Comment #23962

Posted by Russell on April 8, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)

I’d love to read the “Fun Facts”, but I can’t make them out on the posted scans. If someone has access to a legible version, it would be great if you could transcribe them!

Comment #23963

Posted by Malkuth on April 8, 2005 05:56 PM (e) (s)

Oh, God… is this what creationists want to be taught in schools?

Comment #23964

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 8, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

Hm, I don’t have a problem reading them.  (They’re hilarious, so you don’t want to miss them.)

The image that’s linked to is the original high-resolution scan, and it’s not going to get any better.  (Although I could make them worse if you’d like.)

You may be having an issue with your browser — I know that WinXP will automatically thumbnail a large pic and you have to click on it to get the full size.  Something like that must be going on.

Comment #23966

Posted by Jon Fleming on April 8, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

I’d love to read the “Fun Facts”, but I can’t make them out on the posted scans.

Whatever program you’re using to view them must be reducing them to fit in the window.

“Dinosaurs are reptiles and reptiles never stop growing!

The largest dinosaur egg ever found was smaller than a football.

Dinosaur footprints & people footprints were found together in Glenrose, Texas.

The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live milions of years ago, they lived with man.  There are still some around today.”

Comment #23967

Posted by anon on April 8, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

Incredible.

Most kids’ menus only provide junk for the body.

This one has junk for the mind, too.

Yippee.

Comment #23968

Posted by Engineer-Poet on April 8, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

Did any of the adults complain to the restaurant management?

Comment #23969

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

transcription:

FRONT:

shows a picture of a triceratops

in the text window we read:

dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing!

The largers dinosaur egg ever found was smaller than a football.

Dinosaur footprints and people footprints were found together in Glenrose, Texas.

The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man.  There are still some around today.

BACK:

We see pictures of a T-rex and Pterodactyl and one other i can’t make out.

in the various text windows under the T-rex we read:

The brain of a T-rex is only the size of a walnut.

If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex.  He would die because he would bleed to death.

Scientists have theorized that the T-rex could probably breathe fire.

under the Ptery we read:

Missionaries have reported that the natives are scared of Pterodactyl’s still living in Kenya, Africa.  The natives call them Kongamato.

Many scientists believe that there are still a few dinosaurs alive today.  Other numerous sitings include Amazon and Lake Okanagan!

Scientists have determined that the Loch Ness monster is probably a dinosaur.  Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness, and there are over 50 pictures taken of him.

There have been recent expeditions into the Congo swamp where Apatosaurs still live!  The Congo swamp is the size of Arkansas, and still largely un-explorable.  What else might be there??

at the bottom we read:

For more great information on dinosaurs visit www.drdino.com.  This information was taken from video #3 available from Dr. Dino’s website!!

Comment #23970

Posted by Engineer-Poet on April 8, 2005 06:13 PM (e) (s)

Fix for people with “automatic resize” enabled in Windoze:

1.)  Hover the cursor over the picture.
2.)  Wait until the four-arrows-outward glyph appears in the bottom RH corner.
3.)  Click it.

Comment #23971

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)

i didn’t put any of my own comments along with the transcription, as i didn’t really see any point in doing so.

sad.

Comment #23972

Posted by steve on April 8, 2005 06:23 PM (e) (s)

Missionaries have reported that the natives are scared of the Pterodactyl’s still living in Kenya, Africa.

It wouldn’t surprise me if that apostrophe was in Kent Hovind’s original.

Comment #23973

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 8, 2005 06:25 PM (e) (s)

“If you could get near him, you could very easily tear off the arm of the T-rex.  He would die because he would bleed to death.”

This is pure Kent Hovind.

Comment #23974

Posted by Malkuth on April 8, 2005 06:28 PM (e) (s)

The apostrophe was in the original.

Comment #23976

Posted by carsten on April 8, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness

This one I can believe :-)

Comment #23981

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

there was one typo i made:

change siting to sighting.

other than that, i think i got it all verbatim, including the punctuation.

Comment #23984

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on April 8, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)

Maybe the resturant patron should ask the waitress if it is a good idea to have materials being distrubted to children from a person on the watchlist of Anti-Hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Meaning this guy is being looked at like groups like the KKK are and info on him is being shared with police agencies. Not to mention the IRS and other law enforcement groups are also investigating Dr. Dinodroppings. Should also mention his criminal record and that his family also have records of criminal misdeeds and so do some of his church elders.

Also ask if they are aware of what other Christian groups have to say about Dr. Dino namely that he is a disgrace to them.

Comment #23987

Posted by Flint on April 8, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)

Incidentally, Dunlap Tennessee is a truly beautiful place. It is nestled in the Sequatchie valley, a long narrow fold in the southern Appalachians, with steep escarpments perhaps 800 feet high on both sides. There is noplace without a spectacular view anywhere near town. But all this makes Dunlap hard to get to from any large city, so the culture is insular.

Comment #23997

Posted by Joe Meert on April 8, 2005 08:06 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know that you would call it a formal complaint, but I did ask the waitress about the placemats and she seemed a bit flabbergasted that anyone would find them offensive.  I honestly think she had no clue that this was a young-earth tract.  She said that the owner orders everything for the restaraunt.  I remember looking at Hovinds schedule a while back and noticed Dunlap on the agenda.  The only reason I took notice of his trip there is because we take our field methods class there every year to look at the rocks in the area.  I suspect the only thing a more formal complaint would have gotten us was kicked out of the restaraunt.  Instead, I showed it to all the students (many asked for souvenier copies) and we had a good laugh.  I was also able to teach my son about why some people are willing to lie to convince others of their viewpoint.  To his credit he did know that T-rex’s brain was larger than a walnut and that the Loch Ness monster was a myth.  Now he knows a lot more about life and lies.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Comment #24004

Posted by Jim Wynne on April 8, 2005 08:33 PM (e) (s)

In a great coincidence, I happened to catch a few minutes of the good Dr. Dino on TV this evening. There’s a local Christian station that seems very fond of him. He was talking about—dinosaurs! Actually, he was talking about how fire-breathing dragons were real and were just dinosaurs. He described T-Rex as having a head about the  size of a Volkswagen (no model mentioned) but a brain about the same size as a kitten’s. I swear I’m not making this next part up. He said that a lot of that unused cranial capacity was probably just empty and could have been used to “store chemicals.” And the empty chamber(s) were connected to the “nasal passages.” (…and the knee bone’s connected to the…)”If you mix the right chemicals,” he said, “you get combustion, and T-Rex might have been able to blow that fire right out its nostrils.”
I want a degree from Patriot University.

