PZ, I have a question about the vitamin C thing. A response that I’ve heard from ID people before is this: “I could design a car which later becomes rusty. The rust is not necessarily evidence against the car being designed.”
For the angriest, most intolerant Baby-Jesus-hating evilutionist on the internets, you certainly are soft-spoken in person. I suppose your civil tone is simply a ruse designed to hide your plans to destroy God’s Chosen People–ie. religious Fundamentalists–with an army of cyborg cephalopods. Excellent strategy, sir!
I’m not sure how P.Z. would handle it, but I would say that it’s awefully funny how only humans and African apes are rusting in that manner. Why did the designer have bad rust protection on only those select species? I should hope that the cyborg cephalopods are better designed than that!
–Javier
Doc Billsays
Minor comment, PZ, but when being interviewed on the radio, or Internet, and the presenter asks you “What is evolution?” you should be a little better prepared with an answer.
I mean, “Dude!” was a passable answer, but a little more pizzaz would have gone a long way.
Peter Z.says
Javier, I’m with you on this one. But not all ID proponents reject common descent (just the really slow ones, which are the majority though…). The idea of common descent doesn’t really contradict ID, I don’t know what Dembski and co. have against it. It’s only the process of descent that they reject (i.e. random variation followed by natural selection vs magic). To question common descent per se could have been reasonable in Darwin’s day but nowadays it is plain ridiculous…
Peter Z.says
I mean mechanism of descent rather than process.
Lagosays
PZ,
You have been our Lion. When BS shows it ugly face you tear it limb from limb and leave the entrails hanging in the trees. However, in a live interview, may I make one suggestion?
DON’T DRINK 15 CUPS OF SLEEPY TIME TEA BEFORE YOU GO ON!!!
Thank you…
386sxsays
PZ, I have a question about the vitamin C thing. A response that I’ve heard from ID people before is this: “I could design a car which later becomes rusty. The rust is not necessarily evidence against the car being designed.”
What would you answer to that?
For ID creationists, nothing is necessarily evidence against anything being designed. They think the rust was designed, for crying out loud.
Paguroideasays
Great job PZ! I enjoyed listening to the program this evening.
Lagosays
The whole, Vit. C thing is not based on the idea that apes and humans both have the same broken gene. It is based on how it is broken, as in there are millions of ways for it to screw-up, yet humans and the other great apes have numerous null, or broken, genes in common, and they are all broken in the same way relative to one another (with variations based on suspect times of speciation from a common node)…
Think of it like this. Say you are a teacher, and you think some kids in the class are cheating. If they all hand in the right answers, and they are written in different ways, then how do you know if the class was cheating? Not easy to tell even if they are cheating.,
Now, on the other hand, if the class all handed in tests with very similar answers, they still might not be cheating because, “Hey, they are all saying pretty much what you taught them”, correct? (as in similarities could simply be due to a common design from a Creator).
But now think about it if the guy making the cheat notes screwed the hell-up and wrote down several wrong answers, and you get all the tests back having the same several wrong answers, all written in a similar way? What is the probability of everyone getting the same wrong answers, and, better yet, all the same version of how they are wrong?
If the kids, all show-up with the same swrong answers,…(as in genes broken in the same manner), you might suspect the source of the mistake is a common, right? This is the same with these “pseudogenes” between humans and apes. Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
Christiansays
PZ,
I have been reading your blog for some time, and I must say that I had your voice down somewhere between James Earl Jones (think his character from Hunt for Red October (OK, or maybe sometimes Darth Vader)) and John Thaw (from the BBC’s Inpector Morse series). Reality doesn’t always work out that way though. So, even though you crushed my mental image, I must say that you did a good job on the show. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Infidel Guy did a great job on the interview. His questions were sort of vague, and never got to the heart of what the interview was supposed to be about. He couldn’t seem to ask a question that would have allowed you to become your blog persona. Oh well.
Even though your views and mine to differ on some things, I must admit I will always respect your views for how well argued they are. The most fun opponent in viewpoints is the one who makes you actually think! Keep up the good work!
“Damn the Fundamentalists and full speed ahead!”
