[Note: If you comment or trackback and you misquote me or it is clear you did not read this (and think about my point) you will be deleted. I’m tired of the wingnuts.]
I left the computer yesterday after I stirred up the Evolutionary Zealots and I missed the brain implosion. When I got back on the computer, it was amazing to see, frankly, how these people became walking talking caricatures of themselves.
Even after I mocked them they didn’t get that they were the butt of a cruel joke. They are so predictable in their zealotry. I often say that the “oozers” are more religiously fanatic than the religious people. They continue to prove it.
But to get to the point. The Commissar (of all people) called me a flat earther and asked me two questions.
I never avoid a question so let’s go.
I have two questions for Paul:
1) Are the millions of fossils in museums and universities real or frauds? Not their age, just their provenance. Were they dug out of the earth honestly; are they the remains of creature now extinct? Or are they frauds and fakes?This is where I just scratch my head. The “oozers” want us to believe (as a matter of religious doctrine) that lightning hit inorganic primordial ooze and it became life. From that humble beginning all life on earth evolved. I’ve written this many times on Wizbang but….
Where in there exactly did I imply that fossils in museums were fake? He may as well ask me my favorite color. It is a completely disjointed question that bears no relevance to the discussion. But for the record, no I never said they were fake and I do not believe that they are.
Now, how exactly does that prove all life came from ooze?
2) If you accept the fossils as real, do you believe that the diversity and change represented in them was accomplished A) unaided and strictly by genetic change, or B) guided by a higher power, either through Intelligent Design or by instantaneous Creation?…
What do YOU believe, Paul?Lemme type it REAL slow.
I don’t believe either. (Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?)
To believe A, you have to believe a whole string of improbable events happened — all in a row. (to digress a bit) It is sort of like believing that Hillary really did turn 1000 bucks in 100,000 in the cattle futures market honestly… Sure she could have done it (mathematically) but she also could have gotten the right number on a roulette table 15 times in row. I’m just not buying it.
There are massive gaping holes in the whole theory. Massive. (google is your friend)
But what annoys me the most, and why I make fun of them, is that to the zealots, saying you don’t believe a flawed theory is heresy. I might be actually thinking for myself and not repeating “The Gospel According to Oozer” (hey i like that) and we can’t have any of that.
And they are sooo intellectually dishonest. Not a one of them will actually say:
“You’re right Paul. There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet.”
Is it that hard?
Instead they resort to insulting their critics and lecturing people that THEY are scientists… Bull Shit. A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.
You zealots can choose to believe a (presently) flawed theory. Hip hip hooray for you. But my skepticism (believe it or not) is based on the quality of the theory and is not a sign of lower intelligence or life form. (pun intended)
Now if you believe B, you believe something with a strong historical record but quite short on scientific data. Like believing A, you have taken a leap of faith… The difference of course being that you will admit it.
The EZ’s love to say that their theory elegantly explains the diversity of life. I hate to point out their denial of reality, but there is no more elegant theory than “God made it that way.” If we are scoring on elegance, religion wins… by definition.
So Commissar… that’s what I believe.
Update The religious Zealots have a new tactic. I expose it below the fold.
]]>< 
“BTW for the record the whole “What do we teach in schools?” thing… DUDE I never once said a word about that! “
Actually this one is a no brainer.
You teach evolution theory, but as you teach it, you teach the holes as well. There are some things in evolution you know as observable fact, those things are easy to teach, but there are a lot of things in the theory when you move beyond what is observable that there just isn’t scientifically testable proof for, and teachers should be honest that we don’t know those answers yet.
But everytime I see one of these debates, the “Bible thumpers” get accused of trying to bring religion into the classroom. But what the EZ’s try to do, is make any mention of the holes a religious issue. You could list the holes in big picture evolution for a good while, and never mention the word, God, ID, or the Bible. Also, it would be nice if the intro biology courses in high school and college would stop teaching the things we know are no longer examples of evolution (things like the fetal changes, pepper moths etc).
I also admit to my bible thumper bias. I believe strongly that God did it, I can’t say how he did it, but I know that he did, and I believe it wasn’t something that happened randomly, but with a plan.
