PZ Myers posted Entry 2652 on October 19, 2006 08:23 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2646

Here's another tetrapodomorph fish to consternate the creationists. These Devonian/Carboniferous animals just keep popping up to fill in the gaps in the evolutionary history of the tetrapod transition to the land—the last one was Tiktaalik.

gogonasus_skull_sm.jpg

This lovely beastie is more fish than frog, as you can tell—it was a marine fish, 384-380 million years old, from Australia, and it was beautifully preserved. Gogonasus is not a new species, but the extraction and analysis of a new specimen has caused its position in the evolutionary tree to be reevaluated.

Continue reading "Gogonasus andrewsae" (on Pharyngula)

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #140423

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 19, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Try a reality check. John Wesley wrote, “There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape” (COMPENDIUM OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.) Cuvier got palaeontology onto a solid footing and established extinction as an aspect of the fossil record. Owen was known as “the English Cuvier”. Darwin would have been seriously inconvenienced had not Owen, his superior, assisted him with his palaeontology. Cuvier and Owen seem to have been of the opinion that Darwin solved all but nothing. If so, I think they may have missed a valid point that Darwinism makes.

The rigorous biological science as practiced by its founders should be maintained at the same standard. I am not referring to the descriptive aspect, but to keeping the true meaning of scientific terms, and attempting to explain the engine behind that which is described. Had this been done, organizations such as AIG wouldn’t right now be collecting little old ladies’ savings and making solid advances. Not that anyone need be concerned about that. At least they don’t attribute Nature with non- describable powers. They do have a bit of trouble with some rather non-essential aspects of the Bible.

Even a biologist’s bootlace (which I don’t claim even to be) knows that you can have two organisms of close bone structure and size that can’t together reproduce (different species) whilst two organisms of substantially different size and appearance can reproduce together (same species). Talking up missing links whilst ignoring the Species Problem faced by palaeontologists and by some biologists working in certain fields, biases the topic.

I thank you for highlighting the closeness of life-forms in evolutionary sequence. The more, the better. This close similarity in size and form is one pillar of the Theory of Signalled Evolution, and I invite contributions to it. Cuvier, Owen, & Darwin have already contributed to it, and I sincerely hope Wesley himself would have looked upon it with favour. New research regularly helps build the picture, right now. Hopefully it meets the requirements. If one cannot bear to look at publications mentioning Creation and the Bible, there are always publications such as NEW SCIENTIST, PHYSICSWEB, SCIENCEDAILY, and SPACEDAILY, which do at times touch on these same new developments - because they deal, some more than others, with empirical science. We are beginning to glimpse the real mechanisms of speciation.

Comment #140440

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 19, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Give me a W.

I…N…..G…….N….…..U….…….__bonus points await those who can supply the last letter.

Or maybe just three letters suffice to get the concept across. I’ll spot you the P and the B.

Comment #140470

Posted by Turcano on October 19, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

Yes, but if Gogonasus is a transitional species, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Sorry.

Comment #140600

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 20, 2006 6:16 AM (e)

Please explain. What are you sorry about? Even an amateur knows there can be as much variation in size and shape within a species as there is between species. The fossil record has its moments when things seemed to go loco. Dwarfs and pygmies have nothing on it. The whole point of a species is invisible information, which can express visibly in weird ways - except that the principle of reproduction according to “kind” is not violated.

Comment #140689

Posted by Nat Whilk on October 20, 2006 11:08 AM (e)

There are no gaps. And they’re getting smaller all the time.

Comment #140696

Posted by jeffw on October 20, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

Every new organism creates a gap between itself and it’s parent(s), unless it reproduces asexually with no mutations (don’t know if that’s possible). Add up the changes over many generations and you get bigger gaps. Reminds me of calculus, where you sum up small slices of an object to calculate area or volume. No magic function to integrate tho, otherwise we could predict where evolution is headed, and derivation would give us the rate.

Comment #140703

Posted by Anton Mates on October 20, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Owen was known as “the English Cuvier”. Darwin would have been seriously inconvenienced had not Owen, his superior, assisted him with his palaeontology.

