Eric Hovind is continuing his father's tradition of utterly inane arguments against evolution. In this case, it's a video of Hovind and two of his bland buddies sitting around talking about…cephalopods. Oh, it is painful to witness.
They show excerpts of some perfectly lovely videos of cuttlefish swimming about, exercising their camouflage, and they talk about its specialized defenses and sophisticated behavior. In classic creationist form, they watch all this beauty and throw up their hands in surrender, and exclaim that they don't see how this could have evolved, and ask, "How does evolution explain that?"
I would turn that question around: "How does creationism explain that?" And I'm sorry, "God did it" is not an explanation. It says nothing about the processes used to create the cuttlefish's capabilities, and it does nothing to explain limitations — why can't the cuttlefish fly? Why doesn't it have three eyes? Why does it use similar genes to our own? You can't just posit an omnipotent creator who can create anything without also having an explanation for the constraints on his creations.
At one point, they are talking about the mechanisms the animals use to camouflage themselves, and they express dumbfounded ignorance about how they do that (and babble incorrectly about some of the details — they do not see everything in shades of green). Did Eric Hovind's two researchers ever think to look up the science? Roger Hanlon has been doing some marvelous work on cephalopod behavior and camouflage; I have no idea what Hanlon's religious beliefs are, and it doesn't matter, but he clearly sees these as natural phenomena generated by natural processes.
We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution. I don't expect Hovind and cronies are at all aware of them. In fact, in this interview Hovind reveals a common and significant misconception about how evolution works. He speculates that an evolutionary explanation would be that "…one of them decided while he was sittin' there getting munched on, hey, I need to evolve a defense mechanism to overcome this…".
I hear this all the time. The only way they can imagine evolution working is by an act of will, that every adaptation must be a product of an individual organism doing something special and directed towards acquiring that ability. They miss the key insight Darwin had.
No, one of them getting munched on did not decide anything, and the action was done: it was being eaten. It would not reproduce. The properties of that specific individual would have a diminished influence on the next generation. It was the other cephalopods that were not being eaten who would propagate, and it would be their genes that would continue on.
The idea is right there in their very own scenario, and they lack the intelligence to grasp it. They keep talking about features of the animals that help them survive better, and they are blind to the fact that survival is the key. It's depressing to see such hopeless ignorance in these three, each reinforcing the other, when the answers to the questions they ask are in books anyone can get.
- Log in to post comments
What the hell would a creationist do with a fact?
creationists don`t want facts,don`t need facts ,they need soppy stories ,lovely stories about Adam and his lovely wife Eve ,about smiting ,smoting ,human sacrifice ,talking snakes ,child rape and of course MURDER.
WTF do facts have to do with it?
Science makes baby Jesus cry.
Santa Claus throws his hands up and exclaims, "How does the Tooth Fairy explain that"?, and the Easter Bunny with a smirk, exclaims "We're not going to tell you!" If it wasn't so outlandishly ridiculous, it still would not penetrate the creotards demented skulls.
Ooooooookay, that Hovind moron needs to be slapped with a damp squid.
Stoopid is as stoopid speaks.
Eric, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a moron , no ?
It looks to me as if they know they are lying, but seems hellbent on fooling themselves to the bitter end. What a strange way to behave.
It's all in how you look at the world, IDers see a hole in evolutionary theory when they look at a damned interesting problem. Folks like you are not likely to run out of interesting things to investigate in biology, and malign fudpuckers are going to see that as a flaw. Not much room for boredom, though.
Everyone here (well - ALMOST everyone) already knows this - but I usually respond to nutjobs like this:
"Why is your lack of imagination seen as a valid reason for deciding that evolution cannot happen?"
These freaks are decidedly unimaginative.
Cafe Scientifique next omnth in Newburgh, NY: "Why people believe strange things" - I can't wait.
JC
So, it all comes down to "I'm scientifically illiterate, therefore god exists." These eraserheads don't even have the wisdom to be embarrassed by their dumbassitude.
"...why can't the cuttlefish fly? Why doesn't it have three eyes? Why does it use similar genes to our own?"
God probably filled up the complexity meter too fast and had to cut some stuff. I know it always happens to me.
Ugh... The whole time I was watching that, I just wanted to say, "Have you tried... Science??"
re #6, only intellegent people are capable of real boredom, the stupid find security in it.
I'm struggling to explain what I'm thinking here, but it goes along the lines of how do creationists explain predation? I'll try to flesh the concept out a bit but if anyone can see what I'm getting at and has some thoughts on the subject that'd be great.
I`m no biologist , but even I know god did`nt pull this out of his arse .
The "will of God." Perfect answer for everything. And nothing. Especially nothing.
One must admit, I think, that there is far too much (well-meaning) literature about evolution that uses terms such as "strategies" and the like that suggest, to the layman, evolution as purposeful and goal-oriented. To some extent, that perpetuates the misconceptions that allow the IDiots to make the comments you rightly ridicule. Not that they wouldn't anyway, of course, but I'd still like to see a lot more care taken in how things are described.