(I know, not a real quote, but it should be)
Stephen Ericksonsays
I think I saw him on the wife swap show. I was “meh.”
Stephen Ericksonsays
Oops! I didn’t notice that Pharyngula was on the show. I would like to hear that. Will a podcast or whatnot be available?
GHsays
Did i miss something? Why the vitamin C talk here?
Peter Z.says
Lago, I understand perfectly. The arguement is for common descent and it is an excellent one at that. But common descent is not what the conflict is about. The current incarnation of ID (and the rust reasoning is an good example of that) can accomodate whatever observation you want. It seems to me that concept has been neutered by IDiots over the years: hypothetical “design” doesn’t need to have an apparent purpose, doesn’t have to be perfect and can get rusty with time. Whatever drops of falsifiability it might have had are gone now.
So I guess I didn’t really expect an answer… There are no scientific counterarguements to ID’s claims because the claims themselves have nothing to do with science. Forgive me for rambling like this, I’ve only come across creationism a few months ago when one of my relatives (who is a Russian Orthodox priest) gave me an ID book. It’s taken me a while to understand the extent of incoherence of ID.
Emanuel Goldsteinsays
Of course, the constant conflation of science with atheism, besides being irrelevant, is doing nothing for science.
In the meantime, atheistic scientists (we are constantly told that the “really good” scientists, according to Dawkins and gang, are atheists) have filled the world with the wmds that make possible the reality of the “end times” that fundies love to write about.
Oh, you can blame it on the politicians, but if you supply guns to waring gangs, can you really think you are above it all?
“The scientists have blood on their hands.” Robert Oppenhiemer.
I thought you hit just the right note of rationality and calm dissection of creationist blather, which left you sounding like a . . . well . . . university professor.
But, if the InfidelGuy isn’t the world’s worst interviewer, he is at least vying for Miss Cogeniality.
Xanthirsays
Emanuel Goldstein wrote:
In the meantime, atheistic scientists (we are constantly told that the “really good” scientists, according to Dawkins and gang, are atheists) have filled the world with the wmds that make possible the reality of the “end times” that fundies love to write about.
Excuse me if I’m misinterpreting you, but what the heck does this mean? Do you think all the religious scientists backed out and said, “Sorry guys, I’m not going to research this evil science that leads to WMDs!”
Nope. Science is science, and we all have our own particular moral stance on things. Atheist scientists have no particular stranglehold on evil.
Again, I apologize if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, or otherwise meant something different than what I got out of it.
and John, yes.. I was having a hard time hearing him. In post-production I fixed the sound levels somewhat. I really regret missing so many excellent points and opportunities. Keep in mind John.. that my podcast isn’t for the intellectual elite. Tons of kids listen to the show and they don’t have a clue as to what evolution is. I purposefully try to dumb it down. My program is a common mans show mostly. I’m not trying to shine, I try to let my guests make the show their own. Also, as I mentioned on the show.. I was very, very tired.. I gave two lectures earlier that day and I was up late preparing.
Okay, I’ll make it constructive then. Opening with an elaborate explanation of your day and how crummy you feel is not what a good interviewer does. A passing reference to your hoarseness might be okay but the idea is, I would have thought, to focus the audience’s attention on the guest, not you.
Someone has already mentioned that the questions weren’t very focused. On the other hand, I will give you points for not being as ignorant about evolution as so many media types are.
And maybe you could come up with something to say when your guest makes a point other than “Wow!”?
On the other hand, I did listen all the way through (and I knew pretty much what PZ was going to say) . . .
futurelegend (a Golden aware of her cultures history in science)says
Pssssst!! Goldstein! Oppenhiemer was Jewish, not an atheist! Just so you know.
What a weird comment, Emanuel. I hope you were being ironic, considering the history of your last name and Oppenhiemers part in history. But to address your comment, everyone I work with is an atheist, and we’re all virologists trying to cure world diseases. The only person Ive worked with that was a True Believer was only interested in virology for its WMD potential, and he was a worthless scientist. All his gels looked like a fourth grader did them…
Didnt get to hear the show, so not sure what the heck EG is talking about, but Ill listen this afternoon– I love Reggie and PZ, so Im sure it was good!
