Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

Save the Insects! The War on Humans Becomes a War on Sanity

It would be easier to laugh this off if "nature rights" laws weren't being enacted in law. Wesley J. Smith http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism
Categories: Anti-Science News

The Search for Our Earliest Ancestors: Signals in the Noise

Naturalism commands us to believe that mud somehow produced mind. Therefore, our ancestors are not gods or heroes but half human or less. Denyse O'Leary
Categories: Anti-Science News

Efforts to Repeal Louisiana Science Education Act Are Defeated, Fourth Year in a Row

Last year, the Committee's Chair, Senator Conrad Appel (R., Metairie), asked the LSEA's adversaries to produce evidence that the LSEA caused harm to someone, somewhere. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501
Categories: Anti-Science News

I Could Write a Typical Newspaper Columnist's Views on Science and Religion in My Sleep

Michael Gerson is a Washington Post op-ed contributor with a sensible moderate conservative perspective. He's a smart guy, a good writer, an Evangelical Christian. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News

At the New York Times, a War on Human Exceptionalism

This week, the Sunday magazine praises Steven Wise, head of the NonHuman Rights Project, who wants animals declared "persons" so that they can sue their owners. Wesley J. Smith http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism
Categories: Anti-Science News

Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism

"Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism...I believed it until I looked for evidence." Stephen C. Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com
Categories: Anti-Science News

Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Creation: A Forum on Origins at Seattle's University Presbyterian Church

Join us for an exchange of views among CSC's Stephen Meyer, and Patrick McDonald and Benjamin McFarland, respectively professors of philosophy and biochemistry at Seattle Pacific University. Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 11:10
Post by N.Wells
Quote Offspring developing inside a protective egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow. Of course offspring in protective egg shells are still their young, but fish eggs don't have a protective shell (go to a bait store and look at salmon eggs, or check out a jar of caviar), and salmon don't "protect their young" in any way whatsoever: nearly all of them die after spawning and in the few types of salmon that don't all immediately die, the few surviving parents leave immediately.  Again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0BfRorA

At one level, this is such an easy fix, as I've pointed out numerous times before: if you want to cite an example of  some fish protecting their young, choose one of the fish that actually do that.  There are many great examples: sticklebacks, seahorses, pipefishes, redlip blennies, & some of the cichlids.  However, at another level, fish are the nearly the worst possible example you could choose*, as fish show all imaginable manners of parental care, from none to lots, by both parents, or just by fathers, or just by mothers, or by neither, with some lovely transitions, following nice evolutionary lineages, in degrees that turn out to be perfectly explainable by standard evolutionary theory.  Needless to say, there is a huge literature on the subject of which you are entirely clueless, including every textbook on fish and every textbook that has a chapter on reproduction-related behavior in vertebrates.  However, here  are some great detailed resources to get you started:

http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross....985.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....1800310
http://www.tfhmagazine.com/details....ids.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content....bstract
http://link.springer.com/article....#page-1

*along with invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, which likewise all show a full range of parental care from none to lots: e.g. check out megapodes.

Lots of hypotheses have been proposed and tested to explain different degrees and patterns of parental care, such as Fisher's principle, Clutton-Brock's modification, Trivers' theory, and Bateman's principle.  These are all based on predictions from natural selection, and after all that work biologists have become very good at predicting and explaining oddities in parental care systems, such as why in mammals parental care is primarily maternal with differing amounts of participation from the fathers, and why in fish most parental care is paternal rather than maternal.  

But you don't know any of that, so you just blithely blow in with entirely ignorant and incorrect blathering about the way you think things are and how that supports your not-even-wrong not-a-theory.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 11:08
Post by Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)Mung brings teh stoopid.

  Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

If God existed ...
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 09:29
Post by k.e..
The only thing you are focusing on Gary is wasting everyone else's time including your own.
Not a single thing you have done has forwarded science get help.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 07:38
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)Paul Giem writes:     Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.
Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
Better link to video:
https://archive.org/details....0110416
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 07:32
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)Paul Giem writes:   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.
Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 04:28
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2014,20:10)Mung brings teh stoopid.

  Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

FFS. They're angry with evolution before even understanding it.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 04:09
Post by Ptaylor
Both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have commented on this recently:

Does this mean we can now expect to be treated to a video of Granville Sewell re-reading aloud his paper why he is right and everyone else is wrong about evolution and SLoT.
(I'm not sure how to credit images here; it's from Zach Weiner at SMBC-Comics, linkie)
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 03:44
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,20:59)Gary, it's your frigging conclusions section: are we supposed to think that your conclusions only pertain to humans???  In the middle of your talking about behavior of matter causing molecular intelligence and "molecular intelligence" causing "cellular intelligence", we are supposed to think that one sentence is magically restricted to pertaining only to humans???  That's downright nuts.  

We've discussed this section endlessly in the past: you've never indicated that it's just about humans: the model that supposedly proves everything is supposedly an insect; you've instead gone on and on about salmon migrating and defending nest full of young and crocodiles being motherly.
Here's one of your earlier versions of your conclusions:   Quote Maternal and religious behaviors are emergent from a level of intelligence that stays going through time one offspring to the next.  This is not something we can "think away" it's a powerful influence that guides salmon _upstream to where they were born to spawn in nests for their young that they will defend with their lives_, and humans to marry then have children _to equally cherish_. It's therefore no metaphor to say that for better or for worse, for such intelligence, anywhere in the universe, there will always be the strong _binding_ "love" that helps guide them, forever through generations of time...
That's directed at everything, not just humans.

Also, it's not our fault that you can't write clearly and comprehensibly.
Offspring developing inside a protective egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow.

I'm focusing on humans (with as few as possible other examples) because that makes it easy to sum up what is most important to cover in a theory that pertains to the origin of intelligence and its associated instincts, not "natural selection" which makes it possible to ignore all that difficult to explain detail.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 02:39
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,21:33) Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.
But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

  Quote This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
Thanks!

Now try to trash that.
I don't have to: you haven't addressed the majority of the problems I mentioned, and the resulting rubbish is literally self-trashing.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 02:33
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.
But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

  Quote This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
Thanks!

Now try to trash that.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 01:59
Post by N.Wells
Gary, it's your frigging conclusions section: are we supposed to think that your conclusions only pertain to humans???  In the middle of your talking about behavior of matter causing molecular intelligence and "molecular intelligence" causing "cellular intelligence", we are supposed to think that one sentence is magically restricted to pertaining only to humans???  That's downright nuts.  

Also, it's not our fault that you can't write clearly and comprehensibly.
Categories: AE Public BB

Friend of Darwin and Friend of the Planet awards for 2014

NCSE is pleased to announce the winners of the Friend of Darwin award for 2014: Eric Rothschild, Stephen G. Harvey, Witold Walczak, Richard B. Katskee, and Faye Flam. The first four recipients led the victorious legal team representing the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 case establishing the unconstitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools; Flam, a science journalist, wrote "Planet of the Apes" — the only newspaper column dedicated to evolution — for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 2010 to 2012.

Categories: Pro-Science News

What's next in Wyoming?

Wyoming's newspapers continue to carry a variety of news and comment following the legislature's decision to preclude the use of any state funds to review or adopt the Next Generation Science Standards — a decision reportedly owing to objections to the NGSS's treatment of climate change, as NCSE previously reported — and the state board of education's subsequent decision not to implement the standards. Of particular interest are a guest column from a professor in the department of plant sciences at the University of Wyoming, a report on how teachers in Laramie, the third largest city in the state, are going to proceed, and a brief commentary from NCSE's deputy director.

Categories: Pro-Science News
Syndicate content