Comment #24010

Posted by Air Bear on April 8, 2005 08:56 PM (e) (s)

“If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex.  He would die because he would bleed to death.”

Guess T-Rex didn’t have that Intelligently Designed blood-clotting mechanism.

Maybe T-Rex is extinct because one of Noah’s sons was goofing around and pulled the arms off the two T-Rexes in the Ark.

Maybe Dr. Hovind is right - if an animal that big had a brain the size of a walnut, it would be too stupid to use its enormous jaws and huge teeth to prevent people from getting up on a ladder to reach its arms to pull them off.

Comment #24011

Posted by steve on April 8, 2005 08:59 PM (e) (s)

I want his dissertation. He, of course, refuses to release anything but the “latest version”, which makes him look dumber than if he just refused.

Comment #24012

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 8, 2005 09:04 PM (e) (s)

Now he knows a lot more about life and lies.

And while it is an important lesson, it is a shame he had to learn it at all.

Sincerely Cheers,
Paul

Comment #24013

Posted by steve on April 8, 2005 09:06 PM (e) (s)

(Hovind) said that a lot of that unused cranial capacity was probably just empty and could have been used to “store chemicals.”

Was he talking about the T-Rex’s brain, or his own?

For the record, I consider that last sentence “Clever beyond fathomability”

Comment #24017

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)

maybe he can shoot fire out of his nose?  so he naturally assumed other things could too.

Comment #24018

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 8, 2005 09:17 PM (e) (s)

If ID is not creationism, certainly the Discovery Institute will have no difficulty issuing a press release disavowing Hovind’s insanity.  If ID is science and not creationism, surely Dembski and Behe will make that clear to the court in Dover with a categorical denial of Hovind’s materials.

Should I bate my breath?

Comment #24020

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 8, 2005 09:23 PM (e) (s)

Ed, you’d suffocate first.
Paul

Comment #24022

Posted by Malkuth on April 8, 2005 09:29 PM (e) (s)

Oh, certainly not.  The ability to breathe fire undoubtedly requires an intelligent designer (it’s far too complex to have evolved), and it’s already obvious that Kent Honvid wasn’t intelligently designed. 

Here’s my conjecture:
Honvid’s brain is actually the size of an ordinary human’s, but he utilizes far less of it than others.  The brain matter which he does not use (junk brain matter) still exists not necessarily because it benefits him, but because it benefits itself—it’s parasital—much like selfish junk DNA (for anyone who’s read Dawkins The Selfish Gene).  Honvid’s brain, because it does not function at the capacity that his anscestors’ did, is a vestigal organ, which is predicted by evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary theory can also explain why: in a society where you don’t have to use your brain, genes which would make the brain less functional would become more common in a population (at the very least, a population comprised of non-brain-users) as there is no selection pressure favoring genes which make the brain more functional, nor which ‘punish’ genes which make the brain less functional.  Politicians and creationists, for instance, don’t have to use their brains because a good deal of people will believe outright lies, mischaracterisations, and half-truths made up by such people, and can make their living without ever having to think critically about anything.  Actually, because people prefer to believe certain things, they’re more likely to listen to someone who appeals to what they wish to believe, and lies/mischaracterizes in order to do so than to someone who says things like they are, so there is actually selection pressure for the brains of groups such as politicians and creationists (and other demagogues) to become vestigal.

Kent Honvid happens to be further evolved than other demagogues.

Comment #24028

Posted by Dave S. on April 8, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s)

“If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex.  He would die because he would bleed to death.”

On my screen the bracketted word is clearly pull, although it looks more like pUll.

I especially like the “very easily” part. I wish I had a T-REX so Hovind could test that hypothesis for himself.

Comment #24029

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 10:18 PM (e) (s)

For the record, I consider that last sentence “Clever beyond fathomability”

ah yes, very witty, Wilde.

“His majesty is like a stream of bat’s piss.”

…

Comment #24030

Posted by sir_toejam on April 8, 2005 10:21 PM (e) (s)

“Here’s my conjecture:”

hmm. seems reasonable.  how would we test it?  please show for us how your theory would fit all the steps of scientific analysis posted by Dr. Lenny.

:)

Comment #24039

Posted by fwiffo on April 8, 2005 11:43 PM (e) (s)

“An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.”
  — Eric Hoffer

Comment #24041

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 8, 2005 11:55 PM (e) (s)

Re Hovind, “maybe he can shoot fire out of his nose?  so he naturally assumed other things could too.”

Actually, I will wager that gud ol’ Kent was playing with matches in the bathtub again.

Opps and it was “pull” and not “tear.”

Comment #24057

Posted by guthrie on April 9, 2005 04:06 AM (e) (s)

“Scientists have determined that the Loch Ness monster is probably a dinosaur.  Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness, and there are over 50 pictures taken of him.”

Whoever wrote it seems to have forgotten the likelihood of female Loch Ness monsters.  And the typo just makes them look like idiots.  I’d like to know which scientists, last I knew there were maybe 2 that thought it was a plesiosaur, and thousands who thought it lookedl ike a pleisosaur in the half dozen photos we have, but also know that there is no evidence that such a beastie exists in Loch Ness.

