - or those who have fast-tracked to the top thanks to Daddy paying them into Eton - remain.
Posted by: GMacs | May 21, 2009 8:45 AM
Sayeth one who is ready for the cRapture:
Made me wonder what the logo would look like after we're taken outta here!
Ignoring the unnecessary "!", I imagine it will be something along the lines of relief or celebration. That's assuming they give a shit or can figure out why the world is suddenly a little less annoying.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 21, 2009 8:46 AM
In this particular case, I think the primary blame belongs to Hurum and co. Unfortunately, I expect his career will flourish as a result of his irresponsibility.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
May 21, 2009 8:46 AM
Any respect I had left for "mainstream media" was utterly destroyed during the early years of the "SCO Group vs. Everyone+dog" lawsuits. A little investigative work would have unveiled that the SCO Group's claims were completely bogus, but most reporters parroted the plaintiff's party line, "We own Linux!" The bulk of the technical press still likes to quote verbatim from a certain Redmond company's tame studies that violate common sense in incredibly obvious ways.
My respect was first badly shaken back in the 1980's when an idiot reporter for the Globe and Mail (who still works there...) reported that my then-employer as experiencing a "bank run". Sure enough, first thing the next day, we were faced with a wave of redemptions of Certificates of Deposit. Very prescient of the reporter, wouldn't you say?
So seeing the lazy ink-stained wretches of the fourth estate getting this story so incredibly wrong is not really that much of a surprise for me.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 8:54 AM
I agree with this take on the situation. Issues with journalists or not, the fact that these guys seem to have their own PR machine with respect to this specimen suggests that a good deal of the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders.
Posted by: LMR
|
May 21, 2009 8:56 AM
Yesterday, a friend of mine wanted my take on the fossil.
My problem with the coverage is that when the news says things like "scientists think this may be the missing link" is that when cooler heads get around to cutting through the hype it makes it looks like "the scientists were wrong again" when it really was the newscaster who was wrong.
It's unfortunate, especially when the general public doesn't know enough science to know that the news shows are full of crap and just think they are reporting as-is. It continues the public "distrust" of scientists and furthers their image of them as a bunch of wild-idea speculators.
Posted by: Ray S. | May 21, 2009 8:56 AM
I think it's time to start construction on the B Ark.
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 21, 2009 8:57 AM
The job of journalists is to deliver readers/viewers to advertisers. Why would they bother with good science reporting, when bad science reporting is more effective?
Posted by: Mumon | May 21, 2009 8:58 AM
Yes, Ray, but did it eat bananas?
Posted by: Nils Ross | May 21, 2009 8:59 AM
There's a reason we come to blogs we trust for our news, in addition to reading the paper.
SCIENCEBLOGS HO! *points sword*
Posted by: guy | May 21, 2009 9:10 AM
Big dramatic headlines like "missing link found" sell ads. of course the mainstream media are going to mess up something like this.
Posted by: norumaru | May 21, 2009 9:11 AM
I posted this on a forum I frequent despite its utter inanity and not-worth-the-time-ness, and it turned out to become all too true. Sometimes I hate to be right. And Ray Comfort's non-understanding is baffling. I guess his brain is missing a few links too.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 21, 2009 9:14 AM
Poor Ida, such a beautiful specimen but it will be a while before she earns her rightful place in the fossil record; someone who knows what they're doing needs to have a look at her rather than people who care more for publicity than knowledge.
Well, at least there's something to distract us from the Flores Hobbits.
Posted by: Nangleator | May 21, 2009 9:15 AM
Ray S. @15, good idea, just let's remember to keep a good supply of handiwipes around.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 9:16 AM
Amen.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 21, 2009 9:16 AM
The world's musea are full of fossils that are just as spectacular and interesting as this Darwinius masillae (nom. invalid.). But only specialists know about them.
This affair reminds me of a visit to a zoo, where most people crowd around the gorilla cage, the chimpanzee island, and the lion's den, while virtually ignoring the many animals elsewhere that are equally remarkable and worthy of attention.
Posted by: Senritsu | May 21, 2009 9:21 AM
Has anyone posted this yet?
The Science News Cycle
Posted by: Rowen | May 21, 2009 9:22 AM
I've been reading the stuff on RR. I would say that I can't believe that people are that stupid, but the evidence is there, and frankly, I know some of them in person. I also had to turn my grammar and spelling nazi off after the first couple of posts, especially the one who though That We Lived in the Seventeenth Century and Needed to Capitalize Almost Everything.
It's only on page three that someone says "Um, maybe Google thought the bones were kinda cool and that's why they made the picture. As opposed to them being evil creatures of hell intent to drag everyone down into their evil evolutionist cess pool."
So far, he's been ignored.
Posted by: MartyM | May 21, 2009 9:23 AM
CBS news web supports a forum for each story. I've been over there "battling" creationists on this one. It's really tiring. I feel like a first grade teacher at times.
Posted by: Victor
|
May 21, 2009 9:24 AM
Yes, the science reporting is bad. But, to be fair, these creationists will jump at any chance to shrug off any findings. If it's not the term "missing link" they'll complain about a misplaced comma. They should be treated like indignant children cause that's all they are. Pat then on the head and send them on their way.
Posted by: Bckcntry | May 21, 2009 9:26 AM
They really like their emoticons over at Rapture Ready.
Posted by: MPG | May 21, 2009 9:28 AM
And then jynnan tonnix all round! Cheers!Posted by: JarrodB | May 21, 2009 9:29 AM
So,... creationists are having a difficult time grasping something scientific and are instead interpreting things to suit their own agendas? Excuse me while I recover from the shock.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 21, 2009 9:29 AM
PZ -- if the reporting had been accurate, do you think the reaction would be palpably different? The YECs would just emphasize how nobody thinks it's a big deal so therefore it doesn't prove anything.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 9:31 AM
Glenn Beck had Ben Stein on his TV show the day the story broke. I couldn't watch it out of fear of destroying my television set in a fit of rage.
Posted by: Clemens | May 21, 2009 9:32 AM
It amuses me that of all places the Wikipedia article on Darwinius gets the emphasis right: On the good state of preservation.
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | May 21, 2009 9:32 AM
On my blog and elsewhere, I've noticed creationists referring to Darwinius as just a "lemur monkey." The fact that they don't know the difference between a lemur and a monkey pretty much sums how little they know about living primates, let alone fossil ones. In my blog, I told my commenter that makes about much sense as a "cat dog."
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 21, 2009 9:32 AM
Drosera @ 24,
Wonder what they'd think about this?
"Healing Mother Earth: E.O. Wilson"
http://fora.tv/2009/05/10/Healing_Mother_Earth_EO_Wilson#
Posted by: gillt | May 21, 2009 9:33 AM
I went to a panel session yesterday of science writers/communicators. On the panel was a TV producer who explicitly stated that the public can only withstand 30 seconds of science at a time, and those 30 seconds must be filled with bright dazzling "explanatory" images, not words.
I now feel that my career as a science writer is doomed before it ever got off the ground.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 21, 2009 9:35 AM
There are days when listening to other people (or reading what they think they have to say) is positively painful to me. In this respect, Pharyngula is a sort of masochistic enterprise... this morning I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the AOL-poll PZ brought up yesterday; and now Rapture Ready. It is sad to see how supposedly peerless stupidity never yet fails to find its peers. I am serious.
People can be so stupid. Sometimes it hurts.
I love it.
Posted by: Rowen | May 21, 2009 9:37 AM
#29 I'm suprised my computer didn't crash from having to load all the moving gifs. It's almost as bad as going to a teenager's myspace page.
Posted by: JarrodB | May 21, 2009 9:37 AM
So,... creationists are having a difficult time grasping something scientific and are instead interpreting things to suit their own agendas? Excuse me while I recover from the shock.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 9:37 AM
zing!Hi, Carl!
Posted by: ArchangelChuck | May 21, 2009 9:39 AM
The media couldn't give a crap about the find; they want to see the drama unfold. That's precisely what they've helped stir up. Of course, they don't have to deal with the fallout. They're "just reporters."
Posted by: andrew | May 21, 2009 9:40 AM
id never seen rapture ready. its bizarre how every post has about 10 emoticons. i guess thats what the loons do.
Posted by: MickyW | May 21, 2009 9:46 AM
This from a post on Rapture Ready:
"This missing link this is RIDICULOUS!! ....how can they say that this is a missing link? what? it could be anything.....but people are taking it as fact.... I'm so ready for Jesus to come back..... I'm becoming an angry person....I don't like being this way.....
~~~~~~
side not - please oh please pray for me....I'm very sick...I don't want to go to the dr because I don't want to pick up the flu....I have two boys....it worries me....please pray that this goes away....thanks......"
Jesus Christ, that's one happy Christian!
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 21, 2009 9:48 AM
Hell. If I'd'a known it would cause all this stoopid, I would never have planted that fake fossil in the first place.
Still, wait till they find the rabbit bones I stuck in the Cambrian deposit...
Posted by: Jon H | May 21, 2009 10:00 AM
So we have a fossil that was found by an amateur and kept by that person for 25 years, 'acquired and described' by an apparent obligate self-promoter.
Are we sure that it's not a fake?
Posted by: andrew | May 21, 2009 10:01 AM
"side not - please oh please pray for me....I'm very sick...I don't want to go to the dr because I don't want to pick up the flu....I have two boys....it worries me....please pray that this goes away....thanks......"
the person that posted that on RR apparently has a high opinion of themself. this is her tag: ^^Heavenbound^^
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 21, 2009 10:03 AM
#37:
It'sokwejustneedtotrainscientiststospeakreallyreallyquickly.
But is it really that bad, or is that just what the media want us to think? We used to have some excellent science programming (still do, if wildlife documentaries count), and while they were always minority fare, it was a significant minority. Has education declined so much that that nobody would watch a Jacob Bronowski now, or is it just that the media have trained us to want pap?
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 21, 2009 10:05 AM
So, business as usual, I guess. Sucks that the media is blowing a chance for some actual education though. Guess it will be up to all of us to get out our Scott Meyer's "Basic Instructions" brand 2 X 4.
http://www.zazzle.com/the_worlds_violentest_logo_tshirt-235671721746361675
"I'm so ready for Jesus to come back..... I'm becoming an angry person....I don't like being this way....."
Eventually, I get tired of being anxious and/or angry, and I get over whatever was making me angry. I have to hope this Rapture Ready thing is similarly just a phase for its readers.
Posted by: Derek Colanduno | May 21, 2009 10:06 AM
Those message boards would be more entertaining if it wasn't for the fact that I sat there and realized it wasn't just a made up joke. Stuff like that makes me sad for the future of the world.
As people sit there using a technology that was created only due to the work of the same scientists who they are obviously against... just makes me sit in wonder.
Posted by: davem | May 21, 2009 10:10 AM
If the Rapture Retards don't use Google, because it's too liberal, how on earth did they find Rapture Ready in the first place? I don't seem to recollect seeing a 'Christian' search engine...
Posted by: Russell | May 21, 2009 10:11 AM
I think the media hype is due to some things that David Attenborough has said--I was very surprised that Sir David of all people was over-hyping this fossil:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=84788945237&h=JtAQI&u=a-Odl&ref=nf
Posted by: Lord Zero | May 21, 2009 10:12 AM
Reading RR, i just stumbled upon this.
