Enter the Lost World of Kent Hovind

Now might be a good time for poor Kent to test the power of prayer. Or defense attorneys.

The choice of music is wonderful. Tom Waits' painfully-satiric rendering of "Jesus Gonna Be Here" made for the perfect backdrop against which to show the abandonment of futility and unreason.

This almost makes me sad: obviously, a lot of work went into building that stuff and getting it all together. Sort of pathetic in the end.

plunge - Understanding where "Dr" Dino is now, makes your comment about "pathetic in the end" rather poignant. Funny as hell yet poignant.

I think dave's movie would have been a lot better if he had smoked a lot less weed before filming & editing. It's a shame really... it could've been really good.

Actually, I had the opposite reaction to #3. It already looks like shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks to me with cheap construction and materials presented in the lamest way.

My (homeschooled) 5-year-old's comment about the whole sorry Dinosaur Adventure Land mess: "You would have to be crazy to believe that stuff. The earth is BILLIONS of years old, and that is WAY more than ten thousand."

I like it - production quality aside, those "activities" really show how far off-base Hovind was in saying it really has something to do with science and dinosaurs. An inspirational guide to paper airplane-making has nothing to do with a stegosaurus, even if you slap a picture of one behind it. And the weather rock? Sure, let's make an entire display out of something you can buy in every store in the Ozarks, because that's really sciencey.

And is it really hoe-vine-d? I've been pronouncing him "hah-vend"

This almost makes me sad: obviously, a lot of work went into building that stuff and getting it all together. Sort of pathetic in the end.

Think of the Vatican and all the churches across the planet designed to perpetuate the biggest fraud in human history.

A lot of physical labor goes into building monuments that prop up the extremely silly god-ideas people can't seem to get out of their heads.

Totally off topic....

Check out this sink hole in Guatemala!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanmoody/408214042/

This gave me a flashback to "The Eyes of Tammy Faye", a documentary about former televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker. She and her ex-husband Jim had their own set of problems with the IRS, and there's a scene where she's walking through the ruins of their deserted theme park (Heritage USA).

I don't think there's anything sadder than a theme park in ruins. (I hope somebody at least managed to salvage the stegosaurus fossil at 4:16 in the video.) The IRS should have made arrangements for the parks to be taken over by secular organizations. They could be funded by forcing Bakker's and Hovind's former supporters to visit them a couple times a year.

In the old South after the advent of the car but before the introduction of the Interstate Highway System, one could find many, many roadside attractions, usually run by the commercial ancestors of the Bakkers and Hovind. They are all con men (few were women then) out to skim a few bucks from each passing tourist, and, if proclaiming Jesus got folks in the door, then that's what they did. Hovind is just one of the last of those roadside con men and he's wound up with his room and board paid for courtesy of you and me. Why anyone ever paid him much attention, I'll never figure out. He merited none of it, other than the potential he held for being a star attraction in an old circus side show.

There is a petition to try to get Kent Hovind pardonned. I do not think they should ask the president when Kent said Bush worships Lucifer.

I have found out that Dr. Ron Brooks is to be "debating" Eric Hovind at University of Guelph on March 19.

I informed him that Eric will have supporters there, so he should invite people from the universities, colleges, the media and those in the field to attend.

I thought it was pretty good. I liked the soundtrack except when the guy with a goatee was talking.

Only problem is it wouldn't play on my Mac! (How dare you PZ).

-DU-

I have found out that Dr. Ron Brooks is to be "debating" Eric Hovind at University of Guelph on March 19.
The important thing is: does he understand he's going to be dealing, not with a reasoned debate, but with a torrent of sound-bite bullshit, and far too much to rebut all of it in a reasoned manner. I note from his page that he works with Ruse teaching Phil of Bio. On the whole this is likely a Good Thing, as Ruse has some familiarity with the whole evo/cre debate (and the creationists need correcting on their philosophical BS as much as on their scientific).

Weird. Worked on mine.

I don't understand why they just didn't get the permits. Ya know if people are going to understand from what perspective others are coming from there needs to be a dialog.

I know with almost complete certainty that the world is probably around 5 billion years old, and I believe that the first source was an Intelligent designer.

While I do not buy into the Macro evolution myself, I can see that point of view. In the third week of June this year I will be making a presentation to a collection of geologist's from all over the United States and its territories.

They will be visiting us for two weeks and I have a 1 hour spot. We are also going to take them on a field trip. I suggested to our two Geologists that we all go to the Creation museum in Glennrose. They balked saying that none us, even you believe the the earth to be 10,000 years old so why should we go there.

I said if we are unable to listen to why people believe what they do, how are we to ever convince them otherwise. We hashed it over and my Idea was eventually rejected. So now we are going to go look at something we all have seen before and know about.

Ouch. Don't buy into macro evolution?
How can archeologists and zoologist listen to your presentation?

You're essentially a creationist... you just have a really long time line for it.

Kent Hovind's crappy adventure park deserves to succumb to termites. Kent Hovind deserves ridicule, criticism, and maybe a pic in the face.

But he does not deserve to rot in jail simply for failing to pay taxes.

His service to the community is better realized through allowing him to roam free, spouting his YEC insanity at anyone who will listen, than it is with our tax dollars feeding him and clothing him in a concrete cell.

Steve, You missoverestimate me. I am not giving a presentation on the origins of life, but on concrete fundamentals. God or not they are what they are.

In Floridians' defense, all of our structures are shabby, weathered plywood, cockroach-infested shacks. It's the way we roll down here. Too bad they'll be abandoned, though. It looks nicer than my house.

MikeG

I forgot to add the obligatory "if the termites decide to stop holding hands, this place is doomed!"

MikeG

ThePhysicist,

What's your background? This whole "I don't buy into it" would sound much more serious with a background justifying it. I mean, I don't go around saying that "I don't buy into General Relativity." I know I'm a putter at that size/space/speed scale in physics, and I have to go by the prediction matches (and a bit of acceptable authority). Newton I can test; GR and SR are a bit outside my bailiwick.

I never heard about that place while I was stationed in Pensacola, which is really too bad, I would've loved to check it out. However, I would probably have lost a few braincells from beating my head against the nearest wall.

And they are geologists, not zookeepers. But, if you can't see the unintended humor for a field trip of geologist's to a creation museum the atheist's have no sense of humor.

Quick note: I have been there, and you get to take a tour and ask good questions. My favorite line was trying to get them to explain stream meander and all them craters on the moon that happened in 10,000 years.

YOU CANNOT EDUCATE PEOPLE BY SHUTTING THEM DOWN!

What would be fun is if someone took control of Dino Park, and actually made it a respectable museum that had good paleontology instead of his brand of creationism. You can never have too many high quality dino parks, and it'd be great to see the look on Kent's face when his theme park is completely changed to support evolutionary theory. Of course, the danger would be him hiring someone to torch the place in the name of God.

Doug

ThePhysicist,

What's your background? This whole "I don't buy into it" would sound much more serious with a background justifying it. I mean, I don't go around saying that "I don't buy into General Relativity." I know I'm a putter at that size/space/speed scale in physics, and I have to go by the prediction matches (and a bit of acceptable authority). Newton I can test; GR and SR are a bit outside my bailiwick.

I have already given my credentials on this website. I have never seen any convincing or conclusive scientific data for maco evolution

ThePhysicist,

Could you give me a pointer? I'm new 'round these parts.

ThePhysicist,

Could you give me a pointer? I'm new 'round these parts.

Posted by: frog | March 7,

Be true to yourself and others.

Physicist: Okay, that's just smarmy, neither clever nor original. Tip from me: don't eat the yellow snow.

Tip from me: don't eat the yellow snow.

I didn't ask you for a tip, you asked me, and by my tip you have proved what I thought of you in the first place was correct.

Totally off topic....
Check out this sink hole in Guatemala!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanmoody/408214042/

That's not 'off topic' . That's a metaphor.

"Physicist"

I guess we can agree then. Our preconceptions have been confirmed.

While I do not buy into the Macro evolution myself, I can see that point of view.

You live in fortuitous times.
Global warming, pollution, intensive agriculture, heavy industry, and many other modern activities are placing enormous selective pressures on life-forms all over the Earth. Much evolution of new species follows every previous mass extinction, and this one will be no different. Moreover, science and technology have equipped field biologists as never before. Those of us alive today are likely to witness the evolution of more new species than could have been witnessed in any previous human lifetime.

"Physicist"
I guess we can agree then. Our preconceptions have been confirmed.
Posted by: frog | March

Unfortunately you are right, but only half so. But as long as you think well of yourself, I will leave you to enjoy it.

I know with almost complete certainty that the world is probably around 5 billion years old, and I believe that the first source was an Intelligent designer.

While I do not buy into the Macro evolution myself, I can see that point of view. In the third week of June this year I will be making a presentation to a collection of geologist's from all over the United States and its territories.

are we sure this isn't just another one of JAD's split personalities?

the similarities are striking.

