Pharyngula

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | September 5, 2010 4:58 PM

I think cahonas are what creationists have. Given that they're imaginary rather than evolved through natural selection, they're not as useful as actual gonads.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 5, 2010 5:02 PM

My favorite part about this type of email is how frequently they put scare-quotes around the word scientist, or refer to scientists as "so-called." It's really puzzling; they loathe the scientific method and they really hate them some competent scientists, but then they accuse them of not being "real" scientists, which implies the position is something to be admired.

It's much like the religionists who think it's a devastating argument to accuse atheists of "having just as much faith" as they do. Wait, what? Isn't faith supposed to be a good thing, not something you point out in order to show that your opponent's thinking is flawed?

Do these people even know what they mean?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 5, 2010 5:05 PM

Also, PZ, it would be amusing if you ever got around to comparing which email service-providers these cranks use. I suspect AOL would be disproportionately represented.

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 5, 2010 5:09 PM

this was sent to my personal email account; does he think a committee lives here?

Well, yes. He thinks this is the website of an organization, maybe the antichrist to the Disinformation Institute's Christ. (Perhaps he doesn't understand the difference between ScienceBlogs and Pharyngula.) And then he thinks the contact e-mail of that diabolic organization is yours; you might be the only computer-literate member of the organization, or he doesn't know it's possible to create e-mail addresses that aren't personal, or he thinks it's like the Catholic League (you know, the one that mainly consists of Bill Donohue).

The line breaks... judging from the e-mail I get (mostly spam, and most of the rest from a mailing list), there are some seriously stupid e-mail programs out there.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 5, 2010 5:10 PM

As resident king of typos, I feel it is my duty to point out one in your comments.

[nope—enthusiastically embraced by the scientifically literate at its inception, and become more and more strungly supported since],

I hope this brings in the Hovindites. I just shined my stomping boots.

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 5, 2010 5:13 PM

Also, PZ, it would be amusing if you ever got around to comparing which email service-providers these cranks use. I suspect AO[Hell] would be disproportionately represented.

QFT.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 5:16 PM

[ebola, senility, and bad clams]

Bad clam, no tartar sauce for you!

Posted by: 6-bleen-7 | September 5, 2010 5:17 PM

No discussion of Hovind's "dissertation" would be complete without a reference to the really, really, bad MySpace-class poetry:

Two blind men argued well into the night
about the great question, “Is there really sight?”
Said one to the other (and quite fervently)
“There cannot be colors or else we could see!

Posted by: blf | September 5, 2010 5:18 PM

The Bad Clams.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/IAbP6HB.s9WObkxUzTXkIRXB1xNMosSwmtNh#00f07 | September 5, 2010 5:23 PM

Did you follow the link to the CNN article from this dude's facebook page?

"Your child is following a "mutant" form of Christianity, and you may be responsible."

Oh noes, it has mutated! It must sting to learn that even christianity is afflicted by evolution.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 5, 2010 5:29 PM

some odd combination of oblivious hero-worship and total cluelessness about the internet

I know, especially netiquette. All that and he never even asked to subscribe to your newsletter!

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | September 5, 2010 5:30 PM

I went to a couple of Brother Kent's talk, once. At the one in the church, he was raving about the "war" between Christians and science (or some damned things). Every time he said the word "war" I remembered the line "the first casualty of war is . . ." and reflected that if science doesn't even know the war is going on, the Christians must be inflicting the causualties. I have heard that as both "the first casualty of war is the truth" and "the first casualty of war is the children". Kent was certainly telling lies to children, just as fast as he could.

It really sounds like W.C. has been missing out on the truth from an early age, and has no clue how to evaluate it.

The second of Doc Dino's talks that I heard was held at Missouri State University. It was a lot nicer than the anti-science ravings at the church. The Science Department was well-represented, just for grins, but wasn't offered much chance to ask questions.

While Hovind was on campus, I told the oil-search-company geologist that I was interviewing with about Kent and his flood-geology petroleum insights. That profit-oriented person just snorted with laughter and went on interviewing science-based geologists. It still seems to me that if the oil companies distrust Kent, there must be nothing to his "geology".

Posted by: Sastra | September 5, 2010 5:34 PM

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you ignore them, it's because you can't refute their arguments; if you attack them, it's because their arguments worry you.

I wonder what response would indicate the possibility that we really do think their arguments are weak and worthless. We notice them, but send them a box of chocolates?

Posted by: masturbating monkey | September 5, 2010 5:44 PM

As hairy as I am, I spell it Cohones too. H is for Hair.

From Facebook... "William K. McKinney: what? me hide in the library? you must have me for someone else? :)"

Clearly, at least in this regard he's being honest?

Posted by: Lyra | September 5, 2010 5:48 PM

@4 Josh

I have to admit that the bashing on atheists for having just as much "faith" as Christians do to be incredibly confusing. For example, I think it is a good thing to have intelligence. I would never go around saying, "Why, those Christians have just as much intelligence as atheists do!" if I was intending to bash on Christians. If they really think faith is a good thing, why do they use it like an insult?

Now, maybe it's just a hypocrisy thing. Maybe Christians are saying that although atheists insist that faith is bad, atheists also have faith. But it's still odd. For example, if some Christian insisted that intelligence was bad, I would not retort, "Well, you have just as much intelligence as I do!" It just wouldn't make sense.

Posted by: Yubal | September 5, 2010 5:54 PM

What are you afraid of?

[ebola, senility, and bad clams]

That was a precious one!!

Posted by: Friday the Thirteenth | September 5, 2010 5:58 PM

I do feel like sending them links to Fark or /b/ just to wake them up a little more to the medium they're using.

Do it, PZ. Send it to /b/.

At the very least, it would give the /b/tards something constructive to do again.

Posted by: benjdm | September 5, 2010 6:01 PM

http://www.facebook.com/wkmckinney?ref=ts

I really hope that's not him. A Naval Academy graduate writing that crap?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | September 5, 2010 6:13 PM

If not /b/ then Encyclopedia Dramatica.... nsfw or sanity.

Posted by: Metatwaddle | September 5, 2010 6:13 PM

My favorite part about this type of email is how frequently they put scare-quotes around the word scientist, or refer to scientists as "so-called."

Posted by: Finch | September 5, 2010 6:17 PM

There's a lot of things that are terrible in that mail, but I have to say, signing your email with a psuedonym without having the decency to create a new free email account to send things from it? That's just downright lazy. Fits though: creationists tend not to take the time to think about such things.

I was making fun of someone in my fantasy football league using this effective intelligence scale:
Average High School Graduate
Average High School Dropout
Brett Favre (great quarterback, just really thick)
Average Mentally Handicapped Person
JaMarcus Russell (Mmmm Codeine+soda. Also, terrible quarterback)
(name redacted)
Average Young Earth Creationist

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | September 5, 2010 6:44 PM

As a computer programmer, I just find it embarrassing how many programmers and engineers are creationists. It must have to do with working in a field where everything has already been built and structured, and one's job is to now assemble the pieces.

To imply that programmers are a bunch of uncreative, uninmaginative time servers may be a fair cop, but don't lump us engineers in with you lot!

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 5, 2010 6:55 PM

     I have no love for Hovind. But if someone believes he was railroaded (i.e. that the trial was rigged to get a conviction against an innocent party) asserting that a conviction was obtained will do nothing to dispell the notion.
     "nope—enthusiastically embraced by the scientifically literate at its inception, and become more and more strungly supported since"
     This just tells me that evolution is not a science. Look, I recognize that creationism has no merit. I just don't think we have any reliable answers about the origins of life and/or cause for its diversity. A normal scientific theory is not embraced by the scientific community at its inception. Scientists try to identify predictions of nascent ideas in order to show that they are wrong. Only after surviving repeated attempts at falsification does an idea normally become accepted as a theory. (The whole concept, of course, is unintelligible to creationists.) With evolution, it just didn't happen.