Im glad they have this impression on how things are going:
"[Norrin Radd] The sad reality is that 90% of Americans believe in evolution is a fact! "
That would be excellent, paired with atheism
on the rise, the clouds of religious non-sense maybe
will clear enough for the light of reason of science
to come through.
Posted by: TigerRepellingRock | May 21, 2009 10:17 AM
Mostly good coverage in the guardian - especially this from Adam Rotherford.
As usual, they realy need to employ sub-eds who actually read the articles before writing the headlines.
Bizarrely an earlier article got deluged by comments from creationists - from the time of posting, all American. Strange, strange people.
Posted by: blockhead | May 21, 2009 10:18 AM
I thought the AP report was OK. The version in my podunk home town paper cited Chris Beard "I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people," said K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate." and “John Fleagle of the State University of New York at Stony Brook said the scientists' analysis provides only "a pretty weak link" between the new creature and higher primates, called anthropoids, that includes monkeys and man. "It doesn't really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly," Fleagle said. I agree that most other news sources were over the top, but hey, that’s what ALL USA news is today: competing for the entertainment/advertising dollar.
Anyone who is interested enough to work on understanding your field, and smart enough to understand it, and empathic enough to get the sheer beauty of this little creature going down to drink at the lake 47,000,000 years ago is going to find their way past the nonsense pretty quickly.
The fact that creationist sites everywhere have gone NUTS on this tells me that if there were 52 stories like this a year, they would be a lot busier defending and backpedaling then we can imagine.
Posted by: MattB | May 21, 2009 10:22 AM
As long as science education reform goes forward, the majority of these religious types will be absent within in ~ 10 generations.
More education = more reason
More reason = more scepticism
More scepticism = bye bye religion
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2009 10:24 AM
Of course, this is a important fossil. But it doesn't falsify creationism. Or provide major support ("prove") evolution either.
Creationism was falsified centuries ago. The first people known to have serious doubts were St. Augustine and the first xian thelogions around 400 AD. The first people likely to have known it was false were the people who wrote it down in the bronze ages who knew it was just a story or myth.
Evolution was accepted as the best theory a century ago. At this point, any mor e data is just icing on the icing (X ten) on the cake.
Some of these headlines are equivalent to:
"Swine flu proves Germ Theory of Disease"
"Scientists prove Theory of Internal Combustion, self propelled vehicles to run on all major highways and roads."
Oh well, as another poster quoted Oscar Wilde. "It is better to be talked about, then not talked about."
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | May 21, 2009 10:26 AM
Holy. Shit. Batman.
Rapture Ready FTW. I read three pages of comments. I couldn't stop myself. There might be a correlation between the number of emoticons used and the collective IQ of the group.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 21, 2009 10:28 AM
James Sweet
Well... that's sort of the point. It doesn't prove anything. And the issue at the end of the day isn't the YECs... if they don't accept one of the most abundantly supported scientific theories we have already, they're never going to. Ever. What the over-hyping of this find does is actually puts undue significance on an otherwise important find for the wrong reasons. And this is dangerous for the credibility of the science in the eyes of the layperson public.
So, the find is announced, and it is beautiful and stunning in its preservation, especially considering its age... but as PZ points out, a frenzy-driven, revenue-conscious media gets a hold of the story, and a fame-grabbing "scientist" unleashes undue hyperbole, and terms like "missing link" get thrown around. This grabs the attention of the general public, many of whom are fence-sitters on the whole "evolution vs. creation" debate, mostly because all they know they get through the mass media. Unfortunately, after the initial awe of the first reports wear off, you start to have reactions from all sides. And in this case, all sides are reacting to the initial report fairly negatively. Scientists are reacting to the fact that this find, while significant, is simply another piece in the mountain of evidence for evolution, and doesn't in any way represent any "missing link". Creationists react negatively, as expected, dismissing the find as meaningless and using the same tactics they've used to try and ignore and discredit other significant finds. So there are all sides of the issue, all reacting negatively to the find, and all the general public hears is "this is no missing link"... and as a result, for many, this equates to a negative perspective on evolution, and becomes an easy item they can point to and say "well, they thought that fossil they found back in '09 was the missing link and it turned out to be nothing". Which is a complete mis-representation of the facts. All sides have problems with the way the story was presented by the media, but for completely different reasons.
Had the story been reported accurately, and hailed for what it was: a significant find that adds another piece to the evidence in the fossil record; then the science community would have nothing to complain about, and the Creation community wouldn't be getting its public exposure, while all up in arms. And what we'd be left with is a beautiful specimen ripe for study and discovery, which is really all we should be looking to get from Ida.
Posted by: blf
|
May 21, 2009 10:33 AM
I'd forgotten how mindfecking inane rapture retards is. So I, very foolishly, followed Pee Zed's link. After putting my eyeballs back in—the numerous animated GIFs caused them to leap out and run for cover—I put on my special ÜberStoopidProof googles, gloves, and tinfoil hat, and dared to read some of the loons. There's a godmine of stooooopud there, but this is the one that got the biggest laugh (unedited, as in the original):
Is there any trace of logic at all in that?
And now I need to build a new set of very special ÜberÜberReinforcedStooooopudProofUsually googles, gloves, hat, and full-body suit. What I was wearing burnt out.
Posted by: Moth Eyes | May 21, 2009 10:35 AM
Uncommon Descent was fairly hillarious too. In a depressing kinda way.
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2009 10:36 AM
Rapture Ready is the Mos Eisly of the crazy wackos. "You'll never see another den as crazy and malevolent as Rapture Ready."
I doubt there are very many of them though. 20% of the population claims to believe in the Rapture which isn't a common belief among anybody but the fundies. Of those, who really believe it is probably much less. It's been predicted as imminent for 2,000 years and all those predictions have been wrong. Of those who act on their belief by stockpiling supplies and keeping an eye out for the antichrist, less yet. It wouldn't surprise me if there were only a few hundred or thousands in the USA.
I've never even met a Rapture Monkey although on the WC in my circles, they wouldn't be expected to be common.
Posted by: MarkW | May 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Another "wow" at Rapture Ready.
They seem to have noticed that they've been linked to from a godless site, given all the "we'll pray for you" posts.
That's OK guys. In return, we'll think for you.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 10:46 AM
The whole mess is regrettable. Even calling this fossil "evidence for evolution" is iffy. It's good evidence for extinction. The evolutionary implications should have been of interest only to the tiny group of people who care deeply about these particular branchpoints in the huge primate tree. The media zenzation followed from the
framespin that way, way out on one of those densely-twigged branches in question is us. Just silly.Beautiful
plumagepreservation, though.Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 21, 2009 10:49 AM
Well, IIRC Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I think that's probably the only thing you need to know here.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | May 21, 2009 10:49 AM
I bought the book "The Link" last night and am about halfway through it. Breathless, sometimes purple prose, none of the caution real science writing demonstrates. Because "Ida" isn't interesting enough to sustain general reader interest for an entire book, some of the chapters deal with more general but related topics, such as the competing hypotheses regarding exactly which branches resulted ultimately in human evolution, etc. These chapters are, to my mind, more interesting than the ones that focus exclusively on Darwinius. I think it's too early to know for sure whether the net effect of this insipid media blitz will be a huge loss or modest gain for public understanding of evolutionary science, but with 10 percent of the precincts reporting, the votes don't look like they're breaking our way yet.
Posted by: John | May 21, 2009 10:59 AM
That Rapture Ready thread was appalling. However I don't know what I expected from a forum with 34 (thirty-four!!!!) rules for posting.
Posted by: Jojo | May 21, 2009 11:07 AM
I had my hair done last night and this is what I heard from the station next to me.
"Did you hear about that monkey they found in Germany?"
"Yes, It's like 43 thousand years old. How amazing."
I'm not sure if I should be happy that they were excited about a fossil find, or scared because they had the facts wrong and they didn't understand why it's amazing.
Posted by: John Pieret | May 21, 2009 11:11 AM
Don't miss the return of Yomin Postelnik and his take on the hype (it's an "admission" that atheists don't have any evidence for evolution).
http://www.americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/5/20/crushed-lemur-monkey-is-an-insult-to-the-evolution-hoax.html
Posted by: blockhead | May 21, 2009 11:11 AM
Money. Obviously a big factor in subverting the science in this story. The number of people buying the book and watching the tv show will be way up. How many readers here disgusted with Dr, Harum will NOT watch his TV show? It paid for the fossil, I guess.
Posted by: Drew | May 21, 2009 11:22 AM
After reading the quote again at Ed's site, I finally realized what bothered me most about the "athletes do it, pop stars do it, so science has to too" argument... it's that there's... no argument there. They never explain WHY science has to do it too. Presumably for the purposes of getting people interested and invested in science: educating and informing.
But if so, this is EXACTLY the wrong approach. You don't teach people by bullshitting them. And you don't do it with breaking research: you do it with consensus stuff that paints a clear and powerful picture: has depth and stability.
"Even calling this fossil "evidence for evolution" is iffy."
I disagree, if only in the sense that this is yet another fossil, and a very complete one, that puts all the sorts of trait patterns together in the right place and time as we'd expect to see if common descent were true. That's certainly a pretty macro view of this fossil (because the details are more complicated and uncertain). But for evolutionary evidence of evolution, it's perfectly well suited... or would be if it hadn't been accompanied by a mountain of nonsense.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 21, 2009 11:32 AM
MadScientist, Josh,
What's wrong with the Flores hobbits? Latest from Nature (on their
hairyprimitive feet) seemed to tilt things in the direction of them being a genuine species.Posted by: GMacs | May 21, 2009 11:42 AM
From RR:
You know really, I don't care what they find, where they find it, how they find it, or how old they date it to be. ... I don't care if it looks like a fossil, person or thing. The BOTTOM LINE IS: We did not evolve from anything. GOD CREATE[sic] us as he created everything. End of discussion, no need to have 4000 visitors come here to find out what we are saying. It has already been said. Read the bible, very 1st chapter, you'll have your answer.
Well, that's nice to know. You won't listen to others' arguments, but we should all believe your view. I'll keep on being a questioning little obnoxious nitpicker. I appreciate the world, and I grow and feel better about things this way.
People like this are are simply mentally lazy.
You know, if I didn't reevaluate the beliefs I had as a child, I would still believe that clouds were the ghosts of dragons.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 11:45 AM
There's nothing wrong with them (the fossils). I'm just a little annoyed with a lot of the popular press I've read. Maybe it's just me, but I've personally come away with the impression that if I didn't know a good deal about paleontology, I wouldn't really understand what the heck is going on from the popular reporting. But again, that could just be my take on the pieces that I've read. The scientific controvesy itself--cool ass shit!
+50 on hairy feet...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 11:50 AM
The circus has been entertaining, on the plus side.
On the minus side, yes the YEC response is worse because they conflate very real journalistic hype as being the "Darwinist response," knowing that most people will only have encountered media hype, and not sober scientific reflection. Sure, they'll be lying about science as they conflate media BS with science, only it'll work with too many people.