You live in fortuitous times.
Global warming, pollution, intensive agriculture, heavy industry, and many other modern activities are placing enormous selective pressures on life-forms all over the Earth. Much evolution of new species follows every previous mass extinction, and this one will be no different. Moreover, science and technology have equipped field biologists as never before. Those of us alive today are likely to witness the evolution of more new species than could have been witnessed in any previous human lifetime.
Posted by: llewelly | March 7, 2007 07:54 PM

You speak truth, that I do indeed live the times you describe. I wish however I shared your optimism, I don't. I know what is going on in science today. I call it cooperate fascism.

http://catholicprophesy.blogspot.com/2007/03/nwo.html

My guess is that Kent is, at this moment, being anally probed by a primitive dinosaur called Bubba.

I call it cooperate fascism.

Assuming you meant corporate fascism. That's redundant and misleading: fascism is by definition corporate. There is no such thing as non-corporate fascism.

The fact that other people here know who Tom Waits is makes me so happy.

I'm guessing he thinks the anti-christ is Bill Gates.

With regard to:

"I imagine it will all wither away into shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks. At least, we hope so."

No, no, no. This place should be preserved, at least in part, by the Smithsonian Institution. It is a genuine (though bizarre, startling, pitiable, and nauseating) part of American culture and history. The fact that such a thing could have existed and been successful here, at this point in history, is certainly significant.

"Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands. And right now, Caesar demands a building permit."

Comedy gold, man, comedy gold.

It pisses me off that there aren't any good, non-evil dinosaur theme parks (aside from museums, if you count their interactive exhibits) but these bozos can erect one as a treat to lure the young into their clutches.

It'd be like if the only people on earth who provided candy were pedophiles in vans...

It pisses me off that there aren't any good, non-evil dinosaur theme parks...

Well, the Calgary Zoo has a dinosaur section in the park. I haven't been there since I was 13 (almost 20 years ago), but it was definitely my favorite section of the zoo. And there shouldn't be any dinosaurs wearing saddles, either!

Physicist, I honestly don't intend this to be snarky, but why do you believe in an old Earth? Do you believe that the Bible is consistant with an old Earth, and are taking your cues from it, or do you believe in an old Earth based on evidence, and have not seen the same degree of evidence for "macro" evoloution.
Again, I am trying to understand your position, and am not making a frivolous comment at your expense. I am relatively new to this site's comment boards, and simply wish to know a little more about your position.

autumn

MLE wrote, "It already looks like shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks to me with cheap construction and materials presented in the lamest way."

Heh, that sounds like my impressions of Las Vegas.

Maybe I spent too much time in theater set design and construction, but last time I visited Las Vegas I walked down the strip with all the new casinos and was amazed at how cheap the theme ornamentation appeared. Foam covered plywood with a painted canvas covering seemed to be the usual method of decoration.

Of course, I saw it during the daytime and while sober so I probably didn't view it as the designers intended.

Physicist, I honestly don't intend this to be snarky, but why do you believe in an old Earth? Do you believe that the Bible is consistant with an old Earth, and are taking your cues from it, or do you believe in an old Earth based on evidence, and have not seen the same degree of evidence for "macro" evoloution.
Again, I am trying to understand your position, and am not making a frivolous comment at your expense. I am relatively new to this site's comment boards, and simply wish to know a little more about your position.
autumn

I believe in the old earth because of carbon dating, stream meander deep into solid rock (testable by erodibility index), craters on the moon, motion of the unviverse, the speed of light and a host of bleeding obvious reasons. I do not adhere to Macro evolution because I don't see the same evidence.

But, If it were found to be convincining it would not effect my faith, because it has nothing to do with the reasons I belive in an intelligent designer. And I am either fortunate or unfortunate to have seen evidence with my own eyes of the the supernatural, most don't, evidently, and I don't know why me, so don't ask me why.

I have a word for you autumn, it won't make any sense until you see it. "Cars, by Easter"

But, If it were found to be convincining it would not effect my faith, because it has nothing to do with the reasons I belive in an intelligent designer. And I am either fortunate or unfortunate to have seen evidence with my own eyes of the the supernatural, most don't, evidently, and I don't know why me, so don't ask me why.

Physicists, there are resources available. Many of them linked from here, there are also resources available from talkorigins.org if you don't see the same evidence.

Our Glorious Host (may he live in peace) has made the point that there is a disconnect in some scientists because they approach their own fields with scientific rigor, yet when it comes to fields such as religion and ID they are unwilling to examine their beliefs with any sort of depth.

So, the conclusion is that you don't see the evidence for MacroEvolution because you just don't wanna look.

And, as a side note, I would have voted for a scurry through Glen Rose and a robust round of brews to follow.

That's a little bit like saying that there's no evidence for sustainable fusion while ignoring the sun's constant light.

The Physicist bleated:

And I am either fortunate or unfortunate to have seen evidence with my own eyes of the the supernatural, most don't, evidently, and I don't know why me, so don't ask me why.

Not much chance that I'll ask why, if you don't understand the simple idea that "supernatural" and "evidence" are mutually exclusive.

Show me the evidence, I'll be glad to take a look, specific real data and science, not theory.

For example if someone aske me to show them that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, I could. Simply by showing some of the deep hard rock meandering streams. We could test the erodibility index and the slope of said stream and I could calculate for them how many million years the it took for the stream to erode that deep.

And if they come back at me saying maybe one big long flood did it real fast, I can explain to them how large floods do not cause meander.

You know, only someone who knew next to nothing about science would so cavalierly dismiss "theory".

I'm dying to know what The_P's evidence of the supernatural was.

You know, only someone who knew next to nothing about science would so cavalierly dismiss "theory".
Posted by: PZ Myers

Thanks for responding, but you just proved my point, it is just theory, and it is not testable, thefore it is not fact.

Even money says it has something to do with steroids.

I'm dying to know what The_P's evidence of the supernatural was.
Posted by: Steve_C

Oh, the irony.

Wow. You don't even know what a theory is.

Theories by definition are testable. Ever watch Mythbusters?

Conjecture is maybe what you're suggesting. Macro evolution is not conjecture.

Theories aren't testable? Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so clearly.

Theories aren't testable? Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so clearly.
Posted by: PZ Myers |

Thanks for responding, but you just proved my point, it is just theory, and it is not testable, thefore it is not fact.

Well then let me respond in kind. In the above sentence, show me where it says theories are not testable. You are demonstating your poor reading compehension. Notice the word "and" and not the word "therefore". Nice try in twisting my words though.

It is "just a theory" is a standard creationist trope, built out of abysmal ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" in science. You have repeated it. No one with any sense uses the word "just" to modify "scientific theory".

Your undergraduate education in a science failed you...or more likely, you are failing to do it proud.

Wow. You don't even know what a theory is.
Theories by definition are testable. Ever watch Mythbusters?
Conjecture is maybe what you're suggesting. Macro evolution is not conjecture.
Posted by: Steve_C |

Yes, but I missed the one where they took a collection of apes and turned them into a man.

We have the fossils.

We win.

Well then TZ, if I'm so stupid, then I challenge you to show me where Macro-evolution is testable?

TZ=PZ

We have the fossils.
We win.
Posted by: Steve_C

Wow, I guess now I'm convinced, brilliant response.

I'll be back later, got a meeting.

To paraphrase Lewontin:
Empirical: All animals have parents.
Empirical: Once there were no mammals.
QED.

I'm dying to know what The_P's evidence of the supernatural was.

Oh, the irony.

Ok, so you had an NDE, or saw a ghost, or had contact with a dead relative or something. Yes? Phys, why not just tell us? Your chronic vagueness leads us nowhere, and has an irritatingly smug tone to it. Either join the party, or get off the front stoop. I mean, throw something into the pot, or get away from the stove. Add a square to the quilt, or go back to the nursery. Serve the damn ball, or get off the court.

I have had no experiences of that nature, or should I say supernature. However, a few people I know and respect claim to have had them. I while I remain skeptical, I am open to the possibility of phenomena that have remained undetected (or undetectable) by currently available scientific means.

So what's the story? Care to share? If not, that's fine, but please just say so instead of dancing around it. Thanks.

Theory: If organisms evolved over long periods of time we would find transitional forms and common traits in the fossil record.

That's testable. And the evidence backs up the theory.

Macroevolution is testable, and has been tested, in fact. The Physicist would realize this if he actually took the time out of his busy lifestyle of harassing people to do this.
Among other things, scientists have documented subtle changes in lineages of trilobites, noting the changes in number of segments, number of eyes, and or differences in ornamentation in one generation compared to another. In one case, in the Midwestern US, a series of rock lenses show how a population of Phacops rana with 18 pairs of eyes is eventually supplanted by a mutant form with 17 pairs of eyes, which is, in turn, replaced by another mutant form with 19 pairs of eyes, whereupon we then see how the 19-pair form go extinct, and then re-replaced by the 17-pair form when that particular stretch of ocean dried up and got reflooded. On the other hand, given as how we know from personal experience that the average creationist regards the very idea of learning about fossil organisms to be as wholesome as gargling with cow feces, trilobites might not be a good example to use for The Physicist.