Sastra:

     "I wonder what response would indicate the possibility that we really do think their arguments are weak and worthless. We notice them, but send them a box of chocolates?"
     Well, just suppose the tables were turned, creationists controlled what was taught in schools, and you couldn't get your ideas past the twin pillars of ignore and ridicule. Under those conditions, what would convince you that creationists really did think your arguments were weak and worthless? Evolution is presented far too early in a child's education to be taken as anything other than a sacred idea. Either he will believe for no reason beyond "teacher says" or he will reject with no further cause.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 7:06 PM

This just tells me that evolution is not a science.

Only after surviving repeated attempts at falsification does an idea normally become accepted as a theory. (The whole concept, of course, is unintelligible to creationists.) With evolution, it just didn't happen.

Posted by: Dania | September 5, 2010 7:09 PM

Evolution is presented far too early in a child's education to be taken as anything other than a sacred idea. Either he will believe for no reason beyond "teacher says" or he will reject with no further cause.

Care to explain why?

Actually, evolution should be presented as soon as a child starts making questions about the diversity of life. Of course you're not going to explain her/him the modern synthesis in detail, but that's not required. You just have to introduce the concept.

Posted by: Dionysius | September 5, 2010 7:13 PM

I've only recently had the nerve to post here after lurking for about a year now. Could someone explain what QFT means? I'm from England and luckily we don't have many of these creationist zombies over here. I'd like to apologise to you all that we got so fed up with the ancestors of these idiots in Europe we shipped them over to you. Please don't send them back!

Posted by: nonsensemachine | September 5, 2010 7:18 PM

"Cahonas" must be the female equivalent of balls. PZ, why don't you have any female balls?

Posted by: Pareidolius | September 5, 2010 7:20 PM

So by your logic we shovld jvst not teach ovr children anything (inclvding the concept of god) vntil they're old enovgh for it to not be accepted at "sacred"? Totally off topic, but where do you get your togas cleaned?

Posted by: Hairhead | September 5, 2010 7:21 PM

QFT = Quite (the) Fucking Truth

Posted by: badgersdaughter | September 5, 2010 7:27 PM

I'm a girl and I have balls of solid rock.

No, really. My brother was a lapidary and he got me hooked on collecting spheres made of interesting minerals. They are not less interesting because of people who come to my house and think I'm a woo fanatic.

Anyway, the REAL bad clams are here.

Posted by: Dionysius | September 5, 2010 7:29 PM

Thanks Dania and Hairhead. I went back and re-read PZ's comments and found them even funnier and enjoyable. Many thanks

Posted by: badgersdaughter | September 5, 2010 7:34 PM

Around here... ¡Qué fríjoles tontos! ("Here" being Houston, where even non-Spanish speakers speak a little.)

Posted by: badgersdaughter | September 5, 2010 7:36 PM

Welll... shit, I just took another look and realized how racist that sounds, and I think I'm going to go beat a "friend" of mine who thinks it's cute to use a phrase more or less equivalent to "what ignorant beaners" to point out that something is painfully obvious.

Posted by: piranhaintheguppytank#9ee73 | September 5, 2010 7:39 PM

EvolutionSkeptic said:

[W]hat is your motivation to live a moral, upstanding life without the guidance of the rules of God and the Bible?

Traffic laws aren't found in the bible. Why do people stop on red?

Seriously though, how could modern civilization operate if the only laws we observed were those found in the bible?

Take the commandment that forbids working on the Sabbath. It is conveniently ignored for the simple reason that our modern technological society could not function if the gears of civilization had to grind to a halt one day out of each week. (But wouldn't that be a case of convenience trumping blasphemy?)

And just imagine what our society would be like if our criminal justice system still followed the rules prescribed in the bible.

*

We did away with the institution of slavery because we deemed it to be unjust. Yet the bible says nothing against slavery.

Even Jesus compared God to a slave owner and his worshipers to slaves. A worshiper who blatantly ignores God's will "shall be beaten with many stripes", whereas a worshiper who disobeys God through ignorance "[deserves] stripes [but] shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12:46-48).

And there was that time Jesus healed a centurion's slave (Luke 7:1-10), no doubt so that he could look forward to a future of being beaten with few or many stripes.

*

A single line in the bible was responsible for centuries of senseless murder and bloodshed: "Suffer not a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18).

What ever happened to witches anyway? Were they all burned at the stake and hanged? Should we credit our forefathers for their perseverance in the "War on Witchcraft"?

Or could it be that -- and maybe I'm going out on a limb here -- we finally figured out that freaking witches don't actually exist! (Oh wait, I forgot that witches are regularly hunted down in Africa -- by modern-day Xtians, of course. My bad.)

Posted by: Joe Bloe | September 5, 2010 8:02 PM

@ 4
@ 30
When Christians mention that atheists have as much faith as believers, they are actually trying to reinforce their own position. The are implying that all of us are born with "faith", but the atheists employ their faith in the wrong direction. They think that atheists are faithful Christians who have been misled or gone astray - the faith that belongs to god has been misplaced in science.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 8:23 PM

It looks like Pvblivs #46 is a cowgull. Landing a big pile of smelly manure while squawking loudly, and then flying away. Typical of those who know they don't have an argument or evidence.

Posted by: Herk | September 5, 2010 8:55 PM

Nickname: Water Closet Revere.

Posted by: Killua | September 5, 2010 9:13 PM

"nope—enthusiastically embraced by the scientifically literate at its inception, and become more and more strungly supported since" This just tells me that evolution is not a science.

This just screams of someone who doesn't know their scientific history that well. Special Relativity, after it was proposed in 1905, was accepted by the majority of the scientific community in less than five years.

Or what about a slightly older example? Newton's Principia was accepted rather immediately upon publication. No controversy, no real doubt, it received support and classical mechanics became better and better supported until we needed, well, relativity to come in and correct some aspects.

When books like Principia strongly support their case, and when the previous theories fail as badly as creationism or Aristotelian physics, the scientific community tends to embrace the well supported alternative.

Look, I recognize that creationism has no merit. I just don't think we have any reliable answers about the origins of life and/or cause for its diversity.

Your opinion has been dutifully noted, evaluated, and discarded for irrelevance. It doesn't matter what you think, because frankly, you don't seem to have much of an education on the subject. I don't care what your opinion is on parity violation of the cobalt 60 atom either, because regardless of your opinion on the subject, people who have done proper research disagree with you and their opinions carry more weight.

Given that the process of descent with modification should result in nested hierarchies of life, and we've confirmed this... via multiple independent avenues... I tend to say evolution provides a far better explanation for the diversity of life than anything you're able to come up with.

That's also a key, ideas in science aren't simply abandoned with nothing in place. You don't say "this doesn't account for the diversity, so we should say it's all wrong and have no explanation in place". No, in science, you have to present an alternative that explains the same set of evidence and makes new and better predictions that the current theory cannot make. If you fail to do so, you're mostly spewing a lot of nonsense.

A normal scientific theory is not embraced by the scientific community at its inception. Scientists try to identify predictions of nascent ideas in order to show that they are wrong. Only after surviving repeated attempts at falsification does an idea normally become accepted as a theory.

Tell that to Newton and Einstein. Actually, Einstein's Field Equations were accepted fairly shortly after he published those as well, go figure.

(The whole concept, of course, is unintelligible to creationists.) With evolution, it just didn't happen.

The whole concept... which whole concept, your incorrect perception that all scientific theories must be attacked when first proposed? No, only some are.

Sastra: "I wonder what response would indicate the possibility that we really do think their arguments are weak and worthless. We notice them, but send them a box of chocolates?" Well, just suppose the tables were turned, creationists controlled what was taught in schools, and you couldn't get your ideas past the twin pillars of ignore and ridicule. Under those conditions, what would convince you that creationists really did think your arguments were weak and worthless?