Owen was also, incidentally, known as “a raging jerk,” who stole the credit for Iguanodon from its original discoverer and then blackballed his later papers, and who tried to usurp Hooker’s botanical collection. He finally got expelled from the Zoological Council of the Royal Society for plagiarism. Darwin once wrote of him,

“I often saw Owen, whilst living in London, and admired him greatly, but was never able to understand his character and never became intimate with him. After the publication of the Origin of Species he became my bitter enemy, not owing to any quarrel between us, but as far as I could judge out of jealousy at its success. Poor dear Falconer, who was a charming man, had a very bad opinion of him, being convinced that he was not only ambitious, very envious and arrogant, but untruthful and dishonest. His power of hatred was certainly unsurpassed. When in former days I used to defend Owen, Falconer often said, “You will find him out some day,” and so it has proved.”

A pity, since he was certainly a talented anatomist and described and classified many taxa, both fossil and living.

Comment #140713

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 20, 2006 12:27 PM (e)

As I mentioned recently in another thread, Newton was also renowned for being a jerk, who stole credit for ideas, used his power to punish his opponents for disagreeing with him, and generally behaved very badly.

Gravity still seems to work, however.

Comment #140716

Posted by ben on October 20, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

Gravity still seems to work, however.

That is, until the DI succeeds in reversing “the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,” at which time you godless evilutionists better hang on tight!

Comment #140717

Posted by Anton Mates on October 20, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

Michael Suttkus, II wrote:

Gravity still seems to work, however.

Unlike alchemy….

Comment #140718

Posted by Turcano on October 20, 2006 1:26 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Please explain. What are you sorry about? Even an amateur knows there can be as much variation in size and shape within a species as there is between species. The fossil record has its moments when things seemed to go loco. Dwarfs and pygmies have nothing on it. The whole point of a species is invisible information, which can express visibly in weird ways - except that the principle of reproduction according to “kind” is not violated.

I take it that you are unaware of a certain meme that originated here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible.php.

I was apologizing for perpetuating it.

Man, it isn’t funny when you have to explain it…

Comment #140732

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 20, 2006 2:09 PM (e)

ben wrote:

Gravity still seems to work, however.

That is, until the DI succeeds in reversing “the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,” at which time you godless evilutionists better hang on tight!

I know you think you’re kidding, but I actually once found a reference to some fundamentalist-types, contemporary to Newton, ranting and raving about how his theory of “orbits” was nothing but an attempt to make atheism tenable by removing God from his natural place in the universe. Everyone knows things fall down, so the only thing holding the planets up could be angels, not these mythical orbit things. Atheistic gravity theory is doomed to fail!

Comment #140809

Posted by the pro from dover on October 20, 2006 7:23 PM (e)

Michael, I believe you are referring to Bishop George Berkley who accepted Newton’s equations as correct descriptively but rejected the physical interpretation of these as forces exerted by matter. This was a reaction to what he percieved as materialistic determinism, where natural events were merely the responses of matter to the blind and uncaring forces of nature for no apparrent purpose. To him “matter” was a metaphysical concept with no proven reality of independant existance. What is ironic is that Newton believed his equations Proved the existance of God.

Comment #140818

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 20, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

Here’s a quote from an article by Joseph Phillips in the Reader’s Digest’s GREAT LIVES GREAT DEEDS (1966). “At a dinner in his honour, speaker after speaker spoke glowingly of his genius. Einstein squirmed. Finally he turned to author Fannie Hurst and abruptly brought her down to earth with, “You know, I never wear socks”.
I recall one technical publication addressing the question of whether Newton and Einstein suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome (difficulty conducting oneself in various settings with other people). It might be surprising to discover how many people who contribute to science or even who contribute to this site, suffer from various personality hurdles. As someone sensibly pointed out, personality doesn’t influence scientific laws. This business of bashing people because you don’t agree with them wouldn’t itself be a sign of a personsality disorder? Intellectual road rage?

