"The Morphology of Steve"

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on August 2, 2004 02:23 PM

http://www.pandasthumb.org/images/steves.jpg
The National Center for Science Education’s Project Steve now has a published paper appearing in the estimable journal, “The Annals of Improbable Research” (AIR).

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume10/v10i4/…

(Photo: Dr. Steve Carr, Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Eugenie Scott, Nick Matzke, Glenn Branch, and some 430 odd Steves comprise the author list as Project Steve T-shirt order information is bent, folded, stapled, and otherwise mutilated to obtain such findings as “island dwarfism in Steves” and the infamous “mid-continental Steve deficit”.

I play an unacknowledged role in the paper as the model in the “experimental Steveometry apparatus”.

Check it out…

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/385

Comment #5952

Posted by Gary Hurd on August 2, 2004 02:40 PM (e) (s)

I am shocked that the article missed the obvious hypothesis that at least one Stephanie has VLB* accounting for the outlier data point on body size.

*VLB- Very Large Breasts

Comment #5956

Posted by steve on August 2, 2004 03:29 PM (e) (s)

Knowing two of the Steves on that list, I was amused when last year some creationist said that the people on that list were just pressured into doing so. If they only knew.

Comment #5959

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on August 2, 2004 04:31 PM (e) (s)

I congratulated the two Steves that I know for their new paper.

Comment #5960

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 2, 2004 04:32 PM (e) (s)

Brilliant. Beats any ID research…

Comment #5965

Posted by RBH on August 2, 2004 06:22 PM (e) (s)

Eugenie Scott, Nick Matzke, Glenn Branch, and some 430 odd Steves …

Some odder than others.  (Rissing, are you there?)

RBH

Comment #5970

Posted by John Wilkins on August 2, 2004 08:29 PM (e) (s)

There is no dwarfism in Australian Steves (Wilkins, pers comm) but there is a marked endomorphism to be found, particularly in Steves that run free in what we Aussies call “The Bush”. There is considerable debate whether this is more a function of endogenous metabolic rates (are Steves in The Bush attracted to the region because they have slower metabolisms, and, like reptiles such as the Monitor Lizard, like to bask in the sun rather than try to maintain the requisite energy budget through food for warming their bodies?) or due to a lack of available resources, such as the natural food of Steves - beer?

The former hypothesis is supported by those who follow the Original Steve in favouring habitat tracking.

There is anecdotal evidence that, despite their body morphometry, all Aussies, including Steves of course, have extremely large endowments in the sub-abdomenal area.

Comment #5982

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 2, 2004 10:59 PM (e) (s)

Any marsupial Steves in the Australian sample

Comment #5984

Posted by Wayne Francis on August 2, 2004 11:32 PM (e) (s)

As an American living in Australia I’d like to point out that with over almot 7,700,000 kmē it has almost the same land mass as the continental United States that I seen it hard to classify it as an island any more then classifying antartica as an island especially in terms of morphology of species on island compaired to mainland counterparts….hmmm I’m taking this to seriously.

Sorry John, from my discussions with my Aussie girlfriends the sub-abdomenal area of Aussie men isn’t that great and most say that Aussie males gluteus are to flat.

Comment #5985

Posted by Wayne Francis on August 2, 2004 11:35 PM (e) (s)

PVM, I’ve never seen a woman, named Steve or not, with a pouch.  I’ll keep my eye out tho…better goto the pub to pick up a sample tonight and do some investigating.

Comment #5992

Posted by Tom Morris on August 3, 2004 08:05 AM (e) (s)

Damn, I’ve only got to get through a doctorate in science and then change my name by deed poll and I can be listed alongside Stephen Hawking as a co-author! What a brilliant piece of research - made a nice diversion from dredging through this pile of papers that needs to be read.

Comment #6000

Posted by petey on August 3, 2004 12:51 PM (e) (s)

are all darwinists sloppy fatasses?

Comment #6003

Posted by steve on August 3, 2004 01:47 PM (e) (s)

Are all catholics pedophiles?

Comment #6021

Posted by Wayne Francis on August 3, 2004 08:32 PM (e) (s)

The answer to both of those is no but I’d care to say that the percentage of pedophile catholic priests is a few orders of magnitude higher then the percentage of darwinist sloppy fatsses.

Oh sorry, I’m being sexist.  There are plenty of complaints agianst Roman Catholic nuns sexually abusing people too.

Comment #6198

Posted by Matt Inlay on August 6, 2004 08:59 PM (e) (s)

It’s a pity Gould is not on the list, just so we could see two steves with the ‘%’ symbol after their name.

Comment #6204

Posted by Bob Maurus on August 6, 2004 11:46 PM (e) (s)

Hey Matt,

Certainly Gould could be added postumously and honorarily, but more importantly, I think a solid case can be made for God being added to the list of Steves.

Numerologically Steve is 19-20-5-22-5 which totals to 71 = 8.

God is 7-15-4 = 26 = 8

Who would have figured? If I hadn’t worked it out myself I wouldn’t have believed it. Can’t wait to let Douglas know.

Comment #6212

Posted by steve on August 7, 2004 08:30 AM (e) (s)

I hope you aren’t alleging any other similarity, Bob. I don’t know any Steve who would torture someone for eternity.

Comment #6221

Posted by Russell on August 7, 2004 12:44 PM (e) (s)

…  … 71 = 8

By golly, you may already have qualified as a bona fide Design Theorist.

Perhaps you mean:

… 71 mod 9 = 8

(N mod 9 being the single digit you wind up with when you add all the digits of a multidigit number together, recursively.)

(We now return to our regularly scheduled Nerdfest.)

Comment #6257

Posted by Glenn Branch on August 9, 2004 04:43 PM (e) (s)

Matt Inlay wrote:

It’s a pity Gould is not on the list, just so we could see two steves with the ‘%’ symbol after their name.

Look at p. 29, n. 2, sentence 6: “The choice of name honored the recently-deceased paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould[%] …”