Another observed example of macroevolution in action is the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. The apple maggot is an agricultural pest which feeds on a variety of fruit. The original host plant was the hawthorne, a small tree native to forests in the Eastern US. When Europeans began planting fruit orchards during the 18th Century, mutant forms of the apple maggot fly began attacking these new potential host plants, and have become genetically isolated from the original hawthorne populations since then.

Another example is the appearance of the Honeysuckle maggot fly, found only in the Eastern US, which is a pest of imported honeysuckle vines, which are native to Europe. Scientists have determined that it arose 250 years ago from hybrids between the Snowberry Maggot flies and Blueberry Maggot flies.

You know what he's going to say though don't you...

Those flies didn't become monkies though!

Thanks, Stanton. More information for my files. :-)

And what about Hedylypta?

If I'm not mistaken, the Tiktaalik roseae find was predicted, wasn't it? Theory predicted that a creature exhibiting the transitional features it exhibits should be found in a certain geological time-place, and sure enough, there it was? And there are other examples... all of them ignored or denied by those who reject macro-evolution.

I know a biologist who rejects macro-evo. He's also a very devout Southern Baptist. (Surprise!) No example of speciation is good enough for him. I'm not a biologist (surprise again!) and the best I can usually do is to throw talk.origins at him while he throws terms at me I don't even understand. My own lack of science education makes debate fruitless. It's frustrating. (Yes, I accept macro-evo "on authority" - smirk.)

Methinks that the root of this problem is not that these folks are YEC's or Bible literalists, it's that they are simply offended by the idea that our ancestors were hairy, knuckle-dragging simians, or "monkeys" in popular creationist parlance. It's not... dignified. But being created in the image of God is. So we see the amazing lengths of self-deception to which these people will go to avoid being offended. (I get it, but... I just don't GET it.)

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm
Some more examples of observed speciation.
...
Anyone want to bet that The Physicist is going to handwave this all away and continue to claim that no one has shown him any evidence of macroevolution?

Yes, Tiktaalik was predicted, in that, they suspected that there was a form in the Late Devonian between Panderichthys, and Ichthyostega/Acanthostega, and that the Late Devonian rocks in British Columbia were within the exact timeframe for the transitional form to have exist.

I know a biologist who rejects macro-evo

Then he isn't a very good one. You should direct him here to espouse his point of view.

He has got to be one the most compartmentalized people out there.

All,

I'd get The Physicist to define what he means by macroevolution first. It's one of those terms like "natural" or "religion" that people load with a wealth of assumptions and unspoken bollocks.

If he means macroevolution in the sense that a biologist proper would use it, then it's possible he's ignorant of the evidence (no crime at all) and someone could point him at it (T.O. 29 evidences for macroevolution is a good beginner's start). Then he might go "Oh wow! There IS evidence". A happy conclusion all round.

If, however, he means "baboons to Barbie" creationist strawman macroevolution or other vastly saltationist gibberish then, to be as generous as I can be, there are a lot of assumptions and unspoken bollocks loaded into his use of the term "macroevolution". These will need to be unpicked before the happy scenario above can occur.

Sadly, I am pessimistic today and I have little hope that this will be the case. The "has anyone put apes in a jar and turned them into men" type comment is a dead giveaway. Eh, it's possible I'm wrong, but I doubt it on this occasion.

What he have so far is standard crap:

1) Someone with some (read minimal by the looks of it, again: happy to be wrong) science education claims some aspect of evolutionary biology is unfalsifiable and hence, a la Popper, not science.

2) Does the "theory/fact shuffle" or the "Just a theory cock up".

3) Does the "But I can SEE X or Y" nonsense (where X or Y in this case are things like erosion etc as mentioned above).

4) Does the usual "I've seen dead people" (or whatever, it's the old "appeal to mystery/internal/personal experience that cannot be validated in any empirical sense and is indistinguishable from hallucination" gambit) evidence for supernatural routine.

5) Is at least skirting around the "But it's still a bacterium!!!111one11!!!" ejaculation.

6) Demonstrates woeful levels of clearly undeserved arrogance.

Basically we have 6 key indicators of Pointless Antiscience Loon. Why bother with him?

If this guy was interested in actually learning about the subject he'd nip off after a few suggestions of possible sources and find out for himself. (In fact a good science education DEMANDS this sort of behaviour, we in the biz call it "basic research". As my boss once said to me: "an hour in the library can save a month in the lab") All we, and I include relative lurkers like myself in that we, have had thus far is standard misconceptions coupled to arrogance and huge snark.

How about it the Physicist? Nip off to the library and look up those things mentioned on T.O. "29 evidences for macroevolution" (as good a starting point as any). Better still how about you nip off and read some very long biology textbooks and the references quoted therein. Maybe, and I know this will come as a shock so brace yourself, just maybe the people actually DOING the relevant science know what they are talking about more than you do. Perhaps, and this is merely the vaguest whisper of a humble suggestion: you are wrong.

SHOCK HORROR! Coo stap me vitals etc.

I await the standard wanky snark I've been reading from you for a while. Colour me pre-unimpressed.

*Yawn*

{re-lurk}

Louis

Nicely typed, Louis.
Though, if The Physicist is the typical antiscience creationist loon, then he'd probably find the idea of going to the library to do research in order to better himself about as pleasant as willfully dousing himself with hydrochloric acid.

What concentration hydrochloric acid?

(I'll take comments never to make in front of a chemist for $400 please Alex ;-) )

But seriously. I hope. I hope The Physicist will forgive me my snark and pessimism, I hope The Physicist will go to the library. I hope The Physicist will get the same enjoyment out of learning exciting new things about the universe that I do.

Sadly hope, though wonderful, can be misplaced or simply wrong. I hope I am wrong about The Physicist, sincerely I do. Speaking purely as someone who daily deals with science, research, evidence and a number of people with advanced scientific qualifications who don't have the first clue about research, discovery or even actual science (yes folks it is possible to get a PhD and be as ignorant as pigshit, I've met 'em), I doubt I am wrong. But I can live in hope.

Louis

I wish you people would quit treating with such contempt.

I'm going to lunch, but I think it best we start here which I will address when I get Back.

I'd get The Physicist to define what he means by macroevolution first. It's one of those terms like "natural" or "religion" that people load with a wealth of assumptions and unspoken bollocks.

I'm bored already. Go read up on macro evolution and come back in a week.

Still haven't heard what his supernatural experience was...

Contempt? No.

Disappointment? Yes.

Hope to be wrong about disappointment? Yes.

Likelihood of being wrong about disappointment? Not good.

Louis

I don't understand why they just didn't get the permits. Ya know if people are going to understand from what perspective others are coming from there needs to be a dialog.

He's justifying it with a sort of "magical thinking". He seems to believe that words have power in-and-of-themselves and that he can get anything he wants just by saying the right words.

So if he takes his belief that the world is 6000 years old, and dresses it up in science-y sounding language, he thinks that he's come up with a real scientific theory that's just as good as anyone else's (if not better). But of course that doesn't work; it's not the words that matter, it's how well those words describe reality.

And if he takes his beliefs that he doesn't have to get building permits or pay taxes, and he dresses them up in legal-y sounding language, he thinks that he's come up with an argument that's as good as anyone else's (if not better). That means that he thinks it's impossible for the prosecution to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". And that doesn't work either...it's not the words that matter; it's how well the argument fits with established precedent.

(I don't know all the arguments he's using. But one of them was that he'd never been properly served because the legal papers had KENT HOVIND written on them, and he doesn't spell his name with all capital letters. The established precedent is that that's a stupid argument and people shouldn't waste the court's time with it. I assume that none of his other arguments were any better.)

Macroevolution, One species changing into another species, is what I am talking about. Direct evidence by labratory or fossil record. Show me those and I will believe.

And not bugs getting more eyes and such mutations, species change.

Still haven't heard what his supernatural experience was...
Posted by: Steve_C |

Because I can't prove it, and what purpose would it serve but to give you fodder. And more than that it is none of your buisness.

The Physicist: And not bugs getting more eyes and such mutations, species change.

Oh, look, a baraminologist. Never seen one of those 'round here before.

Look at birds. They were dinosaurs.

Look at birds. They were dinosaurs.
Posted by: Steve_C |

PZ must keep you around for your wit and in depth explanations. Or just court Jester.

That's easy. There's a special issue on speciation of TREE (Trends in Ecology and Evolution) from 1994. It mentions a case where you can see a population of diatoms in the Pacific gradually becoming two extant species. That was not new -- it was just written up as a review article. I don't have the paper here so I can't tell you the original reference. Some googling should find it, however. (Don't google for "macroevolution", though. That word doesn't occur in there -- when at all, biologists use that for changes around the phylum "level", not the species "level".) Probably you should read the whole issue.

And BTW, why don't you show us that Rhagoletis pomonella is not a separate species?

Of course, under some species concepts it might not be (there are at least 25 of them out there). Which just drives the point home -- species change into each other all the time, so trying to define "species" is a rather futile affair.

Have you ever heard of ring species? Series species? Allospecies? If not, Google is your friend...

"Extant" is the opposite of "extinct". Or rather, it means "not (yet) extinct".