This is ignoring WHY creationists are always met by being ignored or ridiculed. Because there's one thing creationists lack that scientists have... that is, evidence. If the tables were turned creationists could convince me that they think our arguments are weak and worthless if they had evidence to support their theory. If they could make robust accurate predictions that receive confirmation, if their "theory" built coherent models that can be tested. For example, prediction and confirmation of an ancestral chromosomal fusion. If they continue to shut us down with evidence, then I'd offer little to combat ridicule and being ignored. The tables however aren't turned... because they really do have absolutely no case. They never present evidence, they claim they have it, but for every "we expect to find a transitional fossil in this strata exhibiting X traits having lived at around X time", creationists offer... "transitional fossils don't really exist, no transitional fossil has ever been found, that's not really a transitional fossil".

Evolution is presented far too early in a child's education to be taken as anything other than a sacred idea. Either he will believe for no reason beyond "teacher says" or he will reject with no further cause.

Yeah lets not teach our kids science until they're 10. Great idea, will keep us at the forefront of the world community I'm sure.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm5I1xa6NaptbXkWxQtrFcmKS-Ez86OfRM | September 5, 2010 9:30 PM

Phil Plait won't be happy with this posting PZ, it's being dickish. But he is one of the few that won't enjoy it :)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 9:51 PM

@79

Hell, he's not even the Jay who hangs out with Silent Bob

Posted by: sajid.mohd | September 5, 2010 10:12 PM

I love this guy! So cute!

Posted by: JC | September 5, 2010 10:35 PM

I think the mystery line breaks were hiccups.

Posted by: JeffreyD | September 5, 2010 10:48 PM

Line breaks?? Easy answer, he copied the body of the letter from a Talking Points for Morons, er, Creationists site and did not know how to remove the line breaks.

Posted by: Balstrome | September 5, 2010 10:58 PM

We all know these folk talk for their gods, but did you realise that they also talk for their gods, when their gods fail them. Such as when you call down their gods wrath upon yourself and nothing happens, they can tell you why nothing happen, I wonder are they pissed at their gods for not carrying out such as worthwhile act.

Posted by: danlwarren | September 5, 2010 11:07 PM

I do feel like sending them links to Fark or /b/

Good lord, nobody deserves that.

Posted by: Metatwaddle | September 5, 2010 11:18 PM

So by your logic we shovld jvst not teach ovr children anything (inclvding the concept of god) vntil they're old enovgh for it to not be accepted at "sacred"? Totally off topic, but where do you get your togas cleaned?

Posted by: bombria | September 5, 2010 11:43 PM

I was a fundie preacher for four years. During that time I met Kent Hovind, was very familiar with his material, and went to "Dinosaur Adventureland". If I ever find those pictures and old posts (I was a YEC and geocentrist) I will have to post some really hysterical material...

Posted by: Aquaria | September 5, 2010 11:48 PM

Evolution is presented far too early in a child's education to be taken as anything other than a sacred idea. Either he will believe for no reason beyond "teacher says" or he will reject with no further cause.

Filling a kid's head with the jaysus bullshit comes even before that, and has no business being taught to morons, as you so amply demonstrate.

Sanctimonious assclam.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 5, 2010 11:57 PM

Here's a hint. If you jump straight to the insults, I'm going to assume you don't have a case.

Boring. You must be new around here.

Posted by: co | September 6, 2010 12:02 AM

I'm interested in what experiments are designed to show plate tectonics to be false.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | September 6, 2010 12:07 AM

Oh...it's late and I'm not sure that I want to engage. But fuck.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time (or change in distributions of heritable characters over time). It is a fact. We observe it. Evolutionary theory is the bundle of hypothesized mechanisms that explain this fact. THese include natural selection, drift, mutation, non-random mating, and the various models that attempt to balance these things. Also included are various hypotheses of how speciation occurs, effects of reticulation and hybridization on rates of change, etc., etc.

Scientists also have reached a consensus that this theory is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth...meaning that all variation can be explained by descent with modification.

Pvblivs: What part of this bundle of theory would you like to discuss in terms of falsification? Because I don't feel like writing a book here.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 6, 2010 12:10 AM

Ah, yes, the insult-fest. People supporting evolution are, for the most part, not that different than those who support creationism. They treat absence of total agreement the exact same way.

So, you come in and lie about us, about science, and about how creationism is treated. We call you the lying stupid sack of shit that you are, and you whine about tone. Well, fuckwit, since you were only interested in lying and "martyrdom," we don't mind calling you the dumbfuck that you are.

But the argument is traditionally against creationism and that pretends to explain the origin of life.

No, Eeyore, that is just more creationist dishonesty. Whine all you want about being caught out as a stupid liar, there's nothing unjust about calling a stupid liar a stupid liar.

I do not dispute the existence of supporting data. But, if there were no dissenters, ESP could give the same impression.

And, if no one more honest and intelligent called you on your stupidity and lies, you might pass as knowledgeable and wise. So fucking what?

I am interested in what experiments were designed to show evolution to be false. There are none.

Gee, I'd like to know what experiments were designed to show that Abe Lincoln wasn't shot in Ford's theater. There are none.

Likewise, I'm interested in what experiments were designed to show that supernovae are false. There are none (cretin, there are experimental sciences and observational sciences--but if you weren't an accusatory dumbass, you'd already know that).

Egregious idiot, the "experiments" were already done by nature, and you're too fucked in the head to recognize that I mentioned two in my first comment, the nested hierarchies, and the progression of life.

Here's a hint. If you jump straight to the insults, I'm going to assume you don't have a case.

Here's a hint: Nobody cares what you "assume," since you're both dishonest and ignorant.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 6, 2010 12:11 AM

Aquaria:

     Oh, I quite agree that the bible is taught to children at a young age so that they won't question it. I find it without merit, myself. So, I don't follow it. But the stance here is "evolution is 100 percent true; it is not open to question; and anyone who dares to apply thinking skills even to examine whether it has been subjected to the scientific methos must be ostracized and put down." It's a sort of "you must not apply critical thinking past this point." I don't even go so far as to say evolution is false. It could be held everywhere as an uncritical, unchallenged belief and still (by coincidence) be true. But ideas can be true without being scientific. And evolution is not defended as a science is. It is defended as a religion is. Questioners are attacked for the mere act of questioning. I may lack the skills necessary to make a determination on whether evolution is true, but I can assess the behavior of its defenders quite well.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 6, 2010 12:13 AM

You're a liar, Clavdivs.

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 6, 2010 12:15 AM

Steve M:

     No good, an experiment designed to distinguish between different types of evolution still assumes evolution to be true and cannot falsify evolution. But it's a nice try.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | September 6, 2010 12:18 AM

And evolution is not defended as a science is.

Not true. Willing to defend it however you ask. You just need to be specific. There is also an enormous body of literature out there discussing the empirical claims of evolutionary theory. Shoot. Imma stay up another half-hour and deal with your questions. Won't call you retarded or nothing (can't really speak for the others on this account).

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 12:20 AM

Wait...you people are really taking a comment called "pubic lice" seriously? Poe/Troll totally called now.

Posted by: Marella | September 6, 2010 12:22 AM

I wrote to William McKinney on Facebook in a friend request and said that I'd enjoyed his letter to PZ. This is his reply.

Subject: Hello I'm sorry, ma'am, but do I know you?

I did not write a letter to a PZ Myers, that was a mistake if that's what this is about.

Respectfully,
WKM

I'm not sure what to think.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 12:26 AM

Sorry misread, my bad

Posted by: Sastra | September 6, 2010 12:34 AM

I wrote to William McKinney on Facebook in a friend request and said that I'd enjoyed his letter to PZ.

William McKinney is probably a pretty common name. Also, people who write to PZ might very well change their names, or parts of their names. Please, unless they send PZ a link to their webpage and seem to welcome correspondance, don't try to contact anyone from the "I get mail" posts. I think there are too many bad or unexpected possible results.