And just a note on terms, "the missing link" has generally referred to an "apeman," something between "the apes" and "us." So this could never have been "the missing link" at all. We have numerous examples of "the missing link" already, of course, with H. erectus (and/or ergaster) probably coming closest to fitting the meaning of "the missing link." One could probably think of australopithecines and H. habilis as "the missing link" as well, aside from the fact that a number of "missing links" aren't missing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Hammurabi | May 21, 2009 11:53 AM
For all of you discovering Rapture Ready for the very first time, might I point you to www.fstdt.net which is a collection of many of the insane things fundies say on the internet, a large portion of which come from RR. Prepare to go from amused, to enraged, to depressed in just a few moments.
Posted by: Alan B
|
May 21, 2009 12:00 PM
Rapture Ready want me to register. Can't say I feel like giving my details to them unless there is a way around it ... Anyone got a short cut to bypass the registration?
Posted by: doug | May 21, 2009 12:01 PM
Here is a quote from Google's first hit as a result of clicking on yesterday's Google Icon:
OMG.
Posted by: Medusa | May 21, 2009 12:04 PM
RR is no longer accepting new users. Cowards!
Posted by: Lynna | May 21, 2009 12:06 PM
Why do I have to log in before entering the category "Rapture Ready" -- visions of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, "Sorry, you're not logged in. Do you remember your password?"
Posted by: Medusa | May 21, 2009 12:07 PM
RR is no longer accepting new posters. Cowards!
Posted by: Lynna | May 21, 2009 12:11 PM
I like the way Answers in Genesis made a point of repeating that the fossil is "allegedly 47 million years old" -- they get a lot of mileage out of questioning the age of the fossil.
Posted by: Tim | May 21, 2009 12:12 PM
So normally I post on sites with more sensitive readers, so swearing is not usually my MO. But I am so irritated by the media reporting of this fossil I just have to have an outlet for letting my true feelings known. Enter PZ's forum.
Who the FUCK, DUMB-ASS, SHIT-HEAD, ASS-BACKWARDS, MORON could possibly right that this "finally confirmed evolution". WHO COULD POSSIBLY, I MEAN, WHAT THE . . . AAAHHHHHHH!!!!! IS ANYONE that STUPID!!!, IS IT POSSIBLE that anything, creation, intelligent design, natural selection, whatever, that anything could create someone with THIS MUCH SHIT IN HIS HEAD! I think this whole thing disproves evolution. BECAUSE IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, AND EVEN IF NATURAL SELECTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, BLIND FUCKING CHANCE WOULD STILL CREATE MORE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THEN THIS FUCK FOR BRAINS. DAMN IT!
Posted by: alexandre van de sande | May 21, 2009 12:19 PM
so there is something that PZ Myers and Creationists can agree on:
Science Journalism is pure hype and few science.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 12:20 PM
I suppose. But I don't see the evolutionary story that's being spun for this specimen as being a) very well supported in the first place or b) all that exciting anyway. Right? We (or at amy rate "they") already knew there were adapids around back then, we knew that adapids were extinct and lemurish, and now this specimen, because it lacks a couple of lemurish traits, moves adapids from basal to lemurs over to basal to anthropoids. Right? It's at best a minor tweak in the tree. BUT it's a tweak that is still highly controversial anyway, because the characters were cherry-picked and no rigorous phylogenetic analysis was reported.*shrug*
All hype all the way down, and a damn sorry state of affairs.
Posted by: blf
|
May 21, 2009 12:22 PM
There's at least two threads at rapture retards commenting on unusually high traffic, one at the rapture retards site itself, and one on the results of that silly OneNewsNow poll:
Posted by: ??? | May 21, 2009 12:31 PM
Ray Comfort focuses only on the hype. The news is reporting Darwinius masillae as the missing link that finally confirms evolution (a claim that all the scientists I know have laughed over), so therefore the evil Darwinists have been lying all this time when they say evolution has been long confirmed. Then he gets to have it both ways by finding a news report that advocates more caution in interpreting the fossil, so — a-HA! — the evilutionists don't have proof after all! It's typical Comfort-logic, that is, lunacy.
But why wasn't the fossil holding a banana?
Posted by: Jim Etchison | May 21, 2009 12:32 PM
OK, lesson learned. The other day I posted that bad sound bytes from the media might help, but I was wrong. Now I get it.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 12:39 PM
Jon H #46
My thought also. The top and bottom were separated for many years. Who, with an ounce of brain, would do that?
I am suspicious.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 21, 2009 12:42 PM
The public perception of the media has been in decline in recent decades. The State of the News Media 2004 report found that between 1985 and 2002:
- The number of Americans who think news organizations are highly professional declined from 72 to 49 percent.
- Those who think news organizations are moral declined from 54 to 39 percent, and those who think they are immoral rose from 13 to 36 percent.
- Those who feel news organizations try to cover up their mistakes rose from 13 to 67 percent.
- The number of Americans who think news organizations generally get the facts straight declined from 55 to 35 percent.
The report offered this interesting thought:
It also adds:
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:01 PM
Screw Ray Comfort and all the religious morons who are upset over the discovery of that wonderful fossil. I bet that they are still anticipating the discovery of an angel with wings and halo intact. Morons.
I get a catalogue from a remainder book dealer, and one of the titles is: "BANANA: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World". No, it was not by Comfort, but the apt title should be "BANANA: The Fate of the World That Was Changed By It's Shape", by banana brain without comfort.
Posted by: revjimbob | May 21, 2009 1:37 PM
AIG are so blatant in their quotemining - they even quotemine on the same fucking page as the original!
They quote Attenborough:
[“Now people can say, ‘Okay, you say we’re primates . . . show us the link.’ The link, they would have said until now, is missing. Well, it is no longer missing.”]
Then, later this is reduced to:
[Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?]
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 1:38 PM
New York Times gives reasons for the hype.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Cory Meyer | May 21, 2009 2:23 PM
You know what's REALLY funny? Earlier today I was able to view the Rapture Ready thread, but now we're locked out! You now have to be logged in to view the thread. Hilarity ensues.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 21, 2009 2:44 PM
*pokes Josh*
sooo..... that paper on dating...? heard any news yet...?
*does best impression of expectant and hopeful cute 5-year-old*
:-p
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 2:49 PM
*pokes back*
*does best impression of expectant and hopeful cute 5-year-old*
And it is an absolutely terrific impression.
Alas, I remain waiting...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 21, 2009 2:52 PM
poo
*walks out of thread all sad*
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 21, 2009 2:52 PM
They are deeply offended that Google used a doodle of Darwinius as their logo yesterday.
A bit off topic, but is Google a great company or what? I use their search engine about every 10 minutes, their google email alerts, google news, google gmail, google maps, google youtube, google finance, google spreadsheets and documents, google national archives, and google book search. Yesterday they managed to piss off the creationist retards. Google = best company ever.
Posted by: fallan | May 21, 2009 3:09 PM
You were warned and didnt heed your past mistakes eg,Mars meteorite, Millers experiment cold fusion Piltdown man etc you were so excited that Ida was the missing link you just didnt want to remember them.So now it looks as if the scientists are backing off from saying it is the ONE.But what is happening on this forum and other atheist sites they are blaming the media for all the hype lol.Cmon if it was the so-called missing link scientists would all be taking the credit including the one on this site
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 21, 2009 3:18 PM
The retards (see #99) will be invoking Piltdown for the next 1,000 years.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | May 21, 2009 3:27 PM
There you go! The final proof!
That is, the proof that whatever science says, these loons will never reconsider their position. It's time we completely ignore the ignoramuses ...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 3:30 PM
Fallan, you are an idiot. First, there never was and never will be and is no ONE "missing link." It's a stupid concept. The very fact that phrase got used was the problem in the first place. This fossil was hyped and oversold by the media, hell yes, but also at least some of the scientists involved. Plenty of blame to go around. You'd already know all that if you could read.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 21, 2009 4:08 PM
No, it doesn't show that. It says so – and then doesn't test that hypothesis.
Failure of peer-review.
Interesting, yes, but spectacular? Not outside of the Senckenberg Museum and northeastern China.
Sure. It looks like an ordinary Messel fossil, well, one of those that didn't float around rotting, but sank quickly.
I mean, how do you fake that kind of skeleton? Have you seen the X-ray images? (Remember, you have full free online access to the paper. Link below.)
And perhaps not even being Homo. They're seriously off.
What on the planet makes you think a random private collector would have an ounce of brain?
Remember Scipionyx? Was almost thrown away as "just a bird". Hello-o! An Early Cretaceous bird with that kind of preservation would have made headlines like Ida, only more justifiably. <headdesk> There is more ignorance out there than our philosophy can dream.
Scientists never said it was. Only ignorant journalists did.
Hey, why don't you simply read the paper? No such claim in there.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 21, 2009 4:19 PM
THE GOOD OIL FROM GOD
Ignorance abounds on this issue, as it does with most issues you rationalutionists fixate upon. As a fellow Noo Zillander (now doing time in the US penal system) my patriotic duty is to side with the great Ray Comfort. He may look and sound like a reject from a casting call for the Chipmunks, but he's God's servant, fighting the forces of darkness at the very gates of hell. Unfortunately, my brother Ray wasn't listening as hard as he could have when God spoke to him. In my morning chat with God from my bunk (I have to crouch on my bunk to talk with my Lord, I'd prefer to kneel, but that's not a good idea in prison in case my cell mate, Floyd Rubber, awakes with a demanding stiffy) I asked God about this find, and He explained most clearly that your 'fossil' is in fact a small Seraphim named Potus who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when Lucifer and Gabriel went head to head at the epoch-ending time of the Angelic rebellion. He's encased in rock because he had a close encounter with one of Lucifer's home-made molten lava bombs.
Yours in Divine Revelation
S. Batzrubble
Posted by: Cathal | May 21, 2009 4:22 PM
Great post about the media hype. Sure I was excited hearing about this, but the media was using it as a face off between science and religion. Its just the MSM sensationalising for their own profit, they really have abandoned the idea of just informing the public. Sky news used to be half-decent, now its just a tabloid-magazine with important stories such as jade goody.
However I am definitely enjoying the creationist lulz :)
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 4:22 PM
NG, your earlier comment got me thinking, and so I just went back and poked through the 7 May Nature paper on the pedal morphology of the material from Flores. I don't work on @#$%ing primates, so I just read through the paper quickly before and I hadn't really looked closely at Figure 3. I'm really intrigued by how morphologically similar (to my eyes) the naviculars are between Pan and Homo (especially in proximal and distal views). I hadn't noticed that before.
Posted by: Charles Dorkwins | May 21, 2009 5:00 PM
piltdown man part 2... (no need to investigate assumed fraud debunks itself)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 5:03 PM
*rolls eyes*
One thing that fossil isn't, is a fraud.
Posted by: kris j | May 21, 2009 5:07 PM
not to mention we already found dino red blood cells n soft tissue, this debunks any 70 million year crap.
Posted by: Mark Gradwell | May 21, 2009 5:08 PM
Quite like the way it seems to have wrong footed the creationists. They don't seem quite what to make of it.