Comment #24064

Posted by Ben on April 9, 2005 05:20 AM (e) (s)

The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man.  There are still some around today.

After reading that, I feel like weeping.

Comment #24068

Posted by David Heddle on April 9, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

ID is not young earth creationism, and Hovind and his kind are a disaster.

However, I will point out once again that when I blog about cosmological ID or talk about it at civic clubs/schools/colleges I get attacked from two sides: PT types and Hovind types.

Hovind hates cosmological ID because it makes no sense for a young earth. To Hovind, I am as much a heretic as Darwin.

So I sort of view you (PT types) and Hovind as being a common enemy.

Comment #24071

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 9, 2005 07:24 AM (e) (s)

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Hovind conjecture that the source of the gas used to breathe fire was the critter’s bowels?

Comment #24075

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on April 9, 2005 08:12 AM (e) (s)

Sure, Mr. Heddle.

Except that Hovind-types are your enemies because your opinions on cosmological ID threaten their faith, and PT-types are your enemies because their opinions on cosmological ID threaten your faith.

So, if anything else, it is you who share a most important trait with Hovind: the absolute need to protect one’s faith from “heretic” opinions and “inconvenient” facts.

Comment #24076

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 9, 2005 08:22 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

ID is not young earth creationism, and Hovind and his kind are a disaster.

About the first claim… Please name one thing in “intelligent design” that is not also present in young-earth creationism. Re-labelling of contents does not change those contents.

Comment #24077

Posted by Stefan Kruithof on April 9, 2005 08:32 AM (e) (s)

This is extremely funny and terribly sad at the same time.

Hovind is such a joke.

Comment #24078

Posted by Malkuth on April 9, 2005 08:45 AM (e) (s)

sir_toejam wrote:

hmm. seems reasonable.  how would we test it?  please show for us how your theory would fit all the steps of scientific analysis posted by Dr. Lenny.

You could make genaologies of several prominent demagogues and find information relevant to their intelligence (or lack thereof), to see if a gradual deterioration of the brain occurs over time.  It would be preferable to look at geneaologies of families which don’t mix with non-demagogic/non-political families—ie, families that have been seperated from the rest of society by social reproductive barriers.

Comment #24079

Posted by David Heddle on April 9, 2005 09:04 AM (e) (s)

Wesley,

About the first claim… Please name one thing in “intelligent design” that is not also present in young-earth creationism. Re-labelling of contents does not change those contents.

The idea that the heavy element constituents of rocky planets like the earth were created in the interior of stars and then seeded via super novae.

Emanuele

PT types do not threaten my faith at all.

Comment #24080

Posted by jaimito on April 9, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s)

The place is very unexpensive. The dino facts are fun and instructive. At least the placemat is not anti-science. On the contrary, the statements are based (so it says) on solid scientific opinion.

Comment #24081

Posted by jaimito on April 9, 2005 09:24 AM (e) (s)

The place is very unexpensive. The dino facts are fun and instructive. The placemat is not anti-science. On the contrary, the statements are based (so it says) on solid scientific opinion. Should we refute a placemat?

Comment #24082

Posted by jaimito on April 9, 2005 09:28 AM (e) (s)

And I am not argueing with …  a placemat!

Comment #24083

Posted by Dave S. on April 9, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)

We kid, but I think we have here an explanation for the fact that only a very few of the T-rex fossils so far uncovered come with arms attached.

All we need to do is to combine this fact, “If you could get near him, you could very easily pull off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death.”, with this one “The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man.”.

And voila, that’s why we find so few arm bones. They’ve all been pulled off by the cavemen.

Comment #24084

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 9, 2005 10:00 AM (e) (s)

Wesley:
About the first claim… Please name one thing in “intelligent design” that is not also present in young-earth creationism. Re-labelling of contents does not change those contents.

David Heddle:
The idea that the heavy element constituents of rocky planets like the earth were created in the interior of stars and then seeded via super novae.

Care to provide a reference from the ID literature stating this as the general consensus among ID advocates?  I must have missed that.

Comment #24086

Posted by David Heddle on April 9, 2005 10:12 AM (e) (s)

Andrea,

Care to provide a reference from the ID literature stating this as the general consensus among ID advocates?  I must have missed that.

It is surprising that you missed it.

Cosmological IDers support an old earth and the big bang model, and the normal accepted theories of stellar evolution and nuclear chemistry. It must be you have read nothing on cosmological ID, which would explain your ignorance.

A good place to start would be Ross’s site.

Remember when you bash Ross that you’ll be in bed with Hovind, who has labelled Ross a heretic.

Comment #24088

Posted by Matt on April 9, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

To be fair, Kent Hovind isn’t universally accepted in the anti-evolution movement.  True, holding your breath waiting for a press release from the Discovery Institute might be a bad idea (can’t show dissension in the ranks - it might break up the Wedge and leave us vulnerable to those atheist scientists saying of us, like we do of them, that all this infighting means our theory is in crisi), but he has been publicly denounced by Answers in Genesis.

It all started when AiG posted a list of arguments that were bad strategic moves for creationists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp…

This included some of Hovind’s favorites, so he took it personally, responding with an attack on AiG. 

Aig responded by taking his response apart point-by-point, and this time, it *was* directed at him:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp…

I’m not sure if it’s an actual case of sanity prevailing so much as the lesser of two insanities, but it’s something.

Comment #24089

Posted by Bill Ware on April 9, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

Speaking of Loch Ness, when I was stationed in England with an AF recon squadron, we would often have to fly to Scotland to find weather good enough to take pictures. If practical, we would fly over Loch Ness as the place where we would clear/test our cameras before heading to the first assigned target.

All those pictues, not one monster. Drats!

