[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.
]]>< 
I smell a Pulitzer Prize for Paul.
No, Paul, they’ll just brand you as someone who doesn’t understand evolution, which should have become plainly clear when you erected your strawman definition of it to knock down.
As I said before, talking about evolution (by your definition) in light of an article that talks about evolution (using an accurate definition) is – well – pretty silly and pointless. You might as well respond to an article about dogs by talking about how wonderful kitty cats are.
Your continued defense of your indefensible argument is what is truly most sad and amusing.
But, hey, it’s been fun. Next week I think I’ll go fishing with hand grenades.
Paul-
What specific holes in the theory do you have issues with?
(I read your article, and I understand that I could google to find the holes, but I am more interested in your specific views)
Paul: about this, I wholeheartedly agree, about the evolutionary zealots:
“…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 can even agree that you accept academically the process of evolution and still they’ll rail against the “stupidity” and such (good enough recapulization of what’s been written so far about some of us).
Unfortunately, anyone so brittle to anything new, so intolerant about ideas and inspirations, even about creative concepts and conceptualizations as do most who appear to cling to their place of power (supposedly, at least that’s the impression I get mostly when the rants begin), anyone so UNaware of alternatives and possibilities is, in fact, the actual zealot. And the religion of evolution teeters on.
It’s not a failed field of study but that many attracted to it and who loiter there are failed as productive individuals within any conversation. Too accustomed to the lecture format, I’m thinking, too intolerant of tangents and suggestions, far too emotionally focused on what might otherwise be a nice opportunity to explore ideas.
Biology is not a closed field of study. All and any aspects of biology are based upon the process of development to one degree or another. It seems that it, unfortunately, attracts some people who are inflexible in their personalities. I’ve known (well) many with Ph.D.s in some area of physical science, and many more with M.D.’s in same, and the worst practitioners are always those focus on absence and limits and limitations — but it’s not a failure of the science so much as it is human failing hiding behind self importance. It’s the “I’m learned and you aren’t” perspective that actually evidences that they don’t know what “learned” actually means.
I’m puzzled as to why there is the proliferation of prejudice, however, as to anyone who poses alternatives to evolution as fixed understanding. And the many exaggerations about those by persons who otherwise pride themselves in all their academia.
Thank you Andy for proving my point. Again.
You can’t even bring yourself to admit there is a chance that the present theories are wrong.
But you’re not a religious zealot… Nope.
I read one EZ the other day mention that as an engineer, he would rather create a system that designs itself like evolution so he woudn’t have to paint stripes on zebras 24/7. Well He did that, He wrote the most complicated biological software program every created called DNA. It’s a multilayered, self replicating system that merely needs to be set in motion. The code is designed to work within the biological system of earth so all He had to do was make minor adjustments to differentiate species. Sure there’s survival of the fittest and all that, but not blob, fish, lizard, bird, hamster, monkey, man.
Froggy- Thats exactly why I don’t see why its necessary to say there is either evolution or god. Going on Paul’s obsession with ooze, lets paraphrase Genesis: God created ooze, from which came man in His image.
Dear Sir,
I remember growing up and my saintly mother saying that God created man in a day. She said that didn’t mean 24hours. She also told me that when we die it is ashes to ashes and dust to dust. She would then chuckle as she cleaned house saying that some one must be going or coming on this table top. As I grew older we learned that we all evolved from Apes. That concerned me because I could never figure out “Why are there still Apes?” Now oozeration, what would my mother say. “Son, I am not sure on this one but if its true don’t clean up that mess in your bedroom”. I guess finally after all these years one must believe that there are somethings we will never understand. Thanks Mom for the lesson.
Paul pretty soon will come the patronizing comments on how you just don’t understand (actually those have probably already occured, they just come in greater numbers).
And I agree with you that the only difference between an evolution zealot and somebody who believes there is some other power greater than us that is behind it (intellgient design etc) is that the latter will admit there is an element of faith to what they believe.
There is far more about nature that we don’t know than what we know, and each time we think we have found all the scientific answers, we uncover a whole new layer of stuff we don’t have a clue on.
I will just continue to believe that God did it.
For someone who claims to understand the TOE you sure made an odd mistake. Evolution say nothing about ” all life came from ooze”, that would be abiogenesis. Evolution is the theory of how life progressed after that point. While amiogenesis and evolution are related they are not the same thing.
Frankly, I cannot understand why evolution and intelligent design, by necessity, mutually exclusive concepts in many peoples’ minds. If there is not some “design”, constraint, rules, whatever inherent in the behavior of biological processes, then the processes are random. One is hard placed to come up with naturally processes that are truly random. So, if there are rules, contraints inherent in the behavior of biological systems then in my mind there is design present. Toss out the term intelligent if it is hang up for you, but I think too many people have a too narrow view of the term intelligent. Froggy implies this in his post. The designed process called DNA is set in motion. It follows the rules or code so to speak. The result up to this point is what you see today extant on earth.