What a surprise, we've offered The Physicist actual proof of macroevolution, and what does he do?
He pisses it away, and makes like we didn't even say anything.

I was dumbing it down for you.

I'll take a look and see if I can find it, in the mean if you come across some good info for me, my email is ru4cowboys@yahoo.com I am a big Cowboy fan.

My last post was meant for David not the court jester.

Look the physicist got a visit from Zeus. It was real. Just like those who get visits from Allah and Jesus. Why argue when it is so obvious that these things happen everyday to so many. It's gotta be real right?

Direct evidence by labratory or fossil record

In this thread alone there have been several examples of which you chose to ignore. Why should the people on this forum do more when you are clearly being intellectually dishonest?

To elaborate on what Steve_C said, though, I strongly doubt The Physicist would bother to understand it anyhow: Birds are considered to be dinosaurs because they share lots of traits with dinosaurs. Among other things, the primitive bird, Archaeopteryx, has a skeleton very similar to dinosaurs such as Deinonychus, and Compsognathus. Also, dinosaur fossils have been found with bird-like feathers, such as Beipiaosaurus, and Microraptor.
...
Anyone want to bet me 10 dollars that The Physicist ignores this, too?

In this thread alone there have been several examples of which you chose to ignore. Why should the people on this forum do more when you are clearly being intellectually dishonest?

What do you think I am a man with a PHD is Biology? I have been looking at it and have understood about half of what I read, and haven't got to the rest. So give it a rest.

To elaborate on what Steve_C said, though, I strongly doubt The Physicist would bother to understand it anyhow: Birds are considered to be dinosaurs because they share lots of traits with dinosaurs. Among other things, the primitive bird, Archaeopteryx, has a skeleton very similar to dinosaurs such as Deinonychus, and Compsognathus. Also, dinosaur fossils have been found with bird-like feathers, such as Beipiaosaurus, and Microraptor.

You damn right I am going to ignore it, some wild statement with out link or footnote about dinasour feathers. I this considered proof then biology aint a science, it's a bunch dopes running around spouting crap with no source material or follow up on the meaning. I know science, I have been around scietisst fo 18 years, and that ain't science.

It's very hard for us to explain Biology in simple terms to a smarmy fool who's too pompous to realize that he doesn't know a single thing beyond aggravating people for his own amusement.

It was obvious that you didn't have any degree in biology actually.

The point is that macro-evolution is a theory backed by reams of evidence.

Just because you haven't bothered to find out about the evidence just makes your "I don't buy it' statement that much more pathetic.

Link to pictures of Beipiaosaurus fossil feathers.

I repeat:
Empirical: All animals have parents. (or , if you prefer, all cells come from other cells.)
Empirical: Once there were no mammals. (or, if you prefer, no birds, snakes, whales...whatever. Fossil record.)

Unless you can offer a falsifying observation to either of those statements, "macroevolution" occured.

The only evidence The Physicist needs to falsify macroevolution is the fact that he's too arrogant to actually look at any of the mountains of evidence supporting macroevolution.

It's very hard for us to explain Biology in simple terms to a smarmy fool

Actually, I resemble that remark, minus the smarmy bit. I don't do smarmy.

Please don't write off all of us biological fools, though. I see micro-evolution every time I have to reapply milky spore disease to the lawn. In fifteen years, the genes that favor killing their hosts (Japanese beetle grubs) tend to wash out to a more benign parasitism.

So even attentive gardeners and organic lawn-care people see micro-evolution in progress all the time, down to the selection of cultivars in the lawn.

Er, that is micro-evolution, yes? It sounded like it. I could be really wrong here. Please feel free to correct me.

I'm ignorant, but damn it, I'm trying.

Morp

That's one form of microevolution.
It's an example of the "Red Queen" theory, in that one species evolves in response to the actions or effects of another species, like the way a parasite (milky spore) develops into a less virulent form due to the population of its host dying, and killing off the more virulent strains.
On the other hand, it can go the other way, even, in that the milky spore develops into a more virulent form in order to overcome its host's new and improved immune system, or in order to spread to more new hosts more quickly.

ThePhysicist: "What do you think I am a man with a PHD is Biology? I have been looking at it and have understood about half of what I read, and haven't got to the rest."

Then what makes him think he as, as of yet, a right to an (respected) opinion in this matter? It's equivalent to: I've been reading up on constitutional law, but I haven't understood about half of it. But, I think, for no clearly articulated reason except that I haven't been convinced by case law from the last 80 years (which, as I said, I haven't understood about 50% of, and haven't gotten to much of it), that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Why do people think that it follows: every asshole has a right to his opinion, therefore my uneducated, unsupported opinion should be treated as equal to all others? Yet that is commonly believed.

I repeat:
Empirical: All animals have parents. (or , if you prefer, all cells come from other cells.)
Empirical: Once there were no mammals. (or, if you prefer, no birds, snakes, whales...whatever. Fossil record.)
Unless you can offer a falsifying observation to either of those statements, "macroevolution" occured.
Posted by: CCP

That's pretty clean but not axiomatic. By observation you have concluded that there was never a time of spontanious regeneration which we know there was. I have always wondered what caused this in sea life. I believe that there is something that suddenly causes species to appear spontaneously, while it is a mystery the fossil records show that this happens.

Frog and stanton, two court jesters, no usfull information just the constant haranging of god haters. And I don't think your dumb, because you are atheise's, I think your dum bnecause you are/\ switches ignore button on./\

ThePhysicist: "I believe that there is something that suddenly causes species to appear spontaneously."

Now there's the rigor of a physicist for ya. He puts up his "something" against the literature. I happen to think that space is flat and "something" bends the light to make it appear like space is curved. So, there Einstein.

He's graduated to troll.

You forget you have to actually believe in a god in order to hate one.

You easter bunny hater.

You forget you have to actually believe in a god in order to hate one.
You easter bunny hater.
Posted by: Steve_C |

Thanks Steve let me revise my remarks by saying that you and them: "just the constant haranging of god belief haters"

Physicist-

No one here seems to hate anything except maybe you who seem to hate things like honesty and apparently evolution.

Of course, The Physicist is arrogant enough in his stupidity to think that we're haranguing him for his belief in God, when in fact, we're haranguing him for his arrogant wallowing in his own stupidity.
Unless, of course, it's because he thinks that his belief in God entitles him to remain stupid.

Much better.

But smarten up and stop spouting off about something you know nothing about but claim it is lacking evidence. It's not lacking evidence.

You seem to believe that god "poofed" everything into existence as is and that evolution only works on some small scale within species. There's no evidence of that.

But the evidence shows that given enough time evolution creates vastly different species over and over and over again.

The Physicist,

Look up ring species like the Herring Gull ring, Lake Victoria cichlids and......oh bugger I've forgotten the exact name of the swine.... it's a Californian salamander, I can't remember what it's called off hand.

You do know what ring species are don't you? (Not being mean, just asking) And you do know why species appear discontinuous don't you? (again, asking, not mean)

If all you are looking for is evidence of speciation (one species becoming another) then you are in for a series of really great scientific treats, and ring species are a good conceptual (and indeed factual) place to start.

Oh and get over the faux physics superiority, not only is it non-existent, it makes you look like a total moron. You've been around scientists for 18 years? Great! I've BEEN a scientist that long, and PZ and many others have BEEN scientists even longer. Please cease the silly attempts at dick waving, no one is impressed. The data is there for you to discover, go, enjoy! I know I did.

Louis

Louis, you mean that salamander, Ensatina eschscholtzii?
Also, I'd recommend the Lake Malawi cichilids, if only because most of the Lake Victoria cichilids have been exterminated by the Nile Perch

Oh and P.S. Haranguing you for your god belief? Please inform me what the gibbering donkey fisting midget fuck your belief in a specific supernatural entity (or otherwise) has got to do with science. Hmmmmmm.

Not one single solitary thing old chum is the correct answer. Or are you really a creationist (old earth as opposed to the really batshit insane ones who think the world was poofed into existence last thursday)? If so...crikey...good luck with a scientific career (titter)!

Ask yourself this question: if you, as a "physicist"...sorry THE "physicist" (ahhh the arrogance of the definite article) encountered someone who came up with objections to quantum field theory that were like your objections to speciation, what would you think of them? I'll bet it wouldn't be complimentary, especially if that person was the most recent in a long line of such "geniuses". If you want nice mathematical verification of evolutionary biology look at the work of Haldane, Fisher and Dobhansky. These guys put population biology/genetics (i.e. evolutionary biology) on a mathematical footing in (roughly) the 1920s. Catch up!

Look at for example, the distribution of castes in social insect populations, all mathematically predicted by various aspects of evolutionary biology. And there is SO much more. Evolutionary biology really is THAT well supported (I chose QFT as a physics example for a very good reason.)

Louis

Stanton,

You know he's going to say "But they're still all salamanders."

To clarify, I don't hate god believers. I just think that religion is bullshit.

Stanton,

YES! Thanks a million, I was just flipping book pages to find out where I had been reading about it recently. Thanks very much.

Also, you're right about the Lake Malawi cichlids being a better example. Good point.