Posted by: Sastra | September 6, 2010 12:46 AM

Pvblivs #106 wrote:

And evolution is not defended as a science is. It is defended as a religion is.

I think it's possible to test this by making a list of various scientific disciplines, selecting one of the underlying theories for each, and then going into forums and questioning them.

You could then go into religious forums, and question something upon which their religion rests.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the religious people will be nicer. I might be wrong, but still seems to me you're making an assumption here that should be checked out.

If tone and attitude are the best guides to truth, you'll probably end up converting to Unitarian or Buddhist.

Or do they only guide you to truth in science?

Posted by: Killua | September 6, 2010 1:06 AM

Einstein had a harder time of it, because on the level most work was done, and to the sensitivity of the instruments of the day, Newtonian physics was doing the job. Once more data came in, re: black holes, light bending gravitational lenses, etc, it became standard.

Before I get on the main show, I should address this. Einstein did many things, and published papers on a number of topics. The work he did in 1905, Special Relativity, has nothing to do with anything you mentioned, which is covered under general relativity. SR was developed with most of the material already having been derived separately, Einstein just redid everything with a different set of axioms that turned out to be so much simpler and give rise to a lot of interesting physics. It wasn't exactly fiercely contested, just thought of as an extension of what everyone already knew until they realized "hey wait, we can do a whole lot with this". Even General Relativity wasn't treated all that poorly when first formulated.

Now to the main show.

Ah, yes, the insult-fest. People supporting evolution are, for the most part, not that different than those who support creationism. They treat absence of total agreement the exact same way.

Generally any form of idiocy, be it creationism or your brand, is treated the same way. Are you surprised?
"People supporting atomic theory, for the most part, not that different than those who support everything is comprised of tiny turtles".

The two are not comparable. Scientific theory with well documented evidence from numerous independent lines... versus a silly incoherent mess of a tale. Anyone who says "I don't really buy the whole 'science' thing" are just as silly as those who say "I believe atoms are really mini turtles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

You're no less deserving of scorn.

Ragutis: "[T]he best time to expose them to these major, fundamental concepts is during this period when their curiosity and enthusiasm are nearly boundless." Well, it's certainly the most effective time. Christians expose their children to the bible on the same schedule and result in having few doubters. You are correct that children aren't stupid. But they are trusting.

Which is why their creativity and trust should be turned to concepts which are real and demonstrable... say... SCIENCE, than a fantasy world for grown ups which can be used very easily to block out science.

Tis Himself: "First, evolution isn't about the origin of life." But the argument is traditionally against creationism and that pretends to explain the origin of life. No matter what I said (other than complete agreement, of course) someone relying on personal attacks could say it was stupid for failing to identify the claims of one side or the other.

... Actually creationist claims are a bit difficult to pin down. You see, if they made any kind of concrete claims, they'd be testable, and god knows they want to avoid the realm of testing as much as possible. Claims science makes, well, those generate robust predictions, which are then tested for. It ends up proving much more effective than the creationist arguments, which makes me wonder, what problem DO you have agreeing with science?

There's a difference between reasoned rational disagreements over aspects of scientific theories... over real problems inherent in the theory (such as the lack of magnetic monopoles in the universe being an issue as symmetry breaking after the GUT epoch would predict far more than... well... none), and utter denial of the theory stating "the entire theory is wrong, I don't think it can do what its supposed to do".

The former requires knowledge, the latter is a baseless claim made in the style of "the middle is always right".

"In the 150 years since Darwin wrote Origin of Species there's been literally tons of evidence collected. No biologist denies evolution nowadays... [or ever did.]" I do not dispute the existence of supporting data. But, if there were no dissenters, ESP could give the same impression. I am interested in what experiments were designed to show evolution to be false. There are none. Here's a hint. If you jump straight to the insults, I'm going to assume you don't have a case.

You either don't know what you're talking about, or are not making this request in an honest sense. I'm not saying that as an insult, it's rather, the request itself is a bit absurd.

Evolution is "changes in gene frequency of a population over time". An experiment to show this to be false is "Have a population, sequence the genome, and sequence the genome at a later time, if the gene frequencies are changing, then the population is undergoing evolution, and if not, no evolution is occurring".

But there's no point doing an experiment like that. We've sequenced genomes... we've sequenced bacterial cultures and ancestral bacterial cultures, they have different gene frequencies. That's such a basic unimportant and uninteresting fact that the experiment would hold no scientific value, because really, there's no more doubt as to the outcome of that as there is "will an apple fall if I toss it up".

Yes, if the apple doesn't fall down, suddenly we'd have to reevaluate all of our known concepts of physics. And if suddenly genetic material remains static over generation after generation, evolution might have a very difficult problem to explain... but that's not what we see.

So you're not asking for any experiments designed to prove evolution false. Such broad spectrum experiments yield nothing. "Prove all of general relativity to be false", "prove special relativity to be false", you really can't come up with a single experiment to do so. There is no true "this experiment will prove ALL of it false".

Instead, what you can do, is show ASPECTS of the theory are false, and ASPECTS of the theory are valid. If you show enough aspects of the theory to be false, you can start building up alternate hypothesis to try to explain why the data isn't agreeing with what would be expected under an evolutionary hypothesis. That is how "evolution will be proven false", if you're asking for "give me an experiment that can prove evolution true or false", you're mad, disingenuous, and clearly unaware of how science works.

Posted by: Killua | September 6, 2010 1:22 AM

But the stance here is "evolution is 100 percent true; it is not open to question; and anyone who dares to apply thinking skills even to examine whether it has been subjected to the scientific methos must be ostracized and put down." It's a sort of "you must not apply critical thinking past this point."

WTF? No really, what the fuck?

The Theory of Evolution is an explanatory model, a very effective one. That's not to say "it's 100% true", because scientific theories are constantly being amended, fixed, corrected... what we're saying is "it's true to a remarkably high degree of accuracy and if you want to dispute aspects, DISPUTE ASPECTS." There is no point questioning all of evolution, it's absurd. Changes in gene frequency of a population over time is observed. We share ancestors with modern apes. We are chordates, and share common ancestors with other chordates. Etc. These are the aspects that are difficult to question because they are so absurdly well supported.

BUT if you question evolutionary pathways... "this feature is the result of horizontal gene transfer somewhere along a chordate line well after when horizontal gene transfer was commonplace" you'll be able to challenge concepts of evolution and make changes to the theory.

The theory isn't infallible, but the basics are pretty damn well established. You can question the details, you can make your career out of showing aspects of modern evolutionary biology to be fundamentally flawed... but you can't really expect to say "I don't believe in evolution fully" and make it seem reasonable. There's a difference between well informed commentary on scientific theories leading to rational discourse over specific schools of evolutionary thought, and "it's wrong".

I don't even go so far as to say evolution is false. It could be held everywhere as an uncritical, unchallenged belief and still (by coincidence) be true. But ideas can be true without being scientific. And evolution is not defended as a science is. It is defended as a religion is.

I sincearly doubt you have ever studied science. I sincearly doubt you're able to make such a distinction. I don't think you have any knowledge of what "challenging" the theory entails.

Questioners are attacked for the mere act of questioning. I may lack the skills necessary to make a determination on whether evolution is true, but I can assess the behavior of its defenders quite well.

People asking questions about the theory are usually given decent explanations. People challenging specific aspects on the theory are generally rewarded with decent measured discourse on a scientific topic... and are generally plesant to read about. People "questioning" as you do, saying "the entire theory has never been put up to scrutiny" are attacked for the mere act of DISENGENIOUS questioning. You're not presenting this case honestly, or from any basis of knowledge. You're simply "questioning" for the sake of "questioning" with no interest in information or knowledge. That is not going to be met with anything but scorn here.

If someone approached me saying "I don't believe inflation is an appropriate fix for the monopole problem because it is presented as an entirely ad hoc fix", I would treat that person with respect and have a reasonable discourse over the topic. If someone approached me saying "I believe the big bang is false and has never been properly tested, with no real evidence supporting it", I would be not so kind. The difference is someone with requisite knowledge to make appropriate commentary, or someone simply blindly denying the evidence without showing any knowledge on the subject they are dismissing.

