AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: afarensis

form_srcid: afarensis

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.215.114

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: afarensis

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'afarensis%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/01/02 19:42:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 02 2007,14:06)
Michaels7        
Quote
I have not seen the fossil in question that links a hippo to a whale. As I asked, can you refer to the link?


From the popular press:

Scientists find missing link between the whale and its closest relative, the hippo (1999)
http://www.physorg.com/news2806.html

Hippo is whale's cousin (2005)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/434566.stm


From the primary literature:

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales (1999)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/18/10261

The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla (2005)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/5/1537


And just for fun, pictures of Gingerich's expeditions.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

You can find the paper by Gingerich http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ginger....opt.pdf
Sorry for the mess up ???

Date: 2007/01/02 20:08:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Yeah, I know. Sorry!

Date: 2007/01/04 13:02:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2007,12:50)
And FTK has to be an atheist sock puppet, too. I just can’t believe it. *Jaw drops*

Nope, she has her own blog:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/

Date: 2007/01/05 12:05:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2007,10:03)
Sadly, I can't find zimmer's excellent "The wisdom of Parasites" blog post talks about the emeerald wasp.

You can find Zimmer's post at the link below:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/02/02/the_wisdom_of_parasites.php

Date: 2007/01/06 20:34:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Speaking of TRoutMac:

Quote

113. TRoutMac  // Jan 6th 2007 at 4:20 pm

Jerry wrote:
“Designing an ecology may be more difficult than designing an organism. Predators and prey are essential to an ecology.”
Well said. As usual, we find that Darwinists aren’t thinking “big” enough to consider that it’s not just predators and prey that need to be designed. It’s the whole system… and examples like this wasp are far less puzzling when you consider that they fit into a larger system.

Darwinists, it appears, simply hate thinking big. Interesting...

Comment by TRoutMac — January 6, 2007 @ 4:20 pm


If the denizens of UD would have spent more time reading Pianka and less time reporting him to the FBI, they would know he wrote a book on Evolutionary Ecology.

Date: 2007/01/06 21:09:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 06 2007,21:01)
Quote
113. TRoutMac  // Jan 6th 2007 at 4:20 pm...
...Well said. As usual, we find that Darwinists aren’t thinking “big” enough to consider that it’s not just predators and prey that need to be designed. It’s the whole system… and examples like this wasp are far less puzzling when you consider that they fit into a larger system.

Darwinists, it appears, simply hate thinking big. Interesting...

Contemptible ignorance.


The funny thing is, I just did a quick search on Amazon and Google. Apparently, research on the evolutionary ecology of parasites is a thriving industry...

Date: 2007/01/26 13:26:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Jan. 26 2007,13:10)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 26 2007,12:46)

Whoa, I've been gone a while. I didn't realize a picture of Dave had been revealed.

Yikes.


Yes and it is kind of blurry and out of focus - just like his thinking...

Date: 2007/01/26 20:50:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2007,14:39)
Holy Jeebus, I got to slow down and check my work!

Ahem "Religion!  ID is not about the Religion!

and Inquiring Minds Want To Know...

Oh who the hewll cares...


Actually that wasn't me that said that about stuff being revealed. That was Occam's Toothbrush.

Date: 2007/01/27 14:32:54, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
17

amadan

01/26/2007

5:38 pm

Forgive my lack of understanding of American politics. Is it the case that large corporations in the USA tend to support one political party over another? In my experience that is the case in Europe, and their support is usually traceable through public records of political donations. Perhaps some of you already know which party or parties the major US publishers support.

ID proponents, and perhaps even the Discovery Institute, should publically and loudly dissociate themselves from that party or parties, which clearly favours Darwinism.


The Republicans are supported by large corporations who are trying to keep science from the people. They are also supported by ID proponents. The Democrats seem to support "Darwinism",so who should the IDiots disassociate themselves from? The Republicans who feed at the trough of the large corporations that are hiding science from the people, or the Democrats who, arguably are less beholden to corporations but support 'Darwinism? amadan creates the perfect infinite regress loop for the fundies...

Date: 2007/01/27 16:53:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 27 2007,15:57)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 27 2007,15:32)
The Republicans are supported by large corporations who are trying to keep science from the people. They are also supported by ID proponents. The Democrats seem to support "Darwinism",so who should the IDiots disassociate themselves from? The Republicans who feed at the trough of the large corporations that are hiding science from the people, or the Democrats who, arguably are less beholden to corporations but support 'Darwinism? amadan creates the perfect infinite regress loop for the fundies...

U-m-m-m-m-m-m....

Is this a sweeping generalization to make your point or do you actually subscribe to this notion.

If this is generalization then carry on.
If you subscribe to this notion then I'll start another thread to counter this generalization.

Mike PSS

No, I was trying to look at it from an ID point of view - seems to be their argument that this is some kind of conspiracy to prevent poor IDists from reading the truth...At least that is what I am getting from some of the comments on that thread...

Date: 2007/01/28 00:08:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Me: There is nothing like a good joke!
Mike PSS: And that was nothing like a good joke.
Me: Agreed, ??? so perhaps this: Dembski on Open Access: Is He Hypocritcal, Stupid, or Both? will make you feel better about it. :D

Date: 2007/01/31 08:47:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2007,00:57)
SHUT UP AND LISTEN, 'CAUSE I'M TALKING. YOU'LL SEE WHATS WAHT IN MY 1000 POST, WHICH IS SOON, AND WILL HAVE ITS OWN THREAD. WE'LL SORT THE MONKEY LOVERS FROM TEH DESIGNED AUTODICTORS (IQ 150+++).

HOO-RAH SMEPER TARD.

Okay, I can't resist asking. Is this some kind of Being John Malkovich situation? Do you have a door into Davescot's brain that allows you to divert some of his tard here? :D  I ask because you do that so well.

Date: 2007/01/31 10:08:39, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 31 2007,09:46)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 31 2007,16:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2007,00:57)
SHUT UP AND LISTEN, 'CAUSE I'M TALKING. YOU'LL SEE WHATS WAHT IN MY 1000 POST, WHICH IS SOON, AND WILL HAVE ITS OWN THREAD. WE'LL SORT THE MONKEY LOVERS FROM TEH DESIGNED AUTODICTORS (IQ 150+++).

HOO-RAH SMEPER TARD.

Okay, I can't resist asking. Is this some kind of Being John Malkovich situation? Do you have a door into Davescot's brain that allows you to divert some of his tard here? :D  I ask because you do that so well.

I think Richard does DT BETTER than DT himself.

look here's the real thing

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2008#comment-88699
Davetard:
Quote
.....It’s not an engineering approach either. This is a gross, absurd extrapolation. It’s like demonstrating that rocks can be piled 100 meters high and using this as proof of concept that one can make a pile that reaches the moon. Sometimes things like that work and sometimes they don’t.


Can't do biology, can't do rocket science, can't grow musrhrooms...whats left?

...Mythical 3 headed guard dog? .....with each head barking conflicting arguments .....WmAD's Cerberus

WHO RA? QUE SERA, SERA

I'll hound you to Hades, Homo -DT

I do too. I usually end up laughing hysterically every time Richardthughes goes DaveScot on us :p

Date: 2007/01/31 11:00:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Speaking of Uncommon Descent could someone please hide the word of the day toilet paper from the Tard:

 
Quote


10

DaveScot

01/31/2007

9:44 am

 
Quote
amadan

Intelligent people of all backgrounds look at the same evidence as you and do not interpret it in a pro-theistic light.


Intelligent people of all backgrounds experience the numinous which can be quite compelling, quite impossible to ignore, and thus resists discounting by rationalization.

Date: 2007/02/12 19:29:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 23 2007,14:47)
I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScott
b.) Casey Luskin

Having read Luskin's, um, thoughts on human evolution I'm going with Luskin. It would go 15 rounds and be decided, narrowly, on points, but Luskin would win.

Date: 2007/02/20 22:30:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2007,15:58)
TardFest!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Is_the_theory_of_macroevolution_true%3F

That was evil! You should warn someone before you do something like that again. I think I have actually gone blind from reading it... ???

Date: 2007/03/16 23:34:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 16 2007,19:50)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2007,13:00)
Jesus H Christ on a crutch, I should know better by now!

All the critical comments are gone... poofed by The Designert into the same spot that AFDave's Global Flood Waters went away to.

J-Dog, how am I ever gonna make a librarian outta you? Cut-n-paste 'em here, my good fellow, because I never got to see those comments! And I would have enjoyed that! :D

"Designert"? Designert-a-r...

Yes J-Dog cutting and pasting is sooo easy a caveman can do it :D

Date: 2007/03/23 22:14:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Hippy Birthday!  :p

Date: 2007/04/26 22:21:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (franky172 @ April 26 2007,20:57)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2007,19:14)
DaveScot    
Quote
Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all.

The article states that Australopithecus afarensis should “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.” Close cousins, in other words. Evolved.

(Not everyone agrees with the researchers' conclusions, while many cladists think that the determination of exact descent will often be problematic, especially in rapidly diverging lineages. In this view, everything is best considered as a cousin.)

DaveScot            
Quote
The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent,...

The lead author of the study, Yoel Rak, has collaborated with the discoverer of the fossils, Donald Johanson, many times, including on a recent Oxford University Press publication, The Skull of Australopithecus afarensis.

DaveScot            
Quote
you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma.



That's why the embarrassed researchers hid it on the cover of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

No no no.  Don't you see - by allowing disagreement amongst scientists and permitting debate regarding the true placement of Lucy in life on earth's history the scientists are really leaning towards ID.  Yeah.  That's the ticket.

It also goes without saying that a number of us anthro bloggers mentioned it last week when it first came out. DaveScot is a bit late in noticing it. Perhaps if he knew how to use Google...

Date: 2007/05/06 19:12:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (GCT @ May 06 2007,18:01)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 06 2007,17:11)
Davetard says all the hominid fossils wouldn't fill a single coffin. Scienceblogger Afarensis says otherwise.

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....n_fossi

Or on a billiard table, right?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

Nope, but they might fit in DaveTard's bag of Cheesy Poofs  :O

Date: 2007/05/30 19:24:49, Link
Author: afarensis
It looks like a young (sutures are still fairly prominent and not obliterated) white tailed deer to me...a picture looking down on the top (as pointed to in Ichthyic's picture) would be helpful

Date: 2007/05/30 21:40:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 30 2007,20:42)
Quote (afarensis @ May 30 2007,19:24)
It looks like a young (sutures are still fairly prominent and not obliterated) white tailed deer to me...a picture looking down on the top (as pointed to in Ichthyic's picture) would be helpful

I think you got it.  I had one within reach of my chair the whole time.  But all I have are mule deer and elk.  They are considerably larger even under 1 year old.  It would also be a female.

Yup, no antlers.

Date: 2007/05/31 08:08:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 31 2007,07:29)
Quote (afarensis @ May 30 2007,19:24)
It looks like a young (sutures are still fairly prominent and not obliterated) white tailed deer to me...a picture looking down on the top (as pointed to in Ichthyic's picture) would be helpful

Hello Afarensis,

I'd be happy to accommodate your request, but it seems I have misplaced my camera.  That statement is usually equivalent to "One of my kids borrowed it without informing me and has failed to return it."

I carefully ventured a bit into the two wastelands which are their bedrooms, but quite honestly I got scared and ran away.  I don't like the thought of being eaten by what might live there.  I'll have to wait until they're home from school and ask them.

I hate teenagers.  Is it really illegal to beat them, or is that just a friendly suggestion from the government?

Nevertheless, allow me to drag up an earlier shot of the top (which is more to remind me to ask the kids about the camera than anything):


I understand completely. An example of the view I'm looking for  

Date: 2007/06/02 13:41:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Sal Quotes Mark Chu-Carroll

Quote
he [William Dembski]’s actually a decent mathematician


The entire quote from Mark's old blog (which Sal links to)


Quote
I have a deep revulsion for this character, because he's actually a decent mathematician, but he's devoted his skills to creating convincing mathematical arguments based on invalid premises. But he's careful: he does his meticulous best to hide his assumptions under a flurry of mathematical jargon.


Makes one wonder if he's pissed at Dembski or doesn't think anyone will follow the link and realize the Mark is being really insulting.

Date: 2007/06/05 22:34:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
If he is under your control and you force him to learn some routine for a box of candy, he must comply - whether you are operating a circus act or a lab. But beyond a certain point, it all sounds like cruelty to me.


Apparently, the woman has never dealt with primates before, they are never completely under our control and if the don't want to comply, they don't.

Date: 2007/06/16 22:21:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 16 2007,16:59)
Meanwhile WD himself is pointing toward the "growing number of non-religious ID proponents". The link goes to the weblog of one William Brookfield, who claims to be founder of "An International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Scientists & Scholars".

Trouble is, William B seems to be the sole member of the coalition (I could be wrong).

When challenged in the comments to his first "Darwinism is a Hoax!" post (read: NS + RM are solely destructive mechanisms, and anyway microevolution may be true, but macroevolution...) William gives us this little gem:            
Quote
I don't hold any degrees from any university of any kind. My job as a citizen scientist is to represent science in general and the general public. I learned about the theory of "ontogeny recipitulating phylogeny" in my elementary school playground in 1968 -- from a friend (Calvin Jackson). Throughout the 60's and 70's I was a Darwinist. In 1979 I began to suspect something was wrong with Darwinism.

So William is a citizen scientist and presumably his colleagues are citizen scholars (from several countries). The folks over at Scienceblogs must be quaking in their boots.

Nope! Laughing our behinds off maybe, quaking...Nah! Seriously, the guy wants to start a porn store and Dembski thinks he is a great ally. Makes me wonder if this isn't some kind of street theatre...

Date: 2007/07/16 18:44:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ck1 @ July 16 2007,15:22)
On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.

A number of paleontologists and paleoanthropologists have looked at the question of whether current collections of fossils are representative of the fossil record (for example, Rob Martin looked at the subject of how well the primate fossil record is sampled in his paper Primates a definition). Most of the studies along these lines indicate that the fossil record is poorly sampled and that there is still a lot out there to be uncovered. The writers of EE have labeled this the "artifact hypothesis".
My question for Paul concerns the misleading and inadequate portrayal of the reptile/mammal transition. For example this:
Quote
Some textbooks alter the scale of pictures showing the order of appearance of group such as the mammal-like reptiles. This makes the features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship, and an easy transition between different types of animals. Presentations of the reptile-to-mammal sequence, in particular, often enlarge some skulls and shrink others to make them appear more similar in size than they actually are.


Which makes it sound like paleontologists have suggested that a linear increase in size is what unites all the species in the transition. Not surprising that ID proponents would be so misleading about this, because the reptile/mammal transition is actually a good example of the de novo origination of a complex organ (the mammalian ear) - something ID says is impossible. In reality, a whole slew of traits link the species in question - traits that are not dependent on trends in size.

Date: 2007/07/16 22:12:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,18:55)
Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried.

Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists.

Date: 2007/07/17 18:43:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything?

Date: 2007/07/18 19:37:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Sigh. No Paul, this is completely wrong. The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant. To give an example, in pelycosaurs the occipital condyle is single and hemispheric shaped. It evolves into a double condyle in mammals and an intermediate stage is seen in therapsids. None of this has anything to do with size. The mammal condyle is not just an allometrically scaled version of the pelycosaur. So explain how  
Quote
...fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother...
is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general?

Date: 2007/07/20 18:54:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,15:57)
There's no problem with scaling up or down in illustrations so that anatomical features can be seen.

Not telling the reader that one is making some skulls very much bigger, and others much smaller, however, or failing to provide the dimensions of the actual fossils -- that's problematic.  This is especially the case with extinct groups (e.g., therapsids), where the reader will have no frame of reference.

Yet in footnote 21 it is admitted that some authors do provide scale, others indicate that the pictures are not to scale. Seems to me that you are saying that the style used to present evolution is objectionable (evil Darwinists actually make people use their brains) therefore evolution must be false. That being the case one would have expected that "Exploring Evolution" would have lived up to its name and provided guidelines to help the reader interpret these pictures and help them "explore" the material more fully.

Date: 2007/07/20 22:30:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (silverspoon @ July 20 2007,21:03)
Quote (afarensis @ July 20 2007,18:54)
Yet in footnote 21 it is admitted that some authors do provide scale, others indicate that the pictures are not to scale.

This is too funny. The Exploring Evolution people admit this in their book?

This is all beginning to look like an argument for Heap-Big-Illustrations because their intended audience hates to read. All those footnote numbers scattered throughout texts must give them hissy fits wondering what they mean.

Paul, would you be so kind as to provide us with the complete text of footnote 21, page 38?

Date: 2007/07/23 19:43:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,14:47)
"Afarensis" again comes through with an examination of an EE quotation.

I have also tracked down the quote by Foote, which I will be posting when time permits. In the meantime, I would like to throw this one out there:

Quote
For this reason, Darwin himself said that the pattern of abrupt appearance (his own term), "may be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory of Common Descent.12


This is supposed to come from page 308 of the first edition of On the Origin of Species

On page 307-308 we find:

 
Quote
But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great. If these most ancient beds had been wholly worn away by denudation, or obliterated by metamorphic action, we ought to find only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these ought to be very generally in a metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we now possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more it has suffered the extremity of denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.


Based on context it sounds like Darwin was referring to the geological discussion immediately preceding. You make the call.

Date: 2007/07/23 23:17:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,22:13)
Re: Darwin "abrupt appearance" and "valid argument" quotes

I spent a chunk of time entering quoted text from the sixth edition and commentary. Then, on trying to save, I discovered that my session had expired, and my edit was lost. I've just put in the quote context at the moment, but, yeah, that was no more honest than the various other quotes that have been examined.

On an intellectual level, I was well aware of the way ID advocates, and other creationists, abused the scientific literature, but you don't realize just how intellectually dishonest they are until you get involved in a project like the "Explore Evolution" Companion and find this kind of poor scholarship on quote after quote. Yet, the quotes are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the way they portray evolutionary theory. Makes me wonder how they can face themselves in a mirror...

Date: 2007/08/04 08:48:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:13)
One problem I face----years ago, I stole copies of Morris's "Scientific Creationism" and Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by photocopying the entire books in the library (I don't want to give the bastards any of my money).  Alas, when I moved to Florida eleven years ago, I lost a box in transit --- and it contained my photocopied books.

Those two books, between them, contain virtually every creationist argument of any significance made throughout the 70's and 80's (and I recall seeing many of "Explore Evolution"'s arguments in them).

So if anyone out there has a copy of these books handy (or can steal one somewhere without getting caught), let me know.  I absolutely recall the whole "therapsids diaphragm" BS being discussed therein, and I'm pretty sure the turtle shell thingie is there too.

On the other hand, ICR has all its "Acts and Facts" crapola online, and those are all just regurgitated bits and pieces of Morris and Gish's standard boilerplate arguments.  So I'm pretty sure I can tie every argument made in EE to some piece or another that ran in "Acts and Facts" years ago.

It's the same old crap.

The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

Date: 2007/08/14 19:30:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,20:36)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2007,19:14)
 
Quote
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it


http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php

Jeez. It must suck to be Casey Luskin almost as much as it does to be Bill Dembski.  

We could have a Pathetic Loser contest between the two.  Some sort of mindless Reality TV show - it's perfect for them and their audience.

I can picture the red faces, the stuttering, the hillarity  that ensues when the Blond Bimbo asks them "So, Bill and Casey, please tell me, how many times have you have received a wedgie?  So, how many were from kids younger than you?  For extra Bonus Credit, How many times have you received a wedgie from a member of the opposite sex? (Bill, that means, like girls?  You know?"

This could be a true Show For The Ages.

I don't know. Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology. Dembski, on the other hand, is just sad...

Date: 2007/08/14 20:40:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2007,19:35)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30)
Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology.

You probably know about this then

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/luskin_human_origins.php

Casey's anthropology 'paper' from the late, fake ID journal PCID.

Yup. Fisked about half of it on my blog sometime back. It took an incredible amount of time just to do that. I had to provide background information so that I could then go on and explain why and how Luskin was wrong. Which meant one background post for each post where I specifcally talked about what Luskin had to say. Casey made a lot of errors ??? in that paper - most of which are recycled creationist arguments.

Date: 2007/08/14 21:03:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Earlier in the thread Paul and I were discussing fossils relevant to the reptile/mammal transition:

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,15:57)
There's no problem with scaling up or down in illustrations so that anatomical features can be seen.

Not telling the reader that one is making some skulls very much bigger, and others much smaller, however, or failing to provide the dimensions of the actual fossils -- that's problematic.  This is especially the case with extinct groups (e.g., therapsids), where the reader will have no frame of reference.



Later Paul says:


Quote
The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.


Here is what the footnote I asked Paul to supply says:

Quote
Some authors do include the scaling ratios they use, leaving it up to the audience’s mathematical skills to calculate actual comparative size. Other authors use a scale legend line, and it’s up to the reader to notice that the same length line that represented 2 cm in Picture A represents 10 cm in Picture B. Still other authors simply put “Skulls not to scale,” somewhere in the caption. Unless students read the fine print and do the calculations, they are often left with a very misleading impression of the similarity of the animals in these alleged sequences.



So, Exploring Evolution contradicts Paul on both of the claims he made. Which is what I call ironic...

Date: 2007/08/14 21:07:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2007,20:44)
Warning -  FOR EXCESSIVE TARD

This just in from UD - http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-....-132392

DaveScot queries: EARTH'S CLIMATE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED?

"Might the earth’s climate be intelligently designed? An awful lot of unlikely factors conspire to keep it in a range conducive not just to life but to an industrial civilization of 6 billion (and growing) large mammals. Every time we think we can’t feed ourselves something good happens - like now - CO2 levels are rising into a more productive and water-efficient growth regime for crops, growing seasons are getting longer, and formerly frozen land is becoming arable."

He's totally over the edge now, and someone should send a unit over now for immediate intervention.  Excessive Cheesy Poof ingestion has claimed another promising not-so-young autodidact.

Isn't that part of what the Anthropic Principle argues? If he thinks humans are large mammals, someone should show him a picture of a whale sometime...

Date: 2007/09/02 21:09:29, Link
Author: afarensis
This bit from Hamlet seems appropriate to the recent shenanigans at UD:

Quote
   There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
   Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
   They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
   And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
   For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
   Hoist with his own petar;
and 't shall go hard
   But I will delve one yard below their mines
   And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
   When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Date: 2007/09/02 21:17:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2007,21:13)
Afarensis wins Post of the Week for that Hamlet find.

Cool! :D

Date: 2007/09/02 21:31:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 02 2007,21:23)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 03 2007,05:09)
This bit from Hamlet seems appropriate to the recent shenanigans at UD:

 
Quote
There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar;
and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Yeah except Demblet has blown himself up this time.

His letter to trick his enemies (my two schoolfellows); caused not them to engineer their own hoisting but the hoistee in 'is stead.

A sport indeed.

Dembski doesn't have Hamlet's gravitas. He is more your dead clown.


Alas, poor Dembski! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.


Indeed; Dembski can look foward to a long lie in his coffin interminably contemplating life, with an inch of face paint to hide behind, laugh at that UD quacks.

Actually, Dembski is the engineer who hoisted himself on his own petard...

Date: 2007/09/22 21:16:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!

Nah, there are an unspecified number of theists at ScienceBlogs. I find, however, that a mind unclouded by a reliance on magical sky pixies certainly helps one write a better science post... :D

Date: 2007/09/22 21:32:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,21:21)
Maybe she meant scienceblogs.com, not science blogger. In which case, well,

I don't think that guy's an atheist. Or John Wilkins.

I'm assuming she did mean ScienceBlogs.com. I think Wilkins has mentioned in public that he is an agnostic, other than that I can't say - confidentiality and all. Our recruiter doesn't much care if a person is religious or not, the key is to write good, interesting science posts.

Date: 2007/09/23 16:36:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:07)
Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,00:24)
     
Quote
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.

Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.
     
Quote
and to see such a process is very unlikely.
But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?
           
Quote
   
Quote

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find.

Schindewolf had no arguments against whale evolution to my knowledge.  He did point out that - despite their similar habitats, ichthyosaurs and whales remained reptiles and mammals respectively and did not revert to "the organizations found in fish".  

You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.

See, that is the kind of goal post moving Wesley is talking about. Going from land living artiodactyls to ocean going whales is a significant transition, one, I might add, that we have plenty of evidence for. We show him a transition between orders and he demands one between classes. Okay, the reptile mammal transition, which is quite well documented with transitional forms displaying a wide variety of transitional anatomy.

Although Schindewolf may have been a paleontologist, I doubt he had a very solid understanding of the fossilization process. Taphonomy - the study of fossilization - is a very young science. Efremov coined the term in the 1940's but the field didn't take off till the 1970's and 1980's. This is not to say that paleontologists were ignorant of how fossils form and the way the fossil record can be biased, rather we have progressed a good deal since then.

Daniel is mistaken if he thinks Schindewolf is presenting unbiased and unadulterated evidence. Schindewolf had his own theoretical preconceptions that he used to interpret the evidence. Seems to me that if he really wanted to see the evidence he would be looking at the fossils and not the interpretations of Schindewolf and Berg...

Date: 2007/09/23 17:30:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02)
   
Quote
someotherguy, posted 9/20/07 1:27 PM
   
Quote
(dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,11:08)


But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.


You're suggesting getting grammar advice from someone who once said "the who whatting how with huh?"? ;) :p

Henry

I will not suffer the impudence of those who would besmirch the good and honorable name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  You're outta here!

:p

Feh!, The only good thing to come out of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was Angelis...and Spike early on before he wussed out.

Date: 2007/09/23 18:58:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,18:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 23 2007,17:30)
     
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:23)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02)
         
Quote
someotherguy, posted 9/20/07 1:27 PM
           
Quote
(dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,11:08)

But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.

You're suggesting getting grammar advice from someone who once said "the who whatting how with huh?"? ;) :p
Henry

I will not suffer the impudence of those who would besmirch the good and honorable name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  You're outta here!

:p

Feh!, The only good thing to come out of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was Angelis...and Spike early on before he wussed out.

*Sputters and chokes on rage as he attempts vainly to compose a stirring rebuttal to Afarensis gross ignorance and hideous bigotry while choking back the tears*

Damn you, Afarensis!  I'm not reading your blog anymore!

*Sob*

The extreme volume of hate mail I am receiving over that comment has lead me to reconsider my previous views. :O So I would like to amend my previous statement thusly: Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the best show ever. I do, however, stand by my comment that Angelis and Spike (before he wussed out) were quite cool characters.   ???

Afarensis will now run away - quickly!

Date: 2007/09/27 18:37:43, Link
Author: afarensis
I just read Dembski's review of Ayala's book, unfortunately my irony meter did not survive because of this statement by Dembski:

Quote
In fact, he gives no evidence of having spent anytime reading, much less digesting, the ID literature. Rather, Ayala gives the impression off someone who has gone to the ID literature simply to find objectionable passages, which he then reads in the worst possible light [emphasis mine - afarensis], forswearing any principle of charity.


He should really warn people before he makes statements like that ???

Date: 2007/10/16 19:52:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 16 2007,13:29)
Quote
Does anyone actually read BA77's stuff, or, like me, do you all just derive amusement from the length of his posts?

4591 words this time.  I didn't see a list of 12 reasons why materialism is wrong either.  Did anyone else spot it in there?

I tried to read it, but I think I had a neo-Darwinist experience halfway through.

Bob

Next time you have a neo-Darwinist experience, just remember evolve away from the light... :D

Date: 2007/11/17 18:12:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2007,09:37)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 16 2007,20:18)
And another a few minutes ago!
   
Quote
38 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
25 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Zachriel >Lou FCD >hooligans >jeffox >Ra-Úl >Mr_Christopher >stevestory >blipey >Paul Nelson >Ptaylor >tsig

I think this thread might have given Nelson et al a little to think about.  It seems more than coincidental that the hoopla over Exploring Evolution died after all of the obvious ties to creationist canards were pointed out.  If this is the case, it makes you wonder about how stupid those people really are.  And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.