Posted by: Mac Lorry
Evolution is hard ground to plow in either direction. If Evolution could actually be proven, it would devastate theologies that teach life was created by God. If Creation could actually be proven, it would devastate the underpinnings of life sciences and the atheism it often spawns.
Most individuals have a large stake in their positions when discussing evolution, and in that environment, it’s difficult for anyone to concede points to the other side. I’m not convinced that any framework could be devised that would allow any useful public discussion of evolution and creation to occur. Of course, that’s just my theory.
Paul – Might the present theories be wrong? Sure, I suppose there’s a chance we might find a fully formed human fossil in a stratum that is twenty million years old, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
All it will take is one unpredicted, confirmed anamoly to show that our understanding is wrong. Over the last 150 years, though, the theory of evolution has only gained additional support from the sciences.
There I’ve admitted that theories can be wrong. Now you admit that your made up definition of evolution had nothing to do with reality or the article in question.
There is a big difference between criticisms founded in detailed knowledge of the field in question and criticisms founded in stereotype and hearsay. As a professional biologist, it’s pretty clear to me that Paul’s statements are in the latter category.
I’ll be open-minded toward’s Paul’s position once Paul shows that he is open-minded enough about mine to actually read some of the science involved. I’d recommend, for starters, Coyne and Orr’s recent book on speciation research:
(http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=0914)
Why should I take seriously criticisms from a guy who quite plainly has not a ghost of a clue of what I do in my research or how I do it?
Froggy —
“I read one EZ the other day mention that as an engineer, he would rather create a system that designs itself like evolution so he woudn’t have to paint stripes on zebras 24/7.”
I was the guy who posted that. My point was that if God created by painting stripes or created by using the process of evolution, it was none the less God’s creation. I don’t think I deserve the title of EZ. I’m certainly not a young earth believer, but I do believe that God is the creator.
WOW Andy, I can’t believe you said this”
“All it will take is one unpredicted, confirmed anamoly to show that our understanding is wrong”
You’re right! And you just proved the ooze theory to be bunk.
Congrats
“I never avoid a question.”
You just did. My question B was “either/or” and was addressed to your beliefs. It’s binary. “Neither” is not an option. Perhaps you meant “I don’t know; I can’t choose between them.”
But one of them had to happen, i.e. God intervened or He didn’t. (If He intervened just a little bit, or indirectly, or thru spiritual actuation, etc., then He intervened.)
If you claim that you “don’t know,” then we can continue.
I never said the “ooze” theory was right or a reflection of current understanding.
Do you make a habit of challenging outdated ideas?
Next on Wizbang: Paul takes on epilepsy as demonic possession!
Be careful though – he might define “epilepsy” as “a moist, delicious chocolate cake” and the debate will go nowhere.
“Why should I take seriously criticisms from a guy who quite plainly has not a ghost of a clue of what I do in my research or how I do it?”
Well now Alex, do share…. What “research” do you do?
Got any proof in your pocket?
No, didn’t think you.
sigh
“You just did. My question B was “either/or” and was addressed to your beliefs. It’s binary. “Neither” is not an option. Perhaps you meant “I don’t know; I can’t choose between them.”
OH the old “Did you stop beating your wife yet?” question.
Grow up.
By definition the Biologist is at a distinct disadvantage when discussing origins of anything. Biology and it’s related science have information or practices that deal with existance.
The greatest treat, I believe, is for a scientist to argue about a change that occured on an object created (came into existance) billions of years before.
The religious can always point to God creating the universe and therefor all that follows owes some credit to God. Unfortunately science can not explain the existance of all material in the universe coming into existance from nothing at a distinct point in time.
In an open universe all material would have slowed and came to a standstill after a set amount of time following the big bang. Because our universe is expanding either A)Time began at a specified time or B)open universe theory is flawed.
In a closed universe (the beliefe that the universe expands and contracts infinately) the loss of even miniscule energy in the form of radiation and light traveling outwards would eventually drain the universe of the energy needed to contract and (like an open universe) everything would come to a standstill. The flaws closely mirror the open universe. Because our universe is expanding either A)Time began at a specified time or B)Closed universe theory is flawed.
The final point is that the only way to discount God is to state that Time started at a distinct point and everything in the universe came into existance spontaniously. Or to state it in other words…
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void….
DEEP DEEP thinking! Just wonder if aqnyone was around when all this was happening?`Could they prove it one way or the other? Will it ever be anymore then a theory?