{I'm not a proper biologist btw, just a synthetic chemist who likes all science! ;-) So I am always grateful for more refined data from more biological personages!)

Louis

No problem, Louis.
You think that the demonstration of the sunflower species, Helianthus anomalis, as being a hybrid of H. annus and H. petiolaris through crossing the two parent species in a laboratory would be another good example?

Oooooh good one!

Except it's still a flower and not a chinchilla. ;-)

Louis

I'm ignorant, but damn it, I'm trying. (#107)

LOL, Morph, I hear you. Join the club.

The way I understand it, there's really no difference between micro and macro. Macro is just accumulated micro. The idea that macro is a completely different process is a favorite talking point of creationists, who contend that a fish that got trapped in an undeground lake could eventually lose its eyes but not evolve into a salamander, or that a red fox that migrated north could develop a white coat but not evolve into a wolf.

If a species of fish can lose its useless eyes through the accumulation of very changes over many generations, why then can it not acquire useful adaptations like proto-legs by way of the accumulation of very small changes over many generations? To me, that's the beauty of Tiktaalik roseae: it demonstrates exactly that. It looks like a fish "trying" to become a salamander. (And what is a mudskipper, if not a kind of living transitional fossil? A cutaneous air breathing fish that can climb trees? Hello?)

But speaking of looks, I think we laypersons tend to pay too much attention to morphology. How likely is it, based on appearance alone, that a Pekingese and a Greyhound are the same species, can mate, and reproduce? And at the same time we find species that are virtually mophologically identical but do not interbreed - Western and Eastern meadowlarks are one example; the Western Cape of South Africa boasts four species of Chirping Frog that are indistinguishable to the eye.

IMO if an organism would be unable to reproduce with one of its ancestors, it is not the same species as that ancestor. Likewise, if it is unable to reproduce with another descendant of that same ancestor, then it is not the same species as that descendant. Think humans and chimps. No interbreeding there (though some of my experiences in fraternity basements make me wonder.) And IMO they would be different species even if the two were physically identical in every way!

That's simplistic, of course, and possibly wrong. I'd appreciate corrections if I've said anything inaccurate or promoted any misconceptions.

Slightly off-topic, check this out. Neat!

If you want to know what you're up against, note ThePhysicists descent into rantings when opposed by both the facts of the matter, and his lack of evidence/standing in the dispute:

Frog and stanton, two court jesters, no usfull information just the constant haranging of god haters. And I don't think your dumb, because you are atheise's, I think your dum bnecause you are/\ switches ignore button on./\

There is a deep emotional investment in his position; it goes beyond that, its a deep cognitive investment; it's pre-rational, and so any attack is an attack on his identity itself. He responds as if he were physically threatened by some comments on a message board.

He loses his ability to even spell and to make grammatically correct sentences, as opposed to his other posts. He ends with a three year old's "nana nana boo boo, I can't hear you!" He's actually having a childhood reversion in public.

To him, this is not a discussion about evidence, about parsimony of theory, or of reality correspondence. It is a basic question about the nature of reality itself. By either confronting with strong arguments or questioning his knowledge in the matter, his id explodes in rage at the almost existential threat that he doesn't actually know that ID is correct. God's active intervention in the material world is a premise of his very sanity.

You do know what ring species are don't you? (Not being mean, just asking) And you do know why species appear discontinuous don't you? (again, asking, not mean)

No I do not, but would be willing to learn, if you could find a way to keep trash talking and insults down.. It gets so tiresome to muddle through the crap to try and find the diamond. I promised myself my would listen to scientific evidence, but I am really tired of being insulted by morons.

we still haven't gotten the details of his god delusion either.

but trust him... he's had personal experience that is evidence of a supernatural.

Godbag!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
You're an IDiot Physicyst. You're not going to let go of your creator.
You've already made that clear. We should take a pool on whether the cyst
accepts evolution after he's exposed to the evidence.

Kseniya,

Speciation gets even more complex, because it's not a hard qualitative difference. Gene flow can occur between species. There was in the last year (or two) in Science a paper mapping gene flow between Chimpanzee ancestors and human ancestors. The major split happened about 7 mya, but gene flow appears to have continued till about 2mya. The species were distinct, with distinct adaptations such as bipedalism, but some frat boy type behavior continued until there was a chromosomal inversion that blocked all interbreeding - this is all coming out of memory so some details may be wrong.

The same happened with the Neanderthal/modern man split. It appears that most interbreeding stopped about 500kya, with relatively little gene flow. But a recent paper found that in 70% of the human population the microcephalin variant does not come from the modern lineage, but appears to be from Neanderthal ancestry - it's cline maps onto Neanderthal population distribution, and it appears that the ancestral form appeared in the modern gene pool about 40kya, at the time of population overlaps between the two groups. Again, this is from memory - some of the dates may be off.

Freak off Steve, stanton and frog, you guys are morons, and I am not going to judge others with your moron status. So, please just leave me alone and go kick your dog or something. The adults are trying to talk.

The Physicist,

Ring species: Wikipedia will suffice for you. Go away and do the work, people have pointed you to a good week's worth of library based joy and excitement. Go to it! Why complain about the evils of a message board conversation when you could be out there really learning? After all, you're all about the science, right?

Trash talking? Insults? Tut Tut Tut. None there. I can show you what an insult looks like if you so desire, I believe I read one once.

Am I somehow not allowed to express my fervent hope that this is not yet another journey on the same creationist merry-go-round, and at the same time mention that it seems like it is? Remind me where THAT rule was written down. Last time I looked "The Physicist", it wasn't me or anyone else here flat out saying all biologists were incompetent non scientists fooling themselves with silly stamp collecting whilst at the same time failing to demosntrate the most basic knowledge of the topic. Like it or not, you have exhibited many of the hallmarks of bog standard antiscience internet kook in your posts. I'm far from the only one to notice this btw. Although it is possible for you not to act this way, the choice is always yours.

Perhaps, and this is merely a suggestion, you could demonstrate a modicum of self awareness, humility and relevant knowledge before declaring that an entire branch of well supported science is false simply because you are ignorant of it. Perhaps you get the treatment you do because you act like an unmitigated arse. Of course humblest apologies if the mere mention that it could be YOU at fault, rather than everyone else on the planet, causes you distress, offence or other paroxysms of standard insecure persecution complex, but dude, sort your own house out before you attempt to question others.

Louis

ThePhysicist:
You do know what ring species are don't you? (Not being mean, just asking) And you do know why species appear discontinuous don't you? (again, asking, not mean)

No I do not, but would be willing to learn, if you could find a way to keep trash talking and insults down

Here we know that his statements are disingenuous. An honest response would be: "gee, you're right, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and withhold judgment until I have fully educated myself in the relevant fields."

But that's not what is done. Instead, he holds on to his judgment, and puts the burden of evidence on others to disprove his inane intuitions about the matter.

It's like walking into a chemistry lab and saying "I don't believe in the atomic theory of matter, even though my entire education in the matter is reading chapter one of an introductory textbook. But I'm willing to let you prove it to me." That would be absurd - until you learn, you don't have the (rational) right to hold a reasonable opinion in the matter at all.

Or a religious example: an atheist walks into a church and tells the priest: "I don't believe that Jesus ever existed. I've read a comic strip version of the Bible, and read a chat board discussion about his existence. Prove to me that Jesus was really." What would the priest say? Of course, "go read the scriptures first, then a list of introductory references from the church, and come back when you're actually serious about discussing it."

Frog, thank you for elaborating on that for me. I understood what you wrote (yay) and it makes sense.

Gene flow, cool concept. I think I'm going to take a break and go write a feminist play called "The Gene Flow Facilitation Socket Monologues". BBL.

Kseniya, why don't you call your play, "Malignant Uterine Mucocosis Monologue"?
Rolls off the tongue so much better than "The Gene Flow Facilitation Socket Monologue"

Wikapedia or what ever it is now the reservoir for scientific thought. I offered a challenge to PZ to prove my statement false, that macro-evolution is not testable and therefore not fact. He ran away, and you want me to figure it out all by myself and come back and say, you were right? When the smartest man in biology that I know, refuses to do so, when he simply could instead of calling me stupid. He either has not the ability or time, either way, you won't make a convert out of me with insults and silence.

{OT}

Frog,

I would hope that any self respecting historian would realise the gospels are a pretty poor source of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Even if we add Tacitus and Josephus to the mix a historical Jesus is not massively likely. The whole myth reeks of Mithras, Apollo, Dionysus........

Oops, did I just out my atheist self again! ;-)

Louis

My offer to PZ stands, until then good day.

I wish you people would quit treating with such contempt.

then stop being so contemptible.

simple.

simply put, you're setting yourself up. You can fix that, if you'd just STFU and go read for a while, then you might be able to come back with an opinion based on something in reality, and/or maybe even ask some intelligent questions.

as it stands, you really can't complain about the ass-kicking you are getting.

LOL @ Stanton. Yes, great idea. I feel musical coming on, but I was planning to call it "Mellifluous Melanoma". Sigh.

Rolls off the tongue so much better than ...