I think we can officially declare that brave Sir Nelson has run away...  :angry:

Date: 2007/12/05 23:19:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
When Humans and Baboons had their presumed common ancestor ~ 6 mill years ago, (bold mine - afarensis) that should be the last time when E Coli in our bowel had a common ancestor with E coli in the bowel of Baboons in the wild.


So apparently, babbons split off after gibbons, orangs and possibly gorillas, but before chimps. Feh! I wonder if having factually correct data - cercopithecoids split off around 23 MYA not 6 MYA - would change his predictions?

Edit: Simply to prove that a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin, with a cranial capacity of 410 cc can edit.

Date: 2007/12/06 07:19:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 06 2007,05:27)
William A. Dembski:

Quote

Needless to say, FTE did not send Kwok a free review copy.


Uh, that's pretty unhelpful, nor is it what is expected. Publishers are supposed to provide review copies to both potential critics and potential cheerleaders. It calls into question any bragging about early numbers of reviews if the publisher has taken the step of providing review copies to known sympathetic reviewers, and withheld review copies from known critics. One doesn't need a doctorate in mathematics to work that out.

I wrote to the contact email and put in a request for a review copy.

I wouldn't mind having a review copy myself, so it will be interesting to see if you get one.

Date: 2007/12/08 11:00:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 08 2007,10:46)
Another analogy would be trying to do chemistry research with a postdoc who believed in phlogiston...

One strange aspect of this story is that Abraham actually didn't have a doctoral degree in Biology. According to the story in the Boston Globe  
Quote
He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York

I dunno if I would hire a postdoc who had a doctorate in Philosophy rather than in Biology. That's a warning sign, for sure.  ;)

That is actually a mistake made by the writer of the newspaper story. Abraham does have a PhD in biology. His thesis had to do with apoptosis in zebra fish.

Edit: This comment edited much later because I forgot to edit it earlier...

Date: 2007/12/12 20:47:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Just thought I would mention my take on one chapter of The Design of Life
The Design of Life: Cleaning Evolution Out of the Augean Stables

Date: 2007/12/20 21:17:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...

Date: 2007/12/20 23:18:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 20 2007,22:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 20 2007,21:17)
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...

What's more, it doesn't suck!  

Not that I expected it to, by any means. :D

I may have to use that in my signature  ;)

Date: 2007/12/23 00:48:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:


Quote
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at http://www.uncommondescent.com
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
:O

Date: 2007/12/23 11:10:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 23 2007,06:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 23 2007,00:48)
Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:


   
Quote
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at http://www.uncommondescent.com
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
:O

In other words, this book is as "extensively researched" as Explore Evolution, where toxicologist and DI fellow Paul Chien is quoted as an expert on some fossils which apparently reside in his basement...

Hopefully DT can expound on his caulk gun model of protein synthesis in a peer-reviewed paper soon. Maybe the reason he is being so quiet at UD is because he is hard at work in the super-duper double-secret DI molecular biology labs, with BA77 as his research assistant...

I'm surprised Dembski didn't cite the DaveScot thread with the infamous haploid error...

Date: 2007/12/31 20:26:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 31 2007,00:47)
This is all the bibliography you'll need.

http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departm....web

That is a great resource! Mind if I include it on the Panda's Thumb link page?

Date: 2007/12/31 21:06:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,20:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2007,19:44)
FtK:

 
Quote

We don't even use half of the brain capability that we have.


Speak for yourself.

Anyway, the trope is a well-known urban legend.

How do we know that is an urban legend?  How do we know we use every part of our brain?  How do people who, when half of their brain is removed, find that the remaining half gradually takes over most functions of the removed half?

And, wouldn't the evolution of the brain vastly exceed the need of prehistoric man?  Or, did the brain we have today not even remotedly resemble the brain of prehistoric man?  If we need and use every part of it in order for the human body to function, how is it that prehistoric humans had not learned how to use what was available to them?

The only part of the last paragraph that makes sense is this:

Quote
Or, did the brain we have today not even remotedly resemble the brain of prehistoric man?


The answer to this is no, there are a number of differences in size and organization of the brain between our hominin ancestors and us. I'm not sure what you mean by "...wouldn't the evolution of the brain vastly exceed the need of prehistoric man?" Loosely defined prehistoric man can be anything from say, Ardipithecus to early Homo sapiens each of which was quite busy constructing their own adaptive niche. What is your point?
You also ask:

Quote
If we need and use every part of it in order for the human body to function, how is it that prehistoric humans had not learned how to use what was available to them?


What are you talking about? What was available to them that they didn't use?

Edit: I can edit if I want to, I can leave your edits behind, 'cause your friends don't edit and if they don't edit, well they're no friends of mine...

Date: 2008/01/15 19:46:39, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 15 2008,18:54)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Jan. 15 2008,15:07)
   
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 15 2008,15:34)
Quite.  I want to hear how DS's aliens created the cosmos that we and they live in. And how did they bypass the origin of life obstacle which kills any chance of explain subsequent Darwinian processes. Dead!

It's turtles all the way down isn't it? A never ending cycle of designers that were themselves designed until you get bored of the process and finally admit that you need a supernatural designer anyway.

My friends...

Can your heart stand...

the shocking facts...

of...

quote-miners from outer space? :D

Perfectissimo, Afarensis!

Aw, shucks. Thank You Kristine. :)

Edit: Because it is nobler in the heart to take up the edit pen against a sea of typos and bad punctuation, and by editing, end them.

Date: 2008/01/21 19:25:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2008,17:26)
Is PaV saying that particular seeds trigger frontloaded components to activate?
 
Quote
From an ID perspective, this kind of an experiment is a complete waste of time. What would be valuable, OTOH, is an experiment wherein native Galapagos seeds are fed to controlled populations of G. magnarostris and G. fortis while observing changes to beak size (and other traits that are correlated). You see, ID really is “science”!

ID might be "science" but it's not science.

What Does T. cistoides Have To Do With Darwin’s Finches?

No, he is saying proteins in Tribulus cistoides cause the beak to grow and lack of proteins cause it to shrink. Wait, no, I think he is saying that the proteins affect the developmental pattern and create larger beaks. Shoot, no, I think he is saying that RNA uses zero wavelength energy to communicate the presence or absence of the Tribulus cistoides proteins to future generations so that, um, they can beg the Global Organ Designer (GOD for short) for smaller beaks or larger beaks or nutcrackers or something.

Date: 2008/01/23 20:14:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Wuh oh, bad news for the church burning ebola boys:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/01/disarming_ebola.php

:O

Date: 2008/01/26 11:18:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2008,18:36)
Schindewolf:

 
Quote

As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations. Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.


The basic problem here is that Darwin did *not* say that. Or, if you think Schindewolf is right, then do the work Schindewolf did not do, and show us where Darwin said just that thing.

Here, have a link to help you out in your search.

Here is a quote from Darwin that might help:

Quote
To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links (bold mine - afarensis): firstly, because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And such new places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified, with the new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on each other. So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought only to see a few species presenting slight modifications of structure in some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see.


Darwin, in point of fact, did not think that
Quote
Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms...
as the bolded part of the above quote (which comes from pg 177, 1st ed of the Origin of Species) clearly shows.

Date: 2008/01/26 18:32:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 26 2008,08:37)
Hi everyone!

Something has 'come up' recently, and I was wondering if you all had any photographs of Casey Luskin?  YouTube videos are good too, as I can get screen-shots from there.

Thank you :)

I don't know. After taking down Dembski and Behe, going after Luskin is like being demoted from the major leagues to AA ball. On the other hand considering the way he tortures and mangles paleoanthropology (he knows the jargon but clearly doesn't have a clue about the concepts behind them) I say whack him one for me! :p

Edit: For the same reason Hillary climbed Everest, because the edit button is there.

Date: 2008/01/26 19:30:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 26 2008,18:52)
lol!  Casey doing 'science'-- I didnt respond to him the last time he tried to talk 'science' at the grown ups table.

No, this is purely a personal attack.

That should be fun. I'll have to watch for it. :D

Date: 2008/01/26 19:45:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 26 2008,03:21)
Quote
The way to rebuild the Royals is definitely spending 12 million on average pitchers.

Point taken.  However, this is baseball we're talking about.  The previous regime (Allard Baird) left the farm system without many average arms, let alone major league arms.  Four 100 loss years out of five and there's something to be said for getting an average arm in your rotation.

It's tough to rebuild in a small market (I'm not crying small market here--just stating a reality for many teams).  It doesn't do a lot of good to try and rebuild a team while running out bad pitching.  I'm not talking about young, unseasoned pitching--I'm talking about never gonna be real major league pitchers.

So, is Meche th greatest thing since sliced bread?  No.  Does he have good stuff?  Yes.  Last year he threw well above average for most of the season--he was leading the league in a nifty Jason Stark stat: CUS (criminally unsupported start).  Into August he had only 4 starts in which the Royals scored more than 2 runs while he was in the game.

Did we overpay for Meche?  Yes.  To get anyone to play for KC you have to.  I don't want to see us sign a Gil Meche every year, but this signing (on early returns) seems to be a god one.  Some other trades have gotten us more viable starting pitching (2007 rookie of the year candidate Brian Bannister and others) that may indicate a true rebuilding process is under way.

Bottom line.  Decent starting pitching is worth paying for, even overpaying for under certain circumstances.  Remember, this is MLB--Tim Belcher signed 2 different contracts for 2 different teams, both over 6 million per year.  This was several years ago and one would guess in a slightly less upscale payroll era.  His credentials: a lifetime .500 record and 4.8+ ERA.

Tell that to the Cardinals who have never met a broken down has-been pitcher they didn't like. Paying for decent starting pitching is an alien concept to them...

Date: 2008/01/27 09:39:36, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 26 2008,23:39)
So hes a nobody, then?

Great!

All the more strange how Lucy DEMANDED a pic, linked to Lucy, HAD to be taken down.  So Lucy doesnt do shit all day but play on the internet, hunting down references to himself, feeling important by conversing with the 'nobodies' he finds linking to him.

What a bright light in the ID movement.

Although he is a "spokesman" for the DI I would say he is low hanging fruit more than anything else. Excellent job of sticking it to him - I like all three parts actually. I do hope he spends all day doing ego searches on Google because I have done a number of posts on his forays into paleoanthropology (all though my favorite was the post laughing at him for citing the encyclopedia in his "peer-reviewed" ISCID paper).

Date: 2008/01/28 20:49:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,06:35)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 28 2008,02:13)
My boys, the Red Sox, are gonna go all the way again this year, kicking all your sorry asses all over the place! Hell, yeah! That's what I'm talking about!

Unless the Cubs can bring it. That's the one team I could stand to lose the Series to.

But how about we just shut you all down again, you mofos? We took it in 4 on '04, we took it 4 in '07, we can take it in 4 this year.

We are the Red Sox nation, and we are fuckin' legion, baby!

Dude, the Red Sox ARE an awesome baseball team with the greatest comeback in sports history under their belts. No one to bait here with that.

But you've got your numbers wrong about the series: Boston beat Cleveland 4-3 in the World Series last year. And the best team won.

There were a few exhibition games after that.

I, personally, hope that the Boston Red Sox get ate by manatees:


But then I'm a Cardinals fan  ???

Date: 2008/01/28 22:40:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 28 2008,21:00)
Quote (Zarquon @ Jan. 28 2008,17:23)
Somebody understands cricket
Understanding cricket

(via Cosmic Variance)

You've gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket.

Just be thankful he didn't bust out the Jose Canseco bat. :p

Date: 2008/02/01 20:12:56, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 31 2008,14:12)
HA HA YOU ARE WRONG TOO BECAUSE SOME WOMENS EGGS ARE BETTER LOOKING THAN OTHERS, SO THEY COUNT FOR MORE.   ONE SCARLETT JOHANSON IS WORTH AN INFINITY OF DENYSE O'RILEYS EGGS.

HA HA SEND UR NOBLE TO ME NOW.

Oh, you silly arthritic cossack. Your lust for Scarlett Johanson is why Neanderthals became extinct side branches on the path of human evolution. We Australopithecines, on the other hand, know that one Kate Beckinsale egg is worth several of Scarlett Johanson's and this knowledge is why we Australopithecines gave rise to the rest of humanity. Here is the proof:



;)

Date: 2008/02/01 22:47:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 01 2008,22:39)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2008,04:29)
that bit Wes quotes reminds us that claiming ID is not remotely like creationism is like claiming that Ice Ice Baby is not remotely like Under Pressure.

Dear lord, was there anyone as shameful as Vanilla Ice?

He butchered a good song. Mind you, ID didn't exactly butcher aything great.

I don't know, "Ninja Rap" from TMNT 2 was pretty good. :p

Date: 2008/02/07 18:19:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (afarensis @ July 17 2007,18:43)
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything?

I am still waiting for Paul to answer the question above. I'm hoping the answer will be more meaningful than:

 
Quote
An adult nematode is required to specify a nematode embryo. So whence the adult nematode?
 :angry:

Date: 2008/02/12 18:03:26, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2008,20:49)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 11 2008,20:28)
Did anyone ever hear a peep out of "The fig newton of information theory" Dembski on that list of fulfilled ID predictions he was crowing about a few weeks ago?

Good catch... I was wondering the same thing, but then I realized that Dembski sent the answer immediately to the Super Secret Squirell ID Lab for research, testing, and other sciencey sounding stuff.

Maybe he's waiting until he hears back from the Nobel Committee?  That's Herman Nobel, and he chairs the committee that does the admittance pass / fail  for the Baylor Cafeteria.

I have my own theory about Dembski's lack of predictions :p

Date: 2008/02/13 21:15:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,18:20)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 13 2008,18:15)
this whole deal is just priceless.  And I haven't gotten anything done at work for the last two hours...

Me and Dave just had a chat over at PTET's. We're old pals.

Hold the phone! Didn't we shun Bob O'H for, like, five minutes or something (Hermagoras even turned his back on him) because Dave gave him a compliment at UD. Now Richardthughes is being all chummy with Dave. I say, the next time he does his "autodictor" routine we pointedly refuse to laugh...

Date: 2008/02/13 21:35:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,21:16)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 13 2008,21:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,18:20)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 13 2008,18:15)
this whole deal is just priceless.  And I haven't gotten anything done at work for the last two hours...

Me and Dave just had a chat over at PTET's. We're old pals.

Hold the phone! Didn't we shun Bob O'H for, like, five minutes or something (Hermagoras even turned his back on him) because Dave gave him a compliment at UD. Now Richardthughes is being all chummy with Dave. I say, the next time he does his "autodictor" routine we pointedly refuse to laugh...

KNOW YOU WONT..


HOMO.

:angry:

But this was a much more serious level of counterfraternization than what poor Bob O'H engaged in, what with the deviant mancrushes and all :(

Date: 2008/02/13 21:44:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,21:39)
But..but...but...Bob gets to post at UD. They'd never let me do that.*




* 3 times they never let me do that.

Okay, that is a good point. Besides, I already laughed, took three words. ;)

Date: 2008/02/15 20:01:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,14:19)
ALRIGHT SHUT AND AND LISTEN BECAUSE I'M TALKIN.

THE PAST. WHERE YOU THEY'RE? I THOUGHT NOT. NONE OF US NO WHAT HAPPENED, ONLY PEOPLE FROM THEN DO, AND THERE DEAD. FORTUNATLEY THEY WROTE TEH BIBLE, SO WE TWO CAN NO.

USING MY EF I HAVE CALCULATED A MORPHONOGICAL TREE OF WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED WITH REGARD TO DISSENT. GILD DODGEMS WROTE SOME OF TEH SIMULATIONS (BUT I CAME UP WITH IT ALL), I KICKED THE CPU AND VUSUALS DISPLAY UNITS TO ENSURE ENVIRNONMETAL RANDOMNESS.

HEAR ARE THE RESULTS:





IF YOU BLOG ABOUT MY PEAR RESEARCHES, PLEASE USE THE WRITE ICON, WHICH YOU CAN STEEL FROM THEY'RE WEBSITE.

I hate to be a fly in the ointment and all, but where did the monkey come from. I mean if Darwin, Satan, and Dice were all there was, where did the monkey come from? Mao and PZ don't have parents either. Did they come from the same place Cain and Able's wives came from? Or was this some sort of weird incestuous free for all, if so I can only assume Sal Cordova had something to do with it...

Date: 2008/02/15 20:11:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 14 2008,12:58)
My bet: he won't be returning to JHU in Fall '08, but will instead be taking a formal position under Caroline Crocker.

Sal's not that kind of boy. He would insist on being on top. :p

Date: 2008/02/16 10:54:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2008,09:48)
Ftk:
 
Quote
Creation-Evolution News Headlines is a great source for checks and balances when considering the dogmatic insistence that everything in nature evolved from that first blob of matter that happened to miraculously evolve from primordial goo.

But isn't that her entire position? That origins must have been miraculous? That she can't believe otherwise? Now I'm confused.

I've fisked posts from Creation-Evolution Headlines in the past, but this one is more full of TARD than most. Here is an example:

Quote
Obviously, the researchers cannot watch a fossil bat fly in a fossilized sky.  A creature capable of being called an “agile climber” as well as a flyer should not be judged primitive on that basis; are not two skills better than one?  Possession of claws seems also a questionable measure of primitiveness.  It would seem more primitive to lack a structure than to have it.


Humans don't have tails, does that mean we are more primitive than, say, a platypus which does? They don't understand how to tell a primitive from a derived trait, yet FTK thinks they are a reality check on evolutionary biology. :O

Date: 2008/02/17 16:55:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 17 2008,13:25)
In keeping with the theme that's been going on the past few days, I'm pleased to announce the Bob O'Hara Award for Distinguished Service in Blogging on PseudoScience. Naturally, the first recipient is...

Bob O'Hara

Bob's got PZ Myers, Afarensis, and Quackometer on board at BPSDB. Although Orac is giving Pooflinger credit, I think Bob played a part in that, too.

Great work, Bob.

I want a recount. The voting was rigged, rigged I tell ya. There is no way Bob O'Hara could have won the Bob O'Hara award...for..., oh, um, hehe, never mind. ???

Date: 2008/02/18 17:55:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday! :D

Date: 2008/02/24 16:22:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2008,04:24)
YOU HOMOS IS ALL RONG. NOT ONLY IS TEH BECKINSALE AND TEH JOHANSON EGGZ OF LOW KWALITY BUT UR MAFF IZ ALL WACK (I CAN DUZ YOOFSPEEK).

**ADDED USING TEH BANNINATOR/EDIT BUTTON (SAME FING):

ELISHA CUTHBERT HAS TEH REAL HOT EGGS. SEE SHE IZ ANGRY AT YOUR OTHER FLOOZYS EGGS. SO ANGRY HER CLOVES HAS FALLEN OFF. SHE IS NOT AN ESKIMO FER SHURE!



FOLLOW THE LOCOMOT...ENGI.....TRAIN OF ID LOGIC AS SPLAINED BY TEH EXPLANA...TEH COMPLEX SPECIF...TEH EF AND TEH CSI, HOMOZ:

1) LIFE IS IMPROB...DIFFIC...TOUGH.

2) FOR YOU ATHEISTDAREWINISTMATERIALIST HOMOS TO BE CORRECT NOT ONLY WOULD ALL TEH ATOMS IN TEH UNIVE...SPACE HAS TO CUM TOGEVER AT TEH SAME TIME, BUT TEH RIGHT ORDER. TEH EF TELLZ ME DIS HAS PROBAB...UNLIKELYNESS OF 10 TO THE POWER OF 150, AND IT HAS TEH CSI.

3) SO EVEN IF YOU HAS TEH UNIVERSE IN PLACE THEN YOU HAS LIFE THEN DER IS TEH UNLIKELIHOODNESS  OF UR MOMMA MEETING UR POPPER. AND IF LIKE TEH ID DOCUMENTARY "BACK TO TEH FUTURES" SHOWS TEH TIME MASHINE IS INVEN....MADE (TEH FLUX CAPACI...TING IS A PREDICTION OF ID) U CUD KILL YUR GRANDAD AND YOR MOMMA WULD NOT B BORN. DIS HAS UNLIKELYNESS OF 10 TO DER POWER UV 151 (MORE DAN BEFORE).

4) DEN, AND ONLY DEN, DOES DER RTH CALCULA...SUMS ABOUT TEH SHPERM COME INTO PLAY (WHICH IS 200000000 WHICH IN DER SCIIENTIFIK NOTATION IS 10 TO DER POWER OF 200).

5) IF YOU ADD THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER LIKE ID STATISTIKS SEZ U SHUD THEN YOU GET TEH NUMAH 10 TO DER POWER OF 501 WHICH IS TEH SAME NUMBER AS LEVI GENES, AND LEVI IS A NAME FROM DER BIBLE. COINKIYDINK? I THINK NOT! AND IT IS A BIG NUMBER, BIGGER DAN DER UNIVERSE'S PARTS SO IT PROVES DAT YOU COULD NOT BE CONCEI...MADE BY YOUR MOMMA AND YOUR POPPA WITHOUT TEH INTERVE....GOD.

QOUD ERAT DOOFUSTRATUM.

Louis

P.S. FTK SEZ YOU IS ALL ATHEISTS ON A DAILY BASIS AND HEDDLE SEZ ALL ATHEISTS HATE GOD SO YOU HATE GOD DALEY AND THEREFORE CANNOT HAS DER ID.

A derisive bronx cheer seems to be an appropriate response. I mean look at that funny looking, almost mannish face. Besides, blondes are sooo yesterday's news. :p

Date: 2008/02/24 19:41:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 24 2008,19:08)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 24 2008,16:22)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2008,04:24)
YOU HOMOS IS ALL RONG. NOT ONLY IS TEH BECKINSALE AND TEH JOHANSON EGGZ OF LOW KWALITY BUT UR MAFF IZ ALL WACK (I CAN DUZ YOOFSPEEK).

**ADDED USING TEH BANNINATOR/EDIT BUTTON (SAME FING):

ELISHA CUTHBERT HAS TEH REAL HOT EGGS. SEE SHE IZ ANGRY AT YOUR OTHER FLOOZYS EGGS. SO ANGRY HER CLOVES HAS FALLEN OFF. SHE IS NOT AN ESKIMO FER SHURE!



FOLLOW THE LOCOMOT...ENGI.....TRAIN OF ID LOGIC AS SPLAINED BY TEH EXPLANA...TEH COMPLEX SPECIF...TEH EF AND TEH CSI, HOMOZ:

1) LIFE IS IMPROB...DIFFIC...TOUGH.

2) FOR YOU ATHEISTDAREWINISTMATERIALIST HOMOS TO BE CORRECT NOT ONLY WOULD ALL TEH ATOMS IN TEH UNIVE...SPACE HAS TO CUM TOGEVER AT TEH SAME TIME, BUT TEH RIGHT ORDER. TEH EF TELLZ ME DIS HAS PROBAB...UNLIKELYNESS OF 10 TO THE POWER OF 150, AND IT HAS TEH CSI.

3) SO EVEN IF YOU HAS TEH UNIVERSE IN PLACE THEN YOU HAS LIFE THEN DER IS TEH UNLIKELIHOODNESS  OF UR MOMMA MEETING UR POPPER. AND IF LIKE TEH ID DOCUMENTARY "BACK TO TEH FUTURES" SHOWS TEH TIME MASHINE IS INVEN....MADE (TEH FLUX CAPACI...TING IS A PREDICTION OF ID) U CUD KILL YUR GRANDAD AND YOR MOMMA WULD NOT B BORN. DIS HAS UNLIKELYNESS OF 10 TO DER POWER UV 151 (MORE DAN BEFORE).

4) DEN, AND ONLY DEN, DOES DER RTH CALCULA...SUMS ABOUT TEH SHPERM COME INTO PLAY (WHICH IS 200000000 WHICH IN DER SCIIENTIFIK NOTATION IS 10 TO DER POWER OF 200).

5) IF YOU ADD THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER LIKE ID STATISTIKS SEZ U SHUD THEN YOU GET TEH NUMAH 10 TO DER POWER OF 501 WHICH IS TEH SAME NUMBER AS LEVI GENES, AND LEVI IS A NAME FROM DER BIBLE. COINKIYDINK? I THINK NOT! AND IT IS A BIG NUMBER, BIGGER DAN DER UNIVERSE'S PARTS SO IT PROVES DAT YOU COULD NOT BE CONCEI...MADE BY YOUR MOMMA AND YOUR POPPA WITHOUT TEH INTERVE....GOD.

QOUD ERAT DOOFUSTRATUM.

Louis

P.S. FTK SEZ YOU IS ALL ATHEISTS ON A DAILY BASIS AND HEDDLE SEZ ALL ATHEISTS HATE GOD SO YOU HATE GOD DALEY AND THEREFORE CANNOT HAS DER ID.

A derisive bronx cheer seems to be an appropriate response. I mean look at that funny looking, almost mannish face. Besides, blondes are sooo yesterday's news. :p

Afarensis?  Are you alright?  I think your post is a cry for help, and you must be working too hard; you are acting like a hominid over the edge!

If you start thinking Denyse O'Leary is looking good, pleae report to the nearest hospital.

Dude!

Nothing wrong with me, just defending the honor of Ms. Beckinsale.

Quote
If you start thinking Denyse O'Leary is looking good, pleae report to the nearest hospital.


Dude, warn someone when you are going to say something like that. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth, blech. :angry:

Date: 2008/02/25 18:46:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2008,07:30)
Can I be the first to say in all seriousness that in previous Tardologues I meant no disrespect to Ms Beckinsale and that, wrath of the Mrs and airborne swine conditions permitting, I would in fact consent, with suitable arm twisting by her, and after a couple of strong drinks on my account, to just manage, possibly, to slip one up the ridicuously ugly old trout. She'd have to beg and promise to make me breakfast though. I'm not a push over.

Now I'm not saying that La Kate is ugly, I'm merely statting that compared to my pulchritudinous self, she's a 4, 5 at best. Granted she has a face like a dropped pie and under normal and sober circumstances I wouldn't touch her with a stolen penis, but given sufficient quantities of Tramp Champagne (Special Brew mixed with Diamond White, Kestrel Super and White Lightning at a push), I reckon I could just about suffer to spank that sagging, purulent behind. She'd have to keep the lights off and when she arrived I'd cut the tail off the dog so there were no obvious signs of welcome.

Louis

That almost made me cry :(  but then I read the other thread where you were talking about your irony meter exploding and realized that you are suffering from a Tard overdose (either that or Kate turned ya down). Shake it off, man, shake it off. :p

Lou FCD - I think I'll go with the contacts...

Edit: All kidding aside, I posted that pic on my blog and it got over 12,000 hits in one week. It's a bit aggravating because none of my "serious" posts get anywhere near that traffic.

Date: 2008/02/25 20:05:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2008,19:53)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 25 2008,19:46)
Lou FCD - I think I'll go with the contacts...

Edit: All kidding aside, I posted that pic on my blog and it got over 12,000 hits in one week. It's a bit aggravating because none of my "serious" posts get anywhere near that traffic.

Good move, me too.

I feel your pain about posts.  Aside from the one PZ linked on his front page about Slobbering Sal, my Janie's biggest post at UDoJ is "Emma Watson Naked, Oh Hermione".

Just a quick snippet from an interview where she mentioned she wouldn't rule out a role on the basis of nudity alone.

Google loves that thing, apparently.

On the other hand, the "Quietly Naked in the Pouring Rain" and "Twixt Her Naked Breasts" poetry contests have weathered well, and I'm OK with that.

On my own blog, the post with the red dress pictures gets all the Google play, predictably.  My personal favorites do OK, but that one eclipses the rest by quite a margin.