Aeriksays
“I could design a car which later becomes rusty. The rust is not necessarily evidence against the car being designed.”
I tried pointing out this ID machine metaphor BS in the live chat last night. I said something like,
Irreducible Complexity is the most bulls*** argument of it all. When we see a car that loses a singel bolt/nut and breaks down, we call its designers a bunch of idiots – yet this is the metaphor IDolaters attach to biology, and claim it’s an argument for an intelligent designer. On the other hand, if a car loses an entire part and keeps going, then we lay persons say its designers were very intelligent, indeed. If an IDolater can’t be pinned down to prove at least one case of IC, thenthey can always default to this corollary. They’re set it up so they can’t possibly be wrong! Assholes.
Skeptyksays
I LOVE your voice, PZ. I bet students get crushes on you all the time with that voice. I bet your wife still has a crush on you.
Vitamin C. That is one of my favorite arguments against all kinds of sloppy thinking: megadose vitamin supplementation, intelligent design, expensive goofy pet foods, the DSHEA law…
386sxsays
Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
Sure there would. Analogies like that are silly because the creator can do anything creationists want it to do.
JBsays
Futurelegend, I am sorry, but you lose.
Although Oppenheimer was Jewish, he was an atheist.
You are not contending that just because he was Jewish, he could not be an atheist, are you? Tell it to Marx, Trotsky, and Freud.
As far as your anecdoctal remarks go, so what? Are you also trying to contend that most of the best scientists are not atheists? Saint Dawkins says you are a moron.
I would love to see some of these quotes from Dawkins and his gang (whoever the hell that is)telling us that all the best scientists are atheists. If they are “constantly” saying this as is claimed, there most be dozens of them lying around, right?
Lagosays
386sx commented:
“Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
Sure there would. Analogies like that are silly because the creator can do anything creationists want it to do.”
Actually, creationists generally have a particular angle, and, in this case, they do as well. They claim perfection in original design by the creator, and state, that, only after, “The Fall”, did the genomes of his special creations, start to fall apart.
If these events were random, then similar genes between two or more supposed related groups (based on current evolutionary thinking) may have become null, however, the statistical probability of the genes all mutating in the same way, with a greater accumulation of distinct mutations not found in all involved happening in a correlated way as one would expect based on diversification patterns? Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
Caledoniansays
I purposefully try to dumb it down. My program is a common mans show mostly.
Thank you for both affirming and reinforcing the idea that the average person is too stupid to understand everything that isn’t specially prepared and watered down for immediate comprehension. That message just isn’t being stated loudly enough in our modern culture.
386sxsays
Lago said: If these events were random, then similar genes between two or more supposed related groups (based on current evolutionary thinking) may have become null, however, the statistical probability of the genes all mutating in the same way, with a greater accumulation of distinct mutations not found in all involved happening in a correlated way as one would expect based on diversification patterns?
It is obvious that the major premises on which evolutionary pseudogene-based arguments rest are steadily crumbling. Some evolutionists are now recognizing the widespread functionality of pseudogenes. In the light of this fact, the notion of ‘shared mistakes’ yields to ‘shared engineering and/or artistic similarities’–as is recognized by creationist scientists for all homologies encountered between living organisms.
9. It is even possible that the lack of ability to synthesize vitamin C could be an advantage in certain situations, although this appears unlikely. It could be that individuals without this ability would be forced to move to a different location, and this new location could turn out to be a more favorable habitat. The same could be true for the loss of some other genes.
10. Before being created, life was an idea in the mind of God. The relationship between the created life forms reveals something about how ideas develop in the Divine mind. We cannot say in advance how these ideas develop, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about how the various life forms were interrelated at the creation.
Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
They don’t need to know the whys or the wherefores. All they need to know is the “poof.” Remember, this is the state of denial. Here’s the talkorigins.org page where I got those creationist links from, by the way. Cheers!
Lagosays
386x said:
“Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
They don’t need to know the whys or the wherefores. All they need to know is the “poof.” Remember, this is the state of denial. Here’s the talkorigins.org page where I got those creationist links from, by the way. Cheers!”