There are scientists who literally should have been jailed. There was a fellow called Broom, who was a rake, and if he came to your place you would be wise to get out the shotgun and keep the wife in view. I believe he has his name to some species descriptions, and we hope his descriptions are o.k.. Hey, we live in a real world.
Concentrate on telling us just what happened to bring G. ANDREWSEA into reality. A fish like G.A. had babies and they changed a bit, and they had babies and they changed a bit, and some of them went away a little and they changed, and enough offspring all changed in the same direction so two of them found they had (somehow)changed enough in EXACTLY the same direction so that they could have offspring that couldn’t interbreed with the other offspring. They had new DNA, immune system programming, sex cells, what have you. AND IT WAS COMPATIBLE BETWEEN THEM! This all happened in the same neck of the woods, as the fossil record shows.
That breaks just about every law of nature, and leaves a dozen honest questions unaddressed.
That’s how it happened, best beloved? Owen was sceptical, to his dying day.
You could say he shot himself in the foot. He had family tragedy.
They had something approaching science road-rage, even back then. Give a man some space, and usually the road-rage abates. At least he didn’t initiate something that became a dampener on open, cool-headed enquiry. He kept an open mind. In his way, he served Science.

By way of a balancer, here is Arthur Mee, (CHILDREN’S ENCYCLOEPEDIA, roughly 1950): “His work in anatomy and palaeontology is included in over 400 publications, and some of his discoveries were, each by itself, sufficient to immortalize an ordinary man, though he, in his modesty, made light of them. He was a delightful character, artistic, merry, a great boy at heart to his dying day, and a prince of good comrades.” Remember, Mee presumably got this (sanitized) account from people who worked alongside Owen. We expect he saw through the fog of professional jealousy.
Anyone here care for an orbituary like that? Owen’s approach to species origin stands vindicated.

Comment #140831

Posted by jeffw on October 20, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

Everyone knows things fall down, so the only thing holding the planets up could be angels, not these mythical orbit things.

The Greeks had that figured out a long time ago. As we all know, Atlas is holding things up. He hasn’t had a rest since Hercules, which is extremely worrisome. An asteroid could hit us at any time. Zeus could zap it, if we prayed to him.

Comment #140872

Posted by Henry J on October 20, 2006 11:12 PM (e)

Re “Zeus could zap it, if we prayed to him.”

Wasn’t Zeus’ death documented on that TV show about Hercules? ;)

Henry

Comment #140878

Posted by Anton Mates on October 20, 2006 11:35 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

By way of a balancer, here is Arthur Mee, (CHILDREN’S ENCYCLOEPEDIA, roughly 1950): “His work in anatomy and palaeontology is included in over 400 publications, and some of his discoveries were, each by itself, sufficient to immortalize an ordinary man, though he, in his modesty, made light of them. He was a delightful character, artistic, merry, a great boy at heart to his dying day, and a prince of good comrades.” Remember, Mee presumably got this (sanitized) account from people who worked alongside Owen. We expect he saw through the fog of professional jealousy.

Presumably? We expect? I’d be quite interested to see whether he did get that quote from a scientist contemporary to Owen. Perhaps it might be from Owen himself; in an amusing and anonymous review of the Origin, Owen had no problem praising his own insights in the 3rd person! Shades of John Lott….

Of course, the death of his directed evolution/embryology ideas had little to do with his personality–if anything, his alpha male status gave them more credibility than they would have had otherwise, and few other than Huxley were ornery enough to challenge him directly. But in the end, they were simply too hazy and untestable.

Comment #140887

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 21, 2006 12:31 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

I recall one technical publication addressing the question of whether Newton and Einstein suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome (difficulty conducting oneself in various settings with other people).

That’s only one symptom of Asperger’s, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

It might be surprising to discover how many people who contribute to science or even who contribute to this site, suffer from various personality hurdles.

I’m ADD and have several symptoms of Asperger’s myself.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

As someone sensibly pointed out, personality doesn’t influence scientific laws. This business of bashing people because you don’t agree with them wouldn’t itself be a sign of a personality disorder? Intellectual road rage?

First, Asperger’s includes a preference for *avoiding* social situations, not going to online groups and yelling at people. So, again, you make up outright lies just off the top of your head and present them as fact.

You know, I get this a lot, but it’s also the same old nonsense.