Also predictably, Janie on her worst days gets easily four or five times the traffic I do on my best.  'sok, I like my little corner quiet.  She can have all the glam.

Yup, that picture of Kate has received over 116,000 hits since I published it. To put it in perspective, my most popular science post (on what can be learned about behavior by examining the ulna) has received a mere 13,200. ???

Date: 2008/02/25 22:45:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2008,21:13)
Link Love.

C'mon you guys and gals.  Help a hominid out and click the link.  It's actually pretty interesting.

(He talks about shafts and notches!!!!11!!!1!!)

ETA:  Afarensis, it would be helpful if that post included a link to the next post in the series...

ETAA:  



Part Deux

That is actually a good point. I'm going to have to fix that.

Date: 2008/03/10 19:47:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 10 2008,13:55)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,10:50)
Alb,

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?

I'm not albatrossity, but I would say no.  There are much better figures out there.

Enough about the mote in Prothero's eye, though.

For example, you claim Prothero has confused von Baer's claim with Haeckel's.  It is clear he has not.

You claim the figure caption is wrong - it is not.  You fault it for what it doesn't say.  This is a book about fossils primarily, after all, not one on embryology
or developmental biology.

The first link doesn't support any argument that embryogenesis did not evolve by descent with modification.  I have no idea what you mean by "conservation of embryogenesis".

Keeping this on topic, is there a page in Exploring Evolution that deals with embryology?  :)

Edited to add smiley.

Yes, in point of fact there is. Leans heavily on Wells, misunderstands a paper by Sedgwick, mentions an interesting paper by Richardson et al (which I am trying to find a copy of), trots out the "most textbooks use Haeckel's drawings" (specifically mentioning Futuyma - which is BS) nonsense, among other things. All in all, it was even worse than the stuff on fossils...

Date: 2008/03/10 20:36:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:09)
Afarensis,

I'll send you a pdf of that paper by Richardson, along with his more recent work, if you can give me an email address to use.

Paul,
You can send it to:

afarensis@scienceblogs.com

Thanks much!

Date: 2008/03/12 18:44:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 12 2008,09:53)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 11 2008,17:20)
Since I'm not likely to read EE, I took the time to go to the EE website and read the blurb on turtles.

I quote from EE:

 
Quote

Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The
order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million
years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the
fossil record without intermediates.


Now, my understanding of creationist jargon is that "sudden appearance" and "fully developed" mean they, turtles, were created or designed.

Is this correct, Paul, or not?  Is EE claiming that turtles were created?

Second, I have a question about the last sentence about intermediates.

To paraphrase, "turtles appear in the fossil record without intermediates."  Intermediates between what and what? Do turtles share common descent from earlier reptiles?

Tell me more about turtles, Paul.

Thanks.

And do you mention that Homo sapiens does not suddenly appear in your book?  Why or why not?   Let's explore this!

Unless I missed it somehow, they didn't mention human evolution at all. A good thing, IMHO, because the only two articles I have read that give the "intelligent design" view of human evolution were, well, really, really bad.

Date: 2008/03/12 18:57:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 12 2008,17:28)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 12 2008,17:17)
 
Quote
Just curious…How does interspecific hybridization occur between a Pan & Homo ?

Erasmus would know.

:O Is he the chimp or the homo?

Feh! The hybridization would have occurred between about 6.3 - 5.4 MYA, if I understand the Patterson paper correctly. This puts the hybridization between chimps and Sahelanthropus and/or Ardipithecus (with an outside chance that Australopithecus was involved). At any rate, this is far too early for Homo to be involved. Whether Erasmus is a chimp or a Homo is not addressed by the Patterson paper, so you are all free to speculate wildly :p

Date: 2008/03/13 18:45:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Is RRE one of us :angry: or one of them :) ?

Date: 2008/03/15 14:49:46, Link
Author: afarensis
I'm in! I'll even start us off (afarensis pulls out a graphing calculator and accesses the random number function), okay the number is 94. Since I generated the first number and have a copy of the book I will not participate in this first round. Again, the number is 94 so document those errors!

Date: 2008/03/15 18:50:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Any others?

Date: 2008/03/15 18:51:49, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2008,18:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,12:04)
I don't feel like providing a compendium of fact-checking with respect to making EE less objectionable when it gets to court. (We know that's where it will up, eventually.)

But we can have a bit of fun with it. If someone will pick a number between 1 and 144 (144 being the beginning of the glossary), those of us with the book in hand can compete to find the error closest to the top of the given page. So the winner will be the person who can document an error that is the minimum number of pages, paragraphs, or sentences away from a given starting position. Errors can include mischaracterizations of authorities, misstatements of facts, omission of relevant information, misquotations (as described in the t.o. Jargon file), terminological inexactitude, or other deviation from telling the truth.

We need someone to give an initial seed page for the first round. Please, try to randomize this and don't just look back earlier in the thread for the location of juicy errors already identified.

Wait, Wait...

I love the idea, but I havent' got the copy that Paul sent.

Maybe you can still participate by being the person that tosses out the random numbers?

Date: 2008/03/15 19:21:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Pardon me while I giggle hysterically. We are now back to my question to Paul. Namely. what the f$%k size has to do with the reptile mammal transition. Or we can go with the Henry Gee In Search of Deeptime quotemine:

Quote
"The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."


Random number generator says page 40.

Oh, when I said any others I meant on page 94...

Date: 2008/03/15 19:31:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:30)
Darn, people are fast. I was about to note the size issue was first up given p.29 as a starting position.

Aww, I didn't even have to look that one up. Just saw page 29 and started laughing at the serendipity of it :p

Date: 2008/03/15 19:41:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,19:34)
p.40, first sentence again:

 
Quote

You've seen that there is a spirited debate over what the fossil record actually tells us about the history of life.


Mischaracterization. EE wants to promote the notion of separate origin/creation, and none of the "spirited debate" goes in that direction.

One of my favorite WTF moments occurs on page 40 in the third paragraph where they say:

Quote
Of course, pigs and humans did not inherit the bones themselves from their common ancestor. That would be ludicrous.*


When you follow the asterisk you get:

Quote
*Not to mention borderline disgusting.


I'm not sure if they were trying to make a joke that went badly astray or if they really think their audience is stupid enough to think that bones were actually passed along. Either way WTF? :O

Date: 2008/03/15 22:13:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2008,22:04)
How do we keep the friendly competition aspect if we are completely scouring a page? Should we encourage people to submit errors as they find them, and rank folks on who submits the most errors for that page?

That sounds reasonable if we are going to scour each page for errors. I would also do one page a day to give folks like me (I work all day and don't have computer access during that time) a chance to participate.

Date: 2008/03/16 12:43:36, Link
Author: afarensis
It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread?

Edit: Wohoo my 100th comment!

Date: 2008/03/16 13:02:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2008,12:53)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 16 2008,12:43)
It might be fun to do this on The Design of Life thread too. Or do both books on this thread?

Yeah, but I don't have a copy of that one. I got a review copy of EE, but the guardians at the gates for TDOL have ignored all of my requests for a review copy of that thing. I'll see if I can find a used one at Amazon.

Again, to give credit where it is due, Paul has provided copies and participated here. One simply cannot imagine that Dr. Dr. Dembski would do either one of those things...

That is true, I can't imagine Dembski participating in this discussion.

Date: 2008/03/22 08:24:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday Kristine! :)

Date: 2008/03/22 08:38:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.


Wait, is it me or is this some kind of insinuation that PZ and Dawkins are gay?

Date: 2008/04/05 08:48:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 03 2008,20:43)
Should we have another "random page error-check" day tomorrow for "Explore Evolution"? I'm thinking that we may need a little structure to make this work out for the most people. Like having a specified person for posting a random page number at an agreed-upon time, so everyone can be set to have a look when the "starting gun" goes off.

Sunday would be better for me. I agree, though, that we need a structured approach...

Date: 2008/04/09 10:10:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2008,09:57)
Allen's later posts shows the human body may have created Viruses by itself. This will irk Dave, who wants ace spaliens to have did dun us "in the past, with a retrovirus."*

Wait, wouldn't being done by ace spaliens be bestiality? Is Dave advocating fornication with ace spaliens? I'm shocked, what will FTK say?

Date: 2008/04/10 08:56:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2008,09:59)
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.

Steve, et al.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family. In grad school, when he finally was confronted face-to-face with evidence that could not be reconciled with the Fluud, it triggered a personal crisis that seems to still be going on years later. Words like "bitterness, rage and disappointment" can be found throughout the account; his relationships with his parents, wife, siblings etc. have all had to be renegotiated. Another ex-creationist, quoted in the article, discusses his conversation with his mother: "The day that I had to tell my mother I wasn't a YEC was the scariest day of my life".

I think sometimes we forget how those fact-free beliefs, installed in their heads when they were young, become incredibly intertwined with everything else in their lives. Giving up the fact-free beliefs would be easy if that is all that would be required. But in reality it involves giving up a lot more than that, and sometimes at great psychic cost.

It takes a lot of guts to make that break. The intellectual understanding is just the first, and probably the easiest, step. Paul might have the brains to do this, but it would be no surprise to learn that he doesn't (like lots of others) have the guts.

I'd be happy to send a PDF of that article to anyone who can't get past the subscription wall at Science. It is an excellent and informative read.

---ETA that I'm certain this attempt at empathy will be read in some quarters as more "nauseating arrogance". Too bad.

I would love a copy...


afarensis@scienceblogs.com

Date: 2008/04/10 10:18:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Actually, it was found and described eight years ago. The reason it is in the news now is because of the super whiz bang technology that allowed them to get 3D images of the second leg (which had been hidden).

Edit: But it is cute that way you and Carlsonjok are trying to imitate the great Richardthughes and be all scientifical-like! :D

Date: 2008/04/10 11:47:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Maybe it had other things in mind for the apple... and the lack of front limbs was an adaptation for some hot snake on apple loving :O

Date: 2008/04/11 11:41:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 11 2008,10:27)
Is there no honour among sock-puppets?  
Quote

FYI. You might want to google “Leopold Stotch”, then tell me who is the troll.

So, if there were no sock-puppets at UD, how many comments do you suppose they would get?

Date: 2008/04/13 19:29:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 13 2008,00:55)
Quote (godsilove @ April 12 2008,15:51)
Does anybody know more about this Maciej Giertych guy, who was interviewed by Ben Stein for Expelled?

He is the only reason I was ever published in Nature.

I dug up some stuff on him.

In addition there is a blog that covers him on a regular basis. IMHO, Maciej Giertych is a bit of a freak. He is also one of the Polish scientists who raised a fuss in Nature over evolution.

Date: 2008/04/19 12:08:50, Link
Author: afarensis
From Evolution News and Views

Quote
The producers of Expelled have high hopes as the film opens today.

Practical questions of theater exposures and audience awareness are things that we, as a think tank, cannot assess, of course. But we are cheering the filmmakers on. First signs look positive. The over-the-top attacks of most official reviewers--offended by the film's message, not its quality--may turn out to help in some quarters. These are the exact same reviewers who commonly tell us not to object to offensive Hollywood products, but just to judge a film for its production quality. By now a large share of the population is wise to such hypocritical standards.


Now for the truth from Fantasy Moguls

Quote
Nathan Frankowski's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary being released on more than 1,000 screens by Christian-friendly Rocky Mountain Pictures. Those who have seen it categorize it as anti-Darwinism propaganda, featuring right wing commentator Ben Stein. I’m sure that there's an audience out there somewhere for this type of doc, but there has been very little "intelligent design" involved in marketing the movie. With a Total Aware of only 19 percent and a First Choice score of just 2 percent, Expelled will manage only $1 million-$3 million this weekend, and it will have a difficult time holding on to those screens. It's doomed to $5 million domestic in its theatrical engagements (survival of the fittest?), although a fair number of DVD copies may be sold in evangelical bookstores in the future.

Date: 2008/05/04 22:54:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Paul, I wonder if you could explain to us why it is you object to the way the reptile/mammal transition is portrayed, yet it seems to be acceptable for ID types to use highly misleading pictures of bacterial flagella? Or, to phrase it differently, if you object to scientist using anything remotely resembling Haeckel’s drawings, why don't you object to the use of doctored drawings of the bacterial flagella - such as those that appear on pages 116 and 117 of your book? I eagerly await your response.

Date: 2008/05/04 23:04:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 04 2008,13:55)
olegt - Sal's main point, that most new mutations will go extinct through drift, is correct.  But we've known about this for a long time: it even gets taught to undergrads.  But Sal never answers the "So what?" satisfactorily.  It just means that evolution takes a bit longer.  I guess this is a problem for Sal or Sanford, who only allow it 10 000 years, but the rest of us just take it into account.  I'm guessing that Sal has never taken a course on phylogenetics: you get shown that the mutation rate equals the fixation rate for neutral alleles.  And yet we can still build trees, and time events with sensible figures.

Sal screws a few other things up: the quote of Mike Lynch at the end is a non sequitur, and the rest of that book shows Sal's argument is crap (basically, Mike was trying to show that molecular evolution can happen without selection).  And his stuff about multiple genes is nonsensical.

I'm sure there's more too, but I'm off to bed.

Yeah, we learned that using Populus... also, most of Lynch's publications are available here.

Date: 2008/05/07 19:47:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Um, Paul,
Your emailed response to my question was totally irrelevant. The pictures in your book and on Dembski's website are every bit as doctored and misleading as you claim Haeckel's pics are. I would say more so in fact, yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable for ID proponents to use misleading photos. There seems to be some intellectual inconsistency there. By the by, since I am asking this in the forum courtesy requires that you answer in the forum rather than by email...

Date: 2008/05/08 21:48:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2008,19:40)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 08 2008,17:32)
I GET IT! *Slaps forehead*

This thread is BlarneyA's shot at a dead baby joke.

Q: "How do you unload a truckload of dead babies?"

A: "With a pitchfork. But it would be wrong."

You know, I once observed a rare crossover of the dead-baby and grosser-than-gross genres:

"What's grosser than gross?"

"What?"

"A dumpster filled with dead babies. What's grosser than that?"

"What?"

"One at the bottom is still alive and he's eating his way out."

Yes.  I know.  That's terrible.

Ah, I don't care who you are that right there is funny...

Date: 2008/05/20 07:11:31, Link
Author: afarensis
I live in St. Louis...

Date: 2008/05/21 20:02:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2008/05/25 07:32:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2008,01:02)
Dave threatens Batshit77...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-289449

 
Quote
166

DaveScot

05/25/2008

12:51 am
BA77

I’m tempted to ban you for posting that something strange is going on with refrigerator magnets. Do you suppose something strange is happening with glue, screws, and other fasteners too?

Be VERY careful how you reply.

Nah, he is just reestablishing his dominance over the other primates in the troop after being ritually mounted by the Alpha male (that would be Granny Spice). So now he has to stomp around brandishing the bannation button so everyone knows he still has a place in the dominance hierarchy. Happens all the time in primate troops. After a bit he and the others will settle down to some mutual grooming and group solidarity will be restored.  :p

Date: 2008/05/29 18:51:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday! :D

Date: 2008/06/07 23:57:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 05 2008,12:43)
Quote (fusilier @ June 05 2008,06:26)
I'm not Dr. GH, and I don't play him on TV -but I have started to read the book.

I made the mistake of starting at the beginning.

yes, I made that mistake too. I expected it would get better, like most works of fiction, as I got further into it. Alas. I was wretchedly disappointed.   :angry:

Date: 2008/06/22 15:10:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy not your birthday  ???

Date: 2008/07/03 17:39:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Assuming RichardTHughes isn't just another hoax perpetrated by Arden and that shady-looking Carlsonjok fellow, Happy Birthday to the best darn DaveScot impersonator ever!

Date: 2008/07/03 20:04:59, Link
Author: afarensis
What about Richard Colling?

Date: 2008/07/09 20:44:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,18:56)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 09 2008,18:48)
Ftk - describe how the following research and discoveries would have been motivated and the results interpreted from the perspective of "common design" and/or Walt Brown's addlepate vision of a young earth.  From the website Genetic Anthropology about a year ago:

New Discoveries From Ethiopia Fill Major Gap In Fossil Record (7/12/2007)

Scientists working in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, have recovered fossils that may prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years) early human species.

Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, until now, there has been no hominid fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame to determine this relationship. According to project co-leader Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator and head of physical anthropology at The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille study area was unusually successful and uncovered key physical evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago," said Haile-Selassie. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis." The project team found isolated teeth from this time frame during its earlier field seasons. However, during the 2007 field season, they recovered more complete jaws that are important to conduct comparative analysis.

At least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws found in 2007, and a partial skeleton found in 2005. These join the more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens discovered in four consecutive field seasons in the Woranso-Mille area. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date.

Introduction

The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years. This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology, the study of human physical and cultural evolution. Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind, with a minimum of 12 early human species known from the country, including the earliest hominid Ardipithecus kadabba at 5.8 million years ago, and Homo sapiens idaltu, the earliest anatomically modern human at 160,000 years ago. For the last four decades, numerous local and foreign scientists have carried out fieldwork in the Afar region, searching for fossil remains of the earliest human ancestors. Major areas that have been extensively explored, and have yielded early hominid fossil remains include Hadar, Middle Awash, Gona, and Dikika, all located in the Afar Regional State. The Afar region still has unexplored areas of paleoanthropological interest. As a result, new exploratory programs are being developed and new paleontological sites identified.

The Woranso-Mille project, led by Drs. Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, United States, has been conducting its paleoanthropological research in the central Afar area since 2003. This area was identified as a result of survey and exploration conducted in 2002. The Woranso-Mille Project is a multinational and multidisciplinary project and has thus far conducted four consecutive field seasons within the Mille-Chifra-Kasagita Triangle. Members of the project include scientists from The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Addis Ababa University, Case Western Reserve University, and Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The Site

The Woranso-Mille paleontological site is located in the central Afar area in the Mille and Chifra districts of Zone 1 of the Afar Regional State. The study area is defined by the towns of Mille, Chifra, and Kasagita. In this study area, a total of 29 vertebrate localities have been designated thus far. Major fossiliferous areas are divided into propers, with a number of localities designated within each proper. The Aralee Issie, Mesgid Dora, and Makah Mera propers are located on the north side of the Mille River, and comprise a total of 11 designated localities. Additional localities on the north side of the Mille River are Godaya, Harabi, Am-Ado, and Lehaytu Gera. On the south side of the Mille River, major fossiliferous localities are designated in the areas locally known as Korsi Dora, Burtele, Nefuraytu, Leado Dodo'a, and Leadu.

The Fossil Discoveries

A total of 1,900 vertebrate fossil remains have been collected from the study area since 2003. Project leader Haile-Selassie states that these fossils represent diverse animals ranging from small mammals, such as mice, to large ones, such as elephants. Carnivores, monkeys, and bovids, are among the most abundant groups. However, other taxa, such as primitive horses, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, crocodile, and fish are also present. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date. The total number of fossil remains of early hominids discovered from the site is relatively small, as in other hominid-bearing sites in Ethiopia and elsewhere. However, at least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws and one partial skeleton, which was found in 2005. The excavation of this partial skeleton is still under way.

Age of the Fossils

Preliminary radiometric dates for some volcanic layers in the study area, bracketing most of the fossiliferous horizons, range from 3.5 to 3.8 Ma. Project Geochronologist Dr. Alan Deino explains that these dates are based on single-crystal dating of K-feldspar bearing tuffs found within the stratigraphic succession and incremental heating of samples of basaltic lava. These preliminary radiometric dates agree well with biostratigraphic age estimates of 3.6 to 3.8 Ma. This shows that the Woranso-Mille succession is much older than Hadar, where the oldest deposits are 3.4 million years old. Hadar is renowned in the field of paleoanthropology, as most of the Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) fossil specimens were discovered there. Woranso-Mille localities are slightly younger than the 4 million year old Asa Issie (Middle Awash), where remains of Australopithecus anamensis have been recently described by the Middle Awash project. The Woranso-Mille study area has some of the few (probably the best) known hominid-bearing exposures sampling the time between 3.5 and 3.9 million years ago. The area also samples vertebrate fossils from horizons that are younger and older than this time range, extending into the late Miocene.

Significance of the hominid fossils

The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary studies. An outstanding question in the study of early human evolution, says Haile-Selassie, relates to the relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years). Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, there has been no fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame thus far to test, confirm, or falsify this relationship. Haile-Selassie adds that the fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille study area dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago sample the right time and play a major role in testing the hypothesis with fossil data. The Woranso-Mille fossil hominids from the deposits younger than 3.5 million years extend the geographic distribution of Australopithecus afarensis further to the north of Hadar, where the species is best documented.

Future Prospects

The paleontological significance of the Woranso-Mille study area has been demonstrated by the discovery of more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens in three years of fieldwork. These fossils include a number of hominid remains from different time horizons. However, the study area has not been fully explored. Preliminary survey in some areas shows that there are fossiliferous deposits as old as 5 million years ago. However, the project has not yet intensively concentrated on these areas. During the coming field seasons, the Woranso-Mille project plans to systematically collect more fossils from already designated vertebrate localities and to find new areas with fossils of older age.

Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking.

Sigh...

I haven't even read through the whole thing yet, so give me some time - a week perhaps...maybe less. ;)

Another good one to illustrate the point would be this one

Quote
Well-constrained estimates of adult body mass for species of fossil platyrrhines (New World
‘‘monkeys’’) are essential for resolving numerous paleobiological questions. However, no
consensus exists as to which craniodental measures best correlate with body mass among extant
taxa in this clade. In this analysis, we analyze 80 craniodental variables and generate predictive
equations applicable to fossil taxa, including the early platyrrhine Chilecebus carrascoensis.
We find mandibular length to be the best craniodental predictor of body mass. There is no
significant difference in predictive value between osteological and dental measures. Variables
associated with the mandible and lower dentition do significantly outperform the cranium and
upper dentition. Additionally, we demonstrate that modern platyrrhines differ, morphometrically,
from early fossil forms. Chilecebus possesses unusual cranial proportions in several key features, as
well as proportionally narrow upper incisors and wide upper cheek teeth. These variables yield
widely divergent body mass estimates for Chilecebus, implying that the correlations observed in a
crown group cannot be assumed a priori for early diverging fossils. Variables allometrically
consistent with those in extant forms yield a body mass estimate of slightly less than 600 grams for
Chilecebus, nearly a factor of two smaller than prior preliminary estimates.
Scaled to body mass, the brain of Chilecebus is markedly smaller than those of modern
anthropoids, despite its lowered body mass estimate advocated here. This finding, in conjunction
with a similar pattern exhibited by fossil catarrhines, suggests that increased encephalization arose
independently in the two extant subgroups of anthropoids (platyrrhines and catarrhines).


Or maybe this one on the evolution of the parathyroid gland given her statements about the evolution of organs and organ systems.

Date: 2008/07/15 19:27:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,21:27)
Here’s what really cracks me up....the actual  bone fragments that you science dudes get so worked up about.  See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone from the article Bill linked to in regard to the recovered fossils that “may” prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus .

Tikky...




Austa...




It’s no wonder we unscientific folks think you’re all completely nuts.  We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake.  But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes.

From what I understand, Shubin made several trips to a few places where he thought he should find these transitionals, but had no luck.  If I remember correctly from the book (I read it at Barnes & Nobles in two different visits), he said that they almost gave up hope and that they were afraid they wouldn’t get funding for further trips like this.  (If I’m wrong about this I’m sure someone will correct me...like I said, I don’t have the book and I can’t quite remember how the story went.)  

But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find, which looks like a freaking fish to me.  So, they find some little bone on this sucker that they think served as a intermediate wrist bone.  What the heck does that really mean?  There are other walking fish...I have no idea what makes this one bone fragment so unique that it just *has* to be an intermediate between fish and terapods.  I guess because this one was found in exactly the “right place”.

And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone.  Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.  

W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.  

Makes you wonder what scientists would find if they went gung ho digging in the wrong places.  Honest to God, when I did a little research earlier this year and found out how few ape to human transitional bone fragments we actually have, I was stunned that scientists actually believe this crap.  

But, yes, I’m well aware that you have to be a genius mad scientist to understand how precious and meaningful these minute bone fragments really are.

I guess I do have to remind myself, though, that you are the same folks who seem to think everything we observe in nature arose from a lucky little blob.  Faith is a wonderful thing, eh?

Oh, and have fun with this oldie but goody as well [Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media Goes Nuts   04/06/2006 ].

Luvs, hugs and kisses, folks!

PS to blipey the troll:  Honey, it seems to me that for a guy who has such a long list of questions he’s waiting for me to answer, he would at least set a good example and answer the one question that I asked you months ago on the UD thread.  Heck it’s been so long I don’t even remember what it was or where it is.  I’m sure you recall that conversation though.

Dang, don't know how I missed that, but a few thoughts spring to mind.

FTK needs to do a little more research on the subject. To date there are over 13,000 fossils that relate to human evolution and no, they can't all be shoved in a coffin. When I was at UTK we had a smallish cast lab but the casts we had would have filled a coffin several times over. They range from fragments to complete bones to partial or complete skeletons. The four volume series by Jeffrey Schwartz is a good place to start. The idea that nothing can be learned from bone fragments presupposes that bones are protoplasmic lumps of calcium. I find it amusing that creationists can deride Darwin for thinking the cell was a lump of protoplasm (incidentally, that is an untrue claim) yet turn around and make that mistake with bone. In point of fact, those knobs and grooves indicate something about the morphology and function of the bone and even fragments can provide interesting information. It is interesting, in this light, that FTK derides a fairly complete skull and a complete mandible as "fragments" when they are anything but fragments. Going further, she characterizes Tiktaalik as a looking like a fish, but does not specify what morphology gives her that impression. FTK also doesn't seem to understand the nature of fieldwork. The choice of where to dig is predicated on evolutionary theory and on previous finds. If you want to find something relevant to, say, human evolution, you have to look at what it says about where and when humans evolved. If prior evidence indicates that some interesting things happened in the Pliocene you have to go look in Pliocene strata to find the fossils that will shed light on it. I guess going where the data points is an alien concept for FTK.
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and
Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensisand Australopithecus afarensis? Really, I eagerly await your discussion of australopithecine anatomy.

Date: 2008/07/15 19:35:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Oh, alright at last a subject I can really sink my teeth into. Come on FTK, let's talk archaeology method and theory. I'll even give you bonus points if you include mention of the paradigms developed by Binford and Schiffer!

Date: 2008/07/15 21:49:17, Link
Author: afarensis
I would be surprised if FTK showed up and had a go at the question. For FTK to discuss anything she needs to be able to swipe it from the works of others (Brown, Luskin, Dembski, etc). Problem is, other than to make a few vague analogies, IDists have been surprisingly mute on the subject. I expect stevestory is right when he questions the value of a separate thread. A hominin can still hope though...

Date: 2008/07/16 06:54:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 15 2008,22:10)
Hi  afarensis,

You wrote:

 
Quote
To date there are over 13,000 fossils that relate to human evolution and no, they can't all be shoved in a coffin. When I was at UTK we had a smallish cast lab but the casts we had would have filled a coffin several times over. They range from fragments to complete bones to partial or complete skeletons.


Is this link that is dated 2007 fairly accurate?  I’m just curious if those 13,000 fossils represents approx. 1,400 individuals.  

Oh, and that book you recommended is priced at $254.50 .  Holy shit.   Do you suppose I could find it in a library somewhere or would I have to break a commandment and steal one from a university.

Substantially more than that. Yes, the book is expensive and the is just for the first volume. Still waiting for an answer to my two questions...Here they are in case you have forgotten:

Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and
Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensisand Australopithecus afarensis? Really, I eagerly await your discussion of australopithecine anatomy.

Date: 2008/07/16 07:38:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p

Date: 2008/07/16 18:54:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 16 2008,17:04)
Quote
I find it odd that a non-scientist/biologist can look at tiktaalik and think "fish". I see that flat head and think "alligator". I don't see any part of that fossil that makes me think it's a fish.