OK. That was... Um, sad, to say the least. Those three weren't simply not trying to get it, they seemed to actively attempt to be seen as more devout than the other because they were even less likely to come up with an answer that wasn't "God did it!" Some really bizarre version of oneupsmanship.
Towards the end I was waiting for one of them to put their fingers in their ears and start up the mantra "I think God did it more than you do. I think..."
That video is so stupid it hurts. I love the pen and paper they have at the ready in case one of them busts into prophetic utterances explaining why god created so many douchebags to populate this planet. What a moronic circle jerk.
Wowbagger is infinitely correct.
If God didn't want the cuttlefish to be eaten, then God would have made it so other animals didn't eat the cuttlefish.
Now that really would BE something of a proof of creationism is creatures regularly starved themselves to death instead of choosing to eat an abundant food source.
And God would get EXTRA points from me if the creatures so starved didn't end up dying.
When's my research grant from the Discovery Institute coming?
"Does the cuttlefish agree with evolution?"
Well, I don't know, Eric. Why don't we ask him and find out?
inkadu, cheques in the mail
These three have obviously never been to a Detroit Redwings hockey game. Otherwise they would have marveled at how the octopus gets on the ice at the beginning of each game. God is an octopus chucker.
Really, this video is a perfect example of what happens when you put three morons together in front of a camera.
Clearly, you can. It just isn't a particularly good, (or useful) idea.
[/pedant]
Remember, many of these poor suckers are, well, just that -- suckers. They've been promised an afterlife of sunshine and happiness, but that promise is, for them, conditioned on belief in a particular interpretation of a particular document. To accept the overwhelming evidence that things just don't work that way would upset the house of cards they've built to support the notion that they never have to die. Perhaps they are genuinely too dense to grasp evolution -- but they may also be too terrified of oblivion to make an honest attempt. They've been taken in by an ancient conspiracy far nastier than anything Dan Brown could come up with. Sell people another "life" and steal this one from them.
Of course, to what extent the Hovinds (both Hovind the Elder and Hovind the Younger) are pitiable dupes or malicious con-artists is up for debate. I think they suck either way.
You know those color blind tests where the numbers in red or whatever pop out at you if you have full color vision? That's what creationists remind me of--not color blind but logic blind.
The mechanics of evolution really aren't that hard to comprehend--you just explained the core of it beautifully--and yet we still hear questions like "How did things know how to evolve?" and "Why are there still monkeys?"
I do not think the majority of people are born with logic blindness; it is cultivated--purposely.
Is it just me, or does Hovind the Younger pronounce his name differently from Hovind the Elder?
Wowbagger: I do believe a common creationist theory is that predation wasn't in the original design, but that it got shoehorned in with Original Sin:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts
To #19: Cuttlefish reply: "Well Eric, it doesn't matter what I think since I can't talk, live out of water, and other environmental constraints, but I appreciate you asking. I will say that regardless of the correct answer I sure am glad I have leagues of water in between myself and your utter stupidity. If I ever found myself in the same room with you I would use my mysterious, baffling defense mechanisms and make myself look like your missing brain. By the way, your t.v. show sucks my front, left tentacle."
Wowbagger, predation is Gods way of keeping he world from filling up. See, wasn't that easy.
I'm only on my 3rd shot of rum. Let me get three or four more in me and I may have my IQ suppressed enough to sound like a real creatard.
I suppose that one might try to make the argument that the FSM made the cuttlefish in it's image. This would explain perhaps the perfection of form.
Exactly. If it's god's will that a species survives and nothing to do with the competitive/adaptive aspects implicit in survival via natural selection, why do cuttlefish have camouflage ability? Surely they'd just sit around waiting to be eaten; similarly, the creatures that eat them would know exactly how many of them not to eat so they could survive in order to maintain god's beautiful diversity.
Predation is most def due to sin. Shoot, Adam named all the animals one by one before Eve tempted his ass with apple juices. I love me some apple juice as well so I don't hold it against him. However, Jebus and his superstar angels will come back one day and then the lion will lie down with the lamb and we will all bend are guns into plows and Dr. Strangelove will ride the bomb as a jet ski. I love me some Jebus.
Why don't they talk about these "researchers" research? Besides the obvious. Nevermind.
Realizing Poe's law, 'twas a jest.
According to CSE a cuttlefish is not a fish at all it is a robot.
'Because it operates with such sophisticated technology that scientists don`t understand'
I think I ran some mormons of my lawn that looked just like those "researchers". Those two better hope they get raptured because they would get their asses ate for lunch in a post apocalyptic world.
That's going to be an uphill struggle. Language and the way human beings think about things make it very difficult to describe a process without making it seem goal-oriented. Instead of saying "the cuttlefish evolved camouflage in order to avoid predators" you'd have to say, "the genetic pool of the cuttlefish population grew through natural selection and mutation to support camouflage mechanisms," or something like that. Points for accuracy, but you just lost your audience.
I think that's why a lot of people explain first the blind process of it, and then say, "And in the rest of the class, we'll use the short hand 'such and such' evolved."