PBH, I do not bash people I disagree with. I disagree with Lenny on quite a lot, I doubt that, politically, we have two much at all in common. But, you know what, I’ve never once bashed him for his political beliefs and he’s never once bashed me.

I get along incredibly well with many, many people with whom I disagree.

Has it occurred to you even once that the insults levied at your posts are well deserved?

PBH, you made up an argument based on what the word “evolution” used to mean at some point in the past as if it meant squat at all. You claimed Darwin liked that meaning when the facts were otherwise. it’s not so much that you were wrong as it is that you simply don’t care to check your facts before posting. You have your own little world in your head and you don’t mind just making up “facts” to justify it.

Are these arguments that deserve respect?

But I can play the same game.

Creationism originally referred to the doctrine that God created souls individually for implantation at the quickening. By taking the term “creationism”, Henry Morris specifically chose to make a stance favoring abortion, at least in the first trimester. After all, without an implanted soul, there is no act of murder to destroy the child. Creationist’s opposition to abortion is thus revealed as purest hypocrisy!

But, you see, I wouldn’t make any such an argument. Why? Because it’s stupid! And not just “Oh, I locked my keys in the car” stupid, it’s full blown “psychopathologically justificationalism” stupid.

I’m sorry if you can’t see this, but that’s how it is. Your arguments are not reasonable. They are not grounded in facts, they don’t even resemble reality, and they are frequently just plain incoherent.

I don’t bash things I disagree with, PBH. I never have.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

There are scientists who literally should have been jailed.

There are scientists who have been jailed. So? There’s a creationist in Pensacola, FL who’s about to be jailed and deservedly so. Does that ruin all of creationism to you?

I’ve pointed out repeatedly recently that no less a personage than Newton was, in fact, fairly crooked.

But, you know, Jimmy Swaggert proves all Christians are scum, right? I mean, that is the argument here…

(I, for one, will miss Hovind. His arguments that bigfoot disproves evolution remains one of my all time favorite lame creationist arguments.)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

There was a fellow called Broom, who was a rake, and if he came to your place you would be wise to get out the shotgun and keep the wife in view. I believe he has his name to some species descriptions, and we hope his descriptions are o.k.. Hey, we live in a real world.

Well, we do. I’m not sure about you. Hey, you know, since Newton stole Calculus from Leibniz, we should suspect gravity doesn’t work, right?

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Concentrate on telling us just what happened to bring G. ANDREWSEA into reality. A fish like G.A. had babies and they changed a bit, and they had babies and they changed a bit, and some of them went away a little and they changed, and enough offspring all changed in the same direction so two of them found they had (somehow)changed enough in EXACTLY the same direction so that they could have offspring that couldn’t interbreed with the other offspring. They had new DNA, immune system programming, sex cells, what have you. AND IT WAS COMPATIBLE BETWEEN THEM! This all happened in the same neck of the woods, as the fossil record shows.

See you’re doing it again. Making up nonsense and pretending it is what you are arguing against. Get over yourself. Either learn what science claims or shut up. Either way, stop lying about it.

Comment #140897

Posted by Anton Mates on October 21, 2006 2:03 AM (e)

Michael Suttkus, II wrote:

Well, we do. I’m not sure about you. Hey, you know, since Newton stole Calculus from Leibniz, we should suspect gravity doesn’t work, right?

I think Heywood is agreeing with you (in his own inimitable way) that a scientist’s personal unpleasantness doesn’t make hir wrong, perhaps because he thinks I was claiming that it did so in the case of Owen.

Comment #140978

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2006 9:16 AM (e)

I think Heywood is agreeing with you (in his own inimitable way)

It’s hard to tell, isn’t it, since Heywood is utterly incoherent and never knows what he’s blithering about anyway.

Comment #141039

Posted by Peter Henderson on October 21, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

PZ wrote:

Here’s another tetrapodomorph fish to consternate the creationists.

Not a problem for YEC’s PZ:

1. LiveScience: Discovery Points to Our Fishy Heritage

Evolutionists are excited this week over the latest piscine “transitional form.” Scientists led by Australian John Long are reporting on the first complete fossil of an extinct fish called Gogonasus, discovered by Long’s team last year. Gogonasus is being hailed as a transitional form because it “had more advanced features than previously thought,” including middle ear structures and limbs that “resemble those of land vertebrates” (emphasis added). When resemblance is seen by a person wearing evolutionary glasses, the inevitable result is the claim that something is a transitional form, even though there is usually no other evidence to indicate such status.