Oh, let's compare skulls shall we. Here is the skull of an alligator gar to compare with the skull of Tiktaalik:



Yeah, FTK, they look a lot alike. Could you answer my questions now, and quite changing the subject?

Date: 2008/07/16 19:15:44, Link
Author: afarensis
This looks interesting
Control of segment number in vertebrate embryos:
Quote
The vertebrate body axis is subdivided into repeated segments, best exemplified by the vertebrae that derive from embryonic somites. The number of somites is precisely defined for any given species but varies widely from one species to another. To determine the mechanism controlling somite number, we have compared somitogenesis in zebrafish, chicken, mouse and corn snake embryos. Here we present evidence that in all of these species a similar 'clock-and-wavefront'1, 2, 3 mechanism operates to control somitogenesis; in all of them, somitogenesis is brought to an end through a process in which the presomitic mesoderm, having first increased in size, gradually shrinks until it is exhausted, terminating somite formation. In snake embryos, however, the segmentation clock rate is much faster relative to developmental rate than in other amniotes, leading to a greatly increased number of smaller-sized somites.


Edit to add the link goes to the abstract in Nature.

Date: 2008/07/16 20:07:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Still dodging the questions? Let me repeat them for you:

Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis?


Rather than throw up pictures that do not illustrate your point, perhaps you could make an attempt to answer either of them.

Date: 2008/07/16 22:40:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ July 16 2008,22:29)
Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,18:54)
<snip gar skull>

Dang.  I saw those pics and huffed off to find a pic of a gar skull, and then afarensis already done it.

FtK does not fish.

Yeah, I'm like the zombies in the Night of the Living Dead movies - except instead of saying "brains" it's "bones" :p

Date: 2008/07/16 22:46:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Me, personally, I love links to pdfs of the original papers.


I almost forgot, if you like links to pdfs you should check out the links page at PT. There are a couple of sections with links to a wide variety of downloadable pdfs. It's a work in progress...

Date: 2008/07/17 07:00:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Two more, both open access from PNAS:

Modular networks and cumulative impact of lateral transfer in prokaryote genome evolution:
Quote

Abstract

Lateral gene transfer is an important mechanism of natural variation among prokaryotes, but the significance of its quantitative contribution to genome evolution is debated. Here, we report networks that capture both vertical and lateral components of evolutionary history among 539,723 genes distributed across 181 sequenced prokaryotic genomes. Partitioning of these networks by an eigenspectrum analysis identifies community structure in prokaryotic gene-sharing networks, the modules of which do not correspond to a strictly hierarchical prokaryotic classification. Our results indicate that, on average, at least 81 ± 15% of the genes in each genome studied were involved in lateral gene transfer at some point in their history, even though they can be vertically inherited after acquisition, uncovering a substantial cumulative effect of lateral gene transfer on longer evolutionary time scales.


and

A germ-line-selective advantage rather than an increased mutation rate can explain some unexpectedly common human disease mutations

Quote
Abstract

Two nucleotide substitutions in the human FGFR2 gene (C755G or C758G) are responsible for virtually all sporadic cases of Apert syndrome. This condition is 100–1,000 times more common than genomic mutation frequency data predict. Here, we report on the C758G de novo Apert syndrome mutation. Using data on older donors, we show that spontaneous mutations are not uniformly distributed throughout normal testes. Instead, we find foci where C758G mutation frequencies are 3–4 orders of magnitude greater than the remaining tissue. We conclude this nucleotide site is not a mutation hot spot even after accounting for possible Luria–Delbruck “mutation jackpots.” An alternative explanation for such foci involving positive selection acting on adult self-renewing Ap spermatogonia experiencing the rare mutation could not be rejected. Further, the two youngest individuals studied (19 and 23 years old) had lower mutation frequencies and smaller foci at both mutation sites compared with the older individuals. This implies that the mutation frequency of foci increases as adults age, and thus selection could explain the paternal age effect for Apert syndrome and other genetic conditions. Our results, now including the analysis of two mutations in the same set of testes, suggest that positive selection can increase the relative frequency of premeiotic germ cells carrying such mutations, although individuals who inherit them have reduced fitness. In addition, we compared the anatomical distribution of C758G mutation foci with both new and old data on the C755G mutation in the same testis and found their positions were not correlated with one another.

Date: 2008/07/17 18:38:18, Link
Author: afarensis
In tribute to this thread I can think of no better lines than these by Shakespeare:

Quote
"Friends, Romans, Countryman, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar not to
 praise him. The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with
 their bones; so let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was
 ambitious. If it were so, it was a grevious fault, and greviously hath Caesar
 answered it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest(For Brutus is an honorable
 man as are they all, all honerable men)come I to Caesar's funeral.He was my
 friend, faithful and just to me; but Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is
 an honorable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome whose ransomes did
 the general coffers fill; did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When the poor have
 cried, Caesar hath wep; Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Brutus
 says he was ambitious; and Brutus is an honorable man.You all did see that on
 Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was
 this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; and sure he is an honorable
 man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I
 do know. You all did love him once, not without cause; what cause withholds you
 then to mourn for him? O judgement thou art fled to Brutish beasts, and men hath
 lost their reason! Bear with me; my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
 and i must pause till it come back to me."

Date: 2008/07/17 20:32:27, Link
Author: afarensis
The Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread is dead, long live the Uncommon Descent Thread 2!

Date: 2008/07/19 11:14:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Um, Hello? FTK? Are you there? It's been a couple days since I asked you the following questions:

Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis?


An so far, other than to make several attempts to change the subject, you have studiously avoided answering them. Can I assume that you actually didn't know what you were talking about and that you were just spouting off about stuff you know nothing about?  :O

Date: 2008/07/19 19:46:43, Link
Author: afarensis
But, but, but, they always tell us how willing to discuss the science they are. Yet every time science is brought up, they run away and it's not just FTK either. In the Explore Evolution thread every time we bring up science Paul peels out of there so quick he leaves skidmarks in the comment box. :angry:

Date: 2008/07/20 22:56:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 20 2008,19:14)
Quote (afarensis @ July 19 2008,11:14)
Um, Hello? FTK? Are you there? It's been a couple days since I asked you the following questions:

     
Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis?


An so far, other than to make several attempts to change the subject, you have studiously avoided answering them. Can I assume that you actually didn't know what you were talking about and that you were just spouting off about stuff you know nothing about?  :O

Sorry, I was out of town this weekend....a "thrashing bee" in *Mankato*, KS.   :(  :(  :(

Three grouchy men, my mother-in-law and me shoved in a car traveling for what should have been a 4-hour trip to Mankato that actually took 6 because my husband gets his jollies torturing us by taking the back roads as well as driving all over Manhattan reminiscing about his college days.  

It was 102 in the shade, and the highlight of a “trashing bee” is watching tractors drive through a park in parade fashion.

O..M..G.. am I ever glad to be home.  

My mother-in-law is from Mankato, so we go for her.  It's pure hell, but she loves it and the kids enjoy being with their cousins.

Anywhooo.....I didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.  They seemed more like a rhetorical questions, IMHO.  You’re basically saying, well yeah, you might not like our interpretation of the fossils, but we know transitionals have to be out there, and we've found these in the right places.  We think they're different enough to be deemed "transitionals".  I think it would be virtually impossible to deem something a transitional (in the factual sense) because most of the fossils seem quite distinctly ape..human...fish, etc.  Without soft parts such as organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone would seem be, at best, an exercise in educated guesswork.

I have a few more thoughts about this topic, but I'm planning on posting a blog entry when I can find the time to put it together.

You accused me of avoiding questions, yet you dodged a couple as well.  That gar skull you posted looked like a long nose, not an alligator gar skull.  There are several different looking gars and gar skulls, so I thought you were a bit misleading there.   It’s doesn’t really matter though, as I was just making the point that there are flathead fish and there are also fish with eyes on top rather than on the sides.

Secondly, you didn't tell me how many individuals those 13,000 early  human fossils represent.  I posted a link (pro-Darwin link..not creationist) that states that there are approx. 1400 individuals represented by the human fossils that scientists have found.   You responded that there were "substantially more than that"...which doesn‘t tell me much.  

Your exact words about human transitional fossils were as follows:

   
Quote
"To date there are over 13,000 fossils that relate to human evolution and no, they can't all be shoved in a coffin. When I was at UTK we had a smallish cast lab but the casts we had would have filled a coffin several times over. They range from fragments to complete bones to partial or complete skeletons."


When you say "that relate to human evolution" that could mean that you're including things like tools, etc. as well.  Is that correct?  Or, are you talking about human fossil finds only.  And, again, I wonder how many individuals those fossils actually represent.

I'll answer them in the order that interest me.

When I say that there are over 13,000 fossils that pertain to human evolution, I mean that there are over 13,000 fossils that pertain to the time between the chimp-human split and say the end of the Aurignacian, after that the skeletal count grows exponentially. I qualify it that way because, of course, we have quite a bit more relating to primate evolution in general and we also, as I said, have a lot of post -Aurignacian stuff that relates to the spread of anatomically modern humans around the globe. I do not include lithics or other material correlates of human behavior in that count, I am referring to bones only.

Concerning the gar, I can post pictures of other species of gar but they would look just as different from Tiktaalik as the one I posted. I ignored your question because it was a good example of you trying to change the subject.

How many individuals does that 13,000 represent? Well, that is a good question. I have been in the process of actually counting, and am over 2,000. I am missing data from some of the big sites such as Olduvai Gorge, Koobi Fora, not to mention sites in China, Russia, and Central Europe. I am also missing data from some of the H. erectus sites in Africa. Then there is all the stuff that gets assigned by genus but not species (i.e. we know it's australopithecine or Homo but not which species within those). I'll get back to you on that when I have a good count.

My questions were not rhetorical. To say that some thing "looks like" something else, without specification of what exact items of morphology give that impression is an exercise in meaninglessness. Tomatoes and apples are both red and both round, they look like each other, does that mean they are the same thing? What bones in Tiktaalik resemble what bones in gars? Is it size? Shape? Biomechanics? Origins and insertions of muscles? What? What specific anatomical traits rule out the australopithecine jaw from being transitional between other types of australopithecines?

Quote
You’re basically saying, well yeah, you might not like our interpretation of the fossils, but we know transitionals have to be out there, and we've found these in the right places.  We think they're different enough to be deemed "transitionals".  I think it would be virtually impossible to deem something a transitional (in the factual sense) because most of the fossils seem quite distinctly ape..human...fish, etc.  Without soft parts such as organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone would seem be, at best, an exercise in educated guesswork.


Okay, here you seem to be saying that because you know didly squat about osteology and comparative anatomy no one else does either. Again, how can you say they are distinctly ape, human, or fish when you can't specify what morphology makes them distinctly ape, human, or fish? Better yet, why should we take your word for it, when the people who have spent a lot of time studying apes, humans, or fish and can specify the morphology, think your arguments are pure BS?

Date: 2008/07/21 18:42:49, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ July 21 2008,08:32)
Quote (afarensis @ July 21 2008,04:56)
[SNIP]

Okay, here you seem to be saying that because you know didly squat about osteology and comparative anatomy no one else does either. Again, how can you say they are distinctly ape, human, or fish when you can't specify what morphology makes them distinctly ape, human, or fish? Better yet, why should we take your word for it, when the people who have spent a lot of time studying apes, humans, or fish and can specify the morphology, think your arguments are pure BS?

But this is, has always been, and ever will be FTK's position:

Her ignorance is as good as anyone's knowledge.

She doesn't know so you don't know, she doesn't understand so you don't understand. Couple that to the fact that you (like many people) are probably an "atheist on a daily basis" and not only is her ignorance as good as your knowledge but because her ignorance is good christian ignorance, it's better than your knowledge.

Good luck Afarensis!

Louis

Having watched this thread from the beginning, I have no illusions about FTK. I was shocked that I got her to admit that
Quote
I didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.


I may have to put that in my sig...

Date: 2008/07/22 20:21:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Why is there no recorded history up until 6-8,000 years ago?  What was it that all of a sudden “evolved” in humans that enabled our ancestors to create instant civilizations approx. 8,000 years ago?


Well, I guess if you ignore everything that happened between the Aurignacian and the Chalcolithic (stuff like the domestication of animals and plants and so forth) one could say that civilization sprung up overnight. In reality, the early civilizations that sprung up in the Near East were the result of a long process of cultural evolution that you creationist type seem to ignore. Here is a hint though M-E-S-O-L-I-T-H-I-C.

Quote
If the above individuals were found fossilized, who knows how they would be interpreted.   If they were found in just the “right place” in the fossil record, they might be deemed transitionals of some kind as well, yet they are clearly all humans living during the same moment in time.


Anybody who has actually studied anatomy could tell you how they would be interpreted. Despite that fact that humans display a somewhat variable morphology, we have examined enough skeletons to be able to tell the difference.

Quote
I understand your want to interpret fossil finds as “transitionals”, but it seems to me that it would be virtually impossible to make factual claims about these finds.  The reason being that organisms within a “kind”, if you will, show a vast range of variability.


This would be incorrect and shows a certain amount of ignorance about how paleoanthropologists do their job. The paleoanthropological community has a pretty good grasp of the morphological variability displayed by apes and humans. Contrary to your statement, the variability displayed is not vast at all and we can determine the species, based on their bones, quite easily. Going a step further, it is standard practice to compare australopithecines, and what not, to other fossil finds, apes, and the various members of the genus Homo. These comparisons include both metric and non metric traits and give pretty similar results. The objective then, is to take this mass of comparative data and make predictions as to what a possible transitional or intermediate form might look like. Based on the temporal and stratigraphic distribution of what you already have, you can also make some guesses as to where to look (i.e. Miocene vs Pliocene strata, Africa vs Asia or Europe, etc.) Fortunately, both Australopithecus and Homo (arguably) seem to have undergone adaptive radiations, so we have quite a few species to compare. Then you go out and find some fossils and compare what you found to your predictions. For example, let's say we had a theory that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor some five million years ago. Suppose we found a fossil dating to 3 million years ago, how could we tell whether we had found something on lineage leading to humans? What morphology would it need to have to allow us to say yes, this is transitional or no, this isn't transitional? What would something only a few million years removed from a chimp look like? Keep in mind that temporally it is closer to chimps than humans.

What renders the jaw you pictured a transitional? Haile-Selassie and his team have not yet written the find up, so at this point all we have to go on are the things Reciprocating Bill linked to. I, myself, would not try to analyze it based on a photo only.

Edited to add: FTK, you might want to rethink that argument about the evolution of organ systems that you were trying to make. SRSLY.

Date: 2008/07/22 20:42:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2008,18:53)
I haven't located the original PNAS paper yet, but this movie was kind of cool.

The accompanying blurb, from LiveScience:

 
Quote
The Odorrana tormota frog opens and closes tubes in its ears when listening and calling at night. In this movie, the researchers shined a light under the frog's jaw to illuminate the inside of the mouth. The small circles of light on the side of the frog's head that brighten and dim show the opening and closing of the Eustachian tubes. Credit: National Academies of Science, PNAS (2008)

Yup, PNAS is bad about getting papers up on time. In the meantime, I have three that might be of interest (yes, I'm a literature hound)

The Ascent of the Abundant: How Mutational Networks Constrain Evolution:

Quote
Evolution by natural selection is fundamentally shaped by the fitness landscapes in which it occurs. Yet fitness landscapes are vast and complex, and thus we know relatively little about the long-range constraints they impose on evolutionary dynamics. Here, we exhaustively survey the structural landscapes of RNA molecules of lengths 12 to 18 nucleotides, and develop a network model to describe the relationship between sequence and structure. We find that phenotype abundance—the number of genotypes producing a particular phenotype—varies in a predictable manner and critically influences evolutionary dynamics. A study of naturally occurring functional RNA molecules using a new structural statistic suggests that these molecules are biased toward abundant phenotypes. This supports an “ascent of the abundant” hypothesis, in which evolution yields abundant phenotypes even when they are not the most fit.


and

Species richness and structure of three Neotropical bat assemblages:

Quote
We compared the assemblages of phyllostomid bats in three Neotropical rainforests with respect to species richness and assemblage structure and suggested a method to validate estimates of species richness for Neotropical bat assemblages based on mist-netting data. The fully inventoried bat assemblage at La Selva Biological Station (LS, 100 m elevation) in Costa Rica was used as a reference site to evaluate seven estimators of species richness. The Jackknife 2 method agreed best with the known bat species richness and thus was used to extrapolate species richness for an Amazonian bat assemblage (Tiputini Biodiversity Station; TBS, 200 m elevation) and an Andean premontane bat assemblage (Podocarpus National Park; BOM, 1000 m elevation) in Ecuador. Our results suggest that more than 100 bat species occur sympatrically at TBS and about 50 bat species coexist at BOM. TBS harbours one of the most species-rich bat assemblages known, including a highly diverse phyllostomid assemblage. Furthermore, we related assemblage structure to large-scale geographical patterns in floral diversity obtained from botanical literature. Assemblage structure of these three phyllostomid assemblages was influenced by differences in floral diversity at the three sites. At the Andean site, where understorey shrubs and epiphytes exhibit the highest diversity, the phyllostomid assemblage is mainly composed of understorey frugivores and nectarivorous species. By contrast, canopy frugivores are most abundant at the Amazonian site, coinciding with the high abundance of canopy fruiting trees. Assemblage patterns of other taxonomic groups also may reflect the geographical distribution patterns of floral elements in the Andean and Amazonian regions.  © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 94, 617–629.


and

The origin of snakes (Serpentes) as seen through
eye anatomy


Quote
Snakes evolved from lizards but have dramatically different eyes. These differences are cited widely as compelling evidence that snakes had fossorial and nocturnal ancestors. Their eyes, however, also exhibit similarities to those of aquatic vertebrates. We used a comparative analysis of ophthalmic data among vertebrate taxa to evaluate alternative hypotheses concerning the ecological origin of the distinctive features of the eyes of snakes. In parsimony and phenetic analyses, eye and orbital characters retrieved groupings more consistent with ecological adaptation rather than accepted phylogenetic relationships. Fossorial lizards and mammals cluster together, whereas snakes are widely separated from these taxa and instead cluster with primitively aquatic vertebrates. This indicates that the eyes of snakes most closely resemble those of aquatic vertebrates, and suggests that the early evolution of snakes occurred in aquatic environments. © 2004 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society,
2004, 81, 469–482.

Date: 2008/07/23 21:07:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ July 23 2008,19:38)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 23 2008,13:27)
Quote (Quack @ July 23 2008,03:05)
 
Quote
The "dude" might not be sure what he's found but you are right? Whatever it is it's not a transitional fossil as they don't exist, right?


Please, Ftk, please don't let us down, I am dying to read your reply. You know, don't you?

Too many tough questions floating around. It's about time for ftk to do some serious misdirection, throw around a few insults, and then flounce out for several days.

Honey, blipey's questions aren't tough.  80% of them are just absolutely ridiculous, and several have been answered on my blog throughout the last couple years.  I have no intention of ever going through that list and answering those questions.  

Truth be told, you people have as much trouble answering questions as I do.  No one has a clue (including the dude who found it) how to interpret that jaw bone I posted.  The more I press people about these "transitional" fossils, the more sure I become that the only reason they're deemed transitionals is because of where they are found rather than what it is specifically about the fragments that deem them transitionals.

It's kind of telling that rather than educate me about some specific fossils and what it is exactly that makes them transitionals, you keep asking *me* to answer those type of questions.  How the heck would I know?  That's why I'm asking you people.  

Shubin's Tik. link is also a dead end because they provide a picture of the fish/terapod fossil, and then show a rendition of what it supposedly looked like at one time, but there is no close up of the exact *original* fossil parts that supposedly match up to that sketch of the "wrist".  It's frustrating how scientists present this stuff to the general public.  You have to dang near hunt down the actual fossil and corner the person who found it to get a good look at the exact fossils they're talking about and compare them to the drawings that shown up everywhere.

I think you are exaggerating somewhat. You showed up here and made certain claims about both fossils none of which have been backed up by evidence on your part. Perhaps, if you didn't want to answer those questions you shouldn't have made such dogmatic assertions. As far as Haile-Selassie goes, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. In addition to the jaw, they also found a partial skeleton. All of which has to be cleaned and prepped before any type of analysis can be performed on them and at this point they have not even been formally described yet. So, how will Haile-Selassie and his team proceed? I have already laid out some of the approach in a previous comment. Let me get a little more specific. Let's focus specifically on the jaw. The first thing to look at is taphonomic factors like damage due to fossilization, etc. Then the morphology itself will be examined; what is the shape of the dental arcade (v-shaped, parabolic, or straight as in the jaw in question - an Australopithecus anamensis trait), what to the ascending rami look like (broad, low and sloping posteriorly in A. afarensis, seem to be missing on the jaw in question), what does the body of the mandible look like, are there superior and inferior tori and if so how pronounced are they, how robust are the muscle attachments? Then there are the teeth; are they deciduous or permanent, what type of contact facets and how many (which can give clues to occlusion and diet), is there a gap between the incisors and canines, or between the canines and premolars, how thick is the enamel, how large are the incisors compared to the molars (incisors are large in apes, small in australopithecines - for the most part), what about the morphology of the teeth (in ape canines, for example, the widest part is at the base of the tooth crown, in Homo and most of the australopithecines the widest part is at mid crown). I could go on but won't. At this point the jaw and teeth are measured seven ways from Sunday and these measurements are compared to similar measurements in apes, other fossils, and humans. About then, a species determination is made. At that point, also, one can begin to look at other types of questions, such as whether it is transitional or not. IMHO, the jaw looks like A. anamensis but without reading the description and seeing the data from the measurements (and seeing better pics from a couple of different angles) I wouldn't want to characterize it further. That, in a highly simplified version, is how they will determine if the fossil is transitional or not.

Note: apparently FTK has flounced while I was writing this. Which really pisses me off because I am on vacation from blogging and this comment as well as others was much to much like writing a post.   :angry:

Date: 2008/07/25 23:36:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Phylogenetic escalation and decline of plant defense strategies

Quote
As the basal resource in most food webs, plants have evolved myriad strategies to battle consumption by herbivores. Over the past 50 years, plant defense theories have been formulated to explain the remarkable variation in abundance, distribution, and diversity of secondary chemistry and other defensive traits. For example, classic theories of enemy-driven evolutionary dynamics have hypothesized that defensive traits escalate through the diversification process. Despite the fact that macroevolutionary patterns are an explicit part of defense theories, phylogenetic analyses have not been previously attempted to disentangle specific predictions concerning (i) investment in resistance traits, (ii) recovery after damage, and (iii) plant growth rate. We constructed a molecular phylogeny of 38 species of milkweed and tested four major predictions of defense theory using maximum-likelihood methods. We did not find support for the growth-rate hypothesis. Our key finding was a pattern of phyletic decline in the three most potent resistance traits (cardenolides, latex, and trichomes) and an escalation of regrowth ability. Our neontological approach complements more common paleontological approaches to discover directional trends in the evolution of life and points to the importance of natural enemies in the macroevolution of species. The finding of macroevolutionary escalating regowth ability and declining resistance provides a window into the ongoing coevolutionary dynamics between plants and herbivores and suggests a revision of classic plant defense theory. Where plants are primarily consumed by specialist herbivores, regrowth (or tolerance) may be favored over resistance traits during the diversification process.

Date: 2008/07/26 11:04:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2008,21:04)
Well, I suffer from liberal guilt.  Paul did finally pony-up with a review copy of EE, and I promised to review it.

I have stalled at page 22.

I have read eight or so books in the mean time, but I just have a block about EE. Some of those 8 have been creationist BS, so that is not the whole problem.

I have that same problem with The Design of Life ???

Date: 2008/07/26 17:26:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Thanks, everybody. To clarify, the Darwinist PC term is ichtypanzee (meaning fish ape) with no transitional morphology...

Date: 2008/07/26 22:09:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Were you classmates with Barney Rubble?


What, are you gay? I went to school with Betty and Wilma (the stories I could make up - er - tell about them).

Quote
Are you 6,000 years old, or 6,000,000,000 years old?


That depends on whether you believe radiometric dating or Salvador.

Quote
Now you are just making up names.  Everyone knows it is called a monkey fish frog.


Nah, that is part of the Darwinian conspiracy to keep you confused and ready to believe anything.

Quote
Which do you want more for a present, hand tools or fire?


You have never seen Pitch Black have you...

Date: 2008/07/30 07:47:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Here is one:

Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

Quote
A scanning electron microscope survey was initiated to determine if the previously reported findings of “dinosaurian soft tissues” could be identified in situ within the bones. The results obtained allowed a reinterpretation of the formation and preservation of several types of these “tissues” and their content. Mineralized and non-mineralized coatings were found extensively in the porous trabecular bone of a variety of dinosaur and mammal species across time. They represent bacterial biofilms common throughout nature. Biofilms form endocasts and once dissolved out of the bone, mimic real blood vessels and osteocytes. Bridged trails observed in biofilms indicate that a previously viscous film was populated with swimming bacteria. Carbon dating of the film points to its relatively modern origin. A comparison of infrared spectra of modern biofilms with modern collagen and fossil bone coatings suggests that modern biofilms share a closer molecular make-up than modern collagen to the coatings from fossil bones. Blood cell size iron-oxygen spheres found in the vessels were identified as an oxidized form of formerly pyritic framboids. Our observations appeal to a more conservative explanation for the structures found preserved in fossil bone.

Date: 2008/08/01 19:04:26, Link
Author: afarensis
While we wait for FTK to "respond further", here is something else for FTK to think about. White and his group, of which Haile-Selassie is a part, have in the past talked about using the Middle Awash material to test whether australopithicines are related anagenetically or cladogenetically. In other words they would like to know whether some or all of the australopithicines are chronospecies - single members of an evolving lineage - or whether they may be the result of some kind of punctuational event. In a 2007 paper on the geology and paleontology of the find Haile-Selassie et al say:

Quote
The number of hominids collected thus far, once detailed study is completed, will significantly facilitate testing proposed hypotheses (e.g. Kimbel et al., 2006) on the phylogenetic relationships between Australopithecus afarensis (Johanson et al., 1978) and Australopithecus anamensis (Leakey et al., 1995). The hominid partial skeleton, in particular, will elucidate the locomotor behavior, stature, body proportions, and biomechanics of early Pliocene hominids and allows paleoanthropologists to better understand the temporal and spatial distribution of early Pliocene hominids.


Clearly, Haile-Selassie does have some clues about what he has found and how to proceed in their scientific analysis.  Just thought I'd mention...

Date: 2008/08/01 19:09:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2008,18:13)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 01 2008,17:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 01 2008,15:56)
 
Quote
Thank heaven he isn’t the Prophet Myers.


But you didn't put quotes around it in the title, Denyse..

They just can't get it through their heads that science doesn't have or need prophets, revelations from god, or churches.

It's amazing how thick creationists are, and how they just can't relate to anything outside the stained glass windows.

The projection is palpable in every dripping word.

Nobody familiar with Scienceblogs.com and who has an IQ over 90 would think PZ is treated like a Prophet. I know I said the other day that creationists are DUMB, but Denyse, you really don't have to try so hard to prove it.

Yup, there are plenty of people over there that take PZ to task when they think he is wrong - witness some of the posts that took a decidedly critical slant on the cracker issue.

Date: 2008/08/01 23:09:52, Link
Author: afarensis
There are even some who have criticized his militant atheist stance - Wilkins, for example, does so semiregularly. Having said that, there is a sense of community that can cause us to circle the wagons. In my experience it is rather like here at ATBC.

Date: 2008/08/02 08:52:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 02 2008,00:10)
I just thought that I'd mention that what yer talkin' bout ain't in my buybull son.  I'd just refer you to the first chapter of the first book my friend.