Unavoidable, I'm afraid. Maybe we should be talking this over with linguists instead of biologists; maybe they can come up with a new super-passive voice.
In addition to the Argument from Ignorance, I think they're also pushing a version of what could be called the Argument from Wonder and Amazement: those who are very, very impressed with the natural world have a special sensitivity which allows them to recognize God. Or, if you want, reverse it: those with the special sensitivity to recognize God are VERY, VERY impressed with the natural world. They feel things more. That's where evolutionists stumble -- insufficient Wonder and Amazement.
And when we take a look, even at a humble sea creature such as the cuttlefish, we are amazed at the complexity and genius of His creation. In fact, when we look at something as amazing as the cuttlefish, in a way, we see God. And the last part of Romans 1:20 tells us that when we look at His creation and see Him, we are "without excuse" for not believing in a Creator.
The sin, therefore, is not being filled with enough wonder and amazement. It's basically the "unweaving the rainbow" argument again. Looking for -- and accepting -- a natural explanation means there's something cold and calculating about you.
Strikes me that their idea of evolution has more in common with Lamark--or, if you want to do interesting head-games to them, Lysenko--than with Darwin.
OK, it's one thing to be this willfully stupid when so much information on the subject is available, but to put it on display, as though they were being profound or something, just makes my hair hurt.
Okay. Hang on. Wait.
...
...
Kent Hovind has managed to reproduce???????!!!!!!!!!!11111one
Oh man. We're all screwed. Something about Kent Hovind dipping so much as a pinky toe in even the shallow end of the human allele pool makes my skin itch all over.
Sastra -- You're right on the money there.
PZ's brought this up before, I think, and said there is no "merely" about anything in science. There is no "merely" evolved camouflage any more than we "merely" evolved consciousness or the universe "merely" exploded out of some weird singularity. It's all fantabulous.
There's something stupidly childish about people who can't hold awe and understanding at the same time. As if the world is only magical if you fail to understand it.
I remember the first time I realized what shadows were -- spots where light didn't reach because it was blocked... I was probably pretty young, but I was pretty amazed by that. for some reason.
Azqaz, #28, wrote:
Of course - what was I thinking? I mean, there I was expecting that a so-called just, loving and benevolent entity would prefer to minimise the number of animals that go through the unpleasant process of being eaten. Especially if that eating's being done by a Komodo Dragon - and the meal is still alive.
This script sounded just like the letters to the editor column in my home town paper.
Father and son. Dumb and dumber.
One of the common threads in fundie pseudoscience is a complete lack of appreciation for the idea of deep time. Even assuming entirely random mutations, a lot can happen after tens of millions of generations. It seems the key to their lack of understanding, like a child's inability to comprehend just how big a number a billion is. Young-Earth creationists make this lack of comprehension into explicit doctrine, but I think it is nearly universal among IDers of all stripes.
I watched the video again just to hear the word "Wow" used several times to "exclaim" for the freaking lord! And the idiot with the ever poised and moving pen, ready to jot down a revelation from his "lord" at a moments notice! Every time these retards think, they weaken our country! "Hey, look at that crown of thorns starfish chomping on the coral; isn't that what our jeebus wore on his head when he let mere mortals pound him to that wood"? "Yes, yes, praise the lord"! Oh, the neverending insanity of it all!
Sastra, you make a valid point. Carl Sagan made a plea for the marriage of wonder and a scientific outlook on the world, and so did John Burroughs around a hundred years ago. No reason the two can't exist together, and they should.
The average walking around guy, who doesn't necessarily know anything about how nature works, finds things like camouflaged creatures to be somewhere within the realm of amazing, precisely because they don't understand how it could come about. Ignorance begets a kind of bemused state of wonder that one finds in children, but which has a tendency to diminish as one understands more. But as inkadu so beautifully pointed out, it's childishness itself in not being able to hold wonder and understanding at the same time.
what don't they get about a couple of billion years worth of complilation and mutation??
Ya know, you'd think it would get easier to see arrogance under the guise of humility (read: pretentious assholes) over time... but no... it's the same every time... makes the adrenaline start going...
The thing is, when these people are alone, face-to-face with someone who is obviously more intelligent/educated than they are, they shut up... they shut off...
But the second they get a chance, they're spouting their mouths off without a second thought (literally).
So annoying. Gah....
The cuttlefish evolved camouflage because a series of random mutations, acquired over generations, in the genes of its ancestors were advantageous to not being eaten, unlike its fellows, because it was better able to control its chromatophores. Those who had those mutations had a greater chance to survive and pass those genes on to their descendants. Those who didn't were removed from the gene pool by the chlorine of predation. If anything the one being munched on wouldn't be thinking "I need to develop camouflage." so much as "why didn't evil sadistic God give me good camouflage mutations like that other cuttlefish over there. The lucky bastard."
(See, even cuttlefish have their creotards.)