I'm sure they were all geared up for new bits of a partial African ape skeleton being hailed this way. And had all the questions, answers, propaganda all sorted out for such an event.
But something that looks like the cat when you forgot you buried it in the flower bed twenty years ago and you've accidentally dug it up. No wonder they're confused.
Posted by: Dan P | May 21, 2009 5:09 PM
PZ Myers,
You seem like an intelligent guy and you write well. But to some extent I judge someone by the quality of the enemy they choose to pick fights with. Bullies who pick fights with the smallest kid in the class are losers and cowards. So why do you expend so much intellectual effort picking fights with morons? In fact, why do you spend so much time acting as their mouthpiece and using your blog to give them such publicity? I can't believe you provided a link to Rapture Ready. Finding stupid people on the web and making fun of them is like taking the proverbial candy from a baby. Don't you have any better intellectual challenges in your life?
Posted by: Kagehi
|
May 21, 2009 5:12 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/how_do_we_break_this_cycle.php
Someone, if invited on some news show to talk about some subject they "know" the news is getting dead wrong, needs to take the cartoon from that article with them as a slide and drive home the point that 90% of everything the public ever sees on the subject of science is **distorted** this way, and that the third, fourth and fifth hand reports almost *never* get their facts from the original study, or scientists, but from someone/place that falls into steps 3 through 7. Oh, and that a few groups, like AIG specialize in providing ***all*** steps between 4 and 7, as a service to their readers, so they don't have to buy their tin foil hats from some third party.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 21, 2009 5:14 PM
Wow Dan! You tell it like it is. I find that very exciting. Fancy a bit of mano-a-mano? I'm due for day release soon.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 5:15 PM
Please help me out.
Read this interview (on topic) and see if you can find Matt Nisbet saying...anything at all. It's the most completely noncommital boilerplate I've seen.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 21, 2009 5:32 PM
Josh@106,
I'm really, really not qualified to have an opinion here! My knowledge of anatomy is pretty much nonexistent, I can only go on the apparent coherence of different proposed explanations. The "microcephalic pgymy" alternative looked a bit ropy to me even without the "primitive" feet, while the latter were said to suggest a branch from our own ancestry further back than Homo erectus, making the very small brain less of an anomaly. The "advanced" tools still don't seem to fit, but I've seen it suggested somewhere that there has been a tendency to describe tools similar to those made by H. sapiens sapiens as "sophisticated", without any proof that they are more difficult to make than those dating further back.
Posted by: Lord Tristan | May 21, 2009 5:57 PM
Umm...
I do believe that Ray Comfort just proved that evolution is true using Reductio Ad Absurdum.
By showing that this find both does and does not confirm evolution and starting with the initial assumption that evolution is unconfirmed, Comfort has shown that his initial conclusion leads to a paradox, giving the conclusion that the find supports evolution.
Yay logic!
Posted by: MickyW | May 21, 2009 5:59 PM
Morphing trolls at 107 and 109, prepare to be eviscerated.....
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2009 6:09 PM
So why do you expend so much intellectual effort picking fights with morons?
simple:
there are tens of millions of them in the US alone, and if we didn't fight them, they would continue taking over schools and school boards, and trying to rewrite the very definition of science itself.
all things that have happened in the last 6 years.
It would of course, be different if there was a lone nut.
Posted by: Nova | May 21, 2009 6:16 PM
Why did Sir David Attenborough say the link is "no longer missing" how could someone of such stature make such a mistake? He seemed to entirely confirm that there was a fundamental 'missing link' between humans and other apes and that this was it e.g. "This is the one that connects us directly with them". Just believing that there was a fundamental missing link is wrong on such an elementary level so why?...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2009 6:21 PM
$ ?
or, perhaps,
£ ?
Posted by: Rjaye
|
May 21, 2009 6:26 PM
Smoggy, are you any relation to Jesus General?
Posted by: Ken | May 21, 2009 6:41 PM
Your description of the hype and poor coverage ("it's so bad, it's not even wrong") is exactly how many of us Christians feel about coverage of Christianity - especially by those who claim to speak for us (you provided excellent examples).
Posted by: GMacs | May 21, 2009 6:43 PM
I use their search engine about every 10 minutes. ...Google = best company ever.
Exactly. I think it's funny when these people get pissed off at Google, since Google has been more of a positive force in my life than their imaginary god ever could be.
Even if they did use the term "missing link".
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | May 21, 2009 6:48 PM
I'm sure the Creation Museum will have a facsimile of Darwinius soon -complete with saddle.
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 21, 2009 6:57 PM
@ #111:
So why do you expend so much intellectual effort picking fights with morons?
That's a fair question and I see there's already a good reply in #118. The morons are taking over school boards and they are determined to destroy biology education. Google "Dover Trial" to find out how much taxpayer money they waste.
A big problem is they mentally abuse their own children (and other people's children if they can get away with it). Religious brainwashing and lying about science is completely out of control in America. Not something easy to ignore.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 21, 2009 7:08 PM
Rjaye @121
Jesus General?
Not unless he's also a half-polish refugee to Noo Zillund. My nearest relations are a flock of Merino/Batzrubble cross sheep in the South Island high country (Te Wai Pounamou), of which I am desperate to return to the moment I am released from this American jail. I wish they'd sent me to Guantanamo--anything would be better than being bounced by my cellmate Floyd Rubber. How was I to know that importing powdered ram sperm would be a biohazard?
Posted by: nomuse | May 21, 2009 7:33 PM
I was wandering the wilds of the conspiracy sites when the news came in. The way the Creotards started jumping and leaping and yammering all of a sudden, it reminded me of nothing so much as the old Ray Stevens song, "Mississippi Squirrel Revival."
Posted by: GMacs | May 21, 2009 7:38 PM
Ken,
If you are the type of Christian who is moderate to liberal (socially), gives science its due credit, admits the possibility of other "paths to God", and rejects a literal interpretation of the bible, then I feel for you. I have many friends who were that way, and I was that type of Christian. While I don't believe in god, I won't hold it against decent folk who do, especially if they don't let it get in the way of things. I used to be such a Christian (rejected the Bible but not the good parts of the message) and have many friends who still are.
If, however, you are one of those Christians that redefines Christianity and religion every time it becomes apparent that the popular form of the Christian religion (it is a religion no matter how you try to spin it) is detrimental to society, I will tell you to grow up and leave it altogether.
Just givin' you both sides of the coin there.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 21, 2009 8:07 PM
The Xtians make their own headlines,see the "Father Ted" thread.No intentional evil atheist poor coverage needed.
Posted by: Katkinkate | May 21, 2009 8:17 PM
Fran on Radio National Breakfast (in Australia) had an interview with one of the authors of the paper this morning. It was very sensible and interesting, they picked out what the media coverage was getting wrong and told us the true story. I like the way Radio National presenters go looking for the original sources for their stories.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 21, 2009 11:04 PM
bunnycatch3r said:
Nope. They'll probably have it as a "pet" for Adam & Eve's children, it's too small to be ridden. They'll probably show it as a kind of "trained monkey", maybe give it a leash and a tiny hat.
I really wished I could type that without it probably becoming true.
:-/
@ Nova:
My understanding was that Attenborough was only referring to Ida as a "link" between primates in general (and by default us) and the other mammals. I don't get the impression that he in any way meant it as a "missing link" for humans directly. He was also commenting on those creobots that demand to be presented the link between primates in general and the other mammals, and their claim that we didn't have one (before Ida) as an evolutionary "weakness".
The video I link below seems to make it clear that he is definitely not referring to it as a direct human "missing link".
Attenborough on Ida
Posted by: Coran | May 22, 2009 12:18 AM
Some decent discussion/reporting on Australia's ABC Radio National. That is, the presenter used the 'missing link' rubbish, but one of the interviewees, a bioanthropologist, would have none of it:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2577828.htm
Posted by: Coran | May 22, 2009 12:25 AM
Some decent discussion/reporting on Australia's ABC Radio National. That is, the presenter used the 'missing link' rubbish, but one of the interviewees, a bioanthropologist, would have none of it:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2577828.htm
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | May 22, 2009 1:34 AM
The way this has been handled is almost sillier than I can believe. I work at a Borders store (sympathy cards gratefully accepted). Before the book was laid down yesterday morning it had been kept in quarantine; its title and author were not listed in our store computers; apparently Tudge, Hurum, the publishers and Oslo University and everybody decided that everything had to come out on the same day for maximum publicity value. And Borders' corporate overlords have the notion that this is going to be a biggie for us, so all the stores have received way more copies of it than we usually get for a science book (like, say, Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters), but we got no promotional material to go with it. So since I'm our store's self-appointed Science Geek I borrowed a copy and I've been kind of cringing my way through it. I haven't read anything else by Colin Tudge, and so far I'm not sure I want to.
It turns out he didn't write everything in the book; he farmed out the first two chapters to someone called Josh Young. I guess Tudge didn't want to take credit for lines like, "But scientists now know that man didn't evolve from other primates, he split with them." I know I wouldn't. For such a short book it carries a lot of padding. We get one chapter on the Messel Pit in Germany, where the Ida fossil was found, and I'd like to have had more information on that. He hits on a great many topics on prehistory and evolution, and throws a lot of information at us, but we can't follow up on any of it because there are no references anywhere. Not so much as a footnote, let alone a bibliography. And of course there's the romance and adventure of the mysterious collector who kept the fossil in his rec room for 25 years and was too embarrassed to tell anybody until he realized he could get a dirty great bucket full of money for it. Well, I'm going to have to go to the web site and download Hurum's paper to really learn anything.
I hope the paper doesn't go yapping about missing links every few pages. That would be disheartening.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 1:41 AM
Ouch! Really?
That's...pretty bad.
Really bad.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | May 22, 2009 4:39 AM
There would be no problem if the majority of people were taught media studies in school. I wonder why they don't teach that...
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 22, 2009 4:46 AM
Pikemann Urge said:
Aren't the ones that are misreporting the news, the same ones that took media studies?
;-)
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | May 22, 2009 5:08 AM
Zetetic, I think you have a point. Hmm.
BTW this media hype nonsense is also destroying basic understanding of nature WRT the swine flu (see above comments).
What gets me in a knot: the media says that washing your hands prevents spread of viruses. Now I cannot speak about viruses but I suspect that it's the same as for bacteria: washing hands does not diminish bacteria population on human skin. Only alcohol, methylated spirits etc. can do that.
Posted by: Dana L. Stern | May 22, 2009 9:00 AM
Bad science reporting. Get the facts right!
Posted by: blf
|
May 22, 2009 9:58 AM
Whilst this question was aimed at Pee Zed, and I can't possibly speak for him or others, I can speak for myself: I don't pick fights with morons. They insist on shoving their fantasies down my throat, either directly or via undesirable changes to society. When I know or believe can't ignore them then I do try to outmanoeuvre them (a form of “fighting back”).
Does that mean I would not “fight back” if, and this is a very unlikely if, if they all went off to a corner someplace and didn't try to undesirably alter the world in which I and many others live? Possibly, but I doubt it: Their existence would have to be essentially inert. That is, if the difference between their existing in that hypothetical corner someplace, and not existing at all, is insignificant over all timescales, then I would be very unlikely to “fight back”—because then there's nothing worth “fighting” for/over. But I cannot see that fantasy of mine happening, ever (B-Ark excepted); at the minimum, they'd very likely still be generating intolerable amounts of environmental pollution.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 22, 2009 10:23 AM
KG, I think your view on this one is correct, regardless of whether or not you think you're informed enough to have an opinion...:).