Sure they are, where do you think Cain and Abel got their wives from?  :p

Date: 2008/08/02 17:58:31, Link
Author: afarensis
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I am in total agreement with PZ on the cracker thing. I also agree with his goals in general, but tend to be more diplomatic than PZ. I think the "militant atheist" thing comes from the fact that they are loud and proud about their atheism and rather than being on the defensive are actively and loudly criticizing religion. Folk's aren't used to that so they get labeled in a way that can allow them to be more easily and safely dismissed. People like PZ are definitely necessary because they provide the rest of us with some breathing room...

Date: 2008/08/04 20:13:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 02 2008,16:21)
 
Quote
Sure they are, where do you think Cain and Abel got their wives from?  :p


Has anybody counted their ribs? ;)

Henry

Yes, and upon closer examination it turned out that they were from a peccary, which put us in mind of barbecue, so to make a long story short, the evidence doesn't exist anymore :D

On a different note, I just finished reading Your Inner Fish and all I can say is that Casey seems to have missed massive amounts of the point of the book...

Edited to add the following disclaimer: I am mentioned in the recommended reading section - right after Zimmer and PZ - swelled my cranial capacity by a couple of hundred cc's. But that doesn't influence my opinion of the book in the least.

Date: 2008/08/04 22:08:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
That sounds a bit Cainabilistic.


Only to those not Abel to stomach it, but that is a tender subject...*




* I'd like to be able to say that the biblical silliness will stop when FTK comes back, but that would be a fib...

Date: 2008/08/05 20:24:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Paging Dr. Egnor!

Metabolic changes in schizophrenia and human brain evolution

Quote
Background

Despite decades of research, the molecular changes responsible for the evolution of human cognitive abilities remain unknown. Comparative evolutionary studies provide detailed information about DNA sequence and mRNA expression differences between humans and other primates but, in the absence of other information, it has proved very difficult to identify molecular pathways relevant to human cognition.
Results

Here, we compare changes in gene expression and metabolite concentrations in the human brain and compare them to the changes seen in a disorder known to affect human cognitive abilities, schizophrenia. We find that both genes and metabolites relating to energy metabolism and energy-expensive brain functions are altered in schizophrenia and, at the same time, appear to have changed rapidly during recent human evolution, probably as a result of positive selection.
Conclusions

Our findings, along with several previous studies, suggest that the evolution of human cognitive abilities was accompanied by adaptive changes in brain metabolism, potentially pushing the human brain to the limit of its metabolic capabilities.


The pdf is freely downloadable.

On a related note:

A Novel Molecular Solution for Ultraviolet Light Detection in Caenorhabditis elegans

Quote
For many organisms the ability to transduce light into cellular signals is crucial for survival. Light stimulates DNA repair and metabolism changes in bacteria, avoidance responses in single-cell organisms, attraction responses in plants, and both visual and nonvisual perception in animals. Despite these widely differing responses, in all of nature there are only six known families of proteins that can transduce light. Although the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans has none of the known light transduction systems, we show here that C. elegans strongly accelerates its locomotion in response to blue or shorter wavelengths of light, with maximal responsiveness to ultraviolet light. Our data suggest that C. elegans uses this light response to escape the lethal doses of sunlight that permeate its habitat. Short-wavelength light drives locomotion by bypassing two critical signals, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and diacylglycerol (DAG), that neurons use to shape and control behaviors. C. elegans mutants lacking these signals are paralyzed and unresponsive to harsh physical stimuli in ambient light, but short-wavelength light rapidly rescues their paralysis and restores normal levels of coordinated locomotion. This light response is mediated by LITE-1, a novel ultraviolet light receptor that acts in neurons and is a member of the invertebrate Gustatory receptor (Gr) family. Heterologous expression of the receptor in muscle cells is sufficient to confer light responsiveness on cells that are normally unresponsive to light. Our results reveal a novel molecular solution for ultraviolet light detection and an unusual sensory modality in C. elegans that is unlike any previously described light response in any organism.


I haven't read this later one yet but PhysOrg says it has something to do with depression, schizophrenia and insomnia in humans...

Date: 2008/08/06 19:55:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Bravo, Albatrossity2, Bravo!

Date: 2008/08/07 21:43:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2008,20:20)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth....106.xml

Awesome!

More here

This is somewhat off topic but is really cool nonetheless. The University of Utah has a "Learn Genetics" website. In one of the activities you can learn to extract DNA in the privacy of your own kitchen!

All it takes is a blender and some common household chemicals...

Date: 2008/08/09 05:58:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
DaveScot is in is almost-reasonable mode


My theory is that one of those parasitic wasps that take over the nervous system of its prey species, has crawled up Dave's hinder parts and periodically assumes control of his brain, thus short circuiting - temporarily - the flow of Tard and making Dave appear reasonable. I could be wrong though ;)

Date: 2008/08/09 07:20:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2008/08/10 11:27:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 10 2008,08:37)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2008,19:26)
U.K. Sociologist Steve Fuller (University of Warwick), pictured below:

*ahem*  

Fuller is a Yank - he just resides in Britain.

Reminds me of an old saying "Possession is 9/10th's of the law" and right now the Brits posses him, and they are welcome to him.  :D

Date: 2008/08/12 21:03:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Afarensis looks at the calendar and realizes that 15 days have gone by and still no FTK... "I hope" he says to himself "that I didn't brush up on the fins to limbs transition for nothing". Really, the tedium is starting to get to me, I think I'm hallucinating. Is Louis really talking about Prince Charle's legs upthread or have I lost touch with reality? :(

Date: 2008/08/13 19:08:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Don't blame me for the leg discussion. I stay well away from the legs of the monarchy.


See, I knew I was hallucinating!

Date: 2008/08/13 19:19:58, Link
Author: afarensis
So, uh, did anybody notice the post O'Leary linked to on double-blind prayer experiments? Apparently, they piss god of so he gets in a snit and refuses to co-operate. I'm not sure what it has to do with two-headed space babies but I thought I'd bring it up anyway...

Date: 2008/08/15 19:38:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 15 2008,18:02)
well it seems to me that DNA of Bigfoot would be recognizable particularly if it is a homind.  there are enough things sequenced for COI out there that you'd know what the hell it was with a small chunk of mtDNA.  

If it is a hominid then presumably it would fall out between humans and chimps.  of course if DNA similarities are the consequence of common design then what would be the hypothesis?

Unless, of course, it is, as some have suggested, an offshoot of Gigantopithecus in which case the DNA would place it near orangutangs. If I were going to fake it, that's how I'd start... :)

Date: 2008/08/15 22:59:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 15 2008,21:35)
Quote (Tulle @ Aug. 15 2008,19:57)
Since I am just a stupid software guy who does image processing. I know how easy it is to fake pixel based thingys. I wanna know would it be hard these days to throw together some fake DNA with a mix of human and ape good enough to make it look like it might be hominid DNA.

PS... yes I am ashamed by all those "expert" ID types that have a background in software.

Oh, and one thing I do know... never let the PhD guy write software unless his PhD is in computer science. I had to untangle some math guys stuff. He was a great at math, but he should have been kept away from the complier. I had to get a shot at you smart guys.

i dont think that is possible.  like someone said before they could give you a fake sequence but no way are they going to construct any significant sized chunk of DNA that also fits in the right phylogenetic node (which as noted above could be in several different clades, no one knows what the hell 'bigfoot' would be).

which by the way is interesting, gigantopithecus.  i wish it were true.  i hear bigfoot is in northern california.

Yes, I have to agree. In order to pull something like that off you would need short enough sequences that they couldn't identify the species, but then you would have to say that the DNA has degraded in order to explain the short sequences. Then you would have to explain why the DNA is degraded in a fresh specimen. All in all it would be easier to fake a report than it would be to fake the actual DNA.

Rumor has it bigfoot is in southern Missouri as well...

Date: 2008/08/16 11:30:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Just because yours has been rogered out of you by legions of mountain men using you as their temporary "man-wife" on hunting excursions doesn't mean that your ignorance of basic human anatomy is in any way excusable.


That would be an excellent description of how the cryptozoology community feels this morning. They went from the thrill of victory to the horrid realization that they had been totally "rogered" as Louis so delicately put it. Now denial has set in...

Date: 2008/08/16 14:15:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 16 2008,13:05)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 16 2008,17:30)
Quote
Just because yours has been rogered out of you by legions of mountain men using you as their temporary "man-wife" on hunting excursions doesn't mean that your ignorance of basic human anatomy is in any way excusable.


That would be an excellent description of how the cryptozoology community feels this morning. They went from the thrill of victory to the horrid realization that they had been totally "rogered" as Louis so delicately put it. Now denial has set in...

Let's be blunt, the cryptozooLOLogy community should be used to it by now.

There's nothing more I'd like than to have some ETs found, or a big foot, or a plesiosaur in Loch Ness, or a Jesus somewhere, but lets be even blunter than usual: bloody unlikely innit?

Louis

Totally unlikely, and yeah, they should be used to it by now.

Date: 2008/08/20 22:03:39, Link
Author: afarensis
Brilliant! I'm going to have to see if I can find that game.

Date: 2008/08/21 22:33:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 21 2008,22:14)
Quote
But look,  she's the "points' leader at OE:  
oleary      2459

Currently DO'L holds 44.8% of all user points ever credited at OE. According to an EXCEL sheet of her user points I've started some time ago she generates appr. 0.045 user points per day. A rough estimate predicts that she will cross the 50% border in about 114 days.

BTW, WMAD is still at the very other end of the list:  
Quote
WMAD aka William Dembski aka the Newton of information theory has only a single post on his OE blog: After a promising start on December 12, 2006 which gained him 1 point he fell down to -15 user points at the latest from February 18, 2007 on.

If he reaches 10^-150 will he disappear in a poof of smoke and become one with the zero energy wave? :p

Date: 2008/08/23 22:14:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Jasper @ Aug. 23 2008,20:58)
Tom Willis is not a Kansan.  He lives on a blueberry farm in Cass County, Missouri.

Apparently, PZ favors alliteration over accuracy.

We don't want him. Besides the Missouri Legislature passed a law giving him to Kansas. Seriously. Sigh, okay he's ours. On behalf of Missouri I apologize. Our bad. Will a couple of cases of budweiser make for it?  :(

Date: 2008/08/23 22:24:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 23 2008,22:17)
We'll trade you John Calvert for Willis, and two creationists to be named later.

Hey, if we get Calvert you have to take Cynthia Davis...

Date: 2008/08/24 10:24:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bing @ Aug. 24 2008,09:53)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 23 2008,22:14)
On behalf of Missouri I apologize. Our bad. Will a couple of cases of budweiser make for it?  

No, it will not.  Budweiser is now a Belgian-by-way-of-Brazil beer.  If you want to offer apology gifts please try to make it a real American one.

It may be Belgo-Brazillian but it is still made right here in the heartland by workers with real Missouri values :D

Date: 2008/08/24 10:27:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2008/08/24 11:09:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 24 2008,05:53)
Davescot makes fun of the Google trends for scienceblogs.com, focusing in particular on the  google searches and websites visited.  Unfortunately, he didn't show the same information for Uncommon Descent.  Luckily, I am providing it for you:



And what can we learn from this:

1.  Despite what Dembski would like for you to believe, there is no groundswell of international interest in intelligent design.

2.  Despite what O'Leary would like for you to believe, there isn't even any Canadian interest in intelligent design.

3.  The second most popular associated website for UD is antievolution.org.  This means that the tards are wandering out of the group home.  It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine who the tards are and which website is the group home.   ;)

4.  Readers of UD aren't searching for anything.  And if that isn't a meta-commentary on the whole ID movement, I don't know what is.

5.  The spike in hits in April related to the release of "Expelled" was quickly followed by a return to previous levels, putting paid to the fervent wishes of the ID crowd that the movie would lead to an uprising against the Darwinist cabal.  Sorry, FtK, better luck next time.

Wow, he told us. I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that ScienceBlogs is all about Kate Bekinsale, Spongebob, and Scotch tape.  :O

Date: 2008/08/24 11:19:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (EyeNoU @ Aug. 24 2008,10:35)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 24 2008,10:24)
 
Quote (Bing @ Aug. 24 2008,09:53)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 23 2008,22:14)
On behalf of Missouri I apologize. Our bad. Will a couple of cases of budweiser make for it?  

No, it will not.  Budweiser is now a Belgian-by-way-of-Brazil beer.  If you want to offer apology gifts please try to make it a real American one.

It may be Belgo-Brazillian but it is still made right here in the heartland by workers with real Missouri values :D

That may be so, but Budweiser still tastes like crap.

But, but, everybody here in St. Louis tells me that Budweiser is the bestest beer ever. Srsly, why do you hate Belgo-Brazil, er, America?

Date: 2008/08/24 12:27:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Laughing at Uncommon Descent

Just thought I would mention my take on some recent UD street theater :)*


*Actually, stevestory is making me...

Date: 2008/08/25 08:40:56, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 24 2008,23:08)
I hear that Anheiser Bush (sp.) is making a new beer from fermented potatos.  

Tentative trade-name:  "Spudweiser".

:p

No,no, that is recycled mascot. Seems they found another use for Spuds MacKenzie...

Date: 2008/08/25 20:44:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2008,13:25)
I vote that until such a time as FTK flounces back, this thread be devoted to the primary purpose of abusing Louis.

Who knows, maybe even FTK could join us in this after she gets back.

Well, he did say the Duchess of Cornwall was a "handsome woman" which I think is one of those polite British euphemisms...

Date: 2008/08/25 20:49:11, Link
Author: afarensis
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 25 2008,20:36)
SHUT UP AND LISTEN CAUSE I'M TALKIN'

I CAME UP WITH THAT IDEPENDANTLY ON MY OWN. LIKE THE LORE OF BIOGENESIS. NEXT WEEK, I WILL BE DISCOVERING FRICTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AGAIN.


Q) WHAT'S BROWN, SMELLY AND IN STRENBERGERS PANYTS?

A) A HOMO LOG.

When I joined AtBC I was told, in no uncertain terms, not to encourage you because it only made you worse, but that last bit made me spew coffee all over my monitor ???

Date: 2008/08/27 07:06:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2008,22:03)
Just don't say b^rown or smell^y.

;)

Say, uh, is that a nanny filter or just a homo log ;)

Date: 2008/08/27 18:43:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,11:40)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 27 2008,07:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2008,22:03)
Just don't say b^rown or smell^y.

;)

Say, uh, is that a nanny filter or just a homo log ;)

THOUGHT-CRIME, THOUGHT-CRIME!!!1

take him to bathroom101.

Since the ostensible subject of this thread has disappeared on a flounce of mass contradiction and confusion, we are kind of on our own. This combined with the massive gravitational attraction of Louis' ass has caused a distortion in the space time continuum and has caused a bending of the rules. Unfortunately, the immanent collapse of the thread into the blackhole of Louis has caused some to flee lest they see the insane horror of his naked singularity.  :p

Date: 2008/08/27 19:56:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,19:34)
no, singularities are *uncommonly dense*  ???

I blame you for encouraging me.

Well, I did,but you just said it on the wrong thread. You should have said it here on the FTK thread. Where...nobody...is...watching.  :O

Date: 2008/08/27 20:18:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,20:06)
HOM^O  LO^G

Not bad, and see your comment is still here. Now take off the nanny filter. You know you want to...come on, just channel a little tard. It will be okay and it will make you feel better. Come on everybody is doing it :)

Date: 2008/08/27 20:29:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,20:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 27 2008,20:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,20:06)
HOM^O  LO^G

Not bad, and see your comment is still here. Now take off the nanny filter. You know you want to...come on, just channel a little tard. It will be okay and it will make you feel better. Come on everybody is doing it :)

You first. Be the first scienceblogger to TARDOLOGUE©.

VIOLATE SLOTS, REPEATEDLY.

This is not about me. This is about helping you overcome your recent trauma at being sent to the bathroom wall. So come on, what do you say, confront your fear. Has being sent to the bathroom wall ever stopped Louis, or Arden - well, okay, it has stopped Arden - but has it ever stopped anybody else?

Date: 2008/08/27 20:40:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 27 2008,20:33)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 27 2008,20:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,19:34)
no, singularities are *uncommonly dense*  ???

I blame you for encouraging me.

Well, I did,but you just said it on the wrong thread. You should have said it here on the FTK thread. Where...nobody...is...watching.  :O

Ceiling Lou is ALWAYS watching.  Sometimes, he just works in mysterious ways, and talks about himself in the third person.

I've actually just been waiting to see if Flouncy the Martyr returns. At some point, I'll do a big flush. I'm just beat and haven't had the time or the energy lately.

Y'all could save me a lot of time that I could use to study Biology or Precalc if you'd just move this to The Wall voluntarily.

Sigh, all good things must come to an end...I suppose I should apologize to Richardthughes for "encouraging" him...

Edited to add ixnay on the ardologuebay the moderator is about...

Date: 2008/08/27 20:48:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2008,20:38)
My apologies, Lou, it was entirely my fault and the product of some sort of insidious mind-meld ray.

I see "BarryA" has the following quote up at UD:

 
Quote
“The beliefs which we have the most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Burt, n.d.), pp. 38-39.


I'm sure that's intended by Barry to indicate something relly, relly profound like " How can we be sure of anything, really?" or  "Are you a brain in a vat?"

Odd that he applies it to the beliefs of others, but not to his own beliefs (looks nervously at Lou) :(

Date: 2008/08/27 21:53:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,23:04)
if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.

Here is one...


Notice the dedication...

Date: 2008/08/29 20:54:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,11:04)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


McCain Picks FTK as VP

Frighteningly enough, yep, Dawg:

"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. Gov Palin is a former Sportscaster, Mayor, and she is pro-life, NRA member, and originally from Idaho."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070582/posts

From the Fox's Anus, so to speak: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008....-friday

Afarensis put a thread up:  

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

Actually, that is a post from 2006 that has suddenly become relevant - to my intense surprise.

Date: 2008/08/31 10:06:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Rapid Antagonistic Coevolution Between Primary And Secondary Sexual Characters In Horned Beetles

Here is the abstract:

 
Quote
Different structures may compete during development for a shared and limited pool of resources to sustain growth and differentiation. The resulting resource allocation trade-offs have the potential to alter both ontogenetic outcomes and evolutionary trajectories. However, little is known about the evolutionary causes and consequences of resource allocation trade-offs in natural populations. Here, we explore the significance of resource allocation trade-offs between primary and secondary sexual traits in shaping early morphological divergences between four recently separated populations of the horned beetle Onthophagus taurus as well as macroevolutionary divergence patterns across 10 Onthophagus species. We show that resource allocation trade-offs leave a strong signature in morphological divergence patterns both within and between species. Furthermore, our results suggest that genital divergence may, under certain circumstances, occur as a byproduct of evolutionary changes in secondary sexual traits. Given the importance of copulatory organ morphology for reproductive isolation our findings begin to raise the possibility that secondary sexual trait evolution may promote speciation as a byproduct. We discuss the implications of our results on the causes and consequences of resource allocation trade-offs in insects.


Unfortunately a subscription is required for the entire article. link
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00448.x

Date: 2008/08/31 15:08:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Left a comment, in case it disappears:

Quote
They are, in point of fact, materialists. Flint knapping, of the type done in the experiment is a cottage industry in paleoanthropological and archaeological circles. There is also a subsection of archaeology devoted to living like various and sundry prehistoric groups. Over and above that, the preferred way of learning about prehistoric tools is to go out and dig them up. The patterned distribution of artifacts in the archaeological record can tell us quite a bit about the nature of the people who made them. I guess, though, that that is something you wouldn't understand because learning anything about the nature of the designer is off limits...

Date: 2008/08/31 16:26:47, Link
Author: afarensis
Not to mention the fact that Crabtree was knapping flint back in the 1930's. Francois Bordes was also an excellent flintknapper. Both of whom inspired a number of others to take up the practice. Consequently, today a number of universities have classes in the subject...

Date: 2008/09/01 07:54:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 31 2008,23:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 31 2008,14:26)
Not to mention the fact that Crabtree was knapping flint back in the 1930's.

Crabtree had an idiot son who still works as a "dig bum." I had to end a CRM partnership due to his incompetent work.

That sucks. I guess the apple really does fall far from the tree. To keep this comment on topic, apparently I am not as worthy as PTET because Denyse has not responded to my comment. :angry:

Date: 2008/09/01 13:52:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Apparently there has been an FTK sighting on a different thread, so any many now she will be here to answer all the questions we asked. Yup...any minute now...in just a few seconds... ???

Date: 2008/09/01 22:18:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2008/09/01 22:48:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2008,22:35)
Why are *we* missing from here:

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/blogroll.php

???

what a Homo Log.

What kind of Tard you been smoking? It's right there in plain sight - the first link and everything.  :(

afarensis blushes in embarrassment and runs away.

Edited to add: Comes running back "At least I know how to spell Khan" he hollars - then runs away again.  :p

Date: 2008/09/01 22:57:27, Link
Author: afarensis
No revisionism, just forgetfulness. From my sidebar:

Quote
Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin ...and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately).


Pick on old guys with small cranial capacities why don't ya. :O

Date: 2008/09/02 08:06:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday.

Date: 2008/09/02 20:22:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2008,01:43)
He did misspell EVAR though.

:D

thanks Af.

No problem. It was very charitable of you not to point out that I also misspelled "teh bestest"   :)

Date: 2008/09/03 19:07:53, Link
Author: afarensis
This is interesting, and given the subject, relevant:

Random Amino Acid Mutations and Protein Misfolding Lead to Shannon Limit in Sequence-Structure Communication

Here is the abstract:

Quote
The transmission of genomic information from coding sequence to protein structure during protein synthesis is subject to stochastic errors. To analyze transmission limits in the presence of spurious errors, Shannon's noisy channel theorem is applied to a communication channel between amino acid sequences and their structures established from a large-scale statistical analysis of protein atomic coordinates. While Shannon's theorem confirms that in close to native conformations information is transmitted with limited error probability, additional random errors in sequence (amino acid substitutions) and in structure (structural defects) trigger a decrease in communication capacity toward a Shannon limit at 0.010 bits per amino acid symbol at which communication breaks down. In several controls, simulated error rates above a critical threshold and models of unfolded structures always produce capacities below this limiting value. Thus an essential biological system can be realistically modeled as a digital communication channel that is (a) sensitive to random errors and (b) restricted by a Shannon error limit. This forms a novel basis for predictions consistent with observed rates of defective ribosomal products during protein synthesis, and with the estimated excess of mutual information in protein contact potentials.


I haven't read it yet, but it is open access.

Date: 2008/09/03 19:28:34, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 03 2008,18:08)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 03 2008,17:39)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,14:20)
PaV fails to acknowledge the role of [changing] environments in evolution:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....picycle

TARD.

Error 404 - Not Found

Hope that doesn't happen again. Could there be a bug in UD's code or something?

If there is, I'd bet it smells of cheezy-poofs.

Did anybody happy to save that post before it was intelligently designed to a premature end?

Edit to add: That should be "Did anybody happen to save..."

Typoz I makez dem...

Date: 2008/09/04 22:29:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback

Here is the abstract:

Quote
Experimental estimates of the effects of selection on genes determining adaptive traits add to our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. We measured selection on genotypes of the Ectodysplasin locus, which underlie differences in lateral plates in threespine stickleback fish. A derived allele (low) causing reduced plate number has been fixed repeatedly after marine stickleback colonized freshwater from the sea, where the ancestral allele (complete) predominates. We transplanted marine sticklebacks carrying both alleles to freshwater ponds and tracked genotype frequencies over a generation. The low allele increased in frequency once lateral plates developed, most likely via a growth advantage. Opposing selection at the larval stage and changing dominance for fitness throughout life suggest either that the gene affects additional traits undergoing selection or that linked loci also are affecting fitness.


I have a copy, email me at afarensis1@sbcglobal.net if you would like one.

Date: 2008/09/06 07:46:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
By "lab tested" I mean something that is tested period.  For instance, if two sets of genes are known, and are said to be from a common ancestor, it should be possible to extrapolate the common ancestral gene (and intermediate genes) via computer simulation.  Then you should be able to test the resultant genes for viability by altering and inserting the DNA into the living organisms.


My favorite example (link goes to the pdf)

Here is the abstract:

 
Quote
A morphological or physiological trait may appear multiple times in evolution. At the molecular level, similar protein functions may emerge independently in different lineages. Whether these parallel functional changes are due to parallel amino acid substitutions has been a subject of debate. Here, I address this question using digestive ribonucleases (RNases) of two groups of foregut-fermenting mammals: ruminant artiodactyls and colobine monkeys. The RNase1 gene was duplicated twice in ancestral ruminants at least 40 MYA, and it was also duplicated in the douc langur, an Asian colobine, approximately 4 MYA. After duplication, similar functional changes occurred in the ruminant and monkey enzymes. Interestingly, five amino acid substitutions in ruminant RNases that are known to affect its catalytic activity against double-stranded (ds) RNA did not occur in the monkey enzyme. Rather, a similar functional change in the monkey was caused by a different set of nine substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis was used to make three of the five ruminant-specific substitutions in the monkey enzyme. Functional assays of these mutants showed that one of the three substitutions has a similar effect in monkeys, the second has a stronger effect, and the third has an opposite effect. These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

Date: 2008/09/06 09:50:36, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 06 2008,08:30)
Weird, where did afarensis' comment go?

Seems to be back now...

Just to follow up, Zhang has done several papers where he recreates ancestral genes and looks at mutations, selection, etc. as have a number of other labs.

Date: 2008/09/07 13:02:09, Link
Author: afarensis
It was at this point that RTH decided he had to leave...

Date: 2008/09/07 15:05:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Not Richardthughes:

Quote
OH, HE HAS SLIPPED THE SURLY BONDS OF MODERATORS, AND DANCED THE FORUMS ON LAUGHTER-SILVERED WINGS; TARDWARD HE HAS CLIMBED, AND JOINED THE TUMBLING MIRTH, OF SUN-SPLIT CLOUDS...AND DONE A HUNDRED TARDALOGUES...HOMOS dt

Date: 2008/09/14 02:32:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 14 2008,01:12)
Is Davetard pushing his luck? On the fantomarks thread Dave says:

Quote


5

DaveScot

09/14/2008

12:46 am

Uh, yeah. I think I’m going to have to go ahead and call BS.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-295565

Hard to say. The paper Dembski is talking about is clearly anti-ID. On the other hand, fantomarks do sound a little bit like Dembski's zero wavelength thingy and I can see how he would be attracted by the idea because it kind of sounds like it might be a mechanism for the designer to impart information into the natural world...

Date: 2008/09/14 04:02:01, Link
Author: afarensis
I think the point Josh was trying to make was that the people in Russia who make the decisions live in Moscow so the fact that Palin could see across the Bering straight means didly-squat in the cosmic scheme of things.

Now about that australopithecine jaw you were going on about...still waiting...

Edit to add: fricking typos.

Date: 2008/09/14 05:53:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2008,04:20)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 14 2008,10:02)
[SNIP]

Edit to add: fricking typos.

You edited to add fricking typos? Each to their own I suppose, but with FTK around don't we have enough wanton errors without adding more.

I'm confused.*

Louis

* Oh go on, you know that this is an irresistible set up for the obvious jokes.

It probably didn't make sense, but I have not managed to get any sleep tonight so I'm not surprised at your confusion.

Date: 2008/09/14 14:12:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Dammit I am not confused! Who said I was?


Arden's Mom?

Date: 2008/09/14 14:33:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 14 2008,08:18)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 14 2008,03:32)
       
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 14 2008,01:12)
Is Davetard pushing his luck? On the fantomarks thread Dave says:

         
Quote


5

DaveScot

09/14/2008

12:46 am

Uh, yeah. I think I’m going to have to go ahead and call BS.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-295565

Hard to say. The paper Dembski is talking about is clearly anti-ID. On the other hand, fantomarks do sound a little bit like Dembski's zero wavelength thingy and I can see how he would be attracted by the idea because it kind of sounds like it might be a mechanism for the designer to impart information into the natural world...