Comment #24090

Posted by Malkuth on April 9, 2005 10:26 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

Remember when you bash Ross that you’ll be in bed with Hovind, who has labelled Ross a heretic.

If I were to bash the Soviet Union, would I be in bed with Hitler, who too bashed the Soviet Union?

It probably would have been better for you to leave that part of the post out.  Nevertheless, I will take a look at the site.

Comment #24091

Posted by Bob King on April 9, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)

Mr Heddle,

I don’t really see your point re: differences between ID and YEC.

The idea that the heavy element constituents of rocky planets like the earth were created in the interior of stars and then seeded via super novae.

Are you saying that element synthesis in stars is evidence of intelligent design? If not then your point is irrelevant. If you are then I am at a loss.

However, I don’t understand Wesley’s point either - nor your response. I would have said that a key difference between ID and YEC is that in ID an intelligent being is posited to have been involved in evolution and that empirical evidence for this exists. YEC’s, on the other hand, believe that the Earth was created in literally 6 days and believe in special creation, etc. Naturally both viewpoints are ludicrous but they are certainly different - aren’t they?

So I am confused by this exchange.

On a diferent note I am wondering if you (Mr Heddle) now understand the difference between “80% of proteins are different between chimps and humans” and “human and chimp proteins are 80% different from each other.” I was following this discussion closely and then you (Mr Heddle) vanished - or maybe I lost track - now that you’re back perhaps you could let us know your current position on this.

I’d hate to think that you simply vanish when you are on the losing side of an argument. The ability to pursue a point to it’s logical conclusion - irrespective of one’s opinions - is really a key quality if one is to engage in an honest and logical discussion. Honest is, after all, a key Christian virtue.

Comment #24095

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 9, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

It is surprising that you missed it.

Cosmological IDers support an old earth and the big bang model, and the normal accepted theories of stellar evolution and nuclear chemistry. It must be you have read nothing on cosmological ID, which would explain your ignorance.

A good place to start would be Ross’s site.

Nice try, but no cigar - I did not ask whether there are any ID supporters that agree with an Old Earth cosmology, I know there are some (though Ross of course is quite peripheral in the current ID movement).  I asked whether you could provide any evidence from the ID literature that old-earth cosmology is the consensus among ID advocates, which is what you tried to imply when you stated that old-earth cosmology is one thing that differentiates ID from YECs. 

In fact, most ID advocates, from Dembski onward, have always been very cautious in committing to an acceptance of the scientific evidence for  an old universe, affirming it is not a relevant issue for ID.  In the immortal, unequivocal words of the IDEA Center:

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily even related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of religions, including Christianity. For this reason, IDEA finds no reasons from its mission statement to make any statements about the age of the earth. This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions.

Comment #24097

Posted by Malkuth on April 9, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Doesn’t standard theory of the solar system’s origins state that the planets formed from an accretion disc orbiting a protostar early in the solar system’s history, and not from supernovae?  Or is that idea no longer popular?

Comment #24098

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on April 9, 2005 10:54 AM (e) (s)

Cryptozoology Conference to Highlight Bigfoot Research, Giant Catfish

The Southern Crypto Conference will be held Saturday June 18 in Conroe, TX. It will feature seminars and clincs on Bigfoot creature research, the search for giant catfish and other intriguing natural mysteries subjects.
…
Dr. Kent Hovind (Living Dinosaurs/Dinosaurs in the Bible): He will present information presented concerning dinosaurs in the Bible reflecting his extensive study in the field of cryptozoology and that there may still be some living dinosaurs in remote corners of the world.
…

Perhaps bigfoot believers should be concerned about Dr. Dino eroding their credibility…

Comment #24100

Posted by David Heddle on April 9, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Malkuth

It probably would have been better for you to leave that part of the post out.

You are, of course, correct. It’s just too hard to resist…

Also, with reference to planetary formation, we’re talking two different stages. The “stuff” that coalesced into planets was created inside stars.

Bob King,

Are you saying that element synthesis in stars is evidence of intelligent design?

Yes, as many (especially Hoyle) have noted, the process is highly dependent on fortuitous energy levels, which in turn makes it highly dependent on the relative strengths of the fundamental forces and the values of various constants.

As for the 80%, the fact that I worded a sentence incorrectly, as an 80% “absolute” difference instead of “80% of the proteins are different,” proved to be too much of a red herring. I was asking a real question, as a curious scientist, what people though of a paper whose abstract (only) I had and posted. I found the abstract interesting, but the responses disappointing. PTers either focused on my wording mistake, or dismissed the result as a triviality (without then explaining why it was published in a peer reviewed journal) or even worse they decided that “where I got wind of the paper” was more important than the science.

For those interested, this was the abstract

Andrea,

I have no idea how to answer a “consensus” question, since I can only speak for myself. I am only sure of one thing: that belief that the universe was designed to support life, on the basis of the apparent fine-tuning is, is inconsistent with a young earth. After all, if no stars have actually exploded, then there is no significance to the fine-tuning that makes that explosion possible.

ID is broader than Dembski (of whom I know nothing) and Behe (of whom I know only of his irreducible complexity arguments.)

Comment #24101

Posted by Bob King on April 9, 2005 11:50 AM (e) (s)

Mr Heddle,

Your point on stellar synthesis is poorly chosen for several reasons.

Apparently you are talking about fundamental constants and not stellar synthesis per se. After all, nuclear energy levels emerge from quantum mechanics which in turn is tied to the fundamental structure of the universe. Thus, stellar synthesis is a derivative point.