A lot of people have problems with deep time. The creationists exploit it, but it's a characteristic of the population at large. Part of the problem is that the word "million" or "billion" flows off the tongue too easily without a conceptual appreciation of what it really means. I tell people the dinosaurs went extinct "65 million years ago", and they for the most part agree - but won't get all tingly over it. If you change the terminology and say they went extinct "650,000 centuries ago", their brains really think about how long that is and it tends to blow their minds. They instinctively grasp that one century is a long time from our individual perspective, and they can, in that small way, better appreciate what "65 million years" really means.
Modern creationists are boring.
I liked the old fashioned ones who lapsed into teleology. "Cuttlefish, as we all know, were created so we'd have something to eat during Lent. They were given camouflage so they are hard to find except during holy fasts."
Even better were the ones who extracted moral lessons. "Cuttlefish teach us the importance of accepting our place in the world humbly, and relying on camouflage and tentacles to protect us from the more powerful and vicious."
If these guys are going to spout nonsense, at least they should be entertaining.
I can't watch the video. I think the last thing I need to see is yet another drooling creationist circle jerk. Besides, it's always the same thing: "I'm too stupid to understand, so god must exist."
Now, Azqaz' run sounds like a good idea. I've got mint growing like a weed, so I'm good for some mojitos.
I wonder if the choice of subject here was coincidence, or a deliberate shot across the Pharyngulite bow. Apparently one can be martyred for Christ just by undergoing the auto-da-fe of our bad attitude. It must be hard to resist.
Plus, all this talk about cuttlefish makes me long for a good bit of verse from our Cuttlefish, OM. Must have gone into lurk...
Messing with cephalopods is just not cool.
I have an experiment to propose. Let's find out if humboldt squid find creationists palatable?
You can tell an idiot by his need to surround himself with other idiots in order to feel intelligent.
Brian
http://www.godless-heathen.com
how about this dumb thread...any evo care to present even one scientifically-validated example of a mutation that could create a cuttlefish, or any of its assorted structures? Or hoow about for any other creature? Your dumb theory is no better than "God-did-it." PZ is a hypocrite.
I wouldn't worry too much about this rat-rimmer: since it's clear that he has daddy's knowledge of biology, we can assume that he has daddy's knowledge of tax law. If so, I'm sure he'll follow in his parents' footsteps... into federal prison.
#57
I call Poe.
Here's a question for you stanish: which grain of sand makes a sand dune a dune? Makes as much sense as your question, doesn't it?
You darwinists, of course, cannot answer my challenge, and thus have assumed your positions as world-class losers...losers who believe in a world-class lie...a lie propped up by a bunch of world-class liars.
While you're at it you can't show me even one example of natural selection creating fitness in a population, nor can you point me to even one of the millions of supposed common ancestors. You people and your little origins fairytale are pathetic.
OMG OMG OMG cuttlefish are NOT FISH!!! AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!
They called it a fish three times!!!!
Poe, a most palpable Poe, I do confess it!
"You people and your little origins fairytale are pathetic."
And lo, my irony meter maxes out.
Get thee to a library, thou scoundrel, and insist not that thy betters do thy homework for thee.
The MadPanda, FCD
Asspotter @#57, #61
Begone, thou whoreson! Sell thy brain for tuppence and 'tis dear. Would thou wert clean enough to spit upon, thou pig-felching puke-stocking.
Well, at least our liars world class at something. Yours are crap.
are. our liars are world class.
Our typists: not so great.
Damn hubris.
Tuppence? Nay, a farthing! And that too dear a price for such an weak and ill-used organ.
But soft, my good Sir Emmet! 'Tis plain that with yonder three we are in the presence of those too cunning to be understood...were they half so wise as they pretend, they could make scarce one scholar between the four!
The MadPanda, FCD
so evos....do you people believe in information when it comes to biology? Does the genome contain information? If so, where did it come from? And is the information physical? if not, how can it be seen, measured, tested, or otherwise be labeled as "scientific?" Does the information that resides in genomes arise magically out of thin air or what?
"3 dopes sitting around a table"
...and apparently another one who appears to be lost.
#61 and #68:
Well, obviously it was placed there by our saucy & noodly Lord and Master, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you look carefully, foolish unbelievers, you'll realise that the amount of information contained in each cell relative to that cell's size is the perfect ratio, the same as the garlic:oregano ratio in Divine Bolognaise Sauce.
Divine Bolognaise Sauce.
has that recipe been published yet?
or is it already part of "The Book of Sauce"?
We're being Poe-bombed and it's raining sock puppets!
Forsooth, sirrah, thy ignorance of learned matters doth show. Get thee hence! To a library go and thus improve what little brain thou hast. Else return to thy hovel and plow like a good husbandman and trouble us not.
Thou art but a troll, and worth fewer XP than the effort should be due.
The MadPanda, FCD.
They miss the key insight Darwin had.
not surprising, given they haven't the ability to be insightful to begin with.
It's like saying my dog missed Darwin's insight.
OMG, Stan is coming up with questions and arguments we've never heard before! Whatever shall we do?!
MadPanda @#67,
Such lack-wit parrots! Four frontal lobes ill-used, aye, but not oft-used. Boil-brained clack-dishes all and 'twixt them found not learning for one scullion, the droning gorbellied measles!
Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to cancel my membership in the Atheist Church, stop praying to Charles Darwin and start putting my faith in One True God™.
Stan, can you help me with that? Really? I mean, can you give me a thorough, cogent, unassailable explanation for why your particular interpretation of your deity is the One True God™ and not any of the thousands of other deities/interpretations?
Heck, I'll convert right now if He will magically fix the lack of tag closure in my previous post.
Y'know, I just can't watch those things. I got thirty seconds in and I just wanted to poke knitting needles in my eyes to make it stop.
Well Eric, you may as well actually ask the cuttlefish the question for all the sense that your panelists make of the answer. Seriously, where do these people get educated?
Sometimes, I wish that a machine designed to add logic to people would exists, but then, people like Hovind would want to die after a 24 hours exposure of logic. I know his father's lectures very well, since I have been shown those videos, and have read the creationist magazine. They are nonsensical.
I got mint, bronze fennel, rosemary, garlic, lavender, basil and all sorts of herbs - but - what the hell is a 'mojito'?
A naughty fellow on this blog offered me one... what is it?
Whoreson, pig-felching, puke-stocking... damn it, I wanted to say that.
Next thing you know PZ will let loose the sluts & strumpets.
where do these people get educated?
you mean they actually WERE educated somewhere?
I thought they learned everything they needed to know from their parents.
Sometimes, I wish that a machine designed to add logic to people would exists, but then, people like Hovind would want to die after a 24 hours exposure of logic.
and?
Anaglyph wrote:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...homeschooling?
A mojito is a delicious cocktail from Cuba that is much like a mint julep.
Oh. I thought a mojito was an immature mojo.
Mint juleps always make me think of the Simpsons episode where Homer become the Beer Baron. He sends liquor in bowling balls to Moe's - and there are three southern gentleman dressed like Colonel Sanders in the bar.
Gold.
Isn't it nice how careful they are to refer to "Doctor" Hovind in the videos on that site, as if Kent Hovind actually held a valid doctorate instead of a piece of scrap paper from a diploma mill? That's real Christian charity.
Wikipedia seems to think that Eric spent a whole year in an unaccredited Christian college. Colour me underwhelmed. Pretty soon he'll catch up with daddy and get "degrees" from hedge-schools and desert tool-sheds.
The same religious freaks in this video are the same ilk running our country. (USA)
Oh yummy! Now I got a grip on the mojito.
Doo'in it.
Yes, but they're often deceptively strong. All the sugar and lime-juice makes them go down easy, like lemonade, even if they're half rum.
You're absolutely right, there is a fundemental breakdown of understanding, in the processes of evolution.
When I read things like:
"evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with an even improved mechanism."
I want to pull my hair out.
Possibly some of the problem lies with the term "Natural Select".
Creationists can't seem to get beyond thinking that there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.
Alloy, #93
Creationists can't seem to get beyond to the part where thinking happens that there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.
fixed it for ya.
They can't get beyond thinking that there must be An Almighty God in charge of every damned thing that ever existed, exists, or will exist.
Wowbagger @#93,
Creationists can't seem to get beyond to the part where think ing happens that there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.
Better.
So God sits up there creating creatures to outwit his other creations, that is to say, Himself. "Hah, fooled Myself there with that cuttlefish! Aren't I sly?"
sez iby: "Sometimes, I wish that a machine designed to add logic to people would exists, but then, people like Hovind would want to die after a 24 hours exposure of logic."
True... but let's give it further thought, so that we don't overlook any bad consequences.
I remember reading about Hanlon's work when you first posted about it last year. It strikes me as just the kind of scientific research that is most exciting: a demonstration of how a simple process (such as the detection of spatial frequency) can lead to what seems like a complicated phenomenon. Although we will never explain all the complex phenomena in nature, I would think enough have been justified by simple mechanisms that the "too complex for natural evolution" line of reasoning would fail to be viable for creationists, but alas, it doesn't seem to be that way. I am beginning to wonder if our modern lifestyle is counterproductive in this regard. After all, if the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, and our devices are closed systems (e.g. iphone), that leads to the impression that everything complex is a black box and designed with intention...
Kent Hovind and his gang of atavists make me cry. Those three twats are real wastes of carbon... How many pencils could they have been, or how many lumps of coal?
"God did it" is not an explanation... You can't just posit an omnipotent creator who can create anything without also having an explanation for the constraints on his creations.
Unfortunately, for the people with this mindset (poor choice of words; you need a mind to have a mindset, but work with me folks) goddidit is an explanation and a perfectly fulfilling and complete one. Every complication, deviation, repetition (good grief I'm turning into Nicholas Parsons) is explained simply by god having a mysterious way about him. For most of them nothing, nothing at all, could ever change this. The only hope for an improvement in the state of humanity is that some issue will arise whereby the terminally stupid simply don't survive and the genelines are lost by the wayside.
Whoops... Damned mojitos. That Cuban, Commie Love-Juice prevented me from closing my quote tag.