Well, I read the paper and me pattern detectors were a-detecting. Me eyes raced across the screen extracting physical signals, differences, streaks, streaks of streaks, phantom marks, and fantomarks. Me LGN and V1 were in dialectical union and I do believe for a moment the structure of RB's cognition mirrored the deeply distributive, dissipative, cooperative, emergent and intelligent structure of the universe at the quantum level. A Bohmian pilot wave bore forth this ubermark:

Cognition entails abstraction. Since abstraction is non-physical we can communicate across astronomical distances without resort to physical signals simply by propagating abstractions!

I'm gonna lick that toad again.

Eta: WAD, you are fucking loosing it.

On the one hand the paper says:

Quote
The picture emerging here is that intelligence is distributed at all scales across vast, interlocking networks throughout the universe, and that there is no particular explanatory advantage to be gained in localizing intelligence in a single agency, such as a "designer" or a deity.


So I don't think DaveScot, and some of the others who are skeptical, is risking much. On the other hand, I can see how the concept of fantomarks might appeal to Dembski and I am wondering if he expected a different reaction. In thinking about this as I write, it also occurs to me that in someways the above quote is a good description of Dembski's god so maybe it's not so anti-ID after all. But then, I am severely sleep deprived at the moment, so you may be right that folks have been licking toads.

Date: 2008/09/14 18:45:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Macroevolution? FTK, I was under the impression that the fish-amphibian transition one of the topics of discussion before you fled your thread. Come back and we can discuss the reptile-mammal transition, the evolution of whale, crocodiles, elephants, sirenians, etc.

Date: 2008/09/15 18:40:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Okay, who ran FTK off before we could discuss macroevolution? :angry:

Date: 2008/09/15 19:23:23, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 15 2008,19:11)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 15 2008,18:40)
Okay, who ran FTK off before we could discuss macroevolution?

'Twas reality, sir. The shields could not hold.

Oh, sure, blame it on something FTK has very little dealings with :p

Date: 2008/09/15 21:08:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,20:50)
I'm not trying to be a jerk by posting this.  I know you guys are worried that Palin might stop science in it's tracks so you won't vote for the McCain ticket, but I wonder what if any of you guys worry about the stuff in this clip about Obama.  I've heard these issues mentioned in the past, and it seems a bit worrisome to me.  

Honestly, I don't have anything against Obama.  During the start of the campaigns I actually leaned his direction.  I even posted postive youtube stuff at my blog.  But, as time went on, I started hearing things that freaked me out just a bit.

I've no doubt that all the candidates have skeletons in there closet, but some of these things about Obama worry me a bit.

What do you guys think?

Yes, we need to get past the the stupid scare tactics in the clip (eerie music, etc.), but is there need to worry about this stuff?

Typical Republican slime machine in action. Me personally, I'm more worried about this.

Date: 2008/09/16 19:43:34, Link
Author: afarensis
From the "ouch that's gotta sting files":

Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design

Especially this part:

Quote
He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.


So, not only is ID bad science, but it's bad philosophy and theology as well...talk about expelled! :O

Date: 2008/09/16 21:06:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,03:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 16 2008,00:40)
Okay, who ran FTK off before we could discuss macroevolution? :angry:

Well you can't say I didn't at least TRY to mock her back onto topic.



It's like sheep dog trials but with mockery, sadly the FTK sheep didn't go into the pen. Tricky sheep this one, claims to love the science pen, but is bitterly afraid to step through the gate to the extent of shitting irrelevant turds everywhere in order to disguise that fact.

Louis

Heh, Henry Morgan played the Judge in Inherit The Wind. You probably scared her off with that picture... :p

Date: 2008/09/16 21:47:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2008,21:33)
Quote
Heh, Henry Morgan played the Judge in Inherit The Wind.


He did? Huh. When I see his picture I tend to think "Colonel Potter".

Henry

Yup!

You will also notice Norman Fell (from Three's Company) in the movie as well.

Date: 2008/09/16 22:19:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Two open access articles from PNAS. First:

Molecular signatures of ribosomal evolution

Here is the abstract:

Quote
Ribosomal signatures, idiosyncrasies in the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and/or proteins, are characteristic of the individual domains of life. As such, insight into the early evolution of the domains can be gained from a comparative analysis of their respective signatures in the translational apparatus. In this work, we identify signatures in both the sequence and structure of the rRNA and analyze their contributions to the universal phylogenetic tree using both sequence- and structure-based methods. Domain-specific ribosomal proteins can be considered signatures in their own right. Although it is commonly assumed that they developed after the universal ribosomal proteins, we present evidence that at least one may have been present before the divergence of the organismal lineages. We find correlations between the rRNA signatures and signatures in the ribosomal proteins showing that the rRNA signatures coevolved with both domain-specific and universal ribosomal proteins. Finally, we show that the genomic organization of the universal ribosomal components contains these signatures as well. From these studies, we propose the ribosomal signatures are remnants of an evolutionary-phase transition that occurred as the cell lineages began to coalesce and so should be reflected in corresponding signatures throughout the fabric of the cell and its genome.


Second:

Stage-specific predator species help each other to persist while competing for a single prey

The abstract:

Quote
Prey in natural communities are usually shared by many predator species. How predators coexist while competing for the same prey is one of the fundamental questions in ecology. Here, we show that competing predator species may not only coexist on a single prey but even help each other to persist if they specialize on different life history stages of the prey. By changing the prey size distribution, a predator species may in fact increase the amount of prey available for its competitor. Surprisingly, a predator may not be able to persist at all unless its competitor is also present. The competitor thus significantly increases the range of conditions for which a particular predator can persist. This “emergent facilitation” is a long-term, population-level effect that results from asymmetric increases in the rate of prey maturation and reproduction when predation relaxes competition among prey. Emergent facilitation explains observations of correlated increases of predators on small and large conspecific prey as well as concordance in their distribution patterns. Our results suggest that emergent facilitation may promote the occurrence of complex, stable, community food webs and that persistence of these communities could critically depend on diversity within predator guilds.

Date: 2008/09/16 22:25:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17)
afarensis    
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?    
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

Guilty :(  All I read was Lynch's write up. I'll just go sit in the corner and think about what I did wrong...

Date: 2008/09/19 19:45:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Thanks again, and I appreciate your well thought out, respectful response.  You'll notice that you're the only one that I've responded to so far, which should indicate to you that I took your comment seriously.


Well, there is gratitude for you. I've answered every question you have asked me. You in turn, have not answered one of my questions above the level of "I don't know", preferring, instead, to change the subject or flounce out. If it weren't for the fact that I had been watching this thread for quite some time before participating I would be shocked.

Anyway, creationists and ID types exhibit a disdain for the subject of human evolution. This is best exemplified in the saying "I didn't come from no stinkin' monkey",. One has to ask, within the framework of ID or creationism, what would make this theoretically interesting or useful research. Within an evolutionary framework it can be justified thus:

 
Quote
"Better understanding of the biological basis by which sooty mangabeys and the numerous primate species that represent natural hosts for AIDS virus infections have evolved to resist disease promises to teach us a great deal about the emergence of the AIDS pandemic, and about the mechanisms underlying AIDS progression in humans. In addition, such insights will hopefully help inform new approaches to treat HIV infection most effectively." Feinberg says.

"Also, better understanding how natural hosts for SIV remain healthy may provide clues as to the future evolutionary trajectory of human populations in response to the profound selective pressures now being felt in regions of the world where the tragic consequences of HIV infection are most severe."


So, what theoretical rational for this type of study could be constructed by ID? As a follow up question, given your statement:

Quote
Okay, what else.  How does finding this jawbone benefit us other than in an historical sense.


One has to wonder how ID can claim to be advancing rather than stopping science...

Date: 2008/09/19 19:52:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,13:29)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,11:14)
Lilliputian penis

That's a Shakespeare reference, right?

No, it's Dickens*...



*Okay, I know that is obvious, but, gosh darn it, someone had to say it.

Date: 2008/09/20 11:24:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Creationists interested in the truth? Oh, please. Gish, who you quote, claims that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode if mixed together, this despite repeatedly being shown that such was not the case. If he were interested in the truth he would stop making the claim. This is symptomatic of creationists period. Case in point, take some of those out of place things you linked to such as Eve's thimble. It was supposedly discovered in a coal seam in 1880 by a rancher, but crumbled away into dust before it could be examined, so there is no proof that it ever actually existed. So all we really have is that someone claimed to have found a thimble in a coal seam. Most of the other artifacts have similar levels of evidential support. Even where there is some basis in truth for the claim being made, the creationist twist them.
Consider the case of the throwing spears mentioned in your link. The spears were found at the site of Schoningen in Germany, and have been securely dated to 4000,000 400,000* years ago. I'm not sure exactly why these are supposed to be out of place but they get discussed all the time in paleoanthropological circles. They are important finds that yield some interesting clues about the origination of hunting, social organization, and cognition.
You mention:

Quote
Obviously, there’s an a priori commitment to Darwinism in that field of science.  We’ve seen time and time again how fossils have not been what they initially thought they were, and in some instances, scientists have gone so far as to tamper with the fossils in order to present a particular viewpoint.


Yet time and again creationists have been caught creating evidence - such as the alleged human foot prints at Paluxy, the Moab man, the Malachite man, and a whole host of others - in point of fact, creationists have manufactured more evidence, by far, than evolutionists are supposed to have created. Yet, you are skeptical of evolutionists and give creationists a free pass on all their frauds, so it doesn't exactly sound like you are really all that concerned with intellectual integrity.

*whoops, one too many zeroes

Date: 2008/09/20 12:31:36, Link
Author: afarensis
To follow up on the benefits of studying human evolution, here is an excellent video on the subject.

Date: 2008/09/20 12:45:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 20 2008,12:27)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 20 2008,11:24)
Consider the case of the throwing spears mentioned in your link. The spears were found at the site of Schoningen in Germany, and have been securely dated to 4000,000 years ago.

Do you have the right number of zeroes here? It is much older than I would expect.

Fixed it, thanks for catching that.

Date: 2008/09/21 22:08:39, Link
Author: afarensis
I was never a believer. Sure my parents dragged me to church when I was young. Fairly normal Baptist churches, but something about the people therein creeped me out so I never bought into the whole god/Jeebus died for your sins (added to the creepy factor) spiel and could never really understand why others did. It seemed, somehow, ridiculous, but then I was a kid at the time so who was I to judge.

At any rate, I think FTK can learn, we just have to keep presenting scientifically accurate information. I say that in full knowledge of her ducking, dodging, weaving, evasive, flounce out behavior - which doesn't start till she gets backed into a corner by a careful and thorough debunking of what she is saying. She runs when the wholes in her argument are so exposed that even she can see it. It's a defensive mechanism to keep her world view intact and safe from harm. Sooner or later the cracks and wholes will be to big for her to repair, then she will be open to learning.

Date: 2008/09/23 19:39:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 23 2008,12:45)
This thread is the merry-go-round from Hell.

PAGING MR. BARKER. MR. BARKER, PLEASE PICK UP THE RED COURTESY PHONE.

Well, at least their not talking about Prince Charles' legs again...

Date: 2008/09/24 20:32:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,08:07)
I'm going to try to get down to the very basics here FTK.

What is this a picture of?



I am being deadly serious by the way. I want you to tell me, in all seriousness, what that picture shows.

Louis

"Oh, Oh, I know!" Afarensis said happily, "It's a odiferous, homosexual log of color" after a few seconds a crestfallen look slowly crept over his face. He gave a mighty sigh and said "Okay, I'll go stand in the corner and think about what I did wrong..."*


*again :angry:

Date: 2008/09/25 18:46:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2008,18:41)
From PNAS:

Quote
Abstract

Two coastal sites in Gibraltar, Vanguard and Gorham's Caves, located at Governor's Beach on the eastern side of the Rock, are especially relevant to the study of Neanderthals. Vanguard Cave provides evidence of marine food supply (mollusks, seal, dolphin, and fish). Further evidence of marine mammal remains was also found in the occupation levels at Gorham's Cave associated with Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian technologies [Finlayson C, et al. (2006) Nature 443:850–853]. The stratigraphic sequence of Gibraltar sites allows us to compare behaviors and subsistence strategies of Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic observed at Vanguard and Gorham's Cave sites. This evidence suggests that such use of marine resources was not a rare behavior and represents focused visits to the coast and estuaries.

I have this paper if anybody wants a copy. Email me at afarensis1@sbcglobal.net

Date: 2008/09/25 18:49:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,15:49)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,13:19)
     
Quote
Not an unreasonable point. Of course, BarryA was doing same vis Biden.


True, but I have a reflexive horror of quote mining by anyone. I'm pretty much anti-partisan.

Midwifetoad, I can't believe you're saying this:

     
Quote
... I have a reflexive horror of ... anyone.

I'm pretty ... partisan.


We ... better ... you.   :angry:

Look who's talking Mr. I'm better than everybody!

Date: 2008/09/25 19:00:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2008,09:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 25 2008,09:05)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2008,09:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 25 2008,07:32)
 
If you really believe that can you give, say, 5 examples of non-natural explanations for life?

...I'd suggest a moratorium on responding to FTK until such time as she answers this question or admits that she can't.  Although, I'd be impressed if she could actually name one non-natural explanation for life that doesn't invoke God (or god).

This question certainly calls her out on her assertion that "designer," or even "higher power" doesn't refer to something like God.

But I don't otherwise see as otherwise absolutely central, and all else side show. One can easily believe in God (or not) and still do good science. She refuses to acknowledge good science.

You misunderstand, Bill.  It isn't a belief in a higher power that I view as an impediment to science (I am a deist, after all).  Rather, within the ID community, tearing down methodological naturalism is the coin of the realm.  So is denial of their religious motives.  So, I am suggesting that we, for the moment, grant them what they want and let's see them try and outline non-natural OOL without invoking God (or god).  I am betting that they will wrap themselves around the axle.

I'm not so sure I agree, entirely. It's only in certain narrowly described fields that they wish to do away with materialism. It's fine in, say, bridge building or medicine or finding oil, or what have you. When it comes to the origin of the universe and the evolution of life on earth, then, suddenly materialism becomes anathema.

Date: 2008/09/25 19:07:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2008,18:50)
I just popped back in as I'm wading through my feed reader and was about to plug some guy's blog who wrote about this.

Aww, I like this one better because I mention the benefits of maritime exploitation a few days ahead of the publication of the Gibraltar paper. Serendipity can be a wonderful thing...

Date: 2008/09/25 19:11:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,19:02)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 25 2008,16:49)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,15:49)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,13:19)
       
Quote
Not an unreasonable point. Of course, BarryA was doing same vis Biden.


True, but I have a reflexive horror of quote mining by anyone. I'm pretty much anti-partisan.

Midwifetoad, I can't believe you're saying this:

       
Quote
... I have a reflexive horror of ... anyone.

I'm pretty ... partisan.


We ... better ... you.   :angry:

Look ... I'm better than everybody!

Hmph. You ... like ... all.  :angry:

Why, yes I do.

Date: 2008/09/25 20:28:47, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2008,19:58)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 25 2008,19:00)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2008,09:22)
It isn't a belief in a higher power that I view as an impediment to science (I am a deist, after all).  Rather, within the ID community, tearing down methodological naturalism is the coin of the realm.  So is denial of their religious motives.  So, I am suggesting that we, for the moment, grant them what they want and let's see them try and outline non-natural OOL without invoking God (or god).  I am betting that they will wrap themselves around the axle.

I'm not so sure I agree, entirely. It's only in certain narrowly described fields that they wish to do away with materialism. It's fine in, say, bridge building or medicine or finding oil, or what have you. When it comes to the origin of the universe and the evolution of life on earth, then, suddenly materialism becomes anathema.

Well, I'd suggest that isn't really a point of disagreement. Indeed, I think you are exactly right. Their objection to methodological naturalism (MN) only extends as far as it impinges on their narrow objection to the idea that they descended from monkeys.  However, they don't often reveal the narrowness of their quibble with MN inasmuch as doing so gives away the game. So, they tend to more generic broadsides.

That their objection to methodological naturalism is only as it relates to modern biology only increases the incoherence of their position.  After you ask them for their non-natural explanations for OOL, then ask them for their non-natural explanations for {insert any scientific field of your choice here} and then watch them spin.

Point taken. I guess I do agree after all.

Date: 2008/09/26 22:29:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Another gem from ERV Creationist almost discovers promoters/enhancers

Date: 2008/09/26 23:09:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,22:38)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 26 2008,22:29)
Another gem from ERV Creationist almost discovers promoters/enhancers

Here's one more up your alley, Dood.

   
Quote
The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that "it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod." Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: "The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik."

Confident that her fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Boisvert and other Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik. The interview with Boisvert at The Scientist states, "Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (emphasis added)

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see Darwinists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

Moreover, now that we have Panderichthys, Darwinists are openly admitting that the orientation of Tiktaalik's radials do "not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint." That's a good point, but it's old news for readers of ENV: in August, I observed that Tiktaalik’s radial bones could not be likened to tetrapod digits unless you "[d]ramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out."


Maybe that's why they don't seem to show the *exact* Tik fossil bone representing the "wrist" at Shubin's website...."the quality of the speciman is poor".  

But, what about those hiccups, huh?  I'm sure he got that idea right. :p

Careful FTK, I have the  Panderichthys paper and will be doing a post on it and Luskin's views. I have to do one on the same paper and Luskin post ERV talked about first. Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking about sciences he knows nothing about.

Edit: fixed a typo.

Date: 2008/09/27 06:54:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Wow, so much wrong and so little time to correct it all.
Quote
It could also possible that a similar cause created identical flaws in the same set of genes. If so, then attributing the similarity to common descent doesn’t make sense, and I think it could possibly be harmful. Fr’instance, what if a retrovirus attacked and damaged genes of a chimp and a human in the same way?  It would be stupid to attribute the similarity of damage to common ancestry.


What, you don't think it would be possible to tell the difference?

Quote
Darwinists seemed to think that junk DNA (made of many duplications) was just junk.  Common ancestry had to have attributed to that belief.  They thought it was just a bunch of accidental gene duplications, etc..


No, as I point out here there are a number of explanations for non-coding DNA.

Quote
I’m not sure how hominids and other information at those sites would be of much help if the living chimp isn’t of help.  I don’t know how bone fragments and understanding when those ancestors lived would be more beneficial that using those animals that are architecturally similar


Because they are more closely related to us than chimps are.

Quote
Also, you indicated earlier that the timing when humans and apes split is vital to finding cures for various diseases, and that we can get that information from the fossil record.  But, when I googled, the dates seem to vary depending on what article you read.  So, what good is the dating when scientists don’t even seem to be sure what the accurate dates are?  Here are a couple articles in this regard.


Your first link doesn't work. Of the three that do, two say the chimp human split occurred 5-7 MYA, while the third says four. Which is correct? At the moment the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the longer date. Hardly illustrates your point, though.

Quote
And, here’s a question...evolutionists often pick out data that works for their arguments, but aren’t there examples of of chromosomal features that don’t fit the primate phylogeny??


I'm not sure what you are talking about here, could you expand on that?

Quote
But aren’t humans more similar to gorillas than chimps in some aspects?


No. The areas where gorillas and humans are similar are shared primitive traits - which means those similarities are also shared by chimps.

Date: 2008/09/27 08:32:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking.


There, I fixed it...

Date: 2008/09/27 21:40:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Maybe that's why they don't seem to show the *exact* Tik fossil bone representing the "wrist" at Shubin's website...."the quality of the speciman is poor".  


Say, uh, FTK, here is a crazy idea, totally insane in point of fact, but well, let me run it past you and you tell me what you think. Bear with me, I know you will flip your wig and all, but please, keep an open mind. This picture of the wrist you and Luskin are looking for, don't close yourself off to the radicalness of this idea - stick with me now, perhaps you could:




Oh, I don't know, check the supplementary material, which is freeking freely available for download!

Strange, crazy, radical, I know, creationist actually doing research and finding something on their own. Too off the wall to even contemplate...  :p

Date: 2008/09/29 19:36:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 29 2008,14:53)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 28 2008,12:26)
Quote
The first in a series of weekly lolcats expressing my fervant hope that Richard will return to us soon....


Well, Lenny Flank has yet to return.

I miss Lenny:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437

I spotted Lenny at daily Kos last week, in an article by Darksyde about the New Dover Trap.

I'm thinking we have to hang out at the This Is Spinal Tap Forum to catch sight of Richard.

Or maybe he's helping out with the USA Tour of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Actually, Richard has left a few comments at my blog. I mentioned to him how much Carlsonjok and Arden missed him and he said that was because they were his "MIGNONS" which I think means something naughty.

Date: 2008/09/29 20:34:25, Link
Author: afarensis
My take on Luskin's latest Junk DNA argument.

Edit to add: I'm working on a response to his latest Panderichthys silliness but that may take a while since I have a ton of stuff on the fish/amphibian transition - especially as it relates to the limbs and I haven't made up my mind on how much or how little to include. Don't want to loose sight of the forest for the trees and all...

Date: 2008/09/29 20:47:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 29 2008,20:18)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 29 2008,19:36)
Actually, Richard has left a few comments at my blog. I mentioned to him how much Carlsonjok and Arden missed him and he said that was because they were his "MIGNONS" which I think means something naughty.

I do miss him. Here was a group photo we took before he had a hissy fit and left.


HAR HAR HAR this is you talking to Richard

Date: 2008/10/04 11:37:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,09:22)
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,09:13)
What our next president will swear/affirm in January:
 
Quote
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Seems like we'd want someone who actually knows and understands and respects our Constitution in office.  Like a recognized constitutional law scholar.  Or a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But of course in wingnut land, actual expertise counts for nothing - it's all about charm and twinkling and perceived meanness.  Eight years ago, it was all about bjs instead of the candidate's admittedly poor academic, business, and substance abuse record.  Is it any surprise that under this kind of leadership we have rampant anti-intellectualism and the financial mess?

Why would we *want* someone just like ourselves for President?  Gimme someone more intelligent, more thoughtful, more experienced, more calm and level-headed.

Hello?  I laid out a comparison of the two. Sarah has done a lot for Alaska, and she's honest.  That counts for a lot.   Obama's held hands with some unsavory characters, and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again.  

His "intellectualism" is still under question as we know nothing about how he did academically.  His transcripts are kept under lock and key.

Again, it all boils down to the elitist mentality held by most of you folks.  Obama fits the elitist mold quite nicely...it's no wonder you folks love him.

I have to go help my husband get some work done this weekend.  

Later....

And yet we don't see anybody calling for McCain or Palin to release their college transcripts. Wonder why that is? FTK, could you actually debate the issues rather than engaging in the time honored Republican practice of character assassination?

Date: 2008/10/04 12:46:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,12:26)
When somebody spends three years as a community organizer, helping the poorest and weakest get better food and shelter and education, and you come along and call him an 'elitist', you just make yourself look stupid. And how elitist can he be if he "held hands with some unsavory characters," how's that work? Maybe he only holds hands with the elite of the unsavory. "and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again." what, he's going to put a malt liquor fridge in the oval office and invite some Crips over?

It's easy to understand why they're trying to character assassinate the guy. When they talk about issues, they lose. But elitist is pretty mild. The 100% negative ads from McCain just got underway. By mid-month, FtK'll be calling him a communist muslim revolutionary.

Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing. Once upon a time Republicans used to be tough, macho kind of folk, now they are afraid of effete liberals like Katie Couric - who never met a puff piece she didn't like. Sad, I tells ya, sad.

Date: 2008/10/04 16:19:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,14:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.

Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?

IMHO, there is some cross fertilization going on, but it is running from ID to politics...

Date: 2008/10/04 20:42:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,19:11)
Plagiarism

Biden's debate screw ups

Your forgot lying about divesting in Somalia

Oh, no, wait, that is the lesser Maverick that fibbed. :O

Date: 2008/10/05 13:57:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
(Actually I would turn the position down. I have ethics. But the people who run successful presidential campaigns often don't, and it works. For further reading see: Year 2000, South Carolina GOP Primary, "McCain's black baby")

Speaking of that smear against McCain, one of the people responsible - Tucker Eskew - now works for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Which doesn't say much good about McCain or Palin.

Date: 2008/10/05 18:38:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,17:50)
Why can't Palin go two days without lying about something? The Sudan divistiture being the latest one.

Nerull: thanks for the info. It doesn't surprise me about Palin's husband belonging to a radical terrorist group. You see that a lot in the rural northwest, like Idaho and Montana.

This just in Palin is a progressive, says women who don't support her are going to hell!

Albright ain't amused...

Date: 2008/10/06 19:16:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Dang! Why does all the drama always happen when I'm not around ???

Date: 2008/10/06 21:19:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,21:00)
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 06 2008,20:13)
BTW, here is a reasonable approximation of a phylogenetic tree web of a family of entities that are actually related by descent with modification and common design. The methodology isn't particularly rigorous (the author has probably forced it to be more tree-like than it should be, and has left out a lot of minor cross-breeding), but IMO it is good enough to be representative.

If you set out to organize these systems by common characteristics (whether in source code, functionality, interface compatibility, organization) you won't get a nice nested hierarchy like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....SVG.svg

No matter what how you tweak your criteria (if you do it honestly) it just won't work.

Why not ?

and yes, I would edit to add that to the previous post, if I could ;)

Erasmus: Whatever it is, won't someone please think of the children!

That's what really kills me.  Why the hell won't you give Reed an edit button?  WTF?  You run off Richard, you won't hand out edit buttons.  Jeez....yet it's just those dratted creationists who are such unfair moderators.  I guarantee that if UD posters inundated this place like you folks do to them, you'd be whipping out the ban button all the time.

Yes, I know....the rule is to never question the moderating policy in public.  Sigh...

Enough with all the drama and temper tantrumming. Before you scared Tom off, we were discussing Tiktaalik and australopithicine jaws and in the meantime I even found you a picture of the Tiktaalik wrist. We could always go back to discussing that...

Date: 2008/10/08 13:46:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?

What a stupid statement to make...at a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of suicide, murder, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.

FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!

Sooo, you are going to add to those problems by throwing the people that work at the planetarium out of work? I guess you'd rather they be on unemployment or something.

Date: 2008/10/25 14:56:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Then there is the fact that Palin's remarks were not made within the context of a policy discussion about reforming how funds for scientific research are disbursed as Heddle is so ardently trying to argue. Rather, they were made within the context of promoting the public good:

Quote
You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.


This:


Quote
"The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries," he said. "I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the (fiscal year 2008) appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France. This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the Olive Fruit Fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s. This is not uncommon; the USDA has several international research facilities throughout the world, including Australia, China and Argentina."


Sounds like it has a lot to do with the public good, but I could be wrong...

Date: 2008/11/06 21:19:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Copy number variation and evolution in humans and chimpanzees. Here is the abstract:

Quote
Copy number variants (CNVs) underlie many aspects of human phenotypic diversity and provide the raw material for gene duplication and gene family expansion. However, our understanding of their evolutionary significance remains limited. We performed comparative genomic hybridization on a single human microarray platform to identify CNVs among the genomes of 30 humans and 30 chimpanzees as well as fixed copy number differences between species. We found that human and chimpanzee CNVs occur in orthologous genomic regions far more often than expected by chance and are strongly associated with the presence of highly homologous intrachromosomal segmental duplications. By adapting population genetic analyses for use with copy number data, we identified functional categories of genes that have likely evolved under purifying or positive selection for copy number changes. In particular, duplications and deletions of genes with inflammatory response and cell proliferation functions may have been fixed by positive selection and involved in the adaptive phenotypic differentiation of humans and chimpanzees.


Initial sequence of the chimpanzee
genome and comparison with the human genome
. Here is the abstract:

Quote
Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.