>Still not getting it. NOTHING is preventing you from arguing about whether your views on evolution are full of shit. Paul is just demonstrating that this is the last thing you want to do.
Michael is the smartest guy in the room… OK the second smartest, I’m back now. 😉
==============
and then The Commissar rambles into a revelation…..
———
“Was God involved at all, in any way, in the creation and diversity of life on Earth?”
He finally answered “No.” In the same breath, he dismissed evolution. And he refuses to offer any other explanation.
Makes it tough to discuss things.
————-
You finally figured it out Commissar.. or you will after I connect the dots… Your 2 questions were flawed, so even after I answered 15 times you had nothing to say. (lemme go back into paraphrase mode)
Paul(in original post) New data came out today that might raise even more questions about the “oozer theory.”
The Commissar This flat earther doesn’t believe in evolution.. OH YEAH, well I have 2 questions for you… (reduced to one question) Do you think God did it?
The problem with your “two questions” was that no matter how I answered, it did not prove the “oozer theory” correct or even prove me to be wrong in any way. As I said in this post…”You may as well ask me my favorite color”
The problem you had Commissar, is that you could not refute what I said logically, so you goofed and asked 2 irrelevant questions. Which I happily answered.
(Swerving into the larger point)
When someone asks even the most basic of questions about these clump of theories, you guys get completely irrational. You refuse to admit that they might be wrong so you just attack.
In this case, you asked 2 meaningless questions and you got bit. Lemme quote Michael again:
“NOTHING is preventing you from arguing about whether your views on evolution are full of shit. Paul is just demonstrating that this is the last thing you want to do.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Just Me,
Continuing my thoughts above, …
Should we teach ‘holes’ in gravitional theory? Should we teach that maybe there are ‘some legitimate questions’ about the Holocaust?
Absent his invective, PZM makes some good points. The moving forward of scientific knowledge, within a secure, established, “proven” framework and working out inconsistencies and minor details is the ‘great work’ of science. Calling those things “major holes” is problematic.
——–
Thanks, Paul. That’s a statement worth discussing.
It’s tempting to be agreeable and say “okay.”
But I disagree.
Willful refusal to accept facts (among which I include evolution) drives me crazy.
——–
Earth to Commissar: Evolution is not a fact. Get over it.
It can be argued that there are no facts, only perceptions.
>Should we teach ‘holes’ in gravitional theory?
Duh! Yes
>Should we teach that maybe there are ‘some legitimate questions’ about the Holocaust?
Duh! Yes! Some say 6 million some say 13 million some say 1 million. Teaching that the number is debated is obvious… (Denying it is another. )
The problem is you guys refuse to even hint we might be wrong here. Thru history science has been wrong more often than it is right. There is no shame in science being wrong… There is a world of shame in not admitting it.
Paul,
I’ll not attempt a full defense of evolution here in your comment thread. As you said “Google it.” Or go read PZMyers blog. Or SJ Gould.
I DID ask you a question, which you fairly paraphrased. But you avoided it for a long time.
Perhaps the discussion has moved on. If your position is “NOT GOD, NOT EVOLUTION,” then it’s reasonable to then ask you what might be your explanation.
I haven’t been tricked or gulled or anything. I’ll repeat that I’ll not attempt a defense of evolution, or gravity, or the Holocaust, here in your comment thread.
You previous-post-but-one, the “hey, maybe there are some holes,” provides a better basis for discussion, but not for point-scoring. If your position is “PROBABLY EVOLUTION, BUT STILL SOME QUESTIONS,” that’s a “debateable” proposition, in a good way.
Eric, you can… but then I might delete you. 😉
Home from work and back for more fun.
Paul, let’s be fair. INTRAspecial evolution is well-enough established that we can fairly call it a fact. A problem arises when we challenge or dismiss “evolution” in an unqualified way. It sounds like we Bible-thumpers (although you are still in the closet) are dismissing what to most people appears to be pretty obvious. In reality, we usually mean is that the ooze theory is pure conjecture, and INTERspecial evolution has so many problems that it is nearly laughable.