The main problem with your example, in context, is that it is not a basic difference between ID and YEC. Stellar synthesis is not a basic proof-of-concept point in ID. No does it point to ID in the usual sense that ID-ers use - at least no more than does any other physical phenomenon which exists - after all, muck around with the fundamental constants and things are different. It’s like pointing to the ability to fry an egg as being specific evidence of design. Or saying that ice floating in your gin and tonic is a result of the coincidences which conspire to produce hydrogen bonds in water but not in H2S (to any great extent). This sort of poor logic carries over in many posts, e.g,, the protein difference.

I read the abstract and it’s perfectly clear what is meant. That is, after all, the point of an abstract. As for asking an innocent question as a “curious scientist”, well, be that as it may. When Russell stated that you were wrong you certainly took him to task and re-confirmed your misunderstanding explicitly. So it didn’t look like a simple miswording but a fundamental misunderstanding of plain English. Of course we all make mistakes but that sort of mistake is rather elementary and one which a “scientist” would not make in public. You see, some level of critical thinking would cause him or her to question a bit more deeply what was being said.  So, it’s interesting how the ID-er so uncritically gloms on to any evidence that seems to back their preconceived view. Even if this entails enthusiastically misreading the evidence. That’s a key differenec between the curious scientist and the uncurious ID enthusiast. One’s dirty linen usually shows itself.

I am raising this issue to make a more general point which is the following - Fuzzy thinking is a hallmark - in fact a necessary ingredient - of ID “logic.” Because ID-ers “know” the answer ahead of time they are quite simply incapable of objective discussion or clear thinking on issues which impact their beliefs. It really is as simple as that. Essentially it’s like being part of a cult - and if one is part of a cult how would one know it?

It has always struck me how it was essentially religious people who denied and killed Jesus. If Jesus were to return today and perform such miracles such as resurrecting the dead and preachinh equality, then I wonder who would believe him and who would kill him - that is between the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists?

Comment #24102

Posted by Russell on April 9, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

As for the 80%, the fact that I worded a sentence incorrectly, as an 80% “absolute” difference instead of “80% of the proteins are different,” proved to be too much of a red herring. I was asking a real question, as a curious scientist, what people though of a paper whose abstract (only) I had and posted. I found the abstract interesting, but the responses disappointing. PTers either focused on my wording mistake, or dismissed the result as a triviality (without then explaining why it was published  in a peer reviewed journal) or even worse they decided that “where I got wind of the paper” was more important than the science.

David, what did I tell about table manners when eating crow?

(1)It was not a question of “wording”. Here’s your initial question:

What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different? What is the explanation from evolution?

Clearly, you’re saying that Pan proteins differ from Homo proteins significantly more than the corresponding DNA. That’s just not true. I pointed that out. I asked you for any sense in which it could be construed as true, but you vanished.

(2)PTers did not focus on a nonexistent “wording mistake”. They tried to get you to answer the simple question: what’s your point? If it was a “wording mistake”, and you realized all along that “proteins are 80% different” is not “80% of proteins have at least one difference”, what was your question? I thought my chromosome analogy made the point pretty clear. But instead of a “Thank you, that clears things up nicely”, I got a lot of phallocephalic bluster about taking this question to real scientists who would give the question the consideration it deserved. (What did they say, incidentally?)

(3)Your question, “why was it published in a peer reviewed journal?” Was (a) rhetorical (b) distracting (c) not worthy of notice. Still isn’t, of course, but let me just say that just because it doesn’t make the creationist point you thought it made, doesn’t mean it’s completely without interest to some genetic bean counters somewhere. Peer review, in an ideal world, filters out the blatantly wrong. “Triviality/profundity” is an separate issue for the standards of each journal. But you knew that.

(4)I was, and still am, curious about “where you got wind of the paper”. But what is your reason for thinking that anyone had concluded “that was more important than the science”?

I think you know, David, I don’t just automatically gainsay everything you write. I do give it some thought. Please return the favor.

Comment #24104

Posted by David Heddle on April 9, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)

Bob,

I don’t know what the “usual sense” is that IDers do things. The bottom line is that without stellar evolution, life would not exists. And stellar evolution is a finely tuned process. It is what led Hoyle (an athiest) to say that a “super-intellect had monkeyed with the physics.”

So a cosmological IDer says: this fine tuning is evidence (not proof) of design.

What would a YEC say? To a YEC it can’t be evidence of design, for an in situ creation six thousand years ago does not require it. Or worse, it seems to point to a deceptive designer who goes out of his way to leave false evidence. What the YEC would like, is that we cannot understand the processes inside stars at all.

I have no clue about the relevance of your comment on Jesus.

Russell,

Okay, fair enough, if I negelected your answer I apologize. However, the abstract states:

However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species.

Which states clearly that the situation for proteins is “quite different.” That doesn’t seem to agree with your statement that “it’s not true” [that proteins differ significantly more than DNA]

In spite of what you imply, I had no creationist aganda. I did sense that this abstract addressed an issue right of the crux of the evolution/anti-evolution debate. That’s what made it interesting. If asking a question on something in that realm is considered bad form, then so be it.

Why is it important where I got it? If you like, assume that Jerry Falwell sent it to me with a note to “see what those PT heathens have to say about this!”

And, if the answer remains that the result is trivial, I’d still like to know why it deserved to be published.

Comment #24105

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 9, 2005 12:55 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle is wrong again. Creation of heavy elements in supernovae is not a prediction derived from the content of ID. An old universe or a young earth is just peachy with ID advocates who can’t be bothered to take a stand or show how such a stand follows in any logical way from the fundamental statement of ID:

William Dembski wrote:

[…] there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.

Further, YECs had no problem in deploying the anthropic principle argument well before there was an “intelligent design” movement.

1985: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-149.htm…

Next!

Bob King: ID arguments are a subset of YEC arguments. ID advocates simply don’t argue *all* of the YEC arguments.