Tell me that's NOT that the most viscous double-entendre in the history of Pharyngula!

{sigh}

The Physicist,

No Wikipedia is assuredly not the one true repository of scientific knowledge. It is a source of brief, basic information that occasionally contains useful references. For someone like you who doesn't know (for example) what a ring species is it's a great place to start. Nice try at misdirection, but no dice. I give it a D-, must try harder.

You do know it's not up to us (or indeed anyone) to convince you. No one, not PZ, or me or anyone owes you an explanation. Since (guessing by timezones, I'm in the UK not the USA) PZ is probably hard at work and I am chilling after a long day in the lab I'm guessing that PZ has neither "run away" nor "been unable to answer you". I'd guess he has vastly better things to do with his time than explain basic ideas to someone who unrepentantly slurs his (and indeed my) profession due to their own special combination of ignorance and arrogance.

What people have done very kindly, and with varying degrees of good grace (something I have little of to begin with. Fools are not suffered, gladly or otherwise) is briefly given you a few pointers for you to begin your research. Has it crossed your mind that convincing people by rhetoric is irrelevant, in science it's the evidence that matters. We're pointing you to the evidence, whether we personally convince you of anything on this board or not is tiresomely and wantonly irrelevant.

You claim to be familiar with science and scientists. Your name "The Physicist" implies you are a scientist. What is your educational background. I ask because I've taught undergraduates and post graduates, both scientific material and basic research skills. If any of them behaved as you have here, I'd have given them a very stern talking to about being an adult scientist. Go and look up ring species, especially the cited examples above. Do the basic work.

Louis

Hi Ichthyic,

I wonder why it is that some people feel free to crow "That's a huge crock of shit" about a complex topic and when questioned about their knowledge of that topic say "I know absolutely nothing about it, other than it's a crock of shit".

There is a serious self examination shortfall going on somewhere, and dammit I pretty sure it isn't here!

TP: "One species can't become another, there's no evidence, PZ has to show it to me, so there.".

L: "Do you know about ring species?".

TP: "No.".

L: "Look 'em up on Wikipedia.".

TP: "Wikipedia isn't the reservoir for scientific thought!".

(There's a fucking reservoir? Gotta find it, way to get those grant applications made easier!)

L: "Way to miss the point dude.".

{Sigh}

It's like dealing with my younger brother. 29 years old, unemployable, acts like a sullen 14 year old, gambles, thinks it is a safe income, refuses to learn about statistics and claims anyone who does know any stats is a fool and that he doesn't need to keep a record of his gambles because he's always ahead. Oh and believes in winning and losing streaks. (And yes I know about clusters)

It's the eternal shitty coloured braid of dumb: doesn't know, doesn't want to know, doesn't realise knowing is an option, hates anyone who does know, claims all knowledge is false, complains about persecution when confronted with inconvenient data.

Why me! ;-)

Louis

Louis,

I'm quite skeptical myself. But, on the other hand, I have bothered to read the OT and NT, since that may not be a historical narrative material, but it is background material for understanding the question, and the mindset of those who do believe. I've also spent some time pulling out some scholarly articles on the archeology of the period and literature reproduction in that period, taken courses as a kid in Western Religion and history, read literature produced in the period to get a feel for the cultural milieu, even read some of the whackier analyses, such as Campbell, to get a feel for the edges of religious history (and he does have some good background material, even if his theses are a bit of hand-waving.)

I still would have the humility to not just demand that a scholar in the field prove to me that Jesus existed. I'd more likely approach it by pointing out questions I have, asking for current explanations and pointers to relevant literature in the field. I'd be more aggressive with folks at my own level of education in that matter, just as a way to sharpen my knowledge.

But to come in empty handed and throw out random opinion and then demand proof - that's just an asinine attempt to dismiss your opponents rather than actual create a dialogue. And that's what you're going to get from these ID folks, because they're not arguing facts, they're doing apologetics for premises - the arguments are just tactics, not strategies. They know that, but many of us don't - we think that they believe that God, Jesus, etc are derived from evidence - but no, they are at the root of the epistemology, logically prior to evidence and knowledge.

Louis,

By the way, I did ask him his background, very politely I think, up-thread. What I got back was that he's already given it on earlier threads. So I asked him for a pointer, so that I could find it. What did I get back? "Be true to yourself"! In other words, to go fuck myself. Anything that might produce insecurity regarding his basis to believe his theology really is a very primitive threat to this class of folks - I wasn't being over the top when I pointed it out.

I wonder why it is that some people feel free to crow "That's a huge crock of shit" about a complex topic and when questioned about their knowledge of that topic say "I know absolutely nothing about it, other than it's a crock of shit".

I have a theory, which is mine. This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows... (throat clearing) This is how it goes... (clears throat) The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?

They're simply not used to having their misconceptions challenged directly by the people they commonly associate with.

As such, their misconceptions get essentially reinforced without challenge to the point where their own mind concludes them to be essentially factual.

When they do finally get challenged, the mind produces standard defense mechanisms (denial - in the form of extreme resistance to information presented that directly contradicts the misconception, projection - in the form of the automatic assumption that everyone they speak to has the same basic background information as themselves) in order to maintain their own well-reinforced preconceptions.

think about how long it took to rid (most) of the world of the notion of a flat earth.

Note that this pattern certainly isn't limited to any particular group of individuals (I think just about everyone can recall similar, if lesser and far fewer, reactions to having a favorite preconception disabused - especially as a child), but it does seem to be almost universal amongst evolution deniers.

I have another theory...

Frog,

Oh yes, I agree with you entirely. With the IDers it's the age old:

1) God
2) {Hand wave}
3) Therefore God

argument I've seen a gazillion times.

I agree that every good atheist should be familiar with the source material of his or her theistic chums, from the Torah to the Guru Granth Sahib via the rest! Anyway the bible is a great book, chock full of sex and violence, a literary rollercoaster from start to finish. Especially the bit at the end that was clearly written under the influence of ergotamine poisoning.

Louis

After watching it all the way through, I have just one thing to say:

I want to make a Grand Canyon, too!

Alas, I don't think it'll work out on our standard lot.

Ichthyic,

Is it that diplodocuses are very thin at one end, get much bigger in the middle and then get very thin at the other end?

Louis

P.S. Liked the first theory.

Is it that diplodocuses are very thin at one end, get much bigger in the middle and then get very thin at the other end?

No, no, no, no.

yes.

Lalalalalalalalallalalalala. still waiting, crickets starting to chirp. If it is so complicated for PZ to prove that Macro-evolution is testable, then why would he complain about people not believing it if they don't have his credentials.

On the other hand, as the morons here say that people should easily know that Macro-evolution is fact, then it wouldn't be hard to make the case.

I mean, PZ if a moron like some of your posters can grasp this, then you should easily point me to testable Macro-evolution.

I'll check back.

Louis,

Yup, Revelation should be required reading for the young'uns, just to warn them away from LSD abuse.

The adults ARE trying to talk, but you keep getting in the way, Phizz!

You don't know what ring species are? That leads me to believe that you've ignored the links you've been given several times already, since Ring Species comes up in the Talk.Origins 29 Evidences for Macroevolution page. Don't try and say you couldn't find it or haven't heard of it, either - it's the single most-quoted source when someone makes the mistake of saying 'There's no evidence for macroevolution!' It's also the very first link that comes up on Google if you search for the very same terms. You can't possibly have actually TRIED to find the evidence you say doesn't exist, if you didn't find that page early in your searching.

If you refuse to look at the evidence, you're being willfully ignorant. The fact that you try to come off as a scientist (THE Physicist?!) only makes it worse. A real scientist would never say 'It is a theory, and it is not testable.' The two concepts are mutually incompatible! A theory *requires* previous testing and evidence in its favor to be a theory in the first place!

no usfull information just the constant haranging of god haters. And I don't think your dumb, because you are atheise's, I think your dum bnecause you are

useful
haranguing
you're
atheists
you're
dumb
because
(And in case you were wondering, pretty much all sentences end with SOME form of punctuation.)

Good god! You have in this ONE thread made it eminently clear that you don't understand the scientific method enough to know what a theory IS, you've ignored the links and references you've been provided, and you've shown us that, not only can you not spell worth a damn, you don't even know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.

And you try to call someone ELSE a court jester?

Sure. Uh-huh.

Your actions speak far louder than your (oft misspelled) words. The often-and-easily debunked tactics of the creationists are clearly distinguishable from the methods and actions of a scientist. As one watching from outside the conversation, it's patently obvious which battle-plan you're following.

How many times have you called someone in this thread a moron, all the while stridently complaining about the 'trash talking and insults'? Try to be somewhat less obvious a hypocrite, would you please?

But please, DO continue.

The Lesser of Two Weevils

If it is so complicated for PZ to prove that Macro-evolution is testable, then why would he complain about people not believing it if they don't have his credentials.

I think you'll find that PZ, especially, doesn't suffer fools gladly.

you simply haven't given enough reason for him to waste his time further.

rather, you gave ample evidence that that is all you are; a waste of time.

like i said, you can change that by some simple reading, but no, you'd rather claim victory because you proved yourself a waste of time.

uh, congratulations?