I've been thinking about this some more, and I think there is a kernal of usefulness here (indeed, someone has surely beaten me to this example; I'm just too lazy to go find it right now). One of the things that the creotards always piss and moan about is that such and such animal is fairly morphologically distinct from such and such other animal, yet they are still the same species (or "kind"). Well, here is some mud in their water: here we have two distinct critters with some pretty particular morphological similaries. Discussions regarding the taxonomic validity of the genus Homo aside, I know of few creotards who are going to try and say that chimps and people are the same.
Posted by: severalspeciesof | May 22, 2009 10:58 AM
Talk about freaking out, here's Mark Belling's(a Milwaukee talk show host that unfortunately has the highest rated show in SE Wisconsin) take on it...
It's about 20 minutes long and simply dreadful...
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/BLNG-IP/Belling4_05-21-09.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MILWAUKEE-WI&NG_FORMAT=personality&SITE_ID=3627&STATION_ID=BLNG-IP&PCAST_AUTHOR=Mark_Belling&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Mark_Belling_Show_Podcast
Posted by: Awesome McCool | May 22, 2009 11:17 AM
To be fair to the creationists (no idea why you'd want to, but hey, mental exercise is good for the brain or some shit), they weren't saying that Ida was a nephilim, they were claiming that dinosaur bones were fossilized nephilim. I guess saying that angel/human hybridization results in a variety of odd-looking semi-lizards, some of which were pretty impressive, is better than claiming that it produces a small lemur-esque creature, although either claim seems to show that these people have some very unusual ideas about what angels are supposed to look like.
Funniest thing on the Rapture Ready forums: The way they insist on turning every thread into an altar call, even though presumably all of their members are either already jesus-bangers or are there mostly to laugh at them and unlikely to convert.
Posted by: TQ | May 22, 2009 12:46 PM
I do believe in adaptation. It happens all the time. Evolution from one species to another is a different story. I believe in a creator.
One person commented in another blog/article on the similarities between species and how these similarities must indicate that they evolved. I say that this does not prove evolution at all. In fact, it could prove creation. Some of you might have heard the phrase "Design Patterns". It's when you take something that works and re-use the pattern elsewhere. It's used in architecture, Engineering, Software, and elsewhere. It's actually a very common practice in advanced design. In the natural world, it could explain the various similarities.
According to evolutionists, though, the story goes something like this:
In the beginning, the universe came to be (don't ask), then the earth formed at just the right distance from a sun just the right size. The Earth didn't form too big, nor did it form too small. It was just right. Then, something extraordinary happened. They don't know what exactly, nor how exactly, but amino acids came to be. At first just a few, then a few more. They just floated around bumping into each other. Eventually, the right combinations of amino acids got together and formed proteins. Now, the proteins, instead of decaying, got together with other proteins and continued to grow and fold and replicate. Somehow, eventually, they became the simplest version of a single cell (surely they don't think it happened all over the planet in mass! What would be the odds of that happening?) . Somehow, though, this little, single, individual cell survived... or did it? Maybe this happened twice and the second time it survived? who knows? Anyway, according to the theory, this cell got bored all by itself. Then, one day, out of the blue it decided it needed a friend and all by it's self decided to spontaneously split in two! oh joy! a friend! And so begins the story of evolution.
It sounds like they have to have as much faith in their theory as I do in my Creator.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 12:57 PM
TQ, you are showing your ignorance. What you describe is abiogenesis. Not evolution. Which is why you show ignorance. Evolution is what happens after the first cells are replicating. Evolution has a million or so scientific papers backing it up. You have no papers backin up your imaginary creator.
Abogenesis is being worked on and pieces of that puzzle are in place. It will be shown scientifically.
Posted by: TQ | May 22, 2009 1:08 PM
So, what is the foundation evolution is built on if it is not abiogenesis? Creationism?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 1:14 PM
Sure, TQ, the origins of life from simpler chemistry are part of Biological Evolution writ large. But your silly caricature has little to do with what "evolutionists" hypothesize these days. Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to show up on a biologist's blog to wave your flag of total ignorance?
Posted by: SC, OM | May 22, 2009 1:27 PM
Especially not wide and high. I mean, the summertime of ignorance has come and gone.
Posted by: TQ | May 22, 2009 1:27 PM
Actually, I love science. I always have. From Physics, to Biology (though Biology has always been my weakest).
I am ignorant of a lot of things, I admit. I'm certain we all are. That's why I read, among other things, the blogs of scientists. However, just because I read about the latest conjecture doesn't mean I have to automatically jump on board. I do think for myself. To be totally honest, I do see logic in many parts of theory of evolution, and some aspects have been proven (such as adaptation). However, I have yet to be convinced of the evolution of one species to a completely new species.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 22, 2009 1:46 PM
Which species concept are you thinking about when you say this?
Posted by: CJO | May 22, 2009 2:02 PM
In the beginning, the universe came to be (don't ask),
No, please, by all means, do ask. With only one qualification: when you think you have an answer, you must be able to say how you would know if the answer was wrong.
then the earth formed at just the right distance from a sun just the right size. The Earth didn't form too big, nor did it form too small. It was just right.
In a galaxy with hundreds of millions of stars, in a universe with billions of galaxies, yes.
Then, something extraordinary happened. They don't know what exactly, nor how exactly, but amino acids came to be.
Amino acid formation is relatively trivial. They form in interstellar space and can be found in cometary material.
At first just a few, then a few more.
What is your evidence for the scarcity of amino acids on the prebiotic Earth?
They just floated around bumping into each other. Eventually, the right combinations of amino acids got together and formed proteins. Now, the proteins, instead of decaying, got together with other proteins and continued to grow and fold and replicate. Somehow, eventually, they became the simplest version of a single cell (surely they don't think it happened all over the planet in mass! What would be the odds of that happening?) . Somehow, though, this little, single, individual cell survived... or did it? Maybe this happened twice and the second time it survived? who knows?
Nobody knows exactly. But a robust interdisciplinary research effort is underway, asking these questions, and asking how we would know if the answers were wrong. It's an exciting field.
Anyway, according to the theory, this cell got bored all by itself.
You're not very good at this reductio absurdum stuff.
Then, one day, out of the blue it decided it needed a friend and all by it's self decided to spontaneously split in two! oh joy! a friend! And so begins the story of evolution.
Replication almost certainly predates cells per se. Look into RNA World if you're actually interested in the current state of the field. And yes, once you have replication, you have natural selection, provided the replication is imperfect and the environment is limiting.
Posted by: Watchman | May 22, 2009 2:46 PM
My, oh my!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 2:56 PM
LOL. CJO, Thanks for the response. I liked it.
1) True in an immeasurable (at least by us) universe, the mathematical probability of a planet being the right size and the right distance around the right star goes up significantly!
2) I think I remember reading that evidence of amino acids in space has been found but only the simplest of amino acids (I need to look it up).
3) RNA precedes DNA so obviously, it would have preceded the cell. So, here's where it gets interesting. Where did the RNA come from exactly? And, can it just start replicating on its own from scratch? I may be wrong, but I don't think it can.
Ok, I know we could go on a very long time like this debating back and forth. Suffice it to say that I believe that science and God are very reconcilable. I believe that a higher power created the universe and all that is in it and I am simply amazed at all of it.
Sometime, just get out of the lab/office/classroom and get outside and truly observe the world we live in. If there is no God, then all of it, everything, is nothing more than an accident. Spend some time contemplating that.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 2:59 PM
LOL. CJO, Thanks for the response. I liked it.
1) True in an immeasurable (at least by us) universe, the mathematical probability of a planet being the right size and the right distance around the right star goes up significantly!
2) I think I remember reading that evidence of amino acids in space has been found but only the simplest of amino acids (I need to look it up).
3) RNA precedes DNA so obviously, it would have preceded the cell. So, here's where it gets interesting. Where did the RNA come from exactly? And, can it just start replicating on its own from scratch? I may be wrong, but I don't think it can.
Ok, I know we could go on a very long time like this debating back and forth. Suffice it to say that I believe that science and God are very reconcilable. I believe that a higher power created the universe and all that is in it and I am simply amazed at all of it.
Sometime, just get out of the lab/office/classroom and get outside and truly observe the world we live in. If there is no God, then all of it, everything, is nothing more than an accident. Spend some time contemplating that.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 3:03 PM
It's kind of condescending to imply tht we haven't. The world is no less amazing, no less wonderful without the superstitious mythology. Really.Posted by: TQ | May 22, 2009 3:03 PM
LOL. CJO, Thanks for the response. I liked it.
1) True in an immeasurable (at least by us) universe, the mathematical probability of a planet being the right size and the right distance around the right star goes up significantly!
2) I think I remember reading that evidence of amino acids in space has been found but only the simplest of amino acids (I need to look it up).
3) RNA precedes DNA so obviously, it would have preceded the cell. So, here's where it gets interesting. Where did the RNA come from exactly? And, can it just start replicating on its own from scratch? I may be wrong, but I don't think it can.
Ok, I know we could go on a very long time like this debating back and forth. Suffice it to say that I believe that science and God are very reconcilable. I believe that a higher power created the universe and all that is in it and I am simply amazed at all of it.
Sometime, just get out of the lab/office/classroom and get outside and truly observe the world we live in. If there is no God, then all of it, everything, is nothing more than an accident.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 3:04 PM
You got it right there. God, the null hypothesis. Good for nothing, and not useful for anything. Just takes up brainmatter that could be used for more productive things. God, used by delusional people world wide.Posted by: CJO | May 22, 2009 3:16 PM
Spend some time contemplating that.
Oh, trust me, I have. And I've come to the conclusion that it's an accident either way. The notion that the accident can be pinned on an undetectable cosmic fairy does not soothe my curiosity.
Posted by: Watchman | May 22, 2009 3:22 PM
Condescending AT BEST. Get over yourself.
Yes. Really.
Posted by: Watchman | May 22, 2009 3:34 PM
Yup!
Posted by: TQ | May 22, 2009 4:59 PM
DiMilo,
I apologize if I came across that way. I'm not the best at written communication and it's difficult to really tell how something is meant to be taken in its written form, unlike verbal communication.
Obviously, there are people of various levels of maturity posting on this forum and so the comment may apply to some and not so much to others.
Well, I'm heading out for a long weekend. Everyone be safe and have a great weekend. I'll check back in a few days (going camping and won't have access to the net).
Posted by: Watchman | May 22, 2009 5:37 PM
Camping. Nice. Have fun, TQ.
I'll be contemplating how the inside of my garage LOOKS like an accident.
Posted by: astrounit | May 22, 2009 6:05 PM
PZ: "It's really too bad. The media provided a distorted image of the find, aided and abetted by a grandstanding scientist, and now we're going to hear creationists claiming for years that there wasn't any evidence for evolution before, and when we did come up with something, it was "just" a dead lemur."