So, Paul, your original reference to the article on the self-healing DNA of plants has nothing to do with the ooze theory, little to do with interspecial evolution, and doesn’t really put a dent in intraspecial evolution.
But, you sure were effective at baiting the hook for some EVs!
Thanks for an entertaining afternoon. Too bad I didn’t get any work done.
Posted by Mac Lorry
Steve,
It’s not a misquote. It’s easily assumed that Darwin didn’t find any examples of irreducible complexity by the time he published The Origin of Species. Who would publish a theory they themselves had already disproved? Darwin was no fool.
But it’s not surprising Darwin did not find any examples of irreducible complexity. At the time The Origin of Species was published the science of microbiology didn’t even exist and no one knew anything about DNA.. The search for examples of irreducible complexity continues to this day.
And all of them have been shown to have evolved via natural means.
Care to cite your source. The explanations would answer some of the most profound riddles of nature and you claim they have all been solved.
This goes to my earlier point as to how hard it is for anyone to concede points on this topic, myself included. We all have a lot at stake in our positions and that’s why it gets nasty so fast.
“Should we teach ‘holes’ in gravitional theory? Should we teach that maybe there are ‘some legitimate questions’ about the Holocaust?”
Click up a few lines, and reread what Paul said.
That was really a dumb question.
Where there are questions or debates, it would be dishonest to pretend as if they didn’t exist.
Should we teach ‘holes’ in gravitional theory? Should we teach that maybe there are ‘some legitimate questions’ about the Holocaust?
Yes we should teach the holes in gravitational theory. To my knowledge they are taught, at least mentioned. As for the holocaust, now you’re just mixing historical fact with scientific fact. That’s just silly.
The problem most people have with evolution is not that it is being taught in public schools. It is how it is being taught. The known and obviouls problems should be laid out in all their ugly. Otherwise, like with any scientific subject, the only ones being hurt are the students.
Evolution should not be taught as if it is the all-mighty Gospel of science. The abject horror most “evolutionists” display at the mention of teaching the unknows of evolution – as well as how the theory has changed and itself evolved over time – make it seem like supporters don’t believe it can stand up to that kind of honest critique. I don’t think supporters really believe that the theory wouldn’t hold up to such a critique, it just seems that way from some of their reactions.
I believe in God. I believe God created the Universe and everything in it. I do not know how He did it. Could he have used evolution as a tool? Sure. Why not? The fact is, even if all the holes are filled and questions answered about evolution, that won’t and cannot shake my firm belief in God and His works. The more I learn from science about the world and universe around me, its complexities and interactions, the more amazed I am at God’s creations.
So you see, it isn’t that God and science are naturally opposed to each other. It isn’t God vs. Science. People can believe in God, and can believe in Science. I do. Does that mean certain things presented by science are worth a fair amount of skepticism? No, absolutely not.
The fact of the matter is, everyone on this thread and at the other website who are supporting and arguing for evolution until they are blue in the face, have been set up by Paul. Like it or not, reasonable, rational, intelligent people can be of the opinion that the theory of evolution is not all that strong at our current level of knowledge. Rather than admit that, the EZ’s worked themselves into a lather over it. Just like Paul predicted.
Even Steve, who is by far the most reasonable proponent of evolution I’ve seen on the internet, who can accept that there are holes in the theory and in our understanding, cannot seem to admit that reasonable, rational, intelligent people can look at the evidence, shake their head, and say, “I don’t see it.” At least not as being as infallible as most proponents would have you believe.
Typo. dangit.
Does that mean certain things presented by science are worth a fair amount of skepticism? No, absolutely not.
Ugh. Does that mean certain things presented by science are not worth a fair amount of skepticism? No, absolutely not.
Proteins Recovered from Dinosaur Egg
They bear strong similarities to proteins from chicken eggs.
[snip]
Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University in Raleigh injected rabbits with protein from either bird or dinosaur eggshells, collected the antibodies produced and tested whether they stuck to the other type of egg protein. Both types of antibody reacted to both proteins, indicating that they were similar (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2876).