Date: 2008/11/09 19:01:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday :D

Date: 2008/11/14 20:30:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Geez! I turn my back on you all for a minute and what do you do? You broke UD! You just what until Richardthughes gets home. You will be in a heap of trouble then. :O

Date: 2008/11/14 20:36:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday. I hope you got that scantily clad dancing girl I sent!*




*Okay, it wasn't a scantily clad dancing girl, it was Arden's mum in a Halloween costume. It's the thought that counts.**


**I'm not sure what the thought of Arden's mum in a Halloween costume counts as, but there it is... :p

Date: 2008/11/18 21:10:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Cave Bears!

Deciphering the complete mitochondrial genome and phylogeny of the extinct cave bear in the Paleolithic painted cave of Chauvet

Here is the abstract:

Quote
Retrieving a large amount of genetic information from extinct species was demonstrated feasible, but complete mitochondrial genome sequences have only been deciphered for the moa, a bird that became extinct a few hundred years ago, and for Pleistocene species, such as the woolly mammoth and the mastodon, both of which could be studied from animals embedded in permafrost. To enlarge the diversity of mitochondrial genomes available for Pleistocene species, we turned to the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus), whose only remains consist of skeletal elements. We collected bone samples from the Paleolithic painted cave of Chauvet-Pont d'Arc (France), which displays the earliest known human drawings, and contains thousands of bear remains. We selected a cave bear sternebra, radiocarbon dated to 32,000 years before present, from which we generated overlapping DNA fragments assembling into a 16,810-base pair mitochondrial genome. Together with the first mitochondrial genome for the brown bear western lineage, this study provides a statistically secured molecular phylogeny assessing the cave bear as a sister taxon to the brown bear and polar bear clade, with a divergence inferred to 1.6 million years ago. With the first mitochondrial genome for a Pleistocene carnivore to be delivered, our study establishes the Chauvet-Pont d'Arc Cave as a new reservoir for Paleogenetic studies. These molecular data enable establishing the chronology of bear speciation, and provide a helpful resource to rescue for genetic analysis archeological samples initially diagnosed as devoid of amplifiable DNA.

Date: 2008/11/22 11:39:36, Link
Author: afarensis


Happy birthday!

Date: 2008/11/25 19:54:50, Link
Author: afarensis
That is a bad analogy. We know from prior experiences with henges that they are made by humans. The question is, would we be able to recognize something completely unlike anything here on earth? Possibly we would but it would not be based on some mythical design properties. We recognize Stonehenge and the various items that make up the archaeological records based on an analysis of how they were manufactured. This occasionally yields false positives. We do, in point of fact, need to know something about a designer to infer whether or not we can attribute the item in question to the designer - brain size, cognitive ability, fine motor skills, some idea of the intended function, etc. all play a role in deciding whether we can attribute an artifact to a designer (one doubts, for example, that australopithecines are capable of making Stonehenge). Without some idea as to the capability of the designer we would be hard pressed to say anything about the possibility of design.Going one step further, in archaeology telling human made from nature made, although necessary, is trivial. By trivial I mean that archaeology is far more concerned with using those artifacts to make a wide variety of inferences about the people who made them.

Date: 2008/12/05 20:13:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,17:16)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,14:56)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,08:25)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2008,12:34)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,19:37)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,20:12)
To anyone not in your insulated bubble, God is obvious.  I feel sorry for you all.

I'm thinking that Daniel has jumped the shark. It's probably time to move on.

Somebody donate a laptop to Ftk, wouldya?

Agree totally with the first one; he's chasing his tail now.

Disagree with the second one, however...

Seconded Thirded Fourthed Googolplexed.

Louis

Aw, you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Poking Ftk was a guilty pleasure. The tizzy here was everyone's, not just hers.

True enough, but I second Alba's "was". Intellectual engagement was rendered impossible by virtue of FTK's nature, ergo mockery and induction of flounce outs became de rigeur.

It would have been almost impossible for FTK meltdown by herself. I stress the "almost".

;-)

Louis

Poking Ftk? Louis, you sick bastard, isn't Arden's mom enough for you :D  Teased, mocked, derided, and laughed at sure. Poked? Blech.

Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

Date: 2008/12/06 12:16:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 06 2008,02:30)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 06 2008,02:13)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,17:16)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,14:56)
 
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,08:25)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2008,12:34)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,19:37)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,20:12)
To anyone not in your insulated bubble, God is obvious.  I feel sorry for you all.

I'm thinking that Daniel has jumped the shark. It's probably time to move on.

Somebody donate a laptop to Ftk, wouldya?

Agree totally with the first one; he's chasing his tail now.

Disagree with the second one, however...

Seconded Thirded Fourthed Googolplexed.

Louis

Aw, you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Poking Ftk was a guilty pleasure. The tizzy here was everyone's, not just hers.

True enough, but I second Alba's "was". Intellectual engagement was rendered impossible by virtue of FTK's nature, ergo mockery and induction of flounce outs became de rigeur.

It would have been almost impossible for FTK meltdown by herself. I stress the "almost".

;-)

Louis

Poking Ftk? Louis, you sick bastard, isn't Arden's mom enough for you :D  Teased, mocked, derided, and laughed at sure. Poked? Blech.

Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

I would like to point out that I am innocent. I never used the phrase "poking FTK". My fingers simply wouldn't type it.

I blame that Bill fellow.

Louis

P.S. The abandonment of the EF has been duly noted. There was much rejoicing.

Ooops! Who knew Reciprocating Bill had such deviant tastes?

Date: 2008/12/08 18:55:35, Link
Author: afarensis
By an amazing coincidence the current edition of Evolution deals with the origin and evolution of complex systems. The entire issue is also open access so feel free to download to your hearts content...

Date: 2008/12/22 20:42:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Awww, Casey's dream is dead.

I'm sure there is a lolcat out there somewhere that is appropriate for the occasion.

Date: 2008/12/28 10:34:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Luskin and reality have never really been friends. Sure, he winks and makes flirty noises at reality, but has never been able to seal the deal. My favorite qoute from the article is this:

Quote
Where does Humes get this false idea that we promote such a "conspiracy" theory? He doesn't say. This seems to be more imaginative journalism on the part of Humes, who gives no documentation whatsoever to back up his claim that Discovery Institute postulates such an outlandish "vast conspiracy" theory.


Maybe Hume saw Expelled?

Date: 2009/01/03 13:34:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2009,12:39)
Quote
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.

Learning?  You think?

Is Luskin even self aware enough to realize the magnitude of the whupping he is taking? Or will he continue in blissful ignorance?

Date: 2009/01/03 13:36:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy birthday!

Date: 2009/01/03 15:34:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 03 2009,13:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 03 2009,13:34)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2009,12:39)
   
Quote
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.

Learning?  You think?

Is Luskin even self aware enough to realize the magnitude of the whupping he is taking? Or will he continue in blissful ignorance?

The correct answer is "continue in blissful ignorance" -

Now what do I win, and what is my prize???

I was going to say the gift of fire, but then I remembered that, unlike Neanderthals, australopithecines didn't make fire ???

Date: 2009/01/17 18:41:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/01/19 18:45:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lowell @ Jan. 19 2009,17:58)
Looks like DaveScot has gone back to his old standby: AGW denial.

And as a bonus, another DS prediction realized:     
Quote
In other news, what I said before is coming to pass. I wrote that when global cooling takes hold we’ll be left with only a fervent wish that more CO2 could warm it back up. Well, a newspaper editor in Flint Michigan has started praying for global warming.

A newspaper editor? Oh, well that settles the matter.

I thought Dembski put his foot down about non-ID posts, didn't he? You'd almost think DaveScot doesn't listen to him.

Of course he doesn't listen to Dembski DaveScot is the most feared Darwin Skeptic on the web!

Quote
This is from the blog Uncommon Descent. For those that don't know, DaveScot is the most feared Darwin skeptic on the net as he has routinely used his superior scientific knowledge to put Darwinists in their place.


So of course he's not going to listen to some pantywaist like Dembski - who wasn't even in the Marines!

Date: 2009/01/19 20:29:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 19 2009,19:24)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2009,18:45)
This is from the blog Uncommon Descent. For those that don't know, DaveScot is the most feared Darwin skeptic on the net as he has routinely used his superior scientific knowledge to put Darwinists in their place.


Wow - I thought that comment was made with sarcasm until I followed the link. The lackwit actually means it.

Yes he does. In a latter comment (you'll have to scroll down) he says:

 
Quote
Michael Shermer? The same Michael Shermer who was eaten alive by high genius Jonathan Wells in a debate broadcast on CSPAN?
(empahsis in the original).

Almost makes me think it's a Poe. I mean, how can anyone seriously describe Wells as a "high genius"? :O

Edited to correct a typo.

Date: 2009/01/19 23:02:08, Link
Author: afarensis
I'll bet you've never seen him do anything genius like either :D

Date: 2009/01/22 21:52:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Fafarman has shown up at my blog a couple of times and was surprisingly well behaved. I would then tell him "Troll, begone!" and he would go away without a fuss. Considering how psychotic he acts most of the time, I'm always surprised.

Date: 2009/01/23 21:18:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy birthday gentleman!

Date: 2009/01/24 18:35:26, Link
Author: afarensis
The journal Evolution and Development has reviewed Explore Evolution. The review can be found here. Here is one of the better parts:

Quote
This book is part of a strategy (Matzke 2006) that resembles not so much a Trojan horse as an email virus, or the introduction of sterile males into an insect population. Its effect in schools will be to teach students that the process of science consists of fatuous discussions using context-free quotes and no cogent treatment of any clear questions. Together with new state education bills allowing local groups to push this stuff into classrooms, it will help dilute and weaken the already thin preparation students receive for dealing with a world full of information they need to be able to think about.


Note: The Matzke cite is this paper: New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again). Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26 (6): 28–30. Available from http://ncseweb.org/rncse/26/6/new-creationist-textbook-way-again

Date: 2009/01/26 22:19:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Nah, I thinks it's more like Designed Integrated Purposeful Specific High Intensity Tard, or DIPSHIT.

Date: 2009/01/28 21:31:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2009,16:40)
Quote

Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge : Wait for it...Wait for it ...
Dec 10, 2007 ... So does anyone want to lay odds on how long it will be before.
scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/12/wait_for_itwait_for_itits_teh.php
#
The World's Fair : Why Blog the History of Science?
A group of historians of science got together, asked themselves if the history of science mattered, and concluded...wait for it, wait for it...that Yes! ...
scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2008/10/why_blog_the_history_of_scienc.php
#
Neurontic : Ask a Science Blogger: Are we happier in the summer?
Aug 10, 2007 ... they found that the four happiest places on earth are: Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and - wait for it - Iceland. ...
scienceblogs.com/neurontic/2007/08/ask_a_science_blogger_are_we_h.php
#
Omni Brain : Witricity - cue cancer conspiracy...wait for it ...
I'm going to make a bold bold prediction right here on Omni Brain. With the announcement of wireless electricity there will soon be a group of crazed ...
scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/06/witricity_cue_cancer_conspirac.php
#
The Island of Doubt : Faith trumps science. Again
... the news that Clinton and Obama have agreed to a CNN-televised forum a week from Sunday on -- wait for it -- "faith, values and other current issues." ...
scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/04/faith_trumps_science_again.php
#
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge : Science Debate 2008 - Just ...
... Fitness are provided courtesy of Medical News Today. « No Faith in Romney's "Faith in America" | Main | Wait for it...Wait for it...It's Teh Gay Gene! » ...
scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/12/science_debate_2008_just_say_y.php
#
Neurontic
... they found that the four happiest places on earth are: Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and - wait for it - Iceland. Viewed through this lens, ...
scienceblogs.com/neurontic/
#
Mike the Mad Biologist : Barcoding in Biology: A Tale of Two Meanings
Wait for it...barcoding. To each DNA taxonomic tag (a barcode sensu RPM), we attach a barcode that identifies which sample the taxonomic tag came from. ...
scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/03/barcoding_in_biology_a_tale_of.php
#
The Intersection: The Science of BEER
Mar 17, 2008 ... Our Head Brewer as . . . wait for it . . . . a former EPA toxics program manager ! I won't regale you with all the ways I find that so ...
scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/03/the_science_of_beer.php"


that's the first of ten pages of results at scienceblogs for that phrase.

On behalf of ScienceBlogs, I do apologize. :(  I hope I have never done that.*



*afarensis runs away to do a Google search to make sure he has never inflicted the dreaded words on the world...

Date: 2009/01/31 12:43:49, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 31 2009,10:48)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 31 2009,10:30)
I don't think .NET had anything to do with it.  I saw the problem earlier this morning and then it just went away without my doing anything.  I think this means that somebody at Google fixed it.

Thanks, noncarb -- I was wondering if I'd jumped the gun by associating the two events, and was checking  tech sites to see.

Given what I've just read,though, I still think I'll hold off a bit on reinstalling, just a week or so.

No need to do anything rash:

Quote
Google receives regular updates to a list of malicious websites from StopBadware.org, which investigates consumer complaints.

"We periodically receive updates to that list and received one such update to release on the site this morning," Mayer explained.

"Unfortunately (and here's the human error), the URL of '/' was mistakenly checked in as a value to the file and '/' expands to all URLs."

Users who tried to access the site were blocked by Google, which directed them to StopBadware.org, which works with Google to determine which sites are dangerous.

"This led to a denial of service of our website as millions of Google users attempted to visit our site for more information," StopBadware.org said in a statement.

Google was back to normal between 1510 and 1525 GMT.

Date: 2009/02/02 18:47:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2009,13:11)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2009,11:51)
Ok, I'll kick off...[shnip]

P.S. Rather than being greedy, I've left plenty for everyone else to play with.

I sorry. I think I done broked teh new toy.

Well, that's just f*&%$*g great. Break the toy before the rest of us have had a chance. :angry:

Quote
...but as someone with a palentological background I just appreciate it...


I was looking forward to exploring this background in more detail.

Quote
I thought it would be fun to mix it up here politely on the merits, but this is fast looking like a place I don't have time for.


Oh, we have to get David and FTK together. Can you imagine the flouncing abilities of their offspring :p

Date: 2009/02/02 23:40:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2009,21:46)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 02 2009,18:47)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2009,13:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2009,11:51)
Ok, I'll kick off...[shnip]

P.S. Rather than being greedy, I've left plenty for everyone else to play with.

I sorry. I think I done broked teh new toy.

Well, that's just f*&%$*g great. Break the toy before the rest of us have had a chance. :angry:

It wasn't my fault. I didn't mean to. I didn't know. I  only have 4 words to say in my defense: It Was Arden's Fault! *runs away*

That makes much more sense. Arden's always causing trouble, mocking people with LoLcats, and in general not behaving very well. Why when *I* was a kid we got a proper ear boxing for engaging in that kind of behavior and were darn thankful for it too. Taught us the proper way of behavin' it did...Don't know what's become of young people these days...You call that music...mumble, mumble....zzzzzzz

Date: 2009/02/03 19:06:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Ack! Gasp...cough...snort...should have never tried the pure stuff ... brain cells dying as the concentrated tard erodes neurons...synapses melting into pile of jello...cough...gack.... :O

Date: 2009/02/03 22:08:49, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 03 2009,21:48)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2009,19:06)
Ack! Gasp...cough...snort...should have never tried the pure stuff ... brain cells dying as the concentrated tard erodes neurons...synapses melting into pile of jello...cough...gack.... :O

Well, at least Luskin DOES write to go see the exhibit!

Everything else he writes is the company line, but if little johnny student DOES go see Lucy, there is a chance that (s)he might be the next Afarensis of J-dog.

Oh, well, in that case I'm not quite dead yet. I'm feeling better. I think I could recover...Yes, as a matter of fact I think I'll fisk this tomorrow evening.

Date: 2009/02/04 19:01:26, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,18:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2009,00:10)
Louis,

My sincerest congratulations, sir.

I thank you! Now if I could only get this plane ticket to Peru organised I can avoid the whole sordid mess...

Louis

Do stay, being slowly driven insane and made prematurely old before your time is an experience not to be missed.

Date: 2009/02/07 09:20:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 06 2009,23:17)
<scary Darwinian librarian mode>

AND I ASSUME YOU'VE ALL READ THESE BOOKS, RIGHT, MY FELLOW DARWINISTS?  Along with The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen Woodiwiss. Right? :angry:  *taps foot*

</scary Darwinian librarian mode>

P.S. The Prince was a satire. My college class laughed all the way through it. Maybe Ben Wiker should substitute Lysistrata, if he doesn't object to including drama. :)

Lysistrata? Do you think it would get past the nanny filter and if it did would it make them ineligible to wear their new t-shirts?

Edit to fix typo...
Re-edit to fix typo created by trying to fix a typo...

Date: 2009/02/07 12:50:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 07 2009,10:57)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 07 2009,09:20)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 06 2009,23:17)
<scary Darwinian librarian mode>

AND I ASSUME YOU'VE ALL READ THESE BOOKS, RIGHT, MY FELLOW DARWINISTS?  Along with The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen Woodiwiss. Right? :angry:  *taps foot*

</scary Darwinian librarian mode>

P.S. The Prince was a satire. My college class laughed all the way through it. Maybe Ben Wiker should substitute Lysistrata, if he doesn't object to including drama. :)

Lysistrata? Do you think it would get past the nanny filter and if you it would it make them ineligible to wear their new t-shirts?

Edit to fix typo...

Are you saying that the nanny filter is filtering even teh ten most bad icky books? :)

Geez. So Wiker is keeping his listen of 10 really bad naughty you-oughtta-be-ashamed tut-tut books under his covers?

(He reads Origin of Species with a flashlight! Wouldn't O'Lamenty be appalled!) :D

*edited to add - re teh shirts (man, thanks for that, BTW! Gaaa!): Ever heard of backsliding? That seems to be the point of being "saved" for some people. :p

Well, ff you are referring to the Lysistrata written by Aristophanes then yes. It would definitely be caught in the nanny filter.

Date: 2009/02/07 18:37:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 07 2009,14:21)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 07 2009,12:50)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 07 2009,10:57)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 07 2009,09:20)
         
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 06 2009,23:17)
<scary Darwinian librarian mode>

AND I ASSUME YOU'VE ALL READ THESE BOOKS, RIGHT, MY FELLOW DARWINISTS?  Along with The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen Woodiwiss. Right? :angry:  *taps foot*

</scary Darwinian librarian mode>

P.S. The Prince was a satire. My college class laughed all the way through it. Maybe Ben Wiker should substitute Lysistrata, if he doesn't object to including drama. :)

Lysistrata? Do you think it would get past the nanny filter and if you it would it make them ineligible to wear their new t-shirts?

Edit to fix typo...

Are you saying that the nanny filter is filtering even teh ten most bad icky books? :)

Geez. So Wiker is keeping his listen of 10 really bad naughty you-oughtta-be-ashamed tut-tut books under his covers?

(He reads Origin of Species with a flashlight! Wouldn't O'Lamenty be appalled!) :D

*edited to add - re teh shirts (man, thanks for that, BTW! Gaaa!): Ever heard of backsliding? That seems to be the point of being "saved" for some people. :p

Well, ff you are referring to the Lysistrata written by Aristophanes then yes. It would definitely be caught in the nanny filter.

What other? There is no other Lysistrata for me. :) Of course not.

Aristophanes is the man! But I daresay that Dembski would enjoy his The Frogs. In fact, I'll bet the man fancies himself as Dionysus, and the "Darwinists" as the frogs. What sayest thou? *fart* :p

(I don't know why I didn't think of that two years ago.)

I don't know...he's created his own cloud cuckoo land at UD :D


Edit to add: Brekekekex, ko-ax, ko-ax

Date: 2009/02/08 13:56:13, Link
Author: afarensis
In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy  :)

Date: 2009/02/08 14:05:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 08 2009,14:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,13:56)
In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy  :)

Sorry ERV, I will pass on that one. I've had my tard dose for the week-end....

And yet again: If you don't know what you miss, you miss nothing!*


*That's why every missionary should be shot on sight...

Nope, not ERV - I can't do that eye blink thing (last time I tried I got my eyelids tangled up, had to go to the ER and everything)*


* Don't ask what happened when I tried that forehead smack thing she does...

Edit to add: Damn he corrected it before I could publish my response  ???

Date: 2009/02/08 17:03:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2009,16:01)
Whenever replying to Luskin, you must save a copy of whatever prose you are responding to. Luskin is a believer in an Infinitely Plastic Past, at least wherever he can edit stuff to suit himself.

Having someone claim that they never made the mistake you point out, and have them impugn you for making stuff up, will likely cure you of laziness in archiving.

I should have been more clear, I was talking about Schroedinger's Dog's correction. I always, always, always save whatever creationist post I am responding to - especially when it is someone connected with the DI in any way, shape, or form.

Edit to correct typo - which I seem to making a lot of lately.

Date: 2009/02/12 20:43:22, Link
Author: afarensis
[quote=J-Dog,Feb. 12 2009,19:12]
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2009,18:57)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 12 2009,19:05)
Ha Ha!  Dembski loves him some Luskin post, and then Luskin gets bashed by ID Loyalists!  

Don't they know they are supposed to wait until Friday for the meltdowns?  Or does the Darwin Day Holiday throw off all their timing?

Luskin Bashing

gah.

My Tard Tolerance is too low these days. I just couldn't get through it.



Frost rambles on about a different topic from a different post from a different universe:
 
Quote
In my opinion there is nothing wit ha compromise of both views both in the classroom and in the economy- but only one side is seeking extermination and that is Leftist Darwinists. Whether it is through the courts or through though the congress- they are the ones telling people what they have to do- what they want them to do.

What? You mean the idea that intelligent agency creates information in the economy is wrong? But the idea that intelligent agency creates information in nature is correct?

Date: 2009/02/12 20:49:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2009,19:17)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 12 2009,17:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2009,21:34)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 12 2009,15:49)
As for the graphs, let's all just admit that college students are slackers!  :p

Hey now.

Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou.

We all know you've been at frat parties, snorting coke off sorority girls' tits, partying 'til all hours, missing lectures, drinking crazy drinks, getting the geeky frat kids to turn in your exam papers for you, putting glue in the professors' car door locks, going crazy in Tiajuana at every given opportunity...

Fun ain't it?

Louis

He totally promised those videos would remain private, the bastard.

Others will probably point, mock, and abuse. I, though, am impressed. That third video gives a totally new and unexpected meaning to "March of the Penguins". You, Sir, are to be applauded for that performance.

Date: 2009/02/12 22:59:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 12 2009,22:23)
Our old friend Joseph, over on the Casey Luskin thread:
         
Quote
JackInhofe,

Casey just needs a little “seasoning”.

And most Darwinists’ websites don’t deserve a response.

However if you think ID needs someone to “mix it up, don’t back down, stick the evidence in your face and make you eat it”, so to speak, I know the perfect guy.

And he just happens to be recently retired so he has the time.

WTF? Could Joseph actually be referring to himself? If he is then that has got to be the stupidest idea I've seen over there ever in about a week.

Still, the idea is intriguing - would Joseph/Joe G/etc make a better or worse spokesman for the DI than Casey? It really does make my head hurt. More entertaining, I suppose; Casey seems to shrug off all criticism (no matter how valid and rational), but Joe resorts pretty quickly to thugishness. I can see the headline now: "DI spokesman held on charge of assault."

The more I think about it the more I think we should get behind Joseph in his bid. Go Joe!

That went in a completely different direction than I thought it would. When I read the bolded part I immediately thought of Davidson ???

Date: 2009/02/12 23:09:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Okay, since no one else has mentioned it, I'll step up. J-dog's Genome has been decoded - well 63% of it any way...but the rough draft is complete.

Date: 2009/02/14 21:38:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,20:26)
Quote
[b]Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism[b]
O'Leary

...

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn't very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don't even try to develop their sense of smell - we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don't of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin's idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism.

Most of us have the ability to smell shit on our shoes, Denyse, but few can distinguish the odor of your posts from same.

Speaking of Denyse is she trying to pull one over on her readers? What her friend said about Lucy sounds almost exactly like what Casey said in his post.

Date: 2009/02/17 18:41:49, Link
Author: afarensis
Oh, Oh, I know! Over here, pick me ERV, pick me! afarensis jumps up and down Pick me dammit, I got one

How about a picture, with Casey, of someone wearing this!

Hijinks and hilarity will ensue!

Edit to add: NO, WAIT! I have a better idea. What if everybody in the audience wore them? Can you imagine the shocked looks on the faces of West and Luskin? A picture of that would be great.

Date: 2009/02/19 18:57:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Sorry I'm late to the party :(  My DSL was down for the last couple of days.

Happy birthday Bob!

Date: 2009/02/21 17:48:13, Link
Author: afarensis
The developmental biology article is open access. It's by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff.Here is the abstract:

 
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


So he was probably making a similar argument to what they made with the Altenburg 16.

Edited to correct formatting and a few spelling errors.

Date: 2009/02/21 18:08:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2009,17:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 21 2009,17:48)
The developmental biology article is open access. It's by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff.Here is the abstract:

So he was probably making a similar argument to what they made with the Altenburg 16.

Edited to correct formatting and a few spelling errors.

So, basically he was taking changes or controversies within the evolutionary framework and misrepresenting them as challanges to the entire edifice?

That is what it sounds like based on the article he was citing.

Edit to add: The Durrett and Schmidt paper is available here. They also published a reply to Behe that I haven't been able to find as open access. If you have access to genetics the reply can be found here

Date: 2009/02/21 18:41:04, Link
Author: afarensis
I have also tracked down the Goodwin 1995 cite and that refers to a book called How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: the evolution of complexity. I haven't read it but the reviews and so forth make it sound like Kauffman's stuff.

Date: 2009/02/21 19:46:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 21 2009,19:13)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,18:41)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2009,18:36)
Casey is such a crybaby.  He submits Rob Crowther (his superior at DI) a report entitled Pro-Evolution Blogger Abbie Smith Flipped Me Off on Friday Night, and Here’s the Story.  Rob publishes said report on Evolution News & Views.  

And what was this forgiveness spiel about?  Here's a quote from the talk:
       
Quote
I’m not interested in holding grudges. I’m interested in forgiving so we can all move forward in a spirit of civility! …There Is a Better Way: Free Speech, Civility, and Peaceful Co-Existence in the Academy

Peaceful co-existence, huh?  I thought your  Wedgie Manifesto called for "direct confrontation", no?

More spewing from Casey Cloaca (and yes, Casey, I do hope that you include that in your next presentation about AtBCers insulting poor little you)    
Quote
After reviewing some of the problems with the Kitzmiller ruling, my talk focused on the importance of protecting academic freedom. I made the point that Darwinists use a vareity (sic) of tactics to shut down free and open debate on intelligent design (ID) and evolution.

This was posted on a site where comments are not allowed.

You want free and open debate, Casey? Please open comments over there, or come over here.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

WIN!!!

I think he has a crush on you - in a heterosexually chaste creepy christian kind of way - because you say tits and let gay people get you drunk. It's the "dangerous boy" syndrome in reverse.

Date: 2009/02/21 21:04:24, Link
Author: afarensis
On the Darwin thing, Charles was quite clear on the subject. This is from a letter Darwin wrote:

Quote
Sir,—I am very busy, and am an old man in delicate health, and have not time to answer your, questions fully, even assuming that they are capable of being answered at all.3 Science and Christ have nothing to do with each other, except in as far as the habit of scientific investigation makes a man cautious about accepting any proofs. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that any revelation has ever been made. With regard to a future life, every one must draw his own conclusions from vague and contradictory probabilities. Wishing you well, I remain, your obedient servant,

CHARLES DARWIN.


The number three refers you to a footnote that explains:

Quote
Mengden wrote to Darwin on 2 April 1879 asking if a believer in his theory could also believe in God. A reply in the affirmative was written by Emma Darwin. Mengden wrote again stating that Haeckel disbelieves in the supernatural, what did Darwin think? This letter was Darwin's response.