Lynnai wrote: re #6, only intelligent people are capable of real boredom, the stupid find security in it.
_____
Thanks for that explanation. Makes sense. So they don't fall asleep on their feet from the boredom that would be generated if I entertained believing their beliefs for just one second because they are incapable of being bored? Wow. Never thought of that! Thought everyone was able to be bored.
stanimator wrote: Does the information that resides in genomes arise magically out of thin air or what?
___
What part of emergent properties do you not understand?
Stanwich wrote: Your dumb theory is no better than "God-did-it."
_____
You do realize that you are saying that your beliefs are dumb?
That was painful to watch! Couldn't and wouldn't see the whole thing.
Hao@99
Does that mean open source is a tool of SATAN?
You know you could lock these creationists down in a Ludovico machine ala clockwork orange and bombard them with images showing them how bad their pseudoscience is, and they still wouldn't get it. Although admittedly it would be interesting to try. Stan care to volunteer?
Does that mean open source is a tool of SATAN?
not exactly; SATAN is an open source tool.
http://www.linux.com/articles/51230
They're talking about cephalopods!?! Right, Prof. Myers - this time, it's personal.
The ONLY consolation here is the son sounds far more plainly stupid than the father. Kent talk(ed) so fast he was able to sweep up the credulous in a whirl-wind of idiocy. He would throw out so many incorrect and stupid arguments at once it would be impossible to refute them all. The son produces nonsense at a slower rate, it seemed, making it possible to call BS on him.
...or at least this is the justification I'm using to keep from vomiting...
We rely on you for the straight dope, PZ, but three? I think that's over-doing it!
Patricia at #81 - a naughty fellow, me? Ah, thanks, you made my day fair lady Patricia. (smile)
The Classic Cuban Mojito recipe:
1 teaspoon powdered sugar or 2 tsp of sugar cane juice
Juice from 1 lime (2 ounces)
8 mint leaves
1 sprig of mint
Havana Club white Rum (2 ounces or more)
2 ounces club soda
Pronounce it mohito and enjoy on a hot day.
Still tingling - Ciao
@ Stanwich/ish:
"how about this dumb thread...any evo care to present even one scientifically-validated example of a mutation that could create a cuttlefish, or any of its assorted structures? Or hoow about for any other creature?"
...nnnooo??? A single mutation isn't going to create a new species or a new clade. Few structures could be created with a single mutation. No one has ever claimed that single mutations tend to produce entirely new organisms...except for the intellectully inept...duh.
"Your dumb theory is no better than "God-did-it." PZ is a hypocrite."
1) Of course it's better than "God-did-it"...we have evidence for evolution.
2) By your argument, "God-did-it" is a dumb theory. We can agree on that point at least.
"You darwinists, of course, cannot answer my challenge, and thus have assumed your positions as world-class losers...losers who believe in a world-class lie...a lie propped up by a bunch of world-class liars."
Damn, I was hoping no one would figure it out. We've been duping people for the last 150 years, and it was going great until you said something. Damn, damn, damn...
"While you're at it you can't show me even one example of natural selection creating fitness in a population, nor can you point me to even one of the millions of supposed common ancestors. You people and your little origins fairytale are pathetic."
Have you ever read any of the posts ON THIS WEBSITE related to evolution ever? Ever??? Ever cracked a textbook that discussed evolution???
Well, in answer to your two requests:
1) Nylonase in several strains of bacteria.
2) Tiktaalik.
Google them--enjoy the reading!
First, I'd I have to agree with the Hovind group that there are questions about the cuttlefish that scientists have yet to answer.
Second, they correctly point out that animals try to defend themselves from predators.
The third noteworthy point Hovind's group makes is that the cuttlefish does live underwater. Good point.
Which leads me to a final concession to my creationist foes: When they say that some cuttlefish get munched on, they're right.
(I'm trying out Gordy Slack's framing method.)
Stanwich? Of the Provo Utah Stanwich's? Yeah I was real sorry to hear about the whole wife cheating on your with that newspaper reporter thing. You know the guy, the one who really likes the lakers and always has some witty retort. I think he charged an expensive lunch on your country club account. Something about a bloody mary and a coule steak sandwiches. Anyway, I digress. You really can't blame her can you. You were always gone flying to and from columbia smuggling drugs across the border. Pairing up with Chief Karlin to supply the drug sellers on the beach run by that fat guy. What was his name? Oh right Fat Sam.
Anyway. Sorry to hear about all that.
OHHHHHHHHH Stanwich? Sorry. I was thinking about the Stanwyks.
My bad, you must just be one more clueless creationist idiot then.
LOL!!!
Chris: "Well, in answer to your two requests:
1) Nylonase in several strains of bacteria.
2) Tiktaalik."
1) Please show me the new strucutre (not a molecule) generated by the Nylonase mutation.
2) Please show me the scientifically-verified mutation that added a structure in the Tiktaalik. (snicker)
anyone else?
You haven't been paying attention to recent news I see.