It’s an either/or question.
God was involved, or HE wasn’t.
Your “I’ll type real slow … grow up … Is that so hard” comments are unhelpful. If you want a civil debate, we can have it. Otherwise, write whatever you want on your site.
Paul, you’re unbelievably dishonest. You have not once acknowledged that the theory of abiogenesis is completely, utterly, and totally different from the theory of evolution. You keep harping on “primordial ooze” as if it has anything to do with the mechanism of evolution. It doesn’t. You’re wrong.
Second, there have been many, many documented instances of speciation…what most anti-evolutionists mistakenly refer to as “macroevolution.” In truth, micro- and macroevolution are the same thing, and this false dichotomy is yet another manifestation of “the God of the Gaps.” Anyhow, that you still doubt tells me that you have never really read the Talkorigins page that has been linked to for your edification many times.
I’ll try again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Note in particular the entries such as this: “The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.”
Note the high points. Two species interbred. This produced a hybrid. Unreduced gametes allowed for seed. New species can interbreed with each other, but not the parent species. What, exactly, is giving you trouble about this?
>It’s an either/or question.
OK Commissar, is the moon made of butter milk or cream cheese?
It’s an either or question.
Sorry if me telling you to grow up is offensive but when you ask a question like that, I’m not sure how you expect me to answer.
You tell me that I have to believe either A or B.
OK is the moon made of butter milk or cream cheese?
You don’t see the problem with your question?
“Will it ever be anymore then a theory?”
You have no idea what the term “theory” means in a scientific sense, do you? Hint: It does NOT mean “guess.”
Let me try this again:
Commissar you asked: “Do you believe A or B?”
I answered (and I quote): “I don’t believe either. (Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?)”
It’s funny I asked that parenthetical question. Apparently it is hard for you to wrap your brain around.
I answered it… You just didn’t like the answer.
The composition of the Moon (butter or cheese) is NOT a comparable question.
God aided the diversity of life on earth, OR He did not.
The Moon is composed of dairy products, OR it is not.
You might claim that you dont have information to answer, i.e. that you don’t know. “Neither” is not an option.
OH OK – Now you are asking a different question. Now you are asking “Do you believe B or don’t you.”
I answer that question.
BTW Read Jeff in your comments, he hits it out the park
“I answer that question”
Where?
Paul, this is my last attempt to discuss this in good faith.
Do you believe that the diversity of life on earth was aided by God or not?
“I don’t believe that it was either aided or unaided.” is not a useful answer.
P.S. I still accept “I don’t know,” but you havent said that. You insist on “neither.”
This is getting funny:
The Commissar: Do you believe A or B?
Paul: Neither
The Commissar: Do you believe B?
Paul: I answered that.
The Commissar: No you didn’t.
Paul: Sigh
You still haven’t tried to discuss it in good faith. You call me a flat earther but you get offended when I tell you I’ll type slow.
Then, rather than discuss the merits of my reply, you play word games.
Do you believe that the diversity of life on Earth was aided by God or not?
Well, Commissar, all I know is that the Bible says that giant space robots came down to Earth and made everything with their ancient magical pixie-powder.*
* The nomenclature will get you everytime. I’m not talking about “the Bible” in the strict sense. I’m talking about “the Bible” in the sense of “a story I heard from my 8 year old nephew.”
P.S. Still waiting for Paul to admit his definition of evolution was bunk.
The Commissar: Do you believe A or B?
Paul: Neither
The Commissar: Do you believe B?
Paul: I answered that.
The Commissar: No you didn’t.
Paul: Sigh
The Commissar: Do you believe B?
Paul: I wonder how long before he clicks this link.
Q: Do you believe the Moon is made of dairy products, or not?
A: Neither.
Your ignorance is not an indictment of modern biology.
You claim that no one will admit to problems in evolutionary theory. This is a lie; I will be charitable and assume it is a lie based on your profound absence of information on what biologists actually say, rather than malice. But, for instance, one of the early posts on my weblog was a summary of deficiencies in evolutionary theory, which was simply a compilation of ideas from several readily available, public writings by evolutionary biologists.
There is no reticence among biologists to list problems. After all, that’s what we do for a living: chase down and try to answer big questions in biology. One of the reasons biology is such an active field right now is that there are major holes in our understanding…but, most importantly, we also have an incredibly powerful framework for research, that thing called the theory of evolution, which is driving an extremely successful research program.
The complaint we biologists have isn’t to pointing out flaws in evolution. It’s that the only “flaws” you bring up are such goddamn stupid things, misbegotten misconceptions that have no relationship to any of the real issues in research and that only point out your own ignorance. Massive holes in the whole theory? Google for them? Good grief. You can’t even name one genuine problem. All you’ve mentioned is that pathetic probability argument.