Gee, can I go into “I told you so” mode now?
Marc Lorry,
It’s not a misquote.
I didn’t say it was a misquote, but selective quoting. You know kind of like this:
Marc Lorry writes:
…Darwin did not find any examples of irreducible complexity.
By the way, you just gutted your Darwin quote as support. If Darwin couldn’t find IC biological structures then appealing to him for support is just as foolish.
Uh, perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see Paul answer Tom-WWR’s or Andy’s questions.
(goes to look again)
Btw Paul, you are wrong.
>Paul, let’s be fair. INTRAspecial evolution is well-enough established that we can fairly call it a fact.
Geeze Michael… Don’t make me lump you in with the no-reading nincompoops.
I’ve said many times that is solid. (We still can’t call it a FACT but that is hair splitting) Go read my update it is #2.
—-
>So, Paul, your original reference to the article on the self-healing DNA of plants has nothing to do with the ooze theory, little to do with interspecial evolution, and doesn’t really put a dent in intraspecial evolution.
On this we disagree. (which means you are wrong;) If an organism has a “self righting” mechanism when it mutates it does raise additional questions about the whole shebang… Hell, you don’t have to take my word for it, the story even says so and I bolded it.
Hey Michael, did you get the humor in this one?
———
Uh, perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see Paul answer Tom-WWR’s or Andy’s questions.
Btw Paul, you are wrong.
———
Angie didn’t see my answer but she is sure I’m wrong. OY!
Steve asks:
Gee, can I go into “I told you so” mode now?
Sure– If a single data point proves your theory knock yourself out.
(rewinding the tape)
My argument was that if the data is confirmed it will change a whole lot about what we think/believe about evolution. The “told you so mode” was that it proves we don’t know jack.
And as a scientist you have to admit (even thru clenched teeth 😉 that if this is true we have to rethink a whole lot of things.
And (again) you don’t have to take my word for it… The story says it in multiple places… I did not write the story, I just blogged it.
What Michael wrote (^^), at least by the time he did, this thread. Everything afterward seems more or less like punch drunk antagonism.
I’m just curious why the perspectives so limited to planet Earth? Meaning, Earth’s got a lot of composition, even before anything occured here related to ooze, much less lightning.
Were Earth is came into being somehow (not an aspect of evolutionary biology, by the way) and that there was something from whence the Earth originated came into being somehow, and so on and so on. Whatever caused the (known) Big Bang occured somewhere and that came into being somehow. These are the issues that can’t be explained by remaining stuck in who has more cheese in their definition of the moon and who doesn’t.
Just to try to advance the discussion a bit.
Typo, sorry…”(omit word, ‘Were’) Earth (omit ‘is’) came into being somehow…”
Should have read: “Earth came into being somehow (not an aspect of…)”
I’m busy, preoccupied here with…
“Geeze Michael… Don’t make me lump you in with the no-reading nincompoops. “
I KNOW that you KNOW that intraspecial evolution is solid. It’s a tactical issue — when you say without qualification “Earth to Commissar: Evolution is not a fact . . .” they will always assume you are denying established facts unless you are more specific about the elements of “evolution” that you are referring to.
“On this we disagree. (which means you are wrong;) If an organism has a “self righting” mechanism when it mutates it does raise additional questions about the whole shebang… Hell, you don’t have to take my word for it, the story even says so and I bolded it. “
It’s does raise additional questions, but the portions of the article you did not bold (or quote) suggest that it’s a minor hiccup for evolutionary theory, given that the self-righting mechanism does not occur reliably. So the probability argument against evolution may get a boost, but not enough to really change the debate. More to the point, your post refers repeatedly to the issue of whether “life comes from ooze,” and the article is irrelevant on this subject.
“Hey Michael, did you get the humor in this one?”
Yes — I don’t know why they can’t stop themselves. Well, actually I do. They are under Satanic influences.
Posted by: Mac Lorry
Steve,
You could argue that anything less than the entire works of Darwin is selective quoting, but as I pointed out, the statement by Darwin that he didn’t find any examples that disproves his own theory is redundant. The fact that he published his theory makes that case.