I am not sure if you noticed, but they never actually gave an explanation for similarities in pseudogene mutation between species previously suspected, (as in before comparative tests on these genes were done), to be related. They just claimed there could be hidden reasons for this due to the fact that some aspects of the genome, thought to be non-functional before, turned out to have a function.
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
Thank you for both affirming and reinforcing the idea that the average person is too stupid to understand everything that isn’t specially prepared and watered down for immediate comprehension. That message just isn’t being stated loudly enough in our modern culture.
While I truly do appreciate your emotionally charged post, Caledonian, I have to think that perhaps there’s a way to test this. Maybe we could take a poll to see how much biology the “average person” actually knows. P.Z. could even do a post about it. Now wouldn’t that be novel?
386sxsays
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
I think Woodmorappe said that it indicates “shared engineering and/or artistic similarities”. So we’re back to the creator doing whatever the creationists want it to do –as far as people like Woodmorappe and Plaisted are concerned anyway. And probably the same goes for most creationists too.
Earlier you said: “Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?” Well, if they think that other people are looking at the evidence wrong, and they are looking at the evidence right, then they wouldn’t think that God was trying to trick them about anything. And I’m not sure if the ID/creation people are even telling us waht ID/creation’s central premise is. I get the impression they’re just looking for places to put their “poofs”. And some of them find more places than others.
386sxsays
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
I think Woodmorappe said that it indicates “shared engineering and/or artistic similarities”. So we’re back to the creator doing whatever the creationists want it to do –as far as people like Woodmorappe and Plaisted are concerned anyway. And probably the same goes for most creationists too.
Earlier you said: “Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?” Well, if they think that other people are looking at the evidence wrong, and they are looking at the evidence right, then they wouldn’t think that God was trying to trick them about anything. And I’m not sure if the ID/creation people are even telling us waht ID/creation’s central premise is. I get the impression they’re just looking for places to put their “poofs”. And some of them find more places than others.
futurelegendsays
JB said– Although Oppenheimer was Jewish, he was an atheist.
Well neato I didnt know that! Unfortunately, my Google skills have failed me and I cant find any references to support your claim. If true, then I take Dawkins one better to say that the best scientists are Jewish atheists. :P
futurelegendsays
Ugh the above Dawkins should be in quotes, for reasons Dave Carlson pointed out.
Lagosays
386sx, I read your answer the first time, and still do not see how it correlates. Your quoted answer boils down to, “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.
What you must remember is that ID does not just claim God could have done things, and for reasons beyond us, but ID claims that sciences “backs” their position. You have not given a reason how this data could support their position, at all, but we have given a reason how this data supports common descent.
386sxsays
386sx, I read your answer the first time, and still do not see how it correlates. Your quoted answer boils down to, “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.
I’m just saying analogies about cars and rust are silly. That’s all. Double cheers!
PZ, may I suggest a cup of coffee, or two?
PZ, I have a question about the vitamin C thing. A response that I’ve heard from ID people before is this: “I could design a car which later becomes rusty. The rust is not necessarily evidence against the car being designed.”
What would you answer to that?
For the angriest, most intolerant Baby-Jesus-hating evilutionist on the internets, you certainly are soft-spoken in person. I suppose your civil tone is simply a ruse designed to hide your plans to destroy God’s Chosen People–ie. religious Fundamentalists–with an army of cyborg cephalopods. Excellent strategy, sir!
Peter,
I’m not sure how P.Z. would handle it, but I would say that it’s awefully funny how only humans and African apes are rusting in that manner. Why did the designer have bad rust protection on only those select species? I should hope that the cyborg cephalopods are better designed than that!
–Javier
Minor comment, PZ, but when being interviewed on the radio, or Internet, and the presenter asks you “What is evolution?” you should be a little better prepared with an answer.
I mean, “Dude!” was a passable answer, but a little more pizzaz would have gone a long way.
Javier, I’m with you on this one. But not all ID proponents reject common descent (just the really slow ones, which are the majority though…). The idea of common descent doesn’t really contradict ID, I don’t know what Dembski and co. have against it. It’s only the process of descent that they reject (i.e. random variation followed by natural selection vs magic). To question common descent per se could have been reasonable in Darwin’s day but nowadays it is plain ridiculous…
I mean mechanism of descent rather than process.