Yeah, I'm not going to be nice to you until you learn a thing or two about biology and science.

Posted by: Yubal | September 6, 2010 1:31 AM

Pvblivs,

People supporting evolution are, for the most part, not that different than those who support creationism. They treat absence of total agreement the exact same way.

Welcome to the piranha pond. Yes, those people will eat the flesh of your bones, but you need to forgive them, they are basically right about everything they are saying that relates to science.

You can be skeptical about evolution, that is your right and a challenge. Too big of a challenge for me personally, its more like trying to train a hammerhead shark to feed on algae only, or something like that.

Anyways, you can always try if you have really nothing better to do with your time, and if you do it in a scientific manner, you might discover something nobody found yet.

I for my part am not exactly 100% in-line with all details of evolutionary theory that are considered to be the standard model. For instance, I do think that lateral gene transfer does occur on a non-neglectable scale and does significantly influence genetic diversity and maybe even impacts specification, whereas the standard model considers lateral gene transfer not to be significant.

Questioners are attacked for the mere act of questioning.

That is not true. Questioning is typically a sign of interest in a certain subject and welcome by every true scientist. However, there are modes of questions that indicate the person who is asking is not seeking for answer and is instead using the questioning mode to cover up a controversial opinion they can not specify, and that is what you are probably doing here.

Anyways, for most true questions you will find plenty of information on the web. If you have a specific question that is not explained by a simple search, some people here have the knowledge and patience to give you the correct answer(s) or explain you why that particular question is invalid.

Again, welcome to the piranha pond.

Posted by: percyprune | September 6, 2010 1:34 AM

Can we have a 'Tone Troll' alert for folks like Pvblivs? I want something that makes 'Whoop Whoop!' noises whenever they appear and goes into meltdown the moment they huffily assert 'Boo hoo, you're just like the Creationists!'

A quick note for the P-man: this is a vulgar place where people with weak arguments are treated roughly and rudely. However, vulgar abuse is not the same thing as religious dogmatism. It is simply vulgar abuse aimed at people who do not argue well.

That you equate vulgar abuse with Creationism just goes to show how weak your thinking is. I suggest you go away a while, ponder what you said, and come back once you have sharpened up and gotten a clue.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | September 6, 2010 1:55 AM

Sastra@26

I wonder what response would indicate the possibility that we really do think their arguments are weak and worthless. We notice them, but send them a box of chocolates?

*thumbs through the DBAD handbook*

You have a green light on that one Sastra. According to my interpretation that approach only scores as high as "big meanie".

Posted by: cyan | September 6, 2010 2:25 AM

Love the line-by-line comments to this guy's thoughtless statements.

The "wearing underpants on your head" image initiated a loud and long guffaw which had everyone around me wondering WTF?

Such luscious commentary.

Posted by: bornatheist | September 6, 2010 2:34 AM

Posted by: Killua | September 6, 2010 3:29 AM

@#136

Then I suggest you don't visit this link.

http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/

It's about as disingenuous and appalling as you can get.

Posted by: zed091473 | September 6, 2010 5:01 AM

I read this post like Rocky Horror Picture Show audience participation, the e-mail in the voice of the narrator and the red comments as the audience yelling back at him...;.)

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 6, 2010 5:26 AM

bornatheist:

Now THAT is dickish.
OMGLOL.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | September 6, 2010 5:43 AM

Welcome to the piranha pond. Yes, those people will eat the flesh of your bones, but you need to forgive them, they are basically right about everything they are saying that relates to science.

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 6, 2010 6:16 AM

EHEV! PVBLI! Excuse the anachronistic quotation marks.

"Accepted as a theory" is a category mistake on your part; the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is one of size, of scope, not of how often it's been tested.

It's not true that all scientifically literate people accepted evolution the day the book came out in 1859 (or indeed the day the paper by Darwin and Wallace came out in 1858). The prominent paleontologists Sir Richard Owen (also a prominent anatomist of extant vertebrates) and Louis Agassiz, for instance, stayed creationists till they died in the 1870s.

Could someone explain what QFT means?

Quoted For Truth.

Or Quite Fucking True.

Or Quantum Field Theory. :)

Similarly, QED means quantum electrodynamics... ^_^

Geologists have been assiduously conducting search parties for fossil rabbits in precambrian strata for well over 100 years. Each well-designed hunt has been unsuccessful. At this point, universities are now getting cautious about funding such expeditions, as there is a growing general suspicion that the geology departments are just using this as an excuse to go out, mess around with rocks, and drink beer.

ROTFL!!!

I wrote to William McKinney on Facebook in a friend request and said that I'd enjoyed his letter to PZ. This is his reply.

[...]

I'm not sure what to think.

Another with the same name.

To my great surprise, I've been told there are seven people with my name on Facebook; none of them is me.

Posted by: theot58 | September 6, 2010 6:39 AM

I watched the debate between Kent Hovind and William Moore at Wayne State University and found it very interesting.

Frankly I thought the arguements that Kent Hovind put forward were much more coherent and compelling then did Professor William Moore who has been teaching evolution for years.

Kent Hovind described things simply but clearly whereas Dr William Moore rambled on abstractly.

I like Kent simplified and understandable explanations - explanations that Dr William Moore was not able to knock down.

I wonder if we are condeming an innocent man.

Posted by: John Morales | September 6, 2010 6:50 AM

theot58, I haven't been privy to your claimed debate, but:

Kent Hovind described things simply but clearly whereas Dr William Moore rambled on abstractly.

And this has bearing on the validity and soundness of their respective claims?

I like Kent simplified and understandable explanations - explanations that Dr William Moore was not able to knock down.

Well, dammit. This proves your man must be right!
(After all, truth is decided by debate.) :)

I wonder if we are condeming an innocent man.

You're being an apologist, so please drop the "we", it grates.

And, no, Kent is guilty as charged, by due process. This is reality.

Posted by: Philip C | September 6, 2010 7:19 AM

Now, here's what I don't understand. The main blog page prominently states:

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

Now, it's true that technically, that doesn't mean that emails without threats of violence won't be published in full, or at least without full identifying information, but you should be able to see how that's what people understand when they read it.

The email doesn't contain threats of violence. It was signed with a pseudonym, probably because the poster did not want to be publicly identified. You republished it, with the email account's name, apparently unaltered.

Why? I mean, why not replace that warning with a clearer one, such as "if you send email to this account, it might get published, and I'll use both the name in the From: line and any name you sign"? Alternatively, why not refrain from publishing names when it's pretty obvious that's not okay with the sender of the email?

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I genuinely missed it if so.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | September 6, 2010 7:37 AM

My guess is that was a copy-and-paste job from The Big Database of Irrefutable Creationist Screeds.

That would explain:
* "To whom it may concern"
* The odd line breaks (if e.g. it had unnecessary line breaks at the end of each page in the original document)
* The author's name not matching the sender.

Posted by: MosesZD | September 6, 2010 8:00 AM

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 5, 2010 6:55 PM

I have no love for Hovind. But if someone believes he was railroaded (i.e. that the trial was rigged to get a conviction against an innocent party) asserting that a conviction was obtained will do nothing to dispell the notion.

No one is trying to dispel the lie. It's being mocked. Ridicule, despite the assertion of tone-trolls does work in the meta-sense. That is, the ridicule may not be working on that person as they're too dense, but others...

Well, suffice it to say that human nature is ugly and ridicule, in making someone a victim, is an effective tool in moving people to our side. Humans don't like to be on the side of loser.

And there is no need to put yourself on the "loser" side by making your arguments all egg-headed, lacking passion, and appearing to be dissembling and weak vs the bombast of the ignoramus. Sure, it offends meta-tone-trolls like Moody, et.al., but they're just jealous dicks who seek attention by sniping at their own since they don't have the cachet to be noticed by the enemy.