Even with the hubbub surrounding this fossil, scientists caution that its limbs—reputed to be similar to those of land vertebrates—are actually “less advanced” than those of Tiktaalik, another alleged transitional form. We reported on those exaggerated claims in Gone fishin’ for a missing link? (A preliminary response). And a more indepth article on Tiktaalik is being prepared by Dr. David Menton, soon to be published in The Journal of Biblical and Scientific Studies on this website.

Ultimately, it’s best to remember the evolutionary claims that have risen to a din and then abated in the past, such as with the coelacanth. For years, the coelacanth (which is found in fossil layers allegedly 70 million or more years old) was believed to be an extinct transitional form, one of the “proofs” of evolution because of its fleshy, lobed fins. But those claims died after a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938—using its meaty fins to swim like a normal fish, and not to “transition” to land life.

Taken from the AIG website today !

Comment #141054

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 21, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

Ah, PBH, with his intensive research into the cutting-edge scientific literature: Reader’s Digest and Children’s Encyclopedia (circa 1950).

That the rest of you fellows have the temerity to go up against a fellow bearing that kind of intellectual horsepower is astonishing…

Comment #141059

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2006 3:18 PM (e)

Try a reality check

try checking into a sanitorium, Phillip.

Comment #141063

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Ah, PBH, with his intensive research into the cutting-edge scientific literature: Reader’s Digest and Children’s Encyclopedia (circa 1950).

But then, since I doubt very much that Mr Blitherer sits around reading fifty-year old magazine articles, I’m guessing that he found these quote-mines on some creationist crapsite somewhere, and just brainlessly cut-and-pasted them as regurgiquotes.

Comment #141116

Posted by Steve Hanson on October 21, 2006 10:36 PM (e)

Obviously you didn’t read thid part “However, Jennifer Clack, an expert on the fish-tetropod transition of the Devonian, cautions that these tetrapod-like innovations may be an example of parallel evolution, and that this lineage developed them independently of the lineage that led to tetrapods.”
There are several lineages of sarcopterygian fish that developed tetrapod like adaptations according to evolutionists.

Parrallel Evolution. What a miracle.

Comment #141125

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 22, 2006 12:10 AM (e)

Steve:
There is no such third part. However, National Geographic says on Long’s paper:

““This Gogonasus fish shows similar adaptation for air breathing that we see in creatures much closer to tetrapods,” said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist and tetrapod expert at the University of Cambridge in England. Clack was not involved in the new study….

The early tetrapod-like fish could have swum around the world, Cambridge’s Clack adds.

However, Gogonasus may have evolved its tetrapod-like features independently of the first fishes to crawl out of water onto land, she says.

“It’s possible the features we are seeing in Gogonasus—the air breathing and limb characters—are in fact evolved in parallel, in fact have nothing to do with those in tetrapods. They perhaps derived similar mechanisms quite independently,” she said.

“We’ll need a lot more work to sort that one out.”

( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061018-fossil-fish_2.html )

I’m not a biologist, but that suggests to me that Clack may contest the new cladogram. This is science in the making we see. Isn’t this exciting, or what?

If you read the linked post, you can see that Gogonasus in the old position is still in the tetrapod lineage. In that case, what is lost is a ready explanation for tetrapod dispersal to the southern hemisphere, and the suggestion that some tetrapod features are more rooted in fish-like functions. No biggie.

Comment #141145

Posted by Anton Mates on October 22, 2006 1:23 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

But then, since I doubt very much that Mr Blitherer sits around reading fifty-year old magazine articles, I’m guessing that he found these quote-mines on some creationist crapsite somewhere, and just brainlessly cut-and-pasted them as regurgiquotes.

Remember that Heywood’s preferred dictionary is apparently a 1901 edition, and for that matter his primary scientific text is over 1600 years old (pre-translation). The 50’s are cutting-edge.