PZ,
You have been our Lion. When BS shows it ugly face you tear it limb from limb and leave the entrails hanging in the trees. However, in a live interview, may I make one suggestion?
DON’T DRINK 15 CUPS OF SLEEPY TIME TEA BEFORE YOU GO ON!!!
Thank you…
PZ, I have a question about the vitamin C thing. A response that I’ve heard from ID people before is this: “I could design a car which later becomes rusty. The rust is not necessarily evidence against the car being designed.”
What would you answer to that?
For ID creationists, nothing is necessarily evidence against anything being designed. They think the rust was designed, for crying out loud.
Great job PZ! I enjoyed listening to the program this evening.
The whole, Vit. C thing is not based on the idea that apes and humans both have the same broken gene. It is based on how it is broken, as in there are millions of ways for it to screw-up, yet humans and the other great apes have numerous null, or broken, genes in common, and they are all broken in the same way relative to one another (with variations based on suspect times of speciation from a common node)…
Think of it like this. Say you are a teacher, and you think some kids in the class are cheating. If they all hand in the right answers, and they are written in different ways, then how do you know if the class was cheating? Not easy to tell even if they are cheating.,
Now, on the other hand, if the class all handed in tests with very similar answers, they still might not be cheating because, “Hey, they are all saying pretty much what you taught them”, correct? (as in similarities could simply be due to a common design from a Creator).
But now think about it if the guy making the cheat notes screwed the hell-up and wrote down several wrong answers, and you get all the tests back having the same several wrong answers, all written in a similar way? What is the probability of everyone getting the same wrong answers, and, better yet, all the same version of how they are wrong?
If the kids, all show-up with the same swrong answers,…(as in genes broken in the same manner), you might suspect the source of the mistake is a common, right? This is the same with these “pseudogenes” between humans and apes. Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
PZ,
I have been reading your blog for some time, and I must say that I had your voice down somewhere between James Earl Jones (think his character from Hunt for Red October (OK, or maybe sometimes Darth Vader)) and John Thaw (from the BBC’s Inpector Morse series). Reality doesn’t always work out that way though. So, even though you crushed my mental image, I must say that you did a good job on the show. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Infidel Guy did a great job on the interview. His questions were sort of vague, and never got to the heart of what the interview was supposed to be about. He couldn’t seem to ask a question that would have allowed you to become your blog persona. Oh well.
Even though your views and mine to differ on some things, I must admit I will always respect your views for how well argued they are. The most fun opponent in viewpoints is the one who makes you actually think! Keep up the good work!
“Damn the Fundamentalists and full speed ahead!”
(I know, not a real quote, but it should be)
I think I saw him on the wife swap show. I was “meh.”
Oops! I didn’t notice that Pharyngula was on the show. I would like to hear that. Will a podcast or whatnot be available?
Did i miss something? Why the vitamin C talk here?
Lago, I understand perfectly. The arguement is for common descent and it is an excellent one at that. But common descent is not what the conflict is about. The current incarnation of ID (and the rust reasoning is an good example of that) can accomodate whatever observation you want. It seems to me that concept has been neutered by IDiots over the years: hypothetical “design” doesn’t need to have an apparent purpose, doesn’t have to be perfect and can get rusty with time. Whatever drops of falsifiability it might have had are gone now.
So I guess I didn’t really expect an answer… There are no scientific counterarguements to ID’s claims because the claims themselves have nothing to do with science. Forgive me for rambling like this, I’ve only come across creationism a few months ago when one of my relatives (who is a Russian Orthodox priest) gave me an ID book. It’s taken me a while to understand the extent of incoherence of ID.
Of course, the constant conflation of science with atheism, besides being irrelevant, is doing nothing for science.
In the meantime, atheistic scientists (we are constantly told that the “really good” scientists, according to Dawkins and gang, are atheists) have filled the world with the wmds that make possible the reality of the “end times” that fundies love to write about.
Oh, you can blame it on the politicians, but if you supply guns to waring gangs, can you really think you are above it all?