So I say fight with passion, fight with ridicule, fight with all the tools in the arsenal except lying. You don't win a culture war by being namby-pamby.

This just tells me that evolution is not a science. Look, I recognize that creationism has no merit. I just don't think we have any reliable answers about the origins of life and/or cause for its diversity. A normal scientific theory is not embraced by the scientific community at its inception. Scientists try to identify predictions of nascent ideas in order to show that they are wrong. Only after surviving repeated attempts at falsification does an idea normally become accepted as a theory. (The whole concept, of course, is unintelligible to creationists.) With evolution, it just didn't happen.

Wow, aren't you the arrogant one. First, it told you no such thing. You have a pre-conceived notion and warp everything to fit that notion. Evolution is the most powerful and accepted theory in all of Biology and one of the most powerful and accepted in science.

Second, the Theory of Evolution was accepted long before you ever came to the culture wars. Long before your grandparents were even born. To even pretend there is some doubt... Dude, only the insane or deluded doubt the Theory of Evolution.

Well, just suppose the tables were turned, creationists controlled what was taught in schools, and you couldn't get your ideas past the twin pillars of ignore and ridicule. Under those conditions, what would convince you that creationists really did think your arguments were weak and worthless?

You're speaking of an intellectual dark ages. You haven't actually considered how bad it would be, have you?

Take Islamic countries, which because of their deference to Islam, stifle research and intellectualism. Harvard University, by itself, puts out (on average) more scientific papers in a year than all the Islamic countries in the world -- combined.

So, do you get the vaguest inkling?? The dark-age religious world-view you propose would have stopped the Theory of Evolution before it happened.

I don't mean that Darwin would have chosen to be a Vicar, the profession he trained for, instead. No, England would have been, with the rest of Europe, stuck in the dark ages. Even if Darwin somehow managed to be conceived and born, he'd have been a serf and never become literate.

So, this rhetorical posit is meaningless. We'd be living in the dark ages and wouldn't have the ability to even conceive of this line of reasoning.

Evolution is presented far too early in a child's education to be taken as anything other than a sacred idea. Either he will believe for no reason beyond "teacher says" or he will reject with no further cause.

Nah. Get them hooked into the wonder of the universe when young. They love it.

What you're really saying is: I want to propagandize my children until it's impossible for alternative world-views to get beyond the bullshit I put in their head.

In short, you know your fairy stories can't compete. Kids will see through it like they eventually see-through Santa Claus.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 6, 2010 8:23 AM

I just don't think we have any reliable answers about the origins of life and/or cause for its diversity.

*shrug*
No insult, just fact: you are ignorant.

Posted by: abb3w | September 6, 2010 8:41 AM

By all means, send them on to Fark; ignoramuses would probably be an improvement over the current prevalent strain of troll.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | September 6, 2010 9:23 AM

Hm. What would I do if I were a creationist, and my ideas were treated as nonsense by lots of people around me?

In fact I was a creationist- a young-earth creationist- until I was over 30, so I can tell you what I actually did.

First, I read all the best works by creation scientists I could- the books by Ken Ham were the ones that I found most useful at that time. I tried hard to understand the scientific evidence for creation, so I could defend my position in discussion. I sometimes found the books difficult to understand, and they didn't always seem to make sense to me, but I persevered. Sometimes, I found things in those books that were obvious nonsense- like the claim that the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur, or that workmen had heard the cries of the damned coming from a deep hole in the earth- but I decided not to assume that Ham's science was wrong just because he had some wrong ideas, and I did my best.

But I didn't succeed in defending my position effectively in discussion, and the 'evolutionists' were always talking about evidence and ideas that Ham hadn't discussed.

So I read some books from the other side, to try to integrate the two together- I needed to understand what made the evolutionists think that evolution had really happened, then use the information I was learning from Ken Ham to understand why they were wrong.

I tried reading Darwin first, but I couldn't understand it. So I went to the library and got several more recent books (with pictures) and a documentary on DVD and went to work.

I didn't have much luck in putting the two sets of books together. Ken Ham didn't discuss the strongest pieces of evidence and arguments that I was reading about- in fact, he either didn't know them or was deliberately ignoring them, because the science people seemed to think they were really important. And the evidence for evolution was a lot better than Ham had indicated- for example, he said there weren't any transitional fossils, but the books I was reading now were full of glossy color photos of transitional fossils!

Not only that, but these books were way easier to understand- they just made more sense to read, and the facts in them fit together better. Plus, where Ham had the silly cartoon of a dinosaur hiding behind a tree, these books had amazing photos of animals and animal parts and astonishing fossils I'd never seen before.

I was especially intrigued by the fossil evidence for the evolution of people. I felt like someone had tried to keep some basic and important information about myself from me- it was a little like discovering as an adult that I was adopted. Why had my whole ancestry been unknown to me?

What I did was what any reasonable person would do- I read and did my best to understand the evidence on both sides. And I came to the conclusion that every reasonable person who does that comes to- evolution has definitely happened, and my ancestors are not Adam and Eve, but a long and amazing line of people who looked very different from me, going back through ancestors who look sort of like me to ancestors who look more like apes to ancestors who look more like fish.

And I realized that the reason creation science was so widely disparaged is that it is stupid, and that the only way to believe it is true is to carefully prevent exposing yourself to actual science. The difference between the two is stunning. When I finally came to understand evolution (in a layperson's basic way, not like Dr. Myers does), I felt like that moment in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy steps from a black-and-white world into color.

Posted by: steve | September 6, 2010 9:45 AM

Acta Biotheoretica
Volume 33, Number 1, 35-50, DOI: 10.1007/BF00045845

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?

Paul A. M. Dongen and Jo M. H. Vossen

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x05n5w520g614xt1/

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the epistemological positions of evolution theories. A sharp distinction is made between the theory that species evolved from common ancestors along specified lines of descent (here called the theory of common descent), and the theories intended as causal explanations of evolution (e.g. Lamarck's and Darwin's theory). The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution. For instance, (a) phylogenetic trees have been validated now; (b) the observed order in fossils of new species discovered since Darwin's time could be predicted from the theory of common descent; (c) owing to the theory of common descent, the degrees of similarity and difference in newly discovered properties of more or less related species could be predicted. Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent. We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable & often-tested & still-not-falsified theory, which is the strongest predicate a theory in an empirical science can obtain. Theories intended as causal explanations of evolution can be falsified essentially, and Lamarck's theory has been falsified actually. Several elements of Darwin's theory have been modified or falsified: new versions of a theory of evolution by natural selection are now the leading scientific theories on evolution. We have argued that the theory of common descent and Darwinism are ordinary, falsifiable scientific theories.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 10:08 AM

Just like if Darwin was a racist or a nazi that doesn't make his data and science wrong, even if Hovind was right (which he isn't he's an ignoramus) he's still a common criminal. He was put away for being an asshole who thought his rules trumped the US IRS's laws when it came to contributing to the upkeep of society. Selfish prick.

As for his science. The man doesn't understand highschool genetics or biology. The guy doesn't know the difference between gene and chromosome for fuck sake and you take him as an expert?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 10:15 AM

@167

I'm actually doing a MST3K riff through Hovind's doctorate thesis. I should post up what I have here...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 11:19 AM

@169

Raelians?

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | September 6, 2010 11:32 AM

Kent Hovind made more sense?

I was standing within an arm's length of Kent Hovind when he explained to a young man that fish had drowned in The Flood.

Fish. Drowned.

I just stood there agog, while the young man thanked Kent and trotted off happily, and Kent smiled like a retarded god.

It was a clear statement, the kid bought it, and Kent seemed sincere as all hell.

But he said that fish drowned in a flood.

Yes, yes, he may have meant that freshwater fish died in salt water, or saltwater fish died in fresh water, or all the sediment stifled them, or some damned thing, if you'd given him a chance to "clarify his remark".