Comment #141163

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 22, 2006 3:21 AM (e)

what makes you think anybody is following you around, Larry?

a lot of us post on various blogs.

only a paranoid schizophrenic would think people are following him around the blogosphere.

you’re losing what little grip on reality you have left.

Comment #141193

Posted by Peter Henderson on October 22, 2006 6:26 AM (e)

Children’s Encyclopedia (circa 1950)

We actually had one these in our house (My dad inherited it from somewhere), or something similar. From what I can remember there was quite a good section on horse evolution. I actually think it’s influenced my thinking on science.

Comment #141197

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 22, 2006 7:41 AM (e)

“Dwarfs and pygmies”, yes, got that. We’re all equally HOMO SAPIENS, anyway, even those of us with Asperger’s. I wasn’t excluding myself from that possibility, nor from the possibility of having other hurdles. I certainly wasn’t attributing symptoms of mental difficulties to anyone else. I have seen mental sickness in action and I assure you, to say or suggest that someone is mentally ill by way of an insult is at the very least a sign of knowing little or nothing of the real world.

Since we are all equally human, then, by definition, both Common (“blood”)Descent and Incremental Speciation are impossible. But that has been pointed out ad infinitum.

Regarding the weight of professionalism and character on the side of caution, moderation, due process, and respect for personal beliefs, in the Darwinism vs Non-Darwinism case? - No contest. Linneaus, Pasteur, Mendel, Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz …. take them away, and take away biology and palaeontology. Neither does the story end with the advent of Darwinism. Hoyle and Crick, for instance. What was it Hoyle suggested - 50,000 exact same consecutive throws with a dice, and then we haven’t begun to address the Entropy Barrier. (Hoyle to my limited knowledge claimed to be an atheist, as did Crick.) Attacking proponents of theories personally is weird.

Honest mistakes are understandable. At T/O, it seems, factual accuracy only need be practised and pursued if one is not a proponent of Common Descent with Modification? Newton developed calculus as an undergraduate. He described it to his professor of mathematics. I.e., witnesses. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his professor should have taken steps? I wasn’t there. Leibnitz independently developed something the same in Germany. Leaving aside questions of personal character or conduct, on which we pass no judgement, Newton developed calculus either before or concurrently with Leibnitz. When an independent umpire put them to the test, Newton in one day solved two problems that Leibnitz was threatening to take a year to solve.
If the science history here is this poor, what is the science itself like?

Cheer up, I’ve got a story. In keeping with the thread, it’s a fish tale. John Reader, a common descent man who, like many genuine researchers, doesn’t actually cook the books, in 1986 wrote this: “One might imagine that among the vertebrates flourishing in the oceans some species must have perceived the advantages awaiting any that managed to find their way ashore…. such a wealth of vegetation.. ready to feed the adventurous … “ (THE RISE OF LIFE). Here, succinctly, is this honest man’s mechanism of speciation. It’s along the lines of Mr.Ed and his Talking Horse. Conference driven adaptive change. The fish decided to go after that vegetation. To do this, they had to get educated, so they could talk at conferences. Hence the term, Schools, when speaking of fish. School was in for two terms. (Hack, Cough) I’ve just developed a head cold. First, Ostracoderm, followed by Placoderm. Den dey hab summer hobidays.
This is how we got the terms (my cold is improving) school, and term.
Note my strict derivation from the original Hindustani & Bulawayan Sanskrit.

I was going to introduce aspects of physics that render this contoversy obsolete, but I think a fish tale is more appropriate. I’ve just got to make sure that no-one actually believes it!

Comment #141208

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 22, 2006 7:56 AM (e)

Is “blithering” a regurgiquote?

Comment #141232

Posted by Jim Wynne on October 22, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

I say we get PBH and Glen Davidson to go head-to-head and market the result as a cure for insomnia. We’ll make millions!

Comment #141260

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 22, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

I say we get PBH and Glen Davidson to go head-to-head and market the result as a cure for insomnia. We’ll make millions!

Or hey, you could just be a jackass like Wynne. Sorry you cannot appreciate intellect, cretin. Maybe you really belong with the IDists, since a favorite of IDiots and Wynne (like some other illiberally educated whiners) is to cavil where they don’t understand.