“The scientists have blood on their hands.” Robert Oppenhiemer.
I thought you hit just the right note of rationality and calm dissection of creationist blather, which left you sounding like a . . . well . . . university professor.
But, if the InfidelGuy isn’t the world’s worst interviewer, he is at least vying for Miss Cogeniality.
Emanuel Goldstein wrote:
Excuse me if I’m misinterpreting you, but what the heck does this mean? Do you think all the religious scientists backed out and said, “Sorry guys, I’m not going to research this evil science that leads to WMDs!”
Nope. Science is science, and we all have our own particular moral stance on things. Atheist scientists have no particular stranglehold on evil.
Again, I apologize if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, or otherwise meant something different than what I got out of it.
You can grab the show here:
http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/
and John, yes.. I was having a hard time hearing him. In post-production I fixed the sound levels somewhat. I really regret missing so many excellent points and opportunities. Keep in mind John.. that my podcast isn’t for the intellectual elite. Tons of kids listen to the show and they don’t have a clue as to what evolution is. I purposefully try to dumb it down. My program is a common mans show mostly. I’m not trying to shine, I try to let my guests make the show their own. Also, as I mentioned on the show.. I was very, very tired.. I gave two lectures earlier that day and I was up late preparing.
Thanks for the insult though.
Someone mentioned wifeswap: Find out what really happened here: http://infidelguy.snowbank.ca and here: http://infidelguy.com/members/Chimp/Frontpage/wifeswap.html
I’d do it again, anytime, Reggie. Next time, though, I’ll use a different phone.
Thanks for the insult though.
Okay, I’ll make it constructive then. Opening with an elaborate explanation of your day and how crummy you feel is not what a good interviewer does. A passing reference to your hoarseness might be okay but the idea is, I would have thought, to focus the audience’s attention on the guest, not you.
Someone has already mentioned that the questions weren’t very focused. On the other hand, I will give you points for not being as ignorant about evolution as so many media types are.
And maybe you could come up with something to say when your guest makes a point other than “Wow!”?
On the other hand, I did listen all the way through (and I knew pretty much what PZ was going to say) . . .
Pssssst!! Goldstein! Oppenhiemer was Jewish, not an atheist! Just so you know.
What a weird comment, Emanuel. I hope you were being ironic, considering the history of your last name and Oppenhiemers part in history. But to address your comment, everyone I work with is an atheist, and we’re all virologists trying to cure world diseases. The only person Ive worked with that was a True Believer was only interested in virology for its WMD potential, and he was a worthless scientist. All his gels looked like a fourth grader did them…
Didnt get to hear the show, so not sure what the heck EG is talking about, but Ill listen this afternoon– I love Reggie and PZ, so Im sure it was good!
I tried pointing out this ID machine metaphor BS in the live chat last night. I said something like,
I LOVE your voice, PZ. I bet students get crushes on you all the time with that voice. I bet your wife still has a crush on you.
Vitamin C. That is one of my favorite arguments against all kinds of sloppy thinking: megadose vitamin supplementation, intelligent design, expensive goofy pet foods, the DSHEA law…
Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
Sure there would. Analogies like that are silly because the creator can do anything creationists want it to do.
Futurelegend, I am sorry, but you lose.
Although Oppenheimer was Jewish, he was an atheist.
You are not contending that just because he was Jewish, he could not be an atheist, are you? Tell it to Marx, Trotsky, and Freud.
As far as your anecdoctal remarks go, so what? Are you also trying to contend that most of the best scientists are not atheists? Saint Dawkins says you are a moron.
I would love to see some of these quotes from Dawkins and his gang (whoever the hell that is)telling us that all the best scientists are atheists. If they are “constantly” saying this as is claimed, there most be dozens of them lying around, right?
386sx commented:
“Hence we evolved from a common source, as in nothing in special-creation would explain such “RUST”.
Sure there would. Analogies like that are silly because the creator can do anything creationists want it to do.”
Actually, creationists generally have a particular angle, and, in this case, they do as well. They claim perfection in original design by the creator, and state, that, only after, “The Fall”, did the genomes of his special creations, start to fall apart.