You know what I think Ichy person. He knows exactly what I know, and he has never challenged the truth of my staement, that macro-evolution is not testable, with or without evidence.

The only thing he managed to do is twist my words, and then change the subject. You want to know why? Because he is a fraud. He can't do it. I know how to say I don't know, he hasn't figured out yet, that admitting you don't know is a virtue. But you know how them evolutionary selfish blue jeans work.

And this whole thread will be reposted.

PZ is evidently busy so I'll presume to step in and present:

"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution' The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Do you realize what the first sentence of the thread you sent to me said.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

This is what I have been telling you, it is NOT FACT! I personally don't adhere to the theory, but I can see why some do, it is not irrational to believe in Macro-evolution, neither is it irrational not to believe. Whether God exists or not.

The Physicist,

Ignorance is a vice.

sekullbe

Do you realize what the first sentence of the thread you sent to me said.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

This is what I have been telling you, it is NOT FACT! I personally don't adhere to the theory, but I can see why some do, it is not irrational to believe in Macro-evolution, neither is it irrational not to believe. Whether God exists or not.

The T.O. piece has been mentioned before a few times. As have ring species, population genetics etc etc etc etc etc. I.e. The Physicist has been given many pointers to simple data that is easily accessible in a couple of clicks over the net.

He clearly lacks the inclination, ability and maturity to do this tiny amount of reading. I am sorry to have been proven so completely right in my initial assessment of the individual. How crushingly boring to be right. Oh well. I am guessing that The Physicist's last "18 years of dealing with scientists" a) encompass his entire lifespan, including intrauterine development and conception, b) is actually based on watching "Dr" Hovind's videos or their equivalent. Anyone as unwilling as this person is to do even a brief bit of reading is a whiny child worth only mockery and derision.

Pity poor "The Physicist" for he is stupid and reading is hard.

Louis

oops, my bad double post.

Pity poor "The Physicist" for he is stupid and reading is hard.
Louis
Posted by: Louis

Since it is so easy, then put for me in your own words how macro-evolution is fact, instead of asking me to compile it all myself, surely you know? You can't do it! Because it is not.

I think we need to start a little farther back with "The Physicist".

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I'll also second that he should read Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Hint: that "+" encompasses a lot of data. I'll especially recommend the section on the molecular evidence, which lists many opportunities for falsification.

PZ, This is your sand box, and before I post again I will read what you suggested.

Thank you for responding, EP

Anyone want to bet 20 dollars and a candybar that The Physicist is going to disregard the links Pr. Myers handed out, too?

How is macroevolution a fact? Because it is a reproducibly, reliably, empirically observed aspect of our universe. Pretty much like any other "fact".

Like I said look up ring species, or is the simple exercise of someone typing it all out for you what will convince you?

{Sigh}

Anyone mind if I use the herring gull ring to illustrate this for this bozo?

Ok here goes the potted version:

The herring gull is a species of bird found in the UK. It can interbreed with it's North American cousins to the west. These can also interbreed with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can interbreed with Heuglin's gull. Heuglin's gull can interbreed with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull, the eastern most subspecies of which lives in north-western Europe, including the UK. However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed.

So what we have is a series of gull subspecies that can interbreed all the way around the North pole, but if we follow the interbreeding gulls all the way around the pole we return to our start point and find that a separate species of gull exists that cannot interbreed with our original gull. Therefore the group of gulls forms a continuum except in Europe where the two ends of the ring meet. That's a very real world example of one species turning into another, the really fortunate thing is all the "intermediate" forms are still alive for us to see. The reasons species appear discontinuous is because usually the "intermediate" forms don't all survive.

Take humans and chimps for example. It is possible that there could be a human chimp ring species. The reason there isn't is because the continuum of sub species that could interbreed with humans and chimps (although humans and chimps cannot interbreed themselves) have died out for whatever reason. This is true of most animal species.

So there you have a concrete example of one species becoming another right in front of your eyes. Like I said, there are others, and the simplistic treatment above is far from the full picture. This is why I said go away and look it up.

Louis

Yeah, I'll take that bet and raise you 10,000 dollars, give me yout email. Give me to the end of the weekend and I will respond on PZ's latest thread asking his permission to provide me a place about what I have learned.

For the benefit of those who may read the reposting, let me explain a bit about science. The categories of scientific information are: observations, hypotheses, and theories.

Observations are the fairly raw data, the "facts" in general parlance. For example: At 8 am the sun was close to the horizon and at 12:00 am it was directly overhead. They are not independent of theory, but are closer to the raw sensory period. This example assumes such ideas such as horizons, clocks and the nature of the relative locations between the earth and the sun.

Hypotheses are interpretations of those data. For example: the sun circles the earth in a 24:00 hour period; I expect that the sun will be close to the horizon again at 8 pm. These too are not independent of theory. They are extension of pre-existing theories, or attempts at developing new theories, the former being the most common. They are generally closely tied to experiment or natural observation, and are always verifiable, as Popper advanced.

Theories are the laws of nature that are derived by collecting data, and testing hypothesis against collected data. They are preferably in mathematical form. Theories are also only labeled as such when the mathematical models have reached a long-term point of consensus by experts in the field. So the theory attached with the preceding would be the Aristotelian astronomical system of epicycles describing the orbit of bodies around the earth.

Theories can be wrong, as the Aristotelian system was. But, and this is a big but, the only way to overturn a theory is by a theory that better describes the data in a simpler way. Theories do not fall under the verification scheme: that is the place of hypotheses. Hypothesis are falsified, theories are replaced. And plain facts are limited to just observations. It is not a "fact" that the earth goes around the sun; that is a theory to explain our observations.

So, as another example, an observation is that when you drop a heavy and a light ball from a tower, they both reach the bottom at the same time. One hypothesis is that acceleration is independent of mass in a gravity well. The theory is Newton's laws of motion, which were the basis for physics for over 200 years. It too is wrong, and has been replaced by general relativity, but it is so close to the "truth" that it is still generally used for most cases outside of incredibly massive object, or object traveling close to the speed of light. One can expect that Einstein's theories will also be replaced with more accurate laws at some point in the future; maybe tomorrow, maybe in a thousand years.

So, please, don't say that macro-evolution is "just" a theory. A theory is the highest form of compliment in science. Yes, we expect many theories to be overturned, but generally by other theories that subsume the original theory, and give better predicted approximations to the observations (which of course must be interpreted themselves in light of theory).

A good, if controversial, explanation of the history of this process is Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It is not an introductory book, but once you've read some text book explanations, such as out of biology, chemistry and physics textbooks, it attempts to more deeply delve the scientific process.

You guys think I'm playing with you I'm not, I want to know I will be back in a few days. Thanks PZ, I hope you afford me an opportunity to tell you what I have discovered.

Good day all, even Steve C

You guys think I'm playing with you I'm not

Henry Hill: You're a pistol, you're really funny. You're really funny.
Tommy DeVito: What do you mean I'm funny?
Henry Hill: It's funny, you know. It's a good story, it's funny, you're a funny guy.
[laughs]
Tommy DeVito: what do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
Henry Hill: It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything.
Tommy DeVito: [it becomes quiet] Funny how? What's funny about it?
Anthony Stabile: Tommy no, You got it all wrong.
Tommy DeVito: Oh, oh, Anthony. He's a big boy, he knows what he said. What did ya say? Funny how?
Henry Hill: Jus...
Tommy DeVito: What?
Henry Hill: Just... ya know... you're funny.
Tommy DeVito: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
Henry Hill: Just... you know, how you tell the story, what?
Tommy DeVito: No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the fuck am I funny, what the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!
Henry Hill: [long pause] Get the fuck out of here, Tommy!
Tommy DeVito: [everyone laughs] Ya motherfucker! I almost had him, I almost had him. Ya stuttering prick ya. Frankie, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes, Henry. You may fold under questioning.

He knows exactly what I know, and he has never challenged the truth of my staement, that macro-evolution is not testable, with or without evidence.

as if to provide evidence directly to support my earlier stated theory (which is mine), TP provides ample evidence of projection as defense mechanism.

thanks

I think it's time I wrote a book.

Erm Ichthyic, I think you'll find that to come up with the theory (that is yours) you had to use work that had been previously available to the public. Namely mine. I claim the original theory.

If you have seen further it is only because you have stood on the shoulders of giants.

I CLAIM PRECEDENT DAMMIT! Mwah ha, mwah ha, mwah hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha. Oh yes they shall all be mine. Fly my beauties, fly and bring me his head.

Louis

(Hmmm, perhaps I've been overdoing the mad recently)

OK, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here a bit (it's one of my strengths, meh)...

Physicist wants a chance to read what we've given him and come back and discuss his findings. I say we should encourage this. There will be ample time to criticize him after we answer his inevitable questions about the material... questions we've all heard ad nauseam, I know... but let's control our vomit reflex long enough to pretend to be biology teachers, OK?

I remember quite strongly my first experience in an atheist chatroom, long before I actually became an atheist, in which the regulars were shitty to me for asking about "faith". If they had been kind enough to explain to the newbie the reasons why it's such a "naughty word" in atheist chats, I would have understood. Really.