But he said that fish drowned, and the young man believed him.

Fish drowned.

Fish.

Drowned.

Posted by: Stephen Stralka | September 6, 2010 12:00 PM

One particular aspect of these creationist rants that always mystifies me is this idea that evolutionists are scared to debate creationists. You know:

...individuals and groups for that matter with your particular mind-set are either scared to death of the debate between creationism and Darwinian evolution, or that you simply do not have the intellectual cahonas (sic) to engage creationists such as Mr. Hovind in any real truth-revealing discourse concerning the subject.

I mean, this was addressed to someone who makes a hobby of looking for bad creationist arguments to demolish. And of course there are any number of other evolution bloggers as well who are constantly on the lookout for new creationist arguments--the image that always comes to my mind is a bunch of sharks circling in shallow water, looking for a trace of blood. And we're actually meant to believe these sharks are scared of the seal pups they feed on?

Of course it's safe for christianists to say that sort of thing to those that share their closed and suffocating little "worldview," since they can be pretty confident that none of their followers will ever crack a book on evolution that isn't by a creationist, or look at a science blog. You do have to wonder, though, what someone like Mr. Revere/McKinney thinks he's going to accomplish by making this claim to people who know how to use their brains as something other than sponges for the nonsense that their cult leaders spew.

Posted by: natural cynic | September 6, 2010 12:12 PM

What are you afraid of? [ebola, senility, and bad clams]

What, no Moby Dick??!!??
No Apo B??!!??
Mooneys and Moonies??

Posted by: bornatheist | September 6, 2010 12:59 PM

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 6, 2010 5:26 AM

bornatheist:

Now THAT is dickish.
OMGLOL.

In Re: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/i_get_email_64.php#comment-2777546

Thanks, stumbled on it by accident, I thought how appropriate!

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 6, 2010 2:00 PM

I tried to friend William McKinney on Facebook and I got this error message:

We're sorry, but the Facebook member you tried to friend was assassinated over 100 years ago.

That's when I realized I had accidentally friended William McKinley!

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 6, 2010 2:23 PM

Pvblivs @ 179 states:

I have no compelling reason to favor any explanation for the diversity of life. My stance on that is a literal "I don't know."

If you have "no compelling reason" to favor the Theory of Evolution over Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, the Alien Seeding Hypothesis, or Special Creation in Uncle Frank's Basement, then you are neither a scientist nor a rationalist.

What you are making here is an intellectual coward's argument: that any point brought up by you is merely mental masturbation, so any disproof of that point by others has no effect on your veracity. You have no real investment in the arguments you put forth, so you can never be wrong.

Please go out on a limb for me and take a stand. Which of the current explanations for the diversity of life do you feel has the greatest probability of being true, and on what evidence do you base that feeling?

I'll even go first. I feel the current Theory of Evolution (descent with modification, yadda, yadda, yadda) is most likely correct. It is supported by the greatest amount of evidence that I consider independently verifiable using the scientific method.

Full stop.

Your turn...

Posted by: Dania | September 6, 2010 2:31 PM

I have no compelling reason to favor any explanation for the diversity of life. My stance on that is a literal "I don't know."

Yeah, it shows you don't know. You're ignorant about what evolution actually is. But that can be fixed. Pick a damn book and stop bothering us with your ignorance, please.

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 6, 2010 2:33 PM

     "I just wish creationists had to suffer the same kind of penalty for their willful ignorance. It'd stop virtually all the debate in its tracks pretty fast."
     And if people had to suffer such a penalty for denying or even questioning the alleged resurrection of Jesus it would quash all open dissent, too. But it wouldn't make the resurrection any less fictional. The concept here is that of thought crimes. Any society that would follow that suggestion and criminalize beliefs is totalitarian. Yes, I've read quite a lot about "believe or else." Christianity used to be spread by swordpoint conversions.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 6, 2010 2:40 PM

MosesZD:

"Ridicule, despite the assertion of tone-trolls does work in the meta-sense."

[Pvbiclice]
Many logical fallacies work. That's why they are employed over and over by religious groups.

Here's what a non-fucktard, Thomas Jefferson, reputedly wrote:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;

Complete assholes like pubiclice come in here with unsupported and indistinct lies, and he thinks it's a logical fallacy to ridicule his stupidity and dishonesty.

Well, it's not. As long as he's nothing but a dishonest and stupid troll, he deserves any ridicule he gets.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Zabinatrix | September 6, 2010 2:53 PM

What I do take a decisive stance on is its presentation. I think it is presented in the manner of indoctrination to ensure that people believe without question.

I would love to know exactly what you mean by this.

Have you read the books on evolution mentioned above? Is it books like that, by Dawkins and others, that you feel present evolution in a manner of indoctrination?

Have you read the relevant scientific articles that regularly come out on the topic of evolution? Are those indoctrination?

I'm asking those two just in case, but I'll go out on a limb and assume that you're actually talking about how it is presented in school. That's where creationists claim that we are being indoctrinated, and since you take up a lot of their common talking points, I'll assume that you have the same view.

Have you been in an elementary school science class recently? Can you explain to me exactly how evolution is explained differently than things like gravity, electricity, elementary information about the atomic structure of the elements and so on?

I'm not all that old, so I remember my early education on those subjects and I'd have to say that at least here in Sweden I think that they are presented in an equally "indoctrinating" fashion. Children are not expected to take in all-encompassing information about huge scientific theories and make an informed judgment about its validity as a scientific theory. That is simply impossible, so we don't tell our children "Here are all the facts we know about subatomic particles, now you should be able to form a notion about how matter works."

We can't do that - instead we tell little children about the scientific theories that have the best support by real scientists. We tell them "This is what we know" and tell them about the atoms and about the stars and the history of the Third Reich and of evolution. None of those things can be covered in the extreme depth that would be needed for the students to come to their own conclusions or make their own judgment of its validity - so instead we just tell them and ask them to believe us.

In that sense almost all early schooling is indoctrination. There are of course classes where children can do their own experiments and learn about the process of science, but the majority of the time is taken up by the teacher telling the students what they should know - in all subjects. But I'm guessing that you don't have a huge problem with how schools teach students elementary chemistry, physics, history et cetera... Or do you go around to chemistry and physics blogs to complain about indoctrination?

I'm guessing that you only complain about indoctrination when it comes to evolution - after all there aren't many groups spreading propaganda about how children are "indoctrinated to believe that young stars consist mainly of hydrogen." There are however groups spreading propaganda that claims that children are being indoctrinated about evolution, so that's the lie we get common idiots repeating. Even though children are taught about the formation of stars in the same way as they are taught about evolution.

Posted by: Anri | September 6, 2010 3:10 PM

The part that asserts that all life shares a single common ancestor (universal common ancestry.)

I'm sorry, I might be a bit slow here, but are you arguing that evolutionary theory has never been put to such a test, or that it has been tested and failed, or that it has been tested and passed?
I ask because:
The first option is clearly not true (many of the molecular tests of evolutionary theory deal with determining common descent);
The second option will require citing of the literature to back up;
The third option undermines your argument that evolutionary theory is not scientifically tested/testable.

So, please clarify your point.

Really? So what you're saying is that it's disputed or treated as unknown. Well, I certainly treat it as unknown. But the example you gave is a little like challengine a group's unwavering belief in the "inivisible pink unicorn" (I am not aware of any group that holds such a belief seriously) because there are disputes over the length of her horn.

Well, any experiment with regards to genome analysis might very well show a creature that uses something radically different from DNA for heredity, which would be a massive blow to common descent. The fact that no such finds have ever, in all of the years and throughout all of the world of scientific experimentation, been made does not mean that the theory was not tested with every single trial.
I was tested, has been tested, continues to be tested, and has so far, passed each and every single time.

If you like, we can ask the theory of evolution to call you up and apologize to you personally if its continued success in some way pisses you off.