If these events were random, then similar genes between two or more supposed related groups (based on current evolutionary thinking) may have become null, however, the statistical probability of the genes all mutating in the same way, with a greater accumulation of distinct mutations not found in all involved happening in a correlated way as one would expect based on diversification patterns? Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
Thank you for both affirming and reinforcing the idea that the average person is too stupid to understand everything that isn’t specially prepared and watered down for immediate comprehension. That message just isn’t being stated loudly enough in our modern culture.
Lago said: If these events were random, then similar genes between two or more supposed related groups (based on current evolutionary thinking) may have become null, however, the statistical probability of the genes all mutating in the same way, with a greater accumulation of distinct mutations not found in all involved happening in a correlated way as one would expect based on diversification patterns?
John Woodmorappe:
David A. Plaisted:
Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
They don’t need to know the whys or the wherefores. All they need to know is the “poof.” Remember, this is the state of denial. Here’s the talkorigins.org page where I got those creationist links from, by the way. Cheers!
386x said:
“Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?
They don’t need to know the whys or the wherefores. All they need to know is the “poof.” Remember, this is the state of denial. Here’s the talkorigins.org page where I got those creationist links from, by the way. Cheers!”
I am not sure if you noticed, but they never actually gave an explanation for similarities in pseudogene mutation between species previously suspected, (as in before comparative tests on these genes were done), to be related. They just claimed there could be hidden reasons for this due to the fact that some aspects of the genome, thought to be non-functional before, turned out to have a function.
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
Thank you for both affirming and reinforcing the idea that the average person is too stupid to understand everything that isn’t specially prepared and watered down for immediate comprehension. That message just isn’t being stated loudly enough in our modern culture.
While I truly do appreciate your emotionally charged post, Caledonian, I have to think that perhaps there’s a way to test this. Maybe we could take a poll to see how much biology the “average person” actually knows. P.Z. could even do a post about it. Now wouldn’t that be novel?
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
I think Woodmorappe said that it indicates “shared engineering and/or artistic similarities”. So we’re back to the creator doing whatever the creationists want it to do –as far as people like Woodmorappe and Plaisted are concerned anyway. And probably the same goes for most creationists too.
Earlier you said: “Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?” Well, if they think that other people are looking at the evidence wrong, and they are looking at the evidence right, then they wouldn’t think that God was trying to trick them about anything. And I’m not sure if the ID/creation people are even telling us waht ID/creation’s central premise is. I get the impression they’re just looking for places to put their “poofs”. And some of them find more places than others.
In this case, we know the ol’ function, and we know it no longer works at this job. This is the difference between finding an object we believed did not do anything, only to find it did, and finding a broken object that we know the previous purpose for, that it is no longer capable of doing.
I think Woodmorappe said that it indicates “shared engineering and/or artistic similarities”. So we’re back to the creator doing whatever the creationists want it to do –as far as people like Woodmorappe and Plaisted are concerned anyway. And probably the same goes for most creationists too.
Earlier you said: “Again, you are asking for a God that is attempting to trick people into believing in evolution, and that is not part of ID/creation’s central premise, now is it?” Well, if they think that other people are looking at the evidence wrong, and they are looking at the evidence right, then they wouldn’t think that God was trying to trick them about anything. And I’m not sure if the ID/creation people are even telling us waht ID/creation’s central premise is. I get the impression they’re just looking for places to put their “poofs”. And some of them find more places than others.
Well neato I didnt know that! Unfortunately, my Google skills have failed me and I cant find any references to support your claim. If true, then I take Dawkins one better to say that the best scientists are Jewish atheists. :P
Ugh the above Dawkins should be in quotes, for reasons Dave Carlson pointed out.
386sx, I read your answer the first time, and still do not see how it correlates. Your quoted answer boils down to, “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.
What you must remember is that ID does not just claim God could have done things, and for reasons beyond us, but ID claims that sciences “backs” their position. You have not given a reason how this data could support their position, at all, but we have given a reason how this data supports common descent.
386sx, I read your answer the first time, and still do not see how it correlates. Your quoted answer boils down to, “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.
I’m just saying analogies about cars and rust are silly. That’s all. Double cheers!