Darwin’s statement about how his theory could be disproved is as factual today as the day he wrote it. It’s not uncommon for scientists to propose ways to test their theories, and often the means to perform those tests does not exit at the time the theory is published. That was the case with Darwin.
If evolution is the progressive stepwise development of complex living organisms through selective survival (and breading), then irreducibly complex features can’t exist in those organisms. If irreducibly complex features do exist, than evolution is not the means by which those complex living organisms developed. At least not the only means. That was Darwin’s insight, and it’s just as profound as natural selection.
Modern technology has uncovered a number of examples of irreducible complexity for which there is currently no evolutionary explanation. That’s not to say that some or all of the current examples won’t be explained in the future, but until that day, evolution remains an unproven theory. Most scientist don’t have a problem with that, and they readily acknowledge the need for more research, and the grant money and careers that go with that research. Science is a profession and questions are as important to it as answers.
>It’s a tactical issue — when you say without qualification “Earth to Commissar: Evolution is not a fact . . .” they will always assume you are denying established facts unless you are more specific about the elements of “evolution” that you are referring to.
OK that makes more sense and I guess you are right in a way but geeze if after 100 posts the context is not clear to people, they are helpless anyway. — But you are right, I need to stick to my “oozers” nomenclature.
On your second point… yes and no. ” given that the self-righting mechanism does not occur reliably”
That’s the point, we don’t know why it happens or really to what extent yet. We don’t know what increases it or what retards it.
To accept the “oozer theory” as true, we still have to answer many questions… (enter Rumsfeld mode) This discovery, (assuming it is confirmed) tells us that:
We have questions we know.
We have questions we know about but can’t actually make into questions.
We now have questions about things we did not even know about yesterday.
And
We have questions about things we still don’t know about yet.
(Rummy would be proud)
In the journey to understand life we have taken the first 2 steps of a 1000 mile journey yet there are some who claim to see the other side.
Oh God, not again. Next time try try critiquing M-theory. What’s that? You’re not a theoretical physicist? You’re not an evolutionary biologist, either.
Why, oh why, do lay people think they have anything useful to add to the evolution debate? You’re wholly entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to have anyone who actually knows what they are talking about taking it seriously.
I imagine real evolutionary biologists are sick and tired of having to fend off uninformed criticism of their subject. I know I’d be pretty peeved if laymen kept trying to bend my ear about microwave amplifiers or database theory.
“Why, oh why, do lay people think they have anything useful to add to the evolution debate?”
LOL enter the patronizing aspects of the debate.
I didn’t realize that one had to have a doctorate in biology in order to have an opinion on evolution.
Well, tough shit, David Gillies. I sure put up with a lot of crap by the same people lecturing Paul regarding my profession. The fact that they have no degree, no license, and no twenty years experience doesn’t slow them down a bit in sharing their, cough cough, opinions.
Kick their asses, Paul! Kick ’em hard!
Actually most of them have been shown not to be IC (irreducible complex). Hell Kenneth Miller even got Behe to recant on the blood clotting cascade. This is old meat that has been chewed so many times it is like potted meat food product. IC is just a waste of time and as Mark Perakh noted boils down to: Stupid, therefore designed.
Paul, get your sarcasm meter checked post haste. Further, isn’t that what you did? You found one data point that you thought proved something it didn’t and then went into full sanctimonious condescension mode. Further, it isn’t just one data point, but quite a few. This result and the discover of T-rex soft tissue makes two data points.
Paul writes: I hate to point out their denial of reality, but there is no more elegant theory than “God made it that way.”
What a joke. “God made it that way” is not a theory— it’s practically the ultimate in petitio principii.
See, this is why people think Paul is an idiot. When you trot out the most egregious of all possible logical fallacies and present it as the paragon of theoretical elegance, you shouldn’t be surprised when the reaction you get is cruel, mocking laughter.
I’m laughing at you, Paul. And it’s cruel, mocking laughter.
So the questions for Paul remain on the table:
+ What does Paul really think is the best explanation for the origin of life?