Read this page. Your objections are jokes, jokes on you, and we’re laughing at you.
Paul:
Commisar:
You wacky guys! I’ll bet you planned this whole debate in advance. You’re both laughing real hard while you type, right?
Right?
Paul, you still have yet to answer Andy, from what I’ve seen. You continue to combine abiogenesis and evolution. That is incorrect. Abiogenesis is the whole lightning bolt hitting ooze concept. Evolution requires reproducing life forms as a pre-requisite.
I also don’t think that a new finding that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed and/or replicated is somehow ‘a deathknell’ for any scientific theory. If the vindings are valid, then the theories will have to be adjusted, reviewed, and re-analyzed in order to better match observed phenomena.
Good luck with trying to re-write the Bible in such a way.
About 90% of what I have seen here is people talking past each other, and claiming cheap ‘victories.’ The other 10% is misleading and vague definitions that are contrary to proper usage. That leaves about 0% of worthwhile conversation.
Eric, Eric, you’re missing the humor.
Eric
>abiogenesis,
Read my update. I know what it is and how to spell it.
>don’t think that a new finding that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed and/or replicated is somehow ‘a deathknell’ for any scientific theory
Never said it was… I said if it were true, it served to show how little we know.
>Good luck with trying to re-write the Bible in such a way.
Good luck putting words in my mouth.
>About 90% of what I have seen here is people talking past each other, and claiming cheap ‘victories.’
Which you added to with the Bible comment. Nice job hypocrite.
Note the high points. Two species interbred.
According to the definition of species proponents of evolution attempt to shove down the throats of non-true-believers, “species” refers to two sets of organisms that cannot interbreed. That is how “evolutionists” ‘know’ when speciation has occurred. So, using their own definition, breeding two different plants is not proof of evolution, its proof that the plants were not different species.
You continue to combine abiogenesis and evolution. That is incorrect.
It depends on how you look at it. Most people arguing for evolution do so because they are trying to argue away God. Well and good. But if you can regress all life back to a single organism or even a single set of organisms – which is what evolution claims – you are stuck with, where did those original organisms come from?
Well, abiogenesis steps in at that point and says, from nowhere. Life started from a bunch of inert chemicals that were floating in the primordial oceans (or ooze, if you prefer). They up and began living one day. From there, evolution took over and today we’re driving on highways and going to the moon!
So you see, there actually is a connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolutionists don’t like to go back that far because it is their biggest problem. If you have to admit something other than random chance started this whole “life” thing, you have to consider that something else just might have created all the species on Earth. And that isn’t pleasant for an evolutionist to consider.
Q: Are you being deliberately evasive, or not?
A. Neither
Q: Do you believe the Moon is made of dairy products, or not?
A: Neither.
——–
You don’t do well at logic puzzles do you?
—-OK one last time for Michael—
Your Question:
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?
My answer:
I don’t believe either. (Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?)
You see, my answer sums up the problem with your thinking.
You see it as “The bible thumpers vs us enlightened scientific folks” But it isn’t.
It is one bad theory vs another one that has no proof. Both of you guys are full of shit.
You keep pummeling my to find out if I’m one of them “bible thumpers” because after all if you can call me a bible thumper, you don’t have to admit that your theory is flawed.
But I’m not a bible thumper AND I disagree with you.
You’ve never had to intellectually defend your belief in a flawed theory, you could just wail “He’s a bible thumper” so you have no idea how to answer me.
That’s the long way of saying, Neither.
You’re killing me!
Actually Sean we’re perfectly content to let you wallow in your ignorance. You have the constitutionally mandated right to believe whatever you wish personally with regard to biology or anything else. I for one would be very uncomfortable living in a society which restricted your freedom in that regard.
You even have the right to raise your children in that same dark ignorance, you can homeschool them, or send them to fundie private schools. Up to you.
Where your rights end is when you support individuals who would attempt to strip science and insert your peculiar mythology in its stead, and ram that down the throats of children in public schools. That is a right you do not have, and that’s what this is about. Aside from the integrity issue, our culture is critically dependant on the applications of science. Including our military (it’s because of science we can project our power around the world, and take on forces five time sour size on their home turf and wipe the desert with them). Perhaps this is why Richard Marburger, the WH science advisors to President Bush, describes IDC as nonsense and pseudoscience. It’s fine if you want to believe in ghosts and goblins or whatever, fuck with science though and you screwing around with our one advantage. It’s damn near treasonous, and it should tell you something that Osama bin Laden and David Koresh agree[d] with your views on biology 100%.