Comment #24106

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 9, 2005 01:03 PM (e) (s)

I have no idea how to answer a “consensus” question, since I can only speak for myself. I am only sure of one thing: that belief that the universe was designed to support life, on the basis of the apparent fine-tuning is, is inconsistent with a young earth. After all, if no stars have actually exploded, then there is no significance to the fine-tuning that makes that explosion possible.

ID is broader than Dembski (of whom I know nothing) and Behe (of whom I know only of his irreducible complexity arguments.)

Sure, but then you agree that ID in this broad sense includes you, Behe, Dembski, Davison, Ross, Nelson, Gish, Hovind, the Raelians, etc.  In other words, as Wes said, there is nothing in ID, in this broad sense, that contradicts YEC, because every ID advocate reserves the right to accept some scientific evidence, and reject other, based on personal preference.

Comment #24107

Posted by Russell on April 9, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

[Glazko et al:] “However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species… ”
[David Heddle:] “That doesn’t seem to agree with your statement that ‘it’s not true’”

OK. I’ll grant you, that was a dumb thing for them to write, and if I were doing the peer review, it wouldn’t have been published with that. But it doesn’t really let a scientifically literate reader off the hook. Which is sort of the other point that I tried to make. Here’s the full exchange:

D: What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different?

R: They’re not. What are you talking about?

D: Yes they are, I have read that the proteins are 80% different

Now, I’ll bet you’d like to rephrase that.

In spite of what you imply, I had no creationist aganda. I did sense that this abstract addressed an issue right of the crux of the evolution/anti-evolution debate. That’s what made it interesting. If asking a question on something in that realm is considered bad form, then so be it.

Not “bad form”. But thinking that it addressed an “issue right of the crux of the… debate” and “having a creationist agenda” sort of blend together in my mind.

Why is it important where I got it?

Well, this gets to that last point. (And by the way it’s not so much “important” as “interesting”). It surprised  me that a nuclear physicist is scanning the molecular genetics literature. It seems to me likely that your having picked this up reflects the likelihood that this particular canard is “making the rounds” in creationist circles. That would tell me something about who has your ear in this discussion, and - more importantly - forewarns and forearms me with respect to the next school board battle (one of the main reasons I spend so much time at PT).

If you like, assume that Jerry Falwell sent it to me with a note to “see what those PT heathens have to say about this!”

You’re saying that tongue-in-cheek. I can tell (hey, I wasn’t born yesterday!) But you know what? I think it’s essentially true.

And, if the answer remains that the result is trivial, I’d still like to know why it deserved to be published.

Well, you can answer that as well as I can.

Comment #24108

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 9, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

It all started when AiG posted a list of arguments that were bad strategic moves for creationists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp……

This included some of Hovind’s favorites, so he took it personally, responding with an attack on AiG. 

Aig responded by taking his response apart point-by-point, and this time, it *was* directed at him:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp……

I’m not sure if it’s an actual case of sanity prevailing so much as the lesser of two insanities, but it’s something.

So, would it be accurate to say that “a growing number of creationists seriously question the veracity of creationism?”  Or “there is so much dissension in creationism that it is impossible to know what is right and what is Godly?”

I think the Discovery Institute should invite a “teaching of the controversy” here:  Surely all social studies classes should be required to say that creationism is in crisis and soon will implode, and present all the arguments against creationism before talking about creationism at all — at least, in the DI structure of how things ought to work.

Equal time!  If Dover wants to require kids to learn ID, then shouldn’t they also require the kids to learn the critiques of ID from Hovind?  And the critiques of Hovind from AiG? 

Indeed, it may be said:  ‘It seems that the entire ID/creationism movement is so riven with dissension that (fill in the blank with your favorite canard against science and evolution here):  _________________________________.’

Comment #24110

Posted by Bob King on April 9, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)

Mr Heddle,

But a single example of so-called “fine-tuning” doesn’t imply a designer, does it? What you surely mean is that multiple different examples of “fine-tuning” imply a creator. If the latter is the case then fine-tuning in itself is not a good discriminator between ID and YEC in that many YECs believe, for example, that the amazing properties of the water molecule are an example of the Divine Hand, i.e., a case of fine-tuning. So the difference is in choice of example rather than being a fundamental difference between the two.

As far as I’m aware it’s a matter of debate how “finely-tuned” the carbon resonance actually is. But that’s a different topic.

Comment #24111

Posted by Engineer-Poet on April 9, 2005 04:49 PM (e) (s)

I wish to thank the posters here for some wonderful belly-laughs.  Since brevity is the soul of wit, I think the prize goes to the word “phallocephalic”.

Comment #24113

Posted by ~DS~ on April 9, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

Comment #24114

Posted by sir_toejam on April 9, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

“And I am not argueing with …  a placemat!”

are you sure about that?

:)

Comment #24124

Posted by frank schmidt on April 9, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

[Glazko et al:] “However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species… ”

David Heddle suggests that this is a body blow to our understanding of Darwinian evolution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this is very surprising at all. Let’s take the nucleotide difference as 1% in the coding regions, and say that approximately half of those changes are non-synonymous (i.e., they will result in an amino acid difference between chimps and humans). The probability that an arbitrary amino acid position will be different between chimps and humans is therefore 0.005, and the probability that an average-sized protein of 300 amino acids will have at least one amino acid change from chimps to humans is 1 - 0.995³⁰⁰, or 78%.

Frank

Comment #24125

Posted by RBH on April 9, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s)

N.Wells has a good brief explanation of the meaning of the protein findings on ARN.

RBH

Comment #24127

Posted by sir_toejam on April 9, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)

“You could make genaologies of several prominent demagogues and find information relevant to their intelligence (or lack thereof), to see if a gradual deterioration of the brain occurs over time.  It would be preferable to look at geneaologies of families which don’t mix with non-demagogic/non-political families—ie, families that have been seperated from the rest of society by social reproductive barriers.”

not a bad start…

would that be ontogenetic deterioration, or generational deterioriation?

both?

does the non-mixing imply you are looking for relative geographic seperation acting to potentiate a new species?  or is this more sexual selection?