Incidentally, I'm not a biologist either; I'm a middle-aged female geek and engineer groupie with half a music degree, a too-eclectic life experience, and a few thousand books, but TalkOrigins made sense to me and I highly recommend it to everyone whether they are or are not scientists.

Oh, and I would expect a career physicist to pick a more sophisticated name, but maybe that's just my aesthetic bone giving me a pain.

My biggest issue witht he Cyst is that he said he doesn't "Buy into macro evolution. And that it isn't testable." It's the most absurd statement to make when it's obvious from his statements that he has not bothered to investigate the science.

It's like going to a cosmology blog and saying.. "Black holes? I don't buy it."

He has shown little evidence of really understanding science and biology.

Giving him links to go read up... ummm yeah. We'll see.

I'm still saying we should start a pool to try and predict his "findings" when he returns.

Maybe the winner gets a "We have the fossils. We win." t-shirt.

You damn right I am going to ignore it, some wild statement with out link or footnote about dinasour feathers.

You have been given a link to one article. I'll send you all others I have as pdf; thanks for your e-mail address.

In the meantime, remember that Google is your friend, and that Wikipedia is huge and continues to grow at a very fast rate. Sure, it's not a substitute for the primary literature, but it has become a very, very good introduction, and many articles are by now good secondary literature.

BTW, why did you mention about 10 times that PZ hadn't falsified your claim yet, when you hadn't even waited 24 hours!?!

I believe that there is something that suddenly causes species to appear spontaneously, while it is a mystery the fossil records show that this happens.

Please explain, because I, as a paleobiologist, don't see it happening.

Steve_C and icthyic,

Well, for one thing, we know that "ThePhysicist" is not an actually a physicist - in biology, the lack of respect givent to theoretical approaches as a class could lead a fairly incompetent researcher to blurt out something like "but it's just a theory!" when tired or after drinking, but a physicist never would say something like that. You'd have to send him to Abu Ghraib to get a physicist to say something like that.

Since ThePhysicist's handle is a lie, I'd go with the bet that this will just circle around again, like the Sun return to the world of the dead in Egypt.

More like: we have the forensic DNA evidence. We win.

People ignorant of DNA science and how it is being applied to the field of biological evolution don't realize it yet and this kind of evidence hasn't seeped into the mainstream consciousness in general or even that of the mainstream thought of other scientific disciplines (and you won't find it in any textbooks yet), but it will.

The number of DNA sequences in our databases has grown by over 40,000-fold over the past 20 years and the types of analysis that has been done on them proves Darwin's theory of descent with modification from a common ancestor (including how this results in the origin of new species) and natural selection correct.

I highly recommend a recent book by Sean B. Carroll titled The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. The evidence put forth in the book completely vaporizes the arguments of those still living in denial of Darwin's theory.

Alright...I am not a physicist, nor a biologist.

I am a computer scientist. So, I (for one) will keep my comments limited to a field of expertise.

The illogical makes my mind spin like a compiler trying to parse an invalid file. So, let's deal with the logic.

The Pysicist, more than once and repeatedly, displayed a complete misunderstanding (one of you guys that use latin all the time could come up with a good one here, but it is worse than "misunderstanding" I just don't know the fancy terms) of the most simple and funamental concepts of science, namely terms like "theory" and "fact".

There is no debate here. There is nothing to discuss. Just as I can check "if (myBoolean == false)" one can see that the above is true.
(theory == $THEORY_DEF
...ThePhysicist.TheoryConcept != theory)

Thus, just as I can say "then doMyFunction()" we must now quit feeding the troll. It is obvious that he has invested energy into accumulating trivia and terms. This does not change the fact that he has a fundamental lack of knowledge of the most simplistic concepts of science.

Quit validating him. Quit playing his game.
There is no value in it other than to get him off.

2cents.

Speedwell wrote (#172)

Physicist wants a chance to read what we've given him and come back and discuss his findings. I say we should encourage this.

I may not have earned the right to express an opinion on this, but FWIW I agree. While his often cryptic arrogance is annoying, he also reveals the occassional glimpse into a mind that has some appreciation for openness and teachability.

I said if we are unable to listen to why people believe what they do, how are we to ever convince them otherwise. (#17)

YOU CANNOT EDUCATE PEOPLE BY SHUTTING THEM DOWN! (#25)

I won't argue any of the criticisms expressed here, and I won't make any predictions either, but hey. Epiphanies happen. You never know.

He just commented in the Carnivalia thread that he accepts Marco Evolution as the only explanation if you don't believe in god. He also says he can't cross that line. He's saying he accepts the evidence.

Surprising.

I'm having trouble resolving this ambiguity. He accepts the evidence, but not the conclusion, while admitting it's the only conclusion possible for atheists?

(Ok I'll hop over toe Carnivalia and see for myself. Thanks for the update, Steve.)

Kseniya,

ThePhysicist caught it. It was what I was trying to explain on the "What is Science Thread." He is rational enough to understand that, given a certain kind of argument from natural causes, the only possible explanation is (macro) evolution. However, he puts arguments from revelation as superior to arguments from natural causes. He doesn't make this choice from evidence - it is a first principle in his world view.

As he says, the chasm is uncrossable - we are divided by an epistemological difference, a definition in the definion of a "good" argument. For him, his supernatural experience trumps all. For most people in the world, that is simply an axiom which cannot be overcome by "evidence", since it is the basis by which they judge evidence in the first place.

You can't convert people by rational argument; that only works once they've already taken a step across the line. It makes sense if you put yourself in their shoes; just be carefully, you can go nuts doing it.

*nods*

Understood. Your last paragraph there really highlights the profound difference between "convert" and "convince" in this type of context.

Whew. And there's the reason why there's a Culture War, and it's the same reason why real wars have been fought over religion (and politics, another arena where belief often trumps evidence) since time immemorial.

How does that quote go? "I have found the link between apes and civilized man. It is us."

He accepts that the conclusion science has made is correct.
He says he can't accept that there is no god. So it conflicts with his beliefs.

Oh.

*blink*

I didn't realize acceptance of macro-evo was incompatible with belief in God. Somebody better rush out and tell Francis Collins and Ken Miller and quite a few million other learned theistic folk.

Maybe he means it conflicts with his belief in certain parts of Genesis...?

Not all gods are created equal.

His statement about it is in the Carnivalia post.

I'm not sure he's saying it's incompatible with his belief in god.

I'm guessing he's still sticking to God as first cause... and perhaps backing away from ID.

Hey, Physicist!

Define "theory".

Let's see which usage and definition of this word you are using.

You see, the "theory" used on this board is not just "theory" as in "an idea" but rather it is "scientific theory" which is a completely different word.

You see, the definition of "theory" that you are using doesn't even match up to the word "hypothesis". It certainly doesn't even begin to approach "scientific theory". And since the name of the site is "scienceblogs"... well, I can damn well be sure that the only "theory" discussed in the entire scienceblogs.com domain is Scientific Theory.

Once you begin to appreciate the very great differences between "theory" as you use it, and "theory" as it is used here (namely Scientific Theory") then maybe you can begin to understand a little something more about things.

Ummm. You're kinda late. He's already admitted defeat.

Bets that the physicist will ever return?

Really, the amount of work you guys put into trying to get him to understand - very commendable, but I just wouldn't have the patience. If people are really that attached to their ignorance then let 'em keep it, I say.

And I don't believe he's a working scientist for a second. You have to be far more articulate and logical, needless to say polite, to get on in the world of science.

That's easy. There's a special issue on speciation of TREE (Trends in Ecology and Evolution) from 1994. It mentions a case where you can see a population of diatoms in the Pacific gradually becoming two extant species. That was not new -- it was just written up as a review article. I don't have the paper here so I can't tell you the original reference. Some googling should find it, however. (Don't google for "macroevolution", though. That word doesn't occur in there -- when at all, biologists use that for changes around the phylum "level", not the species "level".) Probably you should read the whole issue.

And BTW, why don't you show us that Rhagoletis pomonella is not a separate species?

Of course, under some species concepts it might not be (there are at least 25 of them out there). Which just drives the point home -- species change into each other all the time, so trying to define "species" is a rather futile affair.

Have you ever heard of ring species? Series species? Allospecies? If not, Google is your friend...

"Extant" is the opposite of "extinct". Or rather, it means "not (yet) extinct".

You damn right I am going to ignore it, some wild statement with out link or footnote about dinasour feathers.

You have been given a link to one article. I'll send you all others I have as pdf; thanks for your e-mail address.

In the meantime, remember that Google is your friend, and that Wikipedia is huge and continues to grow at a very fast rate. Sure, it's not a substitute for the primary literature, but it has become a very, very good introduction, and many articles are by now good secondary literature.

BTW, why did you mention about 10 times that PZ hadn't falsified your claim yet, when you hadn't even waited 24 hours!?!

I believe that there is something that suddenly causes species to appear spontaneously, while it is a mystery the fossil records show that this happens.

Please explain, because I, as a paleobiologist, don't see it happening.