Indeed. One wonders why nobody is as jacked up about the possibility that a beautiful nearly intact specimen of an ancestral form of a LEMUR - 47 million years old - isn't given a weight every bit as massive as a specimen that is on our line.
VERY curious, that.
PZ: "Bad science reporting, even by journalists who seem to be sympathetic to evolution, is destructive to good science. There are about a dozen writers I can find with minimal effort and the assistance of that liberal search engine who need to be taken out to the woodshed. And a certain Dr Hurum has caused a self-inflicted wound to his own reputation, as well."
Agreed!!! These "journalists" AND that "certain Dr Hurum" need to get the tar thoroughly spanked out of them.
That's an OPPORTUNITY. I see many taking proper advantage of it.
I just hope it doesn't turn into another farcical "controversy" in science.
This isn't a legitimate scientific controversy at all. It's painfully obvious that it's trumped up to be one in a PUBLIC forum that isn't scientific in the first place.
Ambition in this case has obviously superceded science.
I too also have to wonder why or even how these discoverers were so adept at hiding their find and their conclusions (as now published) from OTHER scientists before coming out with their big PR gimmick. Surely, there must have been SOME insincerity in the secrecy and maneuvering involved (especially to obtain big $$$ rights to certain media venues) which is the bald signature of those who have deception preeminently in mind.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 22, 2009 6:19 PM
Oh but we are asking! It's just that not having a definative answer now dosn't justify making an argument from ignorance that a supernatural entity (whatever that means) was involved at all, let alone that it was your specific supernatural entity.
Uh...wrong.
The Earth has a range of sizes and distance from the Sun the it could have formed at and still support life. It could be closer to the Sun than it is now, or it could have formed most of the way to Mars and still support life. Rather it's that humans are adapted to life at the size and distance from the Sun that the Earth formed at.
Habitable zone
If the Earth was a different size or distance from the Sun, life here would no doubt be different. If they had managed to develop intelligence too, some of them would probably be saying how their Earth is "just right" too.
All of this is also ignoring that life can form under condition very different from Earth's past or present environment. It's currently suspected that Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto might support life as well due to evidence that they may posses liquid water. Each of these moons is suspected as having more water than is in the all of the Earth's oceans!
In other words...Earth's current size and location aren't quite as special as the theologically inclined want us to think. Also, please consider that many astronomers now think that there may be about one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone, not even trying to count moons, and there may be still more.
At this point the argument from ignorance that supernatural intervention is needed to create an environment conducive for life falls flat on it's metaphorical face.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 22, 2009 7:40 PM
BTW...with the discovery of frozen water and evidence of the presence of some liquid water too, it still possible for there to be life on Mars (underground most likely). That makes at least 4 places in our own solar system (not counting Earth) where water based life might have developed. There may be others too, just in our solar system.
This is even leaving out the possibility of life based on other processes. Titan may be a good candidate there.
Posted by: Christine Janis | May 22, 2009 10:13 PM
"Still, wait till they find the rabbit bones I stuck in the Cambrian deposit..."
Er ---- duh --- shouldn't that be a "Precambrian* rabbit?
Posted by: Christine Janis | May 22, 2009 10:15 PM
"Still, wait till they find the rabbit bones I stuck in the Cambrian deposit..."
Er ---- duh --- shouldn't that be a "Precambrian* rabbit?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 10:45 PM
Christine, a Cambrian rabbit would be almost as good. It would still be something unexpected from the evolution of life at that point in time.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 22, 2009 10:48 PM
"If there is no God, then all of it, everything, is nothing more than an accident."
So what?
Posted by: Kel | May 22, 2009 10:56 PM
Therein lies the contradiction of this kind of statement - accident requires intent and intent requires the will of a mind. An earthquake is not an accident because it has no purpose to it, a car accident however is an accident. If there is no god, then it is neither accident nor purpose; it can't be by pure definition! It's a false dichotomy born out of anthropomorphising nature.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 11:04 PM
But but but...you don't understand. There HAS to be a God. If there isn't, then when I die I'll be dead. I want to spend all eternity playing a harp and striking worshipful poses in hopes that God will notice me. I don't want to DIE! You atheist meanies want me to die and I DON'T WANT TO! WAH!
</goddist>
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:17 PM
well, it might have gone something like this:
simple molecules + heat + radiation = RNA
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:23 PM
reminds me of the Angel episode in which Eve is running away from Wolfram&Heart because if they find her, she'll die. and at the end, she's just forced to sign a paper. confused looks all around.
Angel, frustrated: "You said you were gonna die!"
Eve: "And now someday I will."
The End
:-)
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 24, 2009 4:31 AM
@ Jadehawk:
You do have to admit...it was a nice suit!
;-)
Posted by: TQ | May 26, 2009 9:39 AM
Good Morning.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. I just caught up reading the comments. Some Good points made. Especially the habitable zone one. And it's true; the universe may very well be full of life. My believing in an intelligent creator doesn't rule that out.
Just so you know where I stand, I'm not a creationist, I do not agree with many of their theories because many of their claims are not in harmony with the bible. I do believe in the Bible and I consider myself a Christian. I do believe that the universe was created in 6 "creative days" (each creative day indicating a phase of creation and not a literal 24 hour earth day (likely billions of years)). I'm not sure if I fall in the Intelligent design camp or not. I've not read much of their beliefs, though I do believe that there is a God and that he is intelligent and created the universe. Beyond that though, we may differ.
So, for most who read this forum, I'm already a joke and my beliefs aren't even worthy of respect. However, there are many, very well educated, men and women in science that believe there must have been some intelligence to the universe and all that is in it. So, I leave the “intellectual arguments” to those I hope you may respect little more.
I only encourage you, as you continue your quest for knowledge and understanding, to keep an open mind and not simply rule out a possibility simply because it seems fantastical.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 26, 2009 9:53 AM
TQ, if you believe that the universe was Designed by an Intelligence, then you believe in Intelligent Design, which is available in a variety of flavors and strengths.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 26, 2009 10:11 AM
Scientists and skepitics have open minds. They are not so open that their brains fall out though. [turn off irony meters] Funny how godbots always talk about open minds, but they never seem to be open to the concept that god doesn't exist. [turn irony meters back on] Extraordinary claims, like god, require extraordinary evidence. And that evidence isn't there. And science cannot use god as a result or cause of an observation. It's been that way for a couple of hundred years, and science has been very successful. Which pretty much rules out the need for god.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 26, 2009 10:12 AM
and, evidently, equipped with testes.Posted by: Kel | May 26, 2009 10:19 AM
I keep an open mind that there is the possibility that there is intelligent life out there that could conceivably have conceived this universe for the purpose of us. But then I remember that the mind is physically attached to my body, so I extrapolate that any being that has a mind must have a body and thus a being posited as a creator of reality having intelligence would be absurd unless the creator had a body - and that requires evolution. Thus by opening my mind, I have closed the possibility of there being a God UNLESS it can be demonstrated that a mind can exist without a body.
Posted by: TQ | May 26, 2009 11:37 AM
Cicely: Thanks. I'll check out some of the flavors and see.
Nerd on RedHead: Nice try, I have been open to the non-existence of God. But contrary to your argument against the existence of evidence, I interpret the data differently and say the evidence is overwhelming for an intelligent and powerful creator.
DiMilo: This is not a conversation about the gender of God, but since you brought it up, the God I believe in is not a man therefore has no Gender. If I say he it is only the pronoun I chose to use and doesn't indicate the presence of sexual organs. If I say she it certainly doesn't indicate the presence of ovaries either. I don't use "it" because the word is less personal. That's all.
Kel: You must be a philosophy major. Unfortunately, the reasoning that you use makes the assumption that life out there has to be like you. I don’t agree with it, but at least you leave the door open that if at some point someone demonstrates that a mind can exist without a physical body, then you would believe in God. At least that is something.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 26, 2009 11:49 AM
Please share your best example of such overwhelming evidence. [hint: "It sure looks designed to me" is not evidence]Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 26, 2009 11:56 AM
Then present the overwhelming evidence...if it exists and is overwhelming, and not explainable by natural processes, you might have a point. If it is all explained by natural processes, then your god delusion makes it look overwhelming to you. And we won't bother to join your deluded state.Posted by: TQ | May 26, 2009 12:28 PM
Give me some time to put some thought into a response that is appropriate and concise. I’m also at work so I will have distractions to contend with… actually, this is the distraction, so I might have to do this after I get home tonight. I’ll have something in the morning (Central Standard Time, USA)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 26, 2009 12:35 PM
Don't worry TQ, when you get back to us I can predict the following: 1) We've seen all the evidence before, yawn, boring. 2) It is all explained by natural causes, ergo nothing of interest to us. 3) You will be upset that we don't believe you.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 26, 2009 1:44 PM
Just one warning:
This is what creationists say all the time. And invariably, it immediately turns out that they don't even know that the vast majority of the known evidence even exists!
Are you any different, TQ? Please show us.
About the "accident" stuff: 1) Whether I'm an accident is not influenced by whether I want to be an accident. Reality is that which does not go away if you stop believing in it. 2) Is it somehow bad to be an accident? Is it better to have been made for a purpose?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 26, 2009 1:51 PM
That is relativism and false equivalence.
Creationists do not utilize established and supported scientific methods to evaluate the data. Their conclusions are built on bad science designed to always give the answer that there is a creator and more honestly, the Christian one.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 26, 2009 4:21 PM
@TQ:
I'm glad that you found the information about the "habitable zone" compelling, but it does bring up the problem that the other here are trying to relay to you.
Science starts with then evidence and then tries to arrive at a conclusion as objectively as is reasonably possible. If there really was credible evidence that there is a superior being (of some sort) then science would accept the conclusion (even if understanding what it is, is beyond science at the present) but there is yet to be any such credible evidence.
Religion, on the other hand, starts with the predetermined desired conclusion and then tries to make the evidence fit the conclusion. Religion does this even if it means leaving out and/or twisting the facts. When you had stated the the Earth was "just right" it was an example of this lack of objectivity on the part of the religious interpretation of facts.
Have you asked yourself yet why those that told that the Earth was "just right" didn't inform you about the habitable zone or the other types of environments that can support life? They probably didn't tell you the whole truth because it undermines the predetermined desired conclusion. What else have you not been told by those that support the position that the earth and life were created? Perhaps you should be asking that question more often.
You also stated that...
But then you also stated..
and...
Technically the second group of quotes means that you are in fact a creationist (namely...one that believes that the world/universe was created by another being). I think that what you mean to say is that you are not a literal Young Earth Creationist (or YEC for short).
Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, and Theistic Evolutionists (such as Ken Miller) are different sub categories of "Creationist". In other words...Ether you believe the universe has a natural cause, or you believe that something created it (making you a creationist, at least in the broad sense of the term). I wanted to point that out to you since it might help reduce any confusion later.
Just to help you out with any future posts detailing evidence of a "creator". Before you post a claim of evidence please ask yourself... "Would I believe this is good evidence for a god, other than the one I believe in?"
If you wouldn't find it compelling evidence of a god that you don't believe in, anyone that's objective won't find it to be compelling evidence of your god (and neither should you for that matter).