Of course it’s hard to respond to the ravings of PBH, and also to intelligent essays if you are poorly educated like Wynne. But it takes true stupidity to put the two forms of writing into the same sentence (and don’t say, ‘well I didn’t mean it like that.’ Who cares if you do or don’t? You need to show some ability to think things through, for once).

If you ever have any intelligent responses to what I write it would be interesting, Jim. Till then, just take unfair potshots to show how low your acumen really is.

By the way, why do dolts like Wynne attack people who haven’t been attacking them? He doesn’t need to read what he doesn’t understand, unless he wants to be able to make an intelligent comment rather than simply to try to beat up the smart guy. I haven’t attacked his lack of substance, yet he has to attack my substance for not being as trite and meaningless as his posts. I suppose it’s the playground all over again, anyone who writes “too smart” for the certain resentful ones left behind, deserves to be attacked.

Glen D
http://

Comment #141297

Posted by Larry Fafarman on October 23, 2006 4:06 AM (e)

Cpy f Cmmnt #141296 n “Slly Blly n Slly Bks“ thrd –
http://www.pndsthmb.rg/rchvs/2006/10/slly_blly.html#cmmnt-141296

Sr_SchmJm sd ( Cmmnt #141246 ) –

PZ seems to be the levelheaded person here. Contrary to what Larry says he was not blocked on the thread, PZ disemvoweled his comments as he does with other abusers.

Wrng, Sr_SchmJm. Slzy PZ s blckng m nw.

N, Slzy PZ s nt lvl-hdd – h wnt ftr m nstd f gng ftr th scmbg wh strtd t by rspndng t dffrnc f pnn r msndrstndng by thrtnng t pst lnk t n nrltd qrrl tht hd n nthr blg.

Th scmbg‘s thrt ws nxcsbl n ny cs – bt wnt t dd tht h md th thrt bfr vn hd chnc t rspnd t hs sttmnt, “s sl, Lrry, y r ncrrct. svrl rcnt mjr fnds WR n fct prdctd, bth n knd nd n plcmnt.“

Jst kp t p, y lsy Drwnst scmbgs. Yr crdblty s crmblng dly.

Comment #141298

Posted by Larry Fafarman on October 23, 2006 4:07 AM (e)

Copy of Comment #141296 on “Silly Billy on Silly Books“ thread –
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/silly_billy.html#comment-141296

Sir_SchmoJam said ( Comment #141246 ) –

PZ seems to be the levelheaded person here. Contrary to what Larry says he was not blocked on the thread, PZ disemvoweled his comments as he does with other abusers.

Wrong, Sir_SchmoJam. Sleazy PZ is blocking me now.

No, Sleazy PZ is not level-headed – he went after me instead of going after the scumbag who started it by responding to a difference of opinion or a misunderstanding by threatening to post a link to an unrelated quarrel that I had on another blog.

The scumbag‘s threat was inexcusable in any case – but I want to add that he made the threat before I even had a chance to respond to his statement, “as usual, Larry, you are incorrect. several recent major finds WERE in fact predicted, both in kind and in placement.“

Just keep it up, you lousy Darwinist scumbags. Your credibility is crumbling daily.

Comment #141305

Posted by ben on October 23, 2006 6:22 AM (e)

Bye Larry.

Comment #141310

Posted by Arden Chatfield on October 23, 2006 8:38 AM (e)

Larry, your brother Dave says you really need to get back on your meds right away.

Comment #141334

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 23, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

Your credibility is crumbling daily.

actually, it’s your sanity that seems to be crumbling ever more on a daily basis, Larry.

If it were me, I’d seriously reconsider the benefit of posting on sites where I’ve been banned.

but, that’s just me I guess.

Comment #142150

Posted by Peter Booth on November 1, 2006 2:33 AM (e)

It is agreed. PYGMIEs AND DWARFS?! get the facts straight before publishing an incorrect source.

Comment #157079

Posted by Henry J on January 22, 2007 3:41 PM (e)

Re “I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.”

Well in case that - shut the *bleep* up about it, already. Sheesh.