Hahahah! Citizen Z (116) for the win!
big dump, they can't even find the mutation(s) involved, much less prove that they arose randomly. Get real and present me something legitimate.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension and while you are at it, quit moving goal posts.
Tell me why the Lenski E. coli study does not show an
?
don't you boys and girls think if natural selection was actually able to create fitness and spread randomly-arising traits within populations that evo scientists would have set thousands of controlled experiments up on bugs and other assorted critters? Or heck, even just one. Don't you find it odd that not even once has a scientific experiment been attempted in the hopes of proving natural selection? (if I'm incorrect about this please show me.)
Is your back sore from carrying that goalpost again?
Answer the question stanny.
@ Stanish/wich (which???)
"Chris: "Well, in answer to your two requests:
1) Nylonase in several strains of bacteria.
2) Tiktaalik."
1) Please show me the new strucutre (not a molecule) generated by the Nylonase mutation.
2) Please show me the scientifically-verified mutation that added a structure in the Tiktaalik. (snicker)
anyone else?"
1) The evolution of nylonase (more correctly, nylonases) is not the result of the production of A new molecule. Rather, it has resulted from the evolution of a series of cooperative enzymes, and has evolved independently in a couple species of bacteria
2) This question doesn't make sense. Tiktaalik doesn't have A new structure, it has numerous new structures and countless modified structures.
Perhaps you should look up two posts at Ventastega...
On a side note, CSEblogs will no longer be having back and forth discussions. The new format will continue to post Kent's writings and articles from CSE. It will continue to post encouraging comments and positive discussion.
So I anticipate a drop in visitors at the site.
The sad thing is that Kent Hovind and ignorant people like them are never held accountable for destroying the minds of their children. They take a young mind, capable of wonders, and fill it with ignorance and defense mechanisms against the intrusion of reality. It's an epically terrible thing to do to anyone.
big dump, they can't even find the mutation(s) involved, much less prove that they arose randomly.
"Much less prove that they arose randomly"? You think "divine intervention" is a possibility in that experiment?
I've just realised, that makes it sound like I'm calling you or your family a cephalopod... No offence meant! Although I'm not sure if you would take any anyway.
I'll have to watch this video when I'm out of work (no speakers).
I've just realised... That makes it sound like I'm calling Prof Myers (or his family) cephalopods - no offence was meant! (Although I'm not sure if he'd take any anyway...)
Who says they aren't?
How many of Stan's (and his aliases) comments do you think it will take before he is naturally selected for banning?
Freaking troll.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video (my brain can barely handle everyday idiocy, not this contrived nonsense).
But if the 'cuddlefish' simply decided it needed to evolve defense mechanisms what are we going to do when they decide they need to evolve into SUV driving plasma TV buying NASCAR watching creationists? What. Will. We. Do?
P.S. Just in case deciding to evolve is viable I'm going to spin around and tap myself on the head so I can evolve into someone with more money in the bank so I can get a big plasma TV. This natural evolution stuff is just too inconvenient and damn slow.
I just watched this over my lunch. The Stupid! It burns! Careful not to get any on you...
Stan* @57 "how about this dumb thread...any evo care to present even one scientifically-validated example of a mutation that could create a cuttlefish, or any of its assorted structures? Or hoow about for any other creature? Your dumb theory is no better than "God-did-it." PZ is a hypocrite."
Wow. Stan, where did you get the silly idea that structures are typically made with one mutation? No scientist has ever claimed that. Which word change turned Latin into French?
I'll admit that this cutting question of yours would devastate anyone who ever *made that assertion, though.
Our dumb theory is *considerably better than goddidit, however. For one thing, it's testable. This means, among other things, that it makes successful predictions. What testable predictions does goddidit make?
Here's a couple of related questions for you:
Why do humans have a broken gene for making vitamin C? I would think that if God, for his typically mysterious reasons, wanted us to be prone to scurvy, he would simply make us without the gene at all.
Given that he did this mysterious thing, why is the break almost identical to that in chimps, and somewhat less similar to gorillas', and not at all like that found in guinea pigs? It's almost as though he wanted us to think that we had further evidence for evolution when we developed genetic science...
Stanley? Where'd you run off to boy? Get a little hot for you when you can't change the focus every time because you're called on it?
Stan (and derivatives) needs to go on the list just for being so fucking tedious. Sheesh, we used to have kooks around here who were at least colorfully nutty.
Watching creationists discuss cephalapods and evolution is like taking a bunch of kids that flunked out of high school math, and asking them to explain advanced calculus.
Ooh, thanks for the mojito recipe. I'll have to try that this weekend.
Rev @ #137 - I think this conversation is straining his obvious weak reading skills.
on Mojitos
I find it best to make a simple syrup for the sugar part. Mixes MUCH better.
Grrrrrr. Boys, even though they are called "cuttlefish", they're not FISH! Geez.
Clearly, mutation is at work, as "Stan" evolved into "Stanwich", "Stain", "Stanster", "Stanner", and "Stanish". Let's hope that "natural selection" works to result in only one lineage of Stanopods.