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 26, 2009 4:32 PM
@TQ again:
One other thing to point out....
Earlier you had stated that the Earth being "just right" was evidence of there being a creator, but when I show that it wasn't the case you replied...
So first you argued that a unique Earth was evidence of a creator, then you changed it to (paraphrasing you now) "Well maybe the Earth isn't so unique, but that doesn't prove that there is no creator!"
See the problem with this type of reasoning? You want to have it both ways, you are making whatever the truth is fit the conclusion that you want. If the facts don't confirm the belief in a creator, then you conclude that it doesn't rule one out either (knowing that nothing could ever prove that particular negative).
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:40 PM
ROFLMAO.
you guys arguing with "TQ" don't see it, do you?
what do you think the letters "TQ" stand for?
still stumped?
Tu Quoque
you are being trolled.
Posted by: Watchman | May 26, 2009 4:46 PM
Zetetic is correct. Believers take the existence of anything and everything as clear, indisputable evidence for the existence of a creator - a painting implies a painter, right? Uh, right. Except that a universe is not a painting. We can assume the painter, because we know what paintings are and where they come from. We cannot claim the same knowledge of the nature and origin of a universe, and therefore cannot make the same assumptions about universes as we can about paintings.
Posted by: Watchman | May 26, 2009 4:52 PM
I don't know, Ichthyic. That seems like a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2009 4:57 PM
I don't know, Ichthyic. That seems like a bit of a stretch.
yeah, looking back, it's more likely just a coincidence.
Posted by: Watchman | May 26, 2009 5:12 PM
Yeah. It might even stand for "Top Qat".
(Apophenia takes many forms... LOL)
I did take your notion seriously, you know. I looked back, too. What an impressive trolling that would be! I wondered if there was a tu quoque theme running through his comments, or a thread of insinuation which implied that t.q. fallacies were a regular feature of the pro-evolution comments here.
The quantum physics metatheme that serves as a kind of template for RAW's Schoedinger's Cat comes to mind.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 26, 2009 6:17 PM
This sounds something like day-age creationism (see also: Framework Interpretation).
And many religionists like it. I was told something like it, many many years ago, when I first became aware of the conflicting accounts of Genesis and science.
There are problems with it, though. Here's just one example:
Genesis is supposed to have been inspired by an omniscient being; one far more knowledgeable than mere humans.
Wouldn't this supposedly omniscient being have known what we in the future were going to find when we examined the universe itself, and mentioned that? Shouldn't the Genesis narrative at least loosely match what we actually have learned about cosmology? That is, one would expect the narrative to begin with the creation of light, then the light expanding and coalescing into stars, then one of the stars being the sun, with a disk forming around it, which then curdled into the Earth, the moon, and the planets. How hard would that have been? Or just mentioning a few basic facts about the solar system, like the sun being a huge ball of flame shining on its own like the far-away stars, but the planets being like the moon and the earth; bodies much smaller than the sun that reflect its light. Maybe throw in a few timespans given as well, like 9.2 billion years from the beginning of the universe to the beginning of the Earth, and 4.5 billion years from the beginning of the Earth until the writing of Genesis.
And so on.
Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God inspire a Genesis tale that he would know, in advance, would not be in accord with what would be discovered by examining the evidence of the universe itself?
Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God need for humans to come up with these strained interpretations in the first place?
It's not an assumption, it's a parsimonious inference from the evidence.
Not necessarily. It would certainly be a start, to show that, but it would need to be a little more rigorous.
For example, suppose that we could show that ghosts could indeed exist; disembodied minds floating hither and yon, speaking to the living in such a way that it was unmistakable that they were real disembodied people. The problem with that, though, is that ghosts would be evidence that bodies could give rise to disembodied minds, but it would not necessarily show that minds could exist without having had a body in the first place.
Now, if it could in addition be shown that there were minds that never had bodies -- things like demons or angels or djinn or whatever -- that would be more suggestive. But it still would not necessarily get you to God. For example, if mind-beings were caused things, then it may well be that there is some cause that started them that is not itself mind. If mind-beings were not caused beings, then they don't need a cause -- a God -- to have created them in the first place. Maybe these uncaused mind-beings are the equivalent of God; that is, they created the physical universe itself, but are not omniscient or omnipotent.
For every conjecture and imagined scenario, there are additional qualifications and objections that could be raised against it. The only scenario that really works is for a disembodied God that gives evidence of his disembodied existence and knowledge, power and good nature by communicating clearly with us poor humans who cannot perceive disembodied minds.
Meanwhile, here in the real universe, the best hypothesis to go with is the most parsimonious and evidence-based one -- which leads inevitably to the conclusion of "no disembodied minds, and no God".
Posted by: CJO | May 26, 2009 6:34 PM
The main problem is that it's simply not what Genesis 1 says. Hebrew "Yom" certainly could mean some kind of figurative "day," as in the English "back in my day," but the poetic repetition in the passage of "there was morning and there was evening" appears, if anything, to be a marker specifically stressing the literal use of the word.
Imagine if I said, "Back in my day--and this was my day, understand, with a morning and an evening--such and such happened." You might question my grasp of idiomatic English, but you would not take me to be talking about anything other than an ordinary day of 24 hours.
It is quite clear that the author and the contemporary audience of Genesis 1 understood creation to have taken place over six days of ordinary duration.
Posted by: TQ | May 26, 2009 11:19 PM
As you know entire books (perhaps volumes) have been written in an effort to direct the reader to some evidence of a creator. For me to attempt to do so in a few paragraphs, and in a comments section full of folks who readily admit they do not believe in God, is certainly an exercise in futility. Can I provide hard, irrefutable proof that there is a Creator? No. Can I provide proof that That's because no matter what I present, there will be someone who sees it different, and I accept that. Lets try to keep it civilized though (as many of you have).
Physics and astronomy are more to my liking and at first, I was going to present something along those lines. But as this is a biologists blog, I will present a biological example.
Hopefully, there will be room for everything. If not, then I'll continue in a separate post. I tried to keep it as concise as possible.
Without further ado, may I present to you, “The Feather”.
Birds are the only animals that have been proven to have had feathers. Most birds have different kinds of feathers, such as contour feathers, filoplumes and powder feathers. Contour feathers form the aerodynamic shape around the bird and also make up the tail and wing feathers necessary for flight .
Feathers are, in my opinion, a marvel of design. First, you have a central shaft, called a rachis, that is both flexible and strong. Extending out from the shaft are rows of interlocking barbs that form the vane of the feather. The barbs, in turn, are able to attach to each other by means of several hundred tiny barbules.
The contour feathers on the wings are asymmetrical in that the vane is narrower on the leading edge than it is on the trailing edge, giving it lift. This enables each feather to act as a tiny wing itself. Also, each major flight feather has a groove that runs along the underside of the rachis. Such a simple little design element, but this one thing allows the feather to bend and twist without buckling.
Truly there is much much more to discuss about why a feather is so perfect for the Job it does, and I haven't even touched on the other specialized types of feathers. You could probably right a book on it.. or at least a chapter or two:
Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function
Of course, the author supports evolution, but states that the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today”. Feathers, therefore, give no indication that they ever needed improvement. Yet, according to evolutionary theory, feathers should be the result of gradual, cumulative changes in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, according to the same book “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps” So, to put it simply, evolution could not produce a feather unless each random step in a long series of random , inheritable, changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal's chances for survival. I find it a stretch that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way.
Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers, and feathers are very complicated.
Really, practically every part of the bird is designed for flight. For example, a bird has light, hollow bones as well as an unusually efficient respiratory system. It also has specialized muscles for flapping and controlling its wings. It even has muscles just to control the position of individual feathers. And it has nerves that connect each of those muscles to it's tiny, but amazing brain, which is preprogrammed to control all of these systems simultaneously, automatically, and precisely. This whole, incredibly complex package is necessary for flight, not just the feathers.
On top of all of that, every bird develops from a tiny single cell that contains the complete instructions for its growth and instincts. Could all of this arise from a long string of fortuitous event after fortuitous event, or is the simplest explanation also the most reasonable and scientific? That birds and their feathers are the way they are because they are the result of an intelligent Maker.
OK, It's late, I'm tired, and I have to go to work early in the morning. Have a good night everyone.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 27, 2009 3:53 AM
@ Ichthyic:
Thanks, but I always consider it possible that I'm responding to a troll. Regardless...I don't view it as arguing, just practice.
@TQ:
First of all, your entire argument is still attempting to make nothing more than an argument from ignorance. I asked you before to consider how it would sound if you used the same argument for an entity that you didn't believe in, it doesn't seem that you listened to that suggestion.
Second, as far as I can tell with a quick search, you are linking to a chapter from a book written in 1998, there has been a lot of progress in retracing the evolution of birds and feathers since then. It's now known that most of the traits you mention in birds have been conclusively shown to have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed. Also, each of these traits that evolved posed an advantage to the land dwelling and arboreal dinosaurs that possessed them well before the development of what we call "birds". In fact many scientists now consider birds to the surviving descendants of some of the dinosaurs. So yes, it was a logical progression from dinosaur to bird.
Origin and Evolution of Birds
The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds
Evolution of the Aves
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 4:24 AM
*cough* It's probably for the best that you didn't.
Oh dear. Well, we'll see what happens.
OK, let's begin...
... and stop again with a screech.
Sorry, this is simply not correct. It might have been, once, but we currently have a fairly good idea about how birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which includes, among other things, evidence that many many species of theropod dinosaurs evolved feathers long before birds themselves evolved.
I'm going to follow this post with some copy-and-pasted references -- both scientific papers and websites -- from a recent thread that covered that very topic. But perhaps I should examine the larger sense of what you are trying to say.
You're making yet another variation on the argument from design. Feathers are complex; feathers are functional; feathers work in such a way that they serve the purpose of keeping birds warm and enabling birds to fly. Feathers are designed. Therefore, there exists an intelligent designer who specifically designed them with the exact purposes they serve in mind.
The problem is, this, like all arguments from design, is in fact an argument from ignorance:
1. We do not know every detail of how this complex, functional biological feature arose.
2. Therefore, it is not possible to know every detail of how this complex, functional biological feature arose.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for this complex, functional biological feature to have arisen naturally.
4. Therefore, the only way this complex, functional biological feature could have possibly arisen must have been supernaturally.
5. Therefore, God caused this complex, functional biological feature to arise.
This is an argument from ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy. Line (2) does not follow logically from line (1). Line (3) does not follow logically from line (2). The conclusion in line (5) is assumed, not derived logically; again, it is a logical fallacy.
Note that the book was published in 1998, and was obviously not updated with the most recent dinosaur feather discoveries.
See upcoming comments which point to references on feather evo-devo.
This is the argument from personal incredulity, which is also a logical fallacy.
Sigh. First of all, this argument assumes its conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. Secondly, this is not the "simplest" explanation, because, like all arguments from design, it neglects the fact that this alleged "intelligent Maker"; the one that is so intelligent that it knows in advance all of the complexity and purpose that you wrote about, must necessarily be far more complex than all of the species of birds and all of their biological features -- feathers and all -- and is completely unexplained other than being asserted to exist.