Well, given that I believe that evolution is an unfalsifiable pseudoscience, it would be entirely consistent for me to consider "disprove evolution" to be a meaningless concept. After all, if some event can, in principle, disprove evolution, it is not unfalsifiable.

"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."
- J. B. S. Haldane, (a guy who knew a hell of a lot more about evolution that you or I), when asked what would constitute evidence against evolutionary theory.
Guess he didn't know what he was talking about - I mean, when compared with awesome you.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | September 6, 2010 3:48 PM

The part that asserts that all life shares a single common ancestor (universal common ancestry.)

Because we cannot go back in time and examine the origins of life, or recreate life in a laboratory, we must make predictions about what we expect the world to look like if this hypothesis is false. Falsifying evidence would include dissimilarity in functions that are necessary for an entity to qualify as being alive*. This would include mechanisms of inheritance, metabolic pathways, and necessary structural components. Each of the following is a potential falsifier that has NOT been found.

1. Multifarious molecules of inheritance among major lineages. In fact all of what qualifies as cellular life utilizes a single category of nucleic acid, DNA.

2. Multifarious means of encoding information into hereditary molecules. The genetic code is arbitrary, and there are many alternate ways to produce a code that is as efficient (or even more efficient) at storing information. On the contrary, all organisms share the same code. Further, the way that the code is read to specify the order of amino acids in proteins is identical in all major lineages; nucleotide triplets specifying one of 20 left-handed amino acids, in order from the N- to the C- terminus.

3. Multifarious means of replicating models of heredity. All organisms use a homologous class of enzymes called DNA polymerases which only copy DNA in the 5’ to 3’ direction. These polymerases are so similar in structure and function, that I routinely use a bacterial polymerase (from Thermus aquaticus) to replicate plant DNA in my lab.

4. Multifarious chemical catalysts used for metabolic purposes. Again, this falsifier is counter to what we see. All cellular processes rely on proteins to catalyze chemical reactions. Further, all proteins are coded in the form of unitary segments of DNA (called genes), and all proteins use the same 20 amino acids (of thousands of possible structures) with identical chirality (all are left handed).

5. Multifarious means of transcribing and translating genetic information. All cellular organisms use RNA as a molecule to carry the information in DNA to a site of protein synthesis. All organisms have ribosomes (sites of protein synthesis) with similar structure composed of proteins and RNAs encoded by homologous genes across all lineages of life.

6. Multifarious means of storing and using chemical energy. All cellular life uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to store energy that can be readily used by catalytic proteins. Additionally, all organisms are capable of synthesizing ATP as a breakdown product of glucose metabolism called glycolysis, a ten-step, anaerobic process.

7. Multifariously structured cellular envelopes. All cellular life has cell membranes composed of a phospholipid bilayer.

This is just off the top of my head. Given these facts, what hypothesis has better explanatory power for the origins of life?

*and here I'm assuming that you mean cellular life.

Posted by: Dania | September 6, 2010 4:06 PM

I wish to note that, surprisingly, the Pharyngula commenter that goes by the handle "Antiochus Epiphanes" is not on this list yet.

That is all.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | September 6, 2010 4:23 PM

A side note, but someone could be an atheist and just not interested enough in biology to have studied evolution, just as they could be an atheist but never have studied modern cosmology. There are an awful lot of topics out there. Atheism is, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, the null hypothesis. There are good lines of reasoning to lead to atheism without ever bringing biology or evolution into the discussion.

(There are also less-good lines of reasoning that would lead to atheism: e.g., the priests someone knew were such evil, self-centered people that the person concluded that religion must be false. There are large holes in this reasoning, but someone might get to that point. There's the reasoning that the three-omni god can't exist because of the observed universe, and that no other god is worthy of the name. Logically, "is there a god?" and "is that god benevolent?" are not the same question, except in that the second only makes sense if you answer the first in the affirmative.)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 4:51 PM

@193

I actually think some evidence and models of early life favor the multi genesis of life. I seem to recall from my biochemistry class and a later SGU about the idea of multiple "roots" of life converging via horizontal gene transfer and bottlenecking into the trunk. All current life shares a common ancestor but that wasn't necessarily the case really early on.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 4:57 PM

Incorrect. I have no compelling reason to favor any explanation for the diversity of life. My stance on that is a literal "I don't know." What I do take a decisive stance on is its presentation. I think it is presented in the manner of indoctrination to ensure that people believe without question. Now there are certainly people who will want to fill the void with "godidit." But I prefer to start with critical thinking.

And end with smug arrogance in my voluntary ignorance as I act like a prick to those who actually have done the research.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | September 6, 2010 6:22 PM

For those who claim evolution is unfalsifiable, I wonder if they just mean that it hasn't yet been falsified. There's so many different lines of evidence that cumulatively make up the theory of evolution and in each there's the potential for different lines of evidence to be contradictory, for example imagine that if in genetic analysis the resulting tree show us and cockatoos as the most genetically similar to us.

The problem with those who demand what could falsify evolution is the same as those who demand just one transitional fossil. No one piece of evidence is going to dismiss it, but multiple pieces of evidence together showing a contradictory pattern to what the theory posits.

For over 150 years there has been research into the natural world, yet so far nothing has contradicted evolutionary theory. It's not that the theory is unfalsifiable, but that the theory's explanatory power is immense. If something like a griffin or a centaur was to be discovered, that would pose a huge problem to explain, so it's not unfalsifiable like something like psychoanalysis. It's mistaking success for vagueness.

The simple question to ask yourself is what's the difference between a theory that's right and a theory that can't be shown to be wrong? Surely they'll look the same. Yet they are clearly different things, that the theory hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable. It could just be a good theory!

Posted by: bornatheist | September 6, 2010 11:49 PM

Posted by: locka99 | September 6, 2010 4:21 PM

bornatheist please don't post pics like that. Some of us read this blog at work and pictures of dicks (with or without googly eyes) are not considered safe for work.

You probably should wait until you get off work, then. Must be nice, I never had a job where I could read blogs at work. Seems like an oxymoron.

So, it's appropriate for Phil Plait to write don't be a dick, but it's not ok to show a humorous pic of where the term actually comes from? That's rhetorical. You have really killed my mood. Prior to reading your post, I was happy and peppy and bursting with joy. :(

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | September 6, 2010 11:57 PM

Posted by: Pvblivs | September 6, 2010 2:33 PM

"I just wish creationists had to suffer the same kind of penalty for their willful ignorance. It'd stop virtually all the debate in its tracks pretty fast."

And if people had to suffer such a penalty for denying or even questioning the alleged resurrection of Jesus it would quash all open dissent, too. But it wouldn't make the resurrection any less fictional. The concept here is that of thought crimes. Any society that would follow that suggestion and criminalize beliefs is totalitarian. Yes, I've read quite a lot about "believe or else." Christianity used to be spread by swordpoint conversions.

Seriously, are you comparing teaching a fact children to converting by the sword. Or do you think that atheist are spreading the education about evolution by the use of the sword.

As it stands, your argument is as shallow as your understand of what evolution and science is.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | September 7, 2010 12:06 AM

Somewhere in my last post, there should be an "-ing". I will leave it to the reader to figure out where it should be.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | September 9, 2010 10:34 AM

Pvblivs may or may not be the same Pvblivs that argues on the Ray Comfort blog. If so, he's got a wealth of highly intelligent scientific minds available there that he ignores constantly.

No real point to arguing with the guy unless you want him to ignore real information.

"There are no transitional fossils."
"What about archaeopteryx?"
"Well, there's no transition between a dinosaur and archaeopteryx."

Sometimes I think that creotards won't be happy unless science has a complete listing of every transition capable, and even then they'll find something to argue about.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 11, 2010 6:51 PM

Sometimes I think that creotards won't be happy unless science has a complete listing of every transition capable, and even then they'll find something to argue about.

But you have no transitionals between the parents and the offspring.

See, evolution loses.

Glen Davidson