Comment #24128

Posted by Russell on April 9, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)

Geez. I rarely check into ARN, and that thread is a perfect reminder of why. There’s a lot of pretty dim bulbs over there. My hat’s off to the brave souls that wade through that crap on a regular basis.

Also, now I know where Heddle picked up the whole Glazko thing. Apparently it’s being hyped by Hugh Ross on his “Reasons to Believe” site. Kinda sad, if that’s a typical “reason to believe”.

Comment #24129

Posted by sir_toejam on April 9, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

just chalk it up to one more absurdity in the litany of absurdities.

Comment #24130

Posted by Malkuth on April 9, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)

sir_toejam wrote:

not a bad start…

would that be ontogenetic deterioration, or generational deterioriation?

both?

does the non-mixing imply you are looking for relative geographic seperation acting to potentiate a new species?  or is this more sexual selection?

Generational deterioration.  I’m not really looking for a geographic boundary physically preventing mixing of the demagogic groups with ordinary people; I’m looking for reproductive boundries created by human societies.  Royal families that would only mix with other royal families, for instance.  What I’d be looking for in the geneaologies of creationists such as Kent Honvid would be dumb people and demagogues, mating exclusively or nearly exclusively with other dumb people and demagogues.  And, of course, I would expect gradual generational deterioration.

Comment #24135

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 9, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

Speciation doesn’t require any particular new adaptation. If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle.

Comment #24138

Posted by steve on April 9, 2005 09:24 PM (e) (s)

Comment #24113

Posted by ~DS~ on April 9, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

A legitimate claim of fine tuning would look roughly like the following:

1 We have evidence that x many universes have been generated.

2 We have evidence that when they are generated, the following parameters can take on values according to the following distributions.

3 We can determine that only the following combinations of those parameters can result in life

4 Accordingly, the odds that a universe now exists which can support life are overwhelmingly small, yet here we are, so

5 conclusion: something is suspicious, and we suspect a being with a purpose did this.

Even then, it would be a weak argument. But it would be scientific, at least, in some sense. By comparison, the current arguments for fine tuning (and most forms of IDs in general) are roughly:

1 We have no idea what any odds are, but

2 We imagine they could be really really small, so

3 God exists!

which is just junk. Which is why ID hasn’t done anything in 200 years, and won’t do anything in the next 200, except buy some conmen some nice houses.

Comment #24142

Posted by Henry J on April 9, 2005 11:28 PM (e) (s)

Re “1 We have no idea what any odds are, but
2 We imagine they could be really really small, so
3 God exists!”

I wonder why they want to limit God to only those areas that we don’t understand. That strikes me as a bit selfish.

Henry

Comment #24145

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 12:44 AM (e) (s)

http://www.drdino.com:8080/jsp…

I checked this out pretty thoroughly.

folks, they are way ahead of us on the “home school” front.

several books recommended to “train up” youngsters and keep them from becoming evil evolutionary biologists.

I found this extremely scary.  Even rational friends of mine who live in Florida believe in private school over public school, regardless of any ideological or differences in science teach these schools use.

The voucher system that so many states are pushing for will only make this worse, as far as i can tell.

Comment #24151

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 10, 2005 02:08 AM (e) (s)

Elite private schools brag that they offer instruction that is more critical, scholarly, and scientific than that offered in public highschools. It’s ironic that people want to send their kids to religion-based private schools or subject them to home schooling so they can be indoctrinated instead of educated.

Comment #24161

Posted by Bartholomew on April 10, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Let’s hope Jack Chick doesn’t see the placemat…

Comment #24162

Posted by frank schmidt on April 10, 2005 09:34 AM (e) (s)

It’s ironic that people want to send their kids to religion-based private schools or subject them to home schooling so they can be indoctrinated instead of educated.

I would simply point out that the majority of religious high school students are either in Catholic or mainstream Protestant schools. Whatever they may be indoctrinated with, it’s not creationism. 

We should not miss an opportunity to debunk the creationists’ claims that they are representing religion vs. non-religion. They bear false witness on this topic, too.

Comment #24167

Posted by bill on April 10, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know why you guys are laughing so hard at the good Dr. Ken.  Could it be that you all are jealous that you didn’t get the biology book deal for the Dover School District:  Of Pandas and Placemats?

I hear that Behe is working on a set of placemats, too.  Talk about stealth creationism!  It’s right under your noses, er, plates.

Comment #24172

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 12:26 PM (e) (s)

“Could it be that you all are jealous…”

damn straight!  Why should he get all the placemat grants?  I applied to NSF for a placemat grant for the last 3 years with no success.

I wanted to do a placemat that would examine the history of sexual selection, and how everyone could do their own tests of sexual selection theory.

Imagine my shock when they responded with, “While we applaud your ingenuity, we don’t think your proposal would be appropriate at this time.

bastards.

Comment #24178

Posted by Lamuella on April 10, 2005 12:55 PM (e) (s)

If 80% of the protiens are different, doesn’t that mean that 20% of them are absolutely and completely identical?

Comment #24181

Posted by Alan Saunders on April 10, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)

“Remember when you bash Ross that you’ll be in bed with Hovind, who has labelled Ross a heretic.”

I know of creationists who think AiG are heretics. At least one of them does so because they hold to an ‘un-Biblical’ heliocentic view of the Solar System.

As for Hovind, I have, from time to time, asked creationists to speculate on whether he may be an ‘evolutionist’ masquerading as one of them in order to discredit creationism. If such a person existed, I asked, in what way would they differ from Kent Hovind? I never get an answer.

Comment #24184

Posted by Russell on April 10, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)

If 80% of the protiens are different, doesn’t that mean that 20% of them are absolutely and completely identical?