Is this the same "stan" from a long-ago thread who claimed light had nothing to do with vision?
"Does the cuttlefish agree with evolution?" I don't know, has anybody ever asked a cuttlefish its scientific views?
What. Will. We. Do?
Better yet...
What would Jesus do?
:p
I seem to have spun in the wrong direction or tapped my head incorrectly because I didn't evolve - I actually turned and tapped myself into a Baptist preacher. Help!
Should I have turned counter-clockwise and rubbed my belly instead?
Sorry, it's Friday (POETS!) and I needs me some of them thar little mojos. JeffreyD, thanks for the official recipe.
Ichthyic - I have no idea what Jesus would do. Probably run away screaming. Something along the lines of, "Oh dear God, did you see the beer belly on that red-neck cuttlefish?"
Dang, now I have an image of a new episode of "Squidbillies" running through my mind - Early or Rusty displaying a mesmerizing pattern alternating between a rebel flag and a Jack Daniel's label.
BTW, why oh why on a blog from a cephalopod loving Atheist aren't there more references to Squidbillies??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidbillies
Quoth Granny:
Hooray, magic Jesus!
And Early on distilling moonshine:
Allow me to explain the contamination process. Pine cones go in here, party liquors come out here and proceed to here (points to mouth, sorry beak). Fights begin, finger prints are took, days is lost, bail is made, court dates are ignored, cycle is repeated.
No, I think they understand that perfectly well. They're just dishonest asshats who want to keep their followers in the dark through use of a strawman. If I remember correctly, the same thing is in a video some home schooled Christian kids were watching in Jesus Camp. The problem is that if they understand evolution before they have a bias against it, they'll be likely to accept it. That same reasoning applies to why they raise kids to be Christians from a young age. If they do that, the kids won't have a chance to think for themselves, and they're brought up with the assumption that what they've been taught must be correct. It's all very sad.
"It's depressing to see such hopeless ignorance in these three, each reinforcing the other, when the answers to the questions they ask are in books anyone can get."
Why bother with all of those books, when only one should suffice?
The real reason YHWH(tm) made the cuttlefish so hard to spot is that it is unclean (albeit damned, and damningly, delicious), and he didn't want his chosen people to be able to find it.
Milord Caulfield (#76)
Well spoken! Well spoken indeed! And yet 'tis a shame that such fine wordsmithery must be wasted 'pon such a Behe's Goose as this.
And in answer to our fine and Icthyic wit (#74) it is not so much that your dog did miss the insight, but that your loyal canine could outreason the likes of our stannish lout.
(But I ought not mention yonder troll lest he re-emerge from whatever bridge now shelters him.)
The MadPanda, FCD
Creationist friend of mine walked up to me the other day and said, "Did you KNOW that we share 50% of DNA that is identical to a banana?!?!"
I guess this was supposed to disprove evolution right then and there. Apparently it's actually closer to 20%, but it seems to me that this is evidence FOR and not AGAINST. Oddly, he didn't think so...
I saw it. It was awful.
Creationist friend of mine walked up to me the other day and said, "Did you KNOW that we share 50% of DNA that is identical to a banana?!?!"
Humans have 3 billion base pairs in their genome, bananas have 600 million. Kind of hard for half of our DNA to be identical to bananas. Probably it's half of the banana genome is shared with humans. In any case it's... ugh... comparing apples and oranges. Sorry.
HOVIND: Welcome, I'm Eric Hovind and I know absolutely nothing at all of science or the scientific method. Hey Jonathan, do you, unlike me, have any knowledge on this subject whatso ever?
STOOGE #1: Well, no, Eric; in fact, as little as you know about all this, I think it's safe to say that, goshdarnit, I know even less!
STOOGE #2: Gee wiz! I guess that makes us three scientific illiterates with not a grain of common sense between us!
HOVIND: This must mean that cuttlefish disprove evolution!
Researchers? You were being ironic, right?
It doesn't surprise me that bananas share 50% of their genome with us. In fact its something that evolution would predict. It can also tell us which bits of the genome are going to be most similar. Most of the biochemical processes and structures in the cells (mitosis, respiration, golgi bodies, ribosomes, etc) are going to be pretty much identical. It'll only be when you're looking at genes that affect processes that are unique to plants or animals (e.g. photosynthesis, development, etc.) that differences are going to crop up.
"How does Evolution explain it?"
How about picking up a real science book and answering the question yourself?
Man, that was painful to watch.
I am appalled. You all should be ashamed of yourself- picking on a poor innocent Christians. Did your parents never tell you not to pick on people who are less intelligent than you? The illiterate are not to be picked on.... we should aid them in their quest to knowledge, and lovingly push them off a cliff if they don't make it...
I am in biology 112 and I know more than these babbling idiots! I refuse to express a partiallity towards either evolution or creation, but I don't really think it's that important where we came from as much as where we are going... Usually people who care the most about the true origin, timeline, and evolutionary process of life are the proverbial zealots that the opposing groups so adamantly despise! They are mutually exclusive, but with the same prejudices and the such.... ahh, the human psyche....