So the most parsimonious explanation is the one that avoids this unevidenced, unexplained and complex entity: evolution by natural selection, for which we do actually have evidence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 4:31 AM
These were originally posted by David Marjanović and Josh in this thread (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php)
---------------------------------------------------
Scientific papers on Dinosaur Feathers:
Chen, P.-J. et al. 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391:147-152.
Qiang, J., P.J. Currie, M.A. Norell, and J. Shu-An. 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature 393:753.
(Note: "Qiang, J." should read "Ji, Q." and "J. Shu-An" should read "S. Ji" ; Chinese names are in reversed order)
Xu, X., Z.Tang and X.Wang. 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China. Nature 399:350-354.
Xu, X., X.Wang & X-C.Wu. 1999. A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 401: 262-266.
Zhou, Z-H, Wang X-L, Zhang F-C, and Xu, X. 2000. Important features of Caudipteryx - Evidence from two nearly complete new specimens. Vertebrata Palasiatica 38(4):241-254.
Ji, Q., M. A. Norell, K.-Q. Gao, S.-A. Ji, and D. Ren. 2001. The Distribution of Integumentary Structures in a Feathered Dinosaur. Nature 410: 1084-1088.
Currie, P.J. & P-J.Chen. 2001. Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38:1705-1727.
Microraptor zhaoianus:
Xu X., Zhou Z. & Wang X. (2000): The smallest known non-avian theropod dinosaur, Nature 408, 705 -- 708
S. H. Hwang, M. Norell, Ji Q. & Gao K. (2002): New specimens of Microraptor zhaoianus (Theropoda, Dromaeosauridae) from northeastern China, American Museum Novitates 3381 (all 44 pages)
Microraptor gui:
Xu X., Zhou Z., Wang X., Kuang X., Zhang F. & Du X. (2003): Four-winged dinosaurs from China, Nature 421, 335 -- 340
Dilong paradoxus:
Xu X., M. A. Norell, Kuang X., Wang X., Zhao Q. & Jia C. (2004): Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids, Nature 431, 401 -- 684
Jinfengopteryx elegans:
Ji Q., Ji S., Lü J., You H., Chen W., Liu Y. & Liu Y. (2005): First avialian bird from China (Jinfengopteryx elegans gen. et sp. nov.), Geological Bulletin of China 24, 197 -- 210
Ji Q. & Ji S. (2007): Jinfengopteryx compared to Archaeopteryx, with comments on the mosaic evolution of long-tailed avialan birds, Acta Geologica Sinica (English edition) 81, 337 -- 343
Sinocalliopteryx gigas:
Ji S., Ji Q., Lü J. & Yuan C. (2007): A new giant compsognathid dinosaur with long filamentous integuments from [the] Lower Cretaceous of northeastern China, Acta Geologica Sinica 81, 8 -- 15
Epidexipteryx hui: Just go here.
Anchiornis huxleyi
Xu X., Zhao Q., M. Norell, C. Sullivan, D. Hone, G. Erickson, Wang X., Han F. & Guo Y. (published online before print in 2008): A new feathered maniraptoran dinosaur fossil that fills a morphological gap in avian origin, Chinese Science Bulletin, 6 pages
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 4:33 AM
Science blogging on dinosaur feathers and relatedness to birds:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/02/feathers_and_filaments_of_nona.php
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/03/feathers_and_filaments_of_dino.php
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/02/month_in_dinosaurs_part_i.php
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/02/month_in_dinosaurs_part_ii.php
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/01/troodontids_and_owls_oh_the_ir.php
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 27, 2009 4:35 AM
@TQ said:
Unfortunately, that is no more true than your earlier statement, about how there must be a designer since the Earth is "just right". Earlier I had asked if maybe you might ask yourself what else your theologically inclined fellows either didn't know, or did know but didn't tell you since it contradicts their predetermined conclusions. Apparently you didn't do that either. It's amazing what you can find out with a little effort if you just try to critically examine the claims that you are all to eager to embrace without question.
In fact there has been discovered fossil evidence of more primitive feathers. Also, there has been much progress in determining the genetic mechanisms involved in turning scales into feathers. In fact dinosaurs with primitive feathers have been known since 1995! This then posses the question as to why don't you know about them since you've had 14 years to learn about them if you had tried.
Beipaiosaurus was covered in the simplest known feathers
Primitive Dinosaur Feathers --Please note in this article how the primitive feathers found were predicted by evolutionary science. Score yet another confirmed prediction for evolution!
The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France
What was it that you were saying about no "intermediate forms" having ever been found? What were you saying about there being no simpler forms of feathers?
Do you see the problem yet in making an argument from ignorance, especially when you really don't know as much about the subject as you think you do?
Just a suggestion... If you are getting your info about science from those trying to confirm a predetermined conclusion (such as those trying to justify religion) you are probably being lied to.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 4:37 AM
The evolutionary development of feathers
Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages
Cheng-Ming Chuong*, Rajas Chodankar, Randall B Widelitz and Ting-Xin Jiang
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2000, 10:449–456
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf
The morphogenesis of feathers
Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz & Cheng-Ming Chuong
Nature 420, 308-312 (21 November 2002)
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/nature.pdf
Molecular Biology of Feather Morphogenesis
Randall B. Widelitz, Ting Xin Jiang, Mingke Yu, Ted Shen,Jen-Yee Shen, Ping Wu, Zhicao Yu, and Cheng-Ming Chuong
Journal Of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 298B:109–122 (2003)
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2003JEZWidelitz.pdf
The relatedness of avian and dinosaur lungs:
O'Connor PM, Claessens LPAM (2005) Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436:253-256
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/dinosaur_lungs.php
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 27, 2009 4:49 AM
Nice links Owlmirror..thanks for re-posting them.
Posted by: TQ | May 27, 2009 8:51 AM
@ZetaTic.
At work now and time is short. If you read the article, not only is Beipaiosaurus was also covered with complex feathers (just like modern birds). Hmmm... Could not the simple feathers also be another specialized type of feather with its own purpose and evolutionists are seeing what they want to see? This isn't proof of the evolution of feathers. In fact, in the article you site, Xu notes that they were only found on parts of the body that bear display feathers in modern birds and that were likely used for just that, display. It no more
Every scientist has a motive. I see this data and say Specialized feather. You see it and say Proto-feather.
As for your other assumptions about what I know or don't know about habitable zones or otherwise, I’ve been aware of it for probably 20 years back when I was majoring in physics. I was just acknowledging you were correct with your post. As for the earth being just right, if it wasn’t, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. That was my point. Not that a creator made life for the sake of life only, but that he made life and that you and I and everyone else here are able to sit down and discuss it and contemplate it and appreciate it.
Just because I believe there is a creator doesn’t mean that I don’t want to investigate and understand the world around me to the fullest. In fact, it drives me to look deeper to try and understand why it might have been made that way. Just like knowing that the Egyptians (their slaves) built the pyramids doesn’t mean historians, archeologists, and the like aren’t out there trying to uncover the mysteries. Just because we know Michael Angelo painted the Mona Lisa doesn’t mean Art historians aren't interested in his technique, the paints he used, his brush strokes, and so on.
I’ve exhausted enough time and energy on this. I just hope that as all of you look at the world you’ll keep the possibility in the back of your mind.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 27, 2009 11:01 AM
TQ @ 203:
I'm going to have to kick another cherished article of faith in the teeth.
The evidence suggests that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by skilled workmen. The "service city" where they slept, their bread was baked, their meat prepared (prime beef, no less!), has been found. If you're interested, you can start here (Who Built the Pyramids? Harvard Magazine http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids.html); a quick Google will show you more references.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 12:53 PM
Yes... and No. Yes, the simple feathers are specialized and have their own purpose, but no, we are not just "seeing what we want to see". This is a parsimonious inference from the evidence. If you want to argue a non-parsimonious idea, you're not doing science, you're doing religion.
It's evidence for the evolution of feathers. Parsimony.
Paranoia?
This. is. parsimony!!!
Posted by: Josh
|
May 27, 2009 1:05 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Complex feathers? Have you actually read any of the articles on Beipiaosaurus?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2009 1:23 PM
*looks over TQ's alleged new evidence.*
Yawn, we've seen that, refuted that. Boring TQwit doesn't understand that. What's next on the been there, already refuted that parade? Maybe if he actually read the archives first...
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 27, 2009 1:50 PM
I posted another set of links from the other thread last night (originally posted by David Marjanović (and some also by me)), which was held up. The comment will probably pop out of the aether at some point, but since the comment isn't that long, I'll try just offering the links again, sans the protocol URI prefix:
Science blogging on feathered dinosaurs:
Feathers and filaments of non-avian dinosaurs, parts I and II
URL: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/02/feathers_and_filaments_of_nona.php
URL: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/03/feathers_and_filaments_of_dino.php
A month in dinosaurs (and pterosaurs): 1 and 2
URL: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/02/month_in_dinosaurs_part_i.php
URL: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/02/month_in_dinosaurs_part_ii.php
Troodontids and owls: oh, the irony (part I)
URL: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/01/troodontids_and_owls_oh_the_ir.php
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 27, 2009 4:30 PM
@TQ:
What no comments about Owlmirror's links? OK then...
I had earlier asked for you to be more careful in questioning your sources and your arguments. I made the suggestion in order to help you avoid making the mistake that you had made in your earlier post (about bird features).
As with the rest of your arguments I think that you are reading into the article what you want to see. Lets see what the article actually said (emphasis added).....
Beipaiosaurus was covered in the simplest known feathers
Note that the article was not talking about modern flight feathers when it referred to "complex feathers" it was referring to "composite structures consisting of several slender filaments that either sprout from a single base or branch off a central stem". What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
In comparison the simpler feathers on some parts of the Beipaiosaurus are described as "a single, unbranched, hollow filament - exactly the sort of structure that palaeontologists had predicted as the first step in the evolution of feathers."
Again, what part of this did you have trouble understanding in the article?What is unclear in that statement either?
If feathers were evolved that you would expect to seen an animal with different types of feathers on it's body. You would also expect to find feathers changing in their use as the feathers also become more complex. This is what Beipaiosaurus shows, as is stated in the article.
You on the other hand, first state that their are no simpler feathers, and therefore it's proof of god. A position that has been pointed out to you numerous times is a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance). When that statement is shown to be a lie, you now change your tune again, now trying to redefine what you would consider a simple feather. This is called "moving the goal posts". Of course it's all meant as a distraction that the burden of proof is on your position, and that you have no credible evidence to support it, just more inaccurate "facts" supporting logical fallacies.
Tell us TQ what could be a simpler feather than a simple hollow shaft? Why do you seem to dodge the point that I, and the articles made, that these types of feathers were predicted by evolution before they were found? For that matter, why couldn't your creator get it right the first time (the way you had incorrectly claimed before)?
You also seemed to again miss the point with this comment...
Uh...no.
As I had earlier pointed out, it's not that the Earth is well suited for the life that exists. Rather it's the life that exists has evolved to be well suited for the environments of the Earth. This is why life on Earth has changed in response to changes of the planet. You seem to be using "backwards" logic to come to your conclusion that the Earth was made for us.
Oh, and as other had pointed out before, the claim the pyramids were made by slaves is not supported by the evidence.