Yes, it does. And that’s a pretty impressive figure. Now that we know this Glazko et al canard is making the rounds in creationist circles, be prepared to point this out, and to ask “what is the degree of difference/similarity between, say, rat and mouse proteins?” Also, the arithmetic exercise posed by N. Wells* over on the ID-friendly ARN discussion board is worth going through.

*Is N. Wells Jonathan’s evil twin, Nojathan?

Comment #24187

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)

“As for Hovind, I have, from time to time, asked creationists to speculate on whether he may be an ‘evolutionist’ masquerading as one of them in order to discredit creationism. If such a person existed, I asked, in what way would they differ from Kent Hovind? I never get an answer”

here’s your answer:

John A. Davison

:)

Comment #24202

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 10, 2005 05:32 PM (e) (s)

>Bob King: ID arguments are a subset of YEC arguments. ID advocates >simply don’t argue *all* of the YEC arguments.

And the reason they do that is legal.  In the Maclean decision, the defining characteristics of creation “science” were listed in the bill and cited by the judge.  They were:

1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4) Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5) Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Since these were defined, by creation ‘scientists’ themsleves, as the characteristics of creation “science”, and since this creation “science” was ruled illegal by the judge (a decision that was later upheld and repeated by the Supreme Court), the ID movement has NO CHOICE but to distance itself from all of these characteristics, lest a judge point out that, by asserting them, ID is simply equating itself with creation “science”, which has already been rejected by the courts.

Hence, IDers fall all over themselves to refuse to talk about things like whether humans and apes are related, or how old the earth is. 

Of course, the IDers cannot spearate themselves COMPLETELY from creation “science”, since ID itself is nothing more than creationism that has been stripped of any potential Constitutional offenses. 

But notice that one of the defining characteristics of creation “science” is “the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism”.  Which is, of course, ID “theory” in a nutshell.

It’ll be interesting to see if the Dover judge makes that observation.

Comment #24204

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 10, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

I have no idea how to answer a “consensus” question, since I can only speak for myself.

Indeed, you only speak for yourself. And you’ve given no indication at all why anyone should care any more about your religious opinions than they should about mine, my next door neighbor’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

Why is that, David?

Your religious opinions are just that, David, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Right, David?

Or *are* you, as I suspect, indeed so arrogant, self-righteous, prideful and holier-than-thou (literally) as to seriously believe that your religious opinions are somehow more authoritative than any other mere mortal’s … .?

Comment #24206

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

“If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle”

so would that be a post-hoc hypothesis to explain a sub-species of human with such consistently irrational thought processes as the IDers?

could you make any new predictions from this hypothesis?

Comment #24211

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 06:26 PM (e) (s)

oh, btw, wasn’t there a recent article published on the search for a gene that contributed to religious thought patterns?  I know i ran across it just a little while ago….

ah yes, posted by pvm, in fact:

“Genes contribute to religious inclination”
Posted by PvM on March 17, 2005 | Comments (36) | TrackBack (1)

New Scientist reports on the findings of a study on the impact of genes on religious inclinations

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person’s socialisation - or “nurture”. But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person’s religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.

The study can be found in Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471)

Comment #24213

Posted by Kris on April 10, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)

That is such a great thing. I want to become a geologist, and I am only 14 years old. To young to be thinking about a big career.

Comment #24215

Posted by Kris on April 10, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)

I love pandas they are just the cutest little things in the whole wide world. I want to go to China just to see it and take millions of pictures. I would like to create a zoo all of pandas. Nothing else just PANDAS.

Comment #24218

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 07:49 PM (e) (s)

“I want to become a geologist, and I am only 14 years old. To young to be thinking about a big career”

perhaps, but just to compare; i was just like you.  I wanted to be a marine biologist since i was 5 years old.

I wouldn’t rule anything out, but I’d recommend that you at some point get other interests to make ends meet when geology isn’t doing it for ya (not saying it won’t, mind you, but better safe than sorry).

good luck to you.

cheers

p.s. “I would like to create a zoo all of pandas. Nothing else just PANDAS”

er, wouldn’t you rather see them in the wild?

Comment #24220

Posted by Flint on April 10, 2005 09:00 PM (e) (s)

If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle.

In “What Evolution Is” Mayr devotes a chapter to speciation, concluding that if any one thing is essential in the process, it is the development of isolation mechanisms. But he also points out that the skunk cabbage found in Asia and the eastern US have been genetically isolated for 6-8 million years, but remain indistinguishable at the molecular level (and interbreed without the slightest difficulty).

So cutting off gene flow can only be part of the story.

Comment #24222

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 09:35 PM (e) (s)

“So cutting off gene flow can only be part of the story.”

indeed.  If there were no quantitative or qualitative differences in selection pressure between isolated populations, the only mechanism for speciation would be genetic drift.  The rate of genetic drift would depend on the rate of mutation and repair mechanisms within the genome, etc.

so, if isolated populations of cabbages were not subject to radically different selection pressures, I would in fact NOT expect to see speciation occur.

There might also be something about plants which limits the effect of genetic drift as well, though i never got that far as a botanist (I’m a fish guy).

cheers

Comment #24224

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

actually there are several other mechanisms other than genetic drift i’m probably leaving out, tho most would be less likely.

for example one might also consider viral mutation (oncogenes) as a source of variability (and local gene flow, for that matter), tho that might be a stretch in this case.

anything else i am leaving out?

Comment #24225

Posted by Henry J on April 10, 2005 10:04 PM (e) (s)

Re “2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; “

They forgot to mention genetic drift. Also founder effect (though I suppose that could be considered a special case of drift?)

Henry

Comment #24232

Posted by sir_toejam on April 10, 2005 10:35 PM (e) (s)

” founder effect (though I suppose that could be considered a special case of drift?)”

yup:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html…

Comment #242