+ Why is he confident that his theory is superior to the modern synthesis theory of evolution?
s9
ask that again and you will be deleted… Not because I don’t want to answer the question but it is ABUNDANTLY clear you have not read the 100+ posts on this thread… yes they are a prerequisite.
Don’t waste my freaking time.
============
Now on to someone who at least has a brain:
Steve said:
Paul, get your sarcasm meter checked post haste. Further, isn’t that what you did?
Well yes but no… and that is the bitch about science. 1 data point in the affirmative is good but it doesn’t prove anything by itself.
One data point in the negative can kill you.
In effect the “leverage” is science is always working against you. You can have 10,000 things saying yes but a single no can ruin the whole deal. — That’s not just this theory, that’s the nature of life.
So my single data point is bigger than your single data point.
This result and the discover of T-rex soft tissue makes two data points.
My humble apologies. 😉
Posted by: Mac Lorry
Steve,
Dr. Behe has caused the Darwinist Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, to back track so far that at one point Dr. Miller had to retreat to the point of exclaiming that “evolution is smarter then we are”, implying that evolution was the cause even if humans can’t figure out how it could work. That sounds a lot like a religious statement; it’s certainly not science.
For such Darwinists, evolution is not just science, it’s the religion of science. Dr. Behe recently wrote “The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design ‘as a matter of principle.’ It surely can’t be ruled out by the evidence.”
Like Kenneth Miller, you want to rule out irreducible complexity as a matter of principle with statements about it having all been explained away and that it’s old meat. That’s nonsense. In fact Dr. Behe recently co-authored an article for the peer-reviewed science journal, Protein Science. Now let Darwinists like Kenneth Miller critic Dr. Behe in a forum where their professional standing as scientists is at risk. Now we’ll see if they have any real evidence or if it’s all PR.
Paul writes: ask that again and you will be deleted… Not because I don’t want to answer the question but it is ABUNDANTLY clear you have not read the 100+ posts on this thread… yes they are a prerequisite.
Actually, I’ve read all the comments in this thread. And I’ve read all the comments in the evolution-related threads currently displayed on the front page. I’ve paid special attention to the ones you posted.
[Paul hijacks the post to add a link for s9.]
Dylan Thomas knock it off.
I know this comment will be lost forever in a long line of comments, but Jeff Harrell, of “Shape of Days”, turned his readers on to a cool issue of New Scientist magazine where they describe “13 things that do not make sense”. The very first one is “The Placebo Effect”. I couldn’t help but see, not exactly a parallel to what Paul has described in his evolution post, but perhaps another instance of unexplainable genetic “markings” that occur in that tiny world of micro-micro thingys.
It’s a good read even if you feel it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Oh man, you two need to take this act to Vegas. It’s hilarious!
David Gillies,
So you’re saying that if we read up a little on M-Theory and watch a Discovery special or two on it, we shouldn’t discuss or opine about it?
dylan – yes. Put you thought together THEN post.
It’s obnoxious.
=================
Oyster- “13 things that do not make sense”
I got that off slashdot a few days ago and never finished reading it. Thanks for the reminder,
Uhhhh… Bring back the dog and pony show!
Paul writes: [Paul hijacks the post to add a link for s9.]
Excellent. Not only did you add a link, you also deleted the parts of the post you couldn’t handle. You rule, dude.
I win the wager.
[Paul adds: “Good, use the nickel to buy a personality.]
If Paul thinks a nickel buys a personality, that explains why his is so shoddy.
The definition for #2 is too short. I think it should be “Even over short periods of history many new species are created and many become extinct.”
I think a better writing of #3 is “Due to the diversity of the environment of Earth, #2 implies that significant diversity of species has resulted over millions of years.”
As for evidence of #3: trilobites appear to be in widely distant places and a large span of time in the fossil record, but local variation exists.
The sentience aspect of #3 deserves an assertion of its own, defining what sentience *is*.
Quote:Should we teach ‘holes’ in gravitional theory?
Yes, and we do. One of the holes is dark matter. Oh and PZ where’s Haldane on the list of problems? Oh I guess you forgot about that gaping hole….*whistles*