So, even if you did know the context I'm not sure that West's argument would be supported by the evidence.

Date: 2009/02/22 09:22:57, Link
Author: afarensis
@Carlson - The Understanding Evolution case was dismissed on standing. Link

Date: 2009/02/22 18:14:11, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Feb. 22 2009,17:49)
Quote
jesus they finally found something more boring than mornington crescent.


Well, they could be talking about cricket.

(BTW, please let no one take that as a suggestion)

From TMNT (IMHO the best movie ever*)

Quote
Raphael: Cricket? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!


*Okay, maybe not the best, but it was watchable...

Date: 2009/02/23 22:20:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
I am considering putting all these posts out on a blog and then developing a more detailed write-up.  Here I will just try to capture his point and save the citiations in case I do decide to do a more detailed write up.


I don't know exactly what you have in mind but if you would like I can see about getting you access and you can guest post them on my blog.

Edit to add: Alternatively, maybe Wesley can talk to Reed about posting them on PT?

Date: 2009/02/24 19:00:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/02/25 21:30:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Great job Carlsonjok!

Date: 2009/02/26 19:32:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Quotemined the dictionary? Bwaaaahaahaahaa!

Date: 2009/02/27 19:03:54, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/03/07 14:54:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2009,13:00)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 07 2009,08:31)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2009,14:12)
(sorry, only just saw this: I spent yesterday on a day trip around the Helsinki health services)

Nothing serious I hope!

Not for me (although I did almost faint at one point).  My guest was not so lucky.

Well, that is the cover up story anyway. The true story is a sordid, but somewhat adventurous, tale about how Nature blogs is trying to do in the competition by, well, doing in the competition. In this case one of ScienceBlogs finest. Unnamed sources have provided us with reliable information to the effect that these "accidental injuries" where actually the caused by flying ninja lemurs and a secret cult of Lempo worshipers. We are sure this true version of the events will be revealed once we have Grrl back, safely in the US. Some of you may be inclined to skepticism, but ask yourself how this kind of "accident" could occur under such "mysterious circumstances" in a socialist uber-nanny state like Finland? As we speak a declaration of war is being introduced in the Oklahoma State House and Senate. We expect George Bush and Dick Cheney, personally, to invade Finland momentarily. Our representative in Denmark , seen in a candid photo below:



is on his way to Helsinki to step on your house.

Bob, on a personnel note, I am sorry as hell that it had to come to this. Peace be upon you - or whatever benediction you secret cult of Lempo worshipers use... :p

Edited to add a link

Date: 2009/03/07 15:04:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2009,14:06)
DI EVENT:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....nt=true

Quote
Upcoming EventMarch 23, 2009 - March 25, 2009
Physics & the God of Abraham
Sponsored by the Faith & Reason Institute of Gonzaga University


I have no clue who that designer might be...

Intelligent design takes no position on whether Yaweh or Jehovah is the God of Abraham. The student is encouraged to keep an open mind on the question and to fairly evaluate the strengths ans weaknesses of each theory.

Date: 2009/03/07 16:04:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2009,15:38)
afarensis - I can only assume you're on the same drugs they gave Grrl.

Either that or k.e. is spending the weekend at your place.

Hey, our sources are the very noblest of Nigerian Princes. They have also promised to deposit millions in our bank account, once we send them our account information. We are thinking about taking them up on it since we have to fund our war on Finland somehow... :D

Date: 2009/03/07 16:34:42, Link
Author: afarensis
That seems a bit off topic, perhaps it should be moved to it's own thread...

Date: 2009/03/07 17:36:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 07 2009,17:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 07 2009,17:06)
Quote (Junior @ Mar. 07 2009,16:27)
hard core proof of evolution
Is there a thread for hard core?

Yup.

All threads of hardcore are the ones k.e. responds to on this board.

However, I think we have a new friend who knows how to cut & paste from a Creationist site.

Looks like he (or she) has been reading Explore Evolution to me. The for/against format and order of subjects seem to mirror the book...

Date: 2009/03/07 18:03:00, Link
Author: afarensis
According to his profile he has a blog and is 15 years old...

Date: 2009/03/08 03:27:34, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2009,01:26)
The Einstein thing, I was sent that by a relative a few months ago. I sent back the snopes link. This has happened like 6 times over the years from this relative. Hoax emails about Mel Gibson getting beaten up, the Klingerman Virus, Nasa's Missing Day. Every time it happens, every time it happens I reply with a Snopes link. The frustrating thing is, that doesn't stop it. Next year, from the same relative, I'll get another email, with the same features:

1 No source for the story
2 Often a famous name is revealed at the end
3 Flattering to christians
4 Basic, obvious errors

and I'll send another Snopes link. And on and on it goes.

I reviewed a book about Einstein awhile back. One of the surprises was that he actually had some classwork in human prehistory and geology. Unfortunately, the book did not go into details. Can you imagine Einstein as an archaeologist?

Date: 2009/03/12 21:30:59, Link
Author: afarensis
From PLoS One:

Identification of Coevolving Residues and Coevolution Potentials Emphasizing Structure, Bond Formation and Catalytic Coordination in Protein Evolution

The abstract:

Quote
The structure and function of a protein is dependent on coordinated interactions between its residues. The selective pressures associated with a mutation at one site should therefore depend on the amino acid identity of interacting sites. Mutual information has previously been applied to multiple sequence alignments as a means of detecting coevolutionary interactions. Here, we introduce a refinement of the mutual information method that: 1) removes a significant, non-coevolutionary bias and 2) accounts for heteroscedasticity. Using a large, non-overlapping database of protein alignments, we demonstrate that predicted coevolving residue-pairs tend to lie in close physical proximity. We introduce coevolution potentials as a novel measure of the propensity for the 20 amino acids to pair amongst predicted coevolutionary interactions. Ionic, hydrogen, and disulfide bond-forming pairs exhibited the highest potentials. Finally, we demonstrate that pairs of catalytic residues have a significantly increased likelihood to be identified as coevolving. These correlations to distinct protein features verify the accuracy of our algorithm and are consistent with a model of coevolution in which selective pressures towards preserving residue interactions act to shape the mutational landscape of a protein by restricting the set of admissible neutral mutations.

Date: 2009/03/14 09:54:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,07:27)
I have never posted at UD. I have never run a sock puppet account here, there or elsewhere. I am wondering if my rep as a big ol meanie would mean that I am pre-banninated at UD.

I am tempted to discard my burdensome UD virginity and whore my intellectual parts over at that brothel of bewildered bumptiousness that is UD. However, I suspect the results would be predictable and so I shall resist temptation. Anyway, my status as possibly the only non-banninated AtBCer is valuable, and should not be abandoned on a whim. I shall maintain my UD virginity and defend my virtue from such wanton TARD and thus remain inviolate.

Ah but I can gaze wistfully across the waters and wonder what bannination might feel like....

Louis

I have a confession to make. It is a dark secret I have been hiding forever, but Louis has set an example and I have to confess. I have never been banned from UD. I have never had an account there. I am very ashamed and will hold my manhood cheap whilst those who were banned on St. Crispin's day speak of their legendary bannations...

Date: 2009/03/14 11:52:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 14 2009,10:39)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 14 2009,10:24)
 
Quote
I have a confession to make. It is a dark secret I have been hiding forever, but Louis has set an example and I have to confess. I have never been banned from UD. I have never had an account there. I am very ashamed and will hold my manhood cheap whilst those who were banned on St. Crispin's day speak of their legendary bannations...

Huh?  So you're not PaV, then?

I honestly thought he was jerry.  No one could be as profoundly ignorant, pompous, and dishonest as jerry is for real.  Right?  Right?  Please don't feed my mid-semester cynicism and bitterness to all mankind....

Some things can't be faked...

Date: 2009/03/14 13:50:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,13:37)
To be fair I did say "possibly the only"....

I'm happy to be in such august company as a Conscientious Objector to UD. We shall abstain from UD together.

Crikey, abstinence, a term I never thought would apply to me.

Louis

Well, that makes three of us on the group W bench...

Date: 2009/03/14 15:02:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,14:43)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 14 2009,19:50)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,13:37)
To be fair I did say "possibly the only"....

I'm happy to be in such august company as a Conscientious Objector to UD. We shall abstain from UD together.

Crikey, abstinence, a term I never thought would apply to me.

Louis

Well, that makes three of us on the group W bench...

W for "Wise enough not to get embroiled with the wankers at UD"?

Louis

"Yes, that's it" he said as he yanked the Arlo Guthrie album off the turntable...  ???

Date: 2009/03/15 16:16:11, Link
Author: afarensis
I'm going to miss the big lug... now that the entertainment has left the only thing that remains is the stupidity.

Date: 2009/03/15 16:33:51, Link
Author: afarensis
I prefer Shelley:

I met a tardmeister from from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of tard
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered marine seargent lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those tardy monlogues read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is DaveScot, King of tard:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level tard stretches far away.

Date: 2009/03/15 16:46:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 15 2009,16:40)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2009,16:16)
I'm going to miss the big lug... now that the entertainment has left the only thing that remains is the stupidity.

Your ending is perfect dude!

"Taps"..

Couldn't resist Taps...

Date: 2009/03/15 17:22:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2009,16:56)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 15 2009,07:41)
Quote (paragwinn @ Mar. 15 2009,05:08)
Apparently it's been replaced with a new post from Barry titled "Scientific Certainty 100 Years Ago" containing 3 quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica without explanation as to the relevance to ID.

Allen is doing a heroic job.

The ninny called Borne wrote;
Quote
The original Darwinism was polygenic - multiple rates and/or origins of evolution per race, thus necessitating a racist view of humanity. There’s no way out of it.


How about reading Darwin? Would that work?
Quote
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.


and,
Quote
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that all are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.


Darwin, Charles R.
1871 "The Descent of Man"

Darwin actually explicitly addressed the issue of monogenist vs. polygenist:

Quote
The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much agitated by anthropologists, who are divided into two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species either as separate creations or as in some manner distinct entities; and they must decide what forms to rank as species by the analogy of other organic beings which are commonly thus received. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, or town, or city. We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds, insects, and plants, which represent each other in North America and Europe, should be ranked species or geographical races; and so it is with the productions of many islands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the greater number of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they think fit to designate them as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.


Clearly, he equated the polygenist view with special creation.

Date: 2009/03/15 17:50:03, Link
Author: afarensis
I'm shocked that no one has stopped to consider what is to become of the poor Inuit women now that DaveScot is gone ;)

Date: 2009/03/18 19:14:39, Link
Author: afarensis
What the Hell? I get sick for a few days and come back to find that Kristine has written a poem at my behest (Link) and that DaveScot is channeling Mr Roboto and is trying to bring UD and all connected to their knees, cheered on by AtBC. Also, Kristine, is case I hadn't mentioned, wrote a poem (Link). In the meantime Dembski fails at weasel - perhaps someone should have read him Never Tease A Weasel - in case you are wondering it is because weasels do not like it and teasing isn't nice.*


* Did I mention Kristine's wonderful poem? (Link)
:D

edit to fix a typo

Date: 2009/03/18 19:23:38, Link
Author: afarensis
This is interesting. Positive Darwinian selection and the birth of an olfactory receptor clade in teleosts. Here is the abstract:

Quote
Trace amine-associated receptors (TAARs) in mammals recently have been shown to function as olfactory receptors. We have delineated the taar gene family in jawless, cartilaginous, and bony fish (zero, 2, and >100 genes, respectively). We conclude that taar genes are evolutionary much younger than the related OR and ORA/V1R olfactory receptor families, which are present already in lamprey, a jawless vertebrate. The 2 cartilaginous fish genes appear to be ancestral for 2 taar classes, each with mammalian and bony fish (teleost) representatives. Unexpectedly, a whole new clade, class III, of taar genes originated even later, within the teleost lineage. Taar genes from all 3 classes are expressed in subsets of zebrafish olfactory receptor neurons, supporting their function as olfactory receptors. The highly conserved TAAR1 (shark, mammalian, and teleost orthologs) is not expressed in the olfactory epithelium and may constitute the sole remnant of a primordial, nonolfactory function of this family. Class III comprises three-fourths of all teleost taar genes and is characterized by the complete loss of the aminergic ligand-binding motif, stringently conserved in the other 2 classes. Two independent intron gains in class III taar genes represent extraordinary evolutionary dynamics, considering the virtual absence of intron gains during vertebrate evolution. The dN/dS analysis suggests both minimal global negative selection and an unparalleled degree of local positive selection as another hallmark of class III genes. The accelerated evolution of class III teleost taar genes conceivably might mark the birth of another olfactory receptor gene family.

Date: 2009/03/18 21:23:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,21:00)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 18 2009,20:15)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,21:09)
     
Quote
Sal Gal: The program makes a pretty picture. What of it? The probability of looking around and seeing a pretty picture is high.

Something funny about the ID obsession with the Weasel program is the oblivion to the context in which Hamlet says, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns.

tribune7: And how specific would they be? Is that a bunny or a giraffe?

HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
LORD POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
LORD POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale?
LORD POLONIUS: Very like a whale.

Polonius was using an early version of the Nixplanatory Filter to detect the designs in the cloud shapes. Do you think a camel-weasel-whale shaped cloud could just happen by accident??

***** SPOILER ALERT *****



{That's why he had to die. You don't really think it was an accident, do you?}

Gosh, you mean we evil Darwinists went back in time and Expelled Polonius?

Edit: to fix another typo.

Date: 2009/03/20 07:39:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 20 2009,00:38)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2009,05:13)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,21:01)
     
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 19 2009,21:48)
Good job, RB, even though Joe won't get it.

Jerry, Kairos and Moe have made it perfectly clear that it is ME who doesn't get it.

(slap slap - poink - wooWOOwoowoowoowoowoo.)

Maybe Dave's Ghost will go poke a stick at them tomorrow...

Let's hope not.

Dave Tards petulant sacking by UD's Elton John impersonator has made that UD thread the penultimate thread of TARD. Obama be praised. Like Elton John he plays the piano because he sucks at the organ ........and everything else for that matter.

The Tard House Loonies finally got rid of their vicious gatekeeper and are now running around naked, whoopn' and a hollerin' and smearing feces on the walls, rocking in corners, opening the windows on the upper levels planning to do superman stunts with the bedsheets inscribed with honorary diplomas as capes.

The jolly repression by Sgt Dave Tard ensured at least the inmates were shielded from curious onlookers walking their dogs past the front gate.

His keen sense of smell detected anti ID visitors at trace levels.

He knew the gossip amongst the neighborhood Tard Watch  would never reach the patients ears if he hosed the excrement off them once in a while and lined them up and told them to keep their mouths shut when he conducted a private inspection by an accredited Tard Inspector.

One at a time he let the inspectors in under strict instructions not to engage the inmates in simple questions such as "what time of the day is it?" or "What did you have for breakfast?"

Which always provoked long winded nonsequiturs and furious name calling creating both extreme boredom and disgust in the inspectors.

Conversely when the most verbose of Tards shouted out asymmetrical discombobulations Dave Tard was there with his stout truncheon to beat them quivering into a padded cell.

Now that the Maestro has the keys to the gate he leaves it open while fiddling in his Studio knowing full well that His fellow institutionalized 'geniuses' will be quite safe from visiting scholars of Tard.

The Tard House as it is affectionately known to the consigneti is one of the worlds "Lights on the Hill" for Tard, a veritable Tard Heaven along with various Global Meltdown Denial and 9/11 Denial sites.

It wouldn't matter if there were videos of primordial soup to man they would deny evolution and blame the whole thing on some conspiracy by some Nefarious Evil Overlord.

To cap it all their own Evil Overlord who leases them the building and keeps huge Billboard Hustings plastered with various crank cures for wakefulness amongst other things pays a visit once in a while to collect his rent.
However the stench is too much for even him and he quickly departs to his vestry to write sermons on flamboyant church fashion.

This continuing saga delights Marine Biologists.

P.S. Richards T Hughe's check is in the mail with a memo saying "Best Homo Comedian on Tard".
Along with a bottle of Single Malt Whiskey......
....ok I lied about the whiskey...and the check.

P.P.S. That's the last time I'll post after "She Who Must Be Obeyed's"  Birthday nosh up and one and half bottles of wine. I was dragged away.....not enough time to do a Tard search.

UD has taken on a certain Dr. Tarr and Professor Fetherish quality since DaveScot left.

Date: 2009/03/20 20:19:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Maya says:

Quote
The blatant lack of respect for free and open discussion and the hypocritical claims to have that respect really trigger my violent disgust mental triggers.  I have a lot of respect for you long term followers of UD who can keep your sense of humor when watching these offensive nitwits.


I've been following UD for quite awhile and tend to be one of those that can maintain my sense of humor, but O'leary's recent ugly comments about Jane Goodall on the chimp thread have had me growling and muttering all day. I was tempted to register at UD and say a few syllables - but eeeww. I may, yet, channel my inner Orac and apply some respectful insolence...

Date: 2009/03/20 20:24:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 20 2009,20:12)
Adel DiBagno tells Jerry
 
Quote
You are irritating. Grow up. Learn to address people with respect and courtesy, as gpuccio does. You are not DaveScot, and if that’s whom you’re emulating, you are embarrasing yourself and the cause of ID.

And that's cold right there, being compared to DaveScot and losing badly.
 
Quote
Looks like an agenda has motivated devolopment of the concept of CSI. So much for scientific objectivity.

Nope, no agenda here..... ;)

Shorter Adel Dibagno: I know DaveScot, and you, sir, are no DaveScot :D

Date: 2009/03/22 09:32:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
Evelyn: Look, I... I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure-seeker, or a gunfighter, Mr. O'Connell, but I am proud of what I am.
Rick: And what is that?
Evelyn: I am a librarian, and I'm going to kiss you...


Happy Birthday Kristine!

Date: 2009/03/22 10:44:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
“A proven liar,” and “incompetent.”


I don't know about the rest of the list but these two are factually correct...

Date: 2009/03/23 20:20:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 23 2009,18:01)
No sooner do I have an unkind thought for the Attack Gerbil than he squeaks!

But not at poor old Doc Bill!  No, Gerb goes after Genie Scott!

Run, Genie, run!

The Gerb threatens, "Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members ..."

Yeah, Genie, reign in those staff members.

No, hang on a moment, shouldn't the Gerb, aka Attorney for Grammar, have said reign OVER those staff members?

Or maybe Mr. Nits for Wits meant RAIN ON those staff member's (parade), one assumes.

Or did our Minister of Gerbil Propaganda mean REIN in those staff members?

We may never know.  We may never, no.  We may nevah, Noah!

how long is a reign in Spain? or

how long is a rein in Spain? or

how long is a rain in Spain?

Oh, and Casey, TITS or GTFO.

You left off the best part of Luskin's statement:

Quote
Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members or the NCSE will not only lose its religion-friendly image—it may land some school districts or state boards of education in court if their advice is followed.


I guess I should have warned you to turn down your irony meters before reading that, eh. Actually, there is another goody in there (umm, those of you who still have irony meters left should turn them down):

Quote
Now I don’t think that science should adopt supernatural explanations...


:O


Edit: To add a Link

Date: 2009/03/24 19:33:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 24 2009,17:44)
AFAIK, I'm the only one on the Entire Intertubes who pointed out the error which means Casey reads this thread and my more flattering assassinations of his caricature.

What, no H/T from the DI?

I'm insulted!

For what it's worth, you did get a hat tip from me :D

Date: 2009/03/26 22:00:26, Link
Author: afarensis
Based on some of the posts I have read at AtBC over the years I am convinced that quite a few of you will find this interesting. :p  It's from December of 2008, so it's little old, but I just discovered it.



Phytochemical and genetic analyses of ancient cannabis from Central Asia

Here is the abstract:

Quote
The Yanghai Tombs near Turpan, Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region, China have recently been excavated to reveal the 2700-year-old grave of a Caucasoid shaman whose accoutrements included a large cache of cannabis, superbly preserved by climatic and burial conditions. A multidisciplinary international team demonstrated through botanical examination, phytochemical investigation, and genetic deoxyribonucleic acid analysis by polymerase chain reaction that this material contained tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive component of cannabis, its oxidative degradation product, cannabinol, other metabolites, and its synthetic enzyme, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase, as well as a novel genetic variant with two single nucleotide polymorphisms. The cannabis was presumably employed by this culture as a medicinal or psychoactive agent, or an aid to divination. To our knowledge, these investigations provide the oldest documentation of cannabis as a pharmacologically active agent, and contribute to the medical and archaeological record of this pre-Silk Road culture.

Date: 2009/03/31 22:07:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 31 2009,13:01)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 31 2009,12:48)
k.e.        
Quote
I like the ones with women and snakes .....but not talking snakes ......huge huge anacondas
so does UD's own DLH although he left out the best parts of Glicksman excercise your wonder article:
       
Quote
But Mrs. C. gleefully concluded her story by telling me that as she leaned over to console him in his misfortune, she inadvertently brushed her hand against his inner thigh resulting in Mr.C. quickly experiencing a very firm erection.
     
Quote
I think most people would agree that in order for the homonid species to have come into existence the male external genitalia with its associated functions was absolutely necessary.  The male penis serves two purposes: the release of urine and its chemical contents derived from the kidney, and the release of sperm and seminal fluid during ejaculation for reproduction.  The latter function is what concerns us in this column.

The condition now known as erectile dysfunction, but up until recently more commonly as impotence, points to a serious matter that requires a neo-Darwinian explanation.  For not only does impotence refer to the inability to have an adequate erection to engage in sexual intercourse, but the word itself strikes at the heart of all that is sacred and holy in the life of an evolutionary biologist.  To be impotent is to be; ineffective, powerless, or helpless, all the characteristics of a life form that is surely destined to fail in the battle for the survival of the fittest.  Being impotent is mutually exclusive to the concept of fitness and therefore its opposite, the development of potency, which is a necessary function for neo-Darwinism, needs to be explained in logical and scientifically verifiable terms.

Penile erection is achieved by hydraulic pressure.  Running the length of the penis, surrounding the urethra and above and to each side of it, are the corpus spongiosa and the corpus cavernosa.  These are tube shaped venous chambers that are surrounded by strong fibrous tissue.  They have the capacity to be filled with blood, upon proper neural stimulation, by dilation of the arteries supplying blood to this region, which combined with partial occlusion of venous outflow, results in erection.
     
Quote
the hydraulic system for adequate penile erection to allow for human sexual reproduction and survival of the species is irreducibly complex at both the gross anatomy and neurophysiological levels.
     
Quote
One needs the properly outfitted penis, the internal genital organs for sperm and seminal fluid production and transmission, and the neuromuscular set-up for controlling the action of sexual reproduction.  But we as yet have not addressed what is going on at the biomolecular level and it is to this now that we turn.  For without a  full understanding of what is going on biochemically, one cannot appreciate the genius, worthy of the Nobel prize, behind the creation of Viagra.  Evolutionary biologists are likely to be among some of the people who have benefited from this discovery, yet it seems to me that they have never bothered to ask themselves how the human male developed the capacity for proper erectile function (sans Viagra) in the first place.  

What a baculum head!

Clearly, they have, um, grasped Ray Comfort's banana...

Date: 2009/04/02 21:21:52, Link
Author: afarensis
I like the randomly selected collection of papers...

Date: 2009/04/02 22:30:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 02 2009,13:44)
Quote (Kristine @ April 02 2009,09:05)
Quote (tsig @ April 01 2009,18:09)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ April 01 2009,17:39)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2009,01:22)
latest:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ns.html

Holy FUCK!!!

He fell for the two rocks contain more information...

..... no ...no... no ....no folks not just any old information but Shannon Information.

What a frikken turkey.

He wouldn't know <k.e.. rolls eyes> "Shannon" Information if one bit his both his arses.

Hey Joe

Rocks contain Rock OK?

Joe has smart rocks.

Shannon is gone I heard -
She's drifting out to sea.

I wonder if two bags of hammers has more Shan-fo than one bag of hammers. :)

ETA - Joe is the Shan-wow guy. :p

I have a new theory of information for Joe, illustrated by the game "Rock, Paper, Hammer".  It seems to unify many of his "thoughts".

Rock holds down paper.  Rock > paper, so has more information.  Two rocks hold the paper down even better, so even more information is in the rocks.  Especially if the rocks are shaped like a face.

Paper covers hammer.  Paper > hammer, so paper has more information, especially if the paper has a cake recipe written on it.  Super especially if the recipe is for rock cakes.  Two sheets of paper have double secret super special information.

Hammer breaks rock.  Unless wielded with Joe-like skill, in which case rock defeats hammers, and the primacy of cake recipe information is not in danger of disappearing because of the transitive property.

QED (Quod Erratum Demonstrandumb)

So, clearly we can not choose the glass in front of you ???

Date: 2009/04/11 06:50:26, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/04/17 22:15:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ April 17 2009,17:58)
YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS.

That link seems to be broke so here is another Casey Luskin email debate

I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)

Date: 2009/04/22 07:32:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/04/23 23:17:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 23 2009,22:19)
It's been a day and has ace junior scientist and caterpillar brow journalist commented on Puijila darwini?

Not a word.

Could it be that Puijila darwini is a True Transitional fossil impervious and immune to Luskin's insightful insight?

Only time will tell.

Of course, Luskin has NO ACCESS to the original fossil material or information, not that it's stopped him in the past.

Oh, we await Luskin's "seal" of approval on this report.

Even more surprising is that he has not said anything, as far as I know, about the recent ichthyostega/acanthostega paper. Since he has embarrassed himself in the past on the subject I was sure he was going to do so again with this paper. Alas, so far nothing  :angry:

Date: 2009/04/25 12:47:27, Link
Author: afarensis
I don't know if this helps but a quick Google search indicates that Hybodus species were common in the area of Pinhay Bay.

Date: 2009/05/01 06:44:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Amadan @ May 01 2009,05:58)
Persecution!!!!!11!!!!

He is still on the board and the idiot governor will still get to pick the next chairman...

Date: 2009/05/01 19:30:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 01 2009,18:23)
Quote (keiths @ May 01 2009,17:54)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 01 2009,15:51)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ May 01 2009,08:01)
   
Quote (afarensis @ May 01 2009,06:44)
     
Quote (Amadan @ May 01 2009,05:58)
Persecution!!!!!11!!!!

He is still on the board and the idiot governor will still get to pick the next chairman...

Quick!  To the Floating Command Center!

Maybe they really will be dumb enough to seceed - and take their McElroy's and DaveScott's with them.

But what about us sane people?  I lived in Missouri for 9 years, I hate northern winters.  Is there anywhere warm and reasonable?  Florida is definitely out.  Maybe I should start trying to promote global warming?

Only a Texan would consider Missouri "northern".

:)  Actually, I'm a hereditary Texan who was raised in Arkansas.  And anything further north than that the Yankees can keep.  

During the first winter my wife and I spent in grad school in Columbia there was a week where the temperature never topped 0.  Fahrenheit.  I was also quite distressed to learn that we were expected to show up for class/work with 8 inches of snow on the ground.  To my eyes that might as well have been 8 feet.  I was ready to start rationing what was in the pantry in case no one came to dig us out.

Thanks to global warming you wouldn't have to worry about that :angry:  We had a mild winter in St. Louis, the temperature barely dropped below 32 F.


P.S. We Missourians prefer to think of ourselves as midwesterners not yankees.

P.S.S. If you are going to live in Missouri you have to vote for dead guys - it's a requirement :p

Date: 2009/05/01 23:23:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated happy birthday!

Date: 2009/05/07 22:53:26, Link
Author: afarensis
Awww, you guys (and Teh Witch) are the greatest. I accept, with the caveat the Bob O'H still be required to look up to me in awe!

HOMOS dt

Edit: I will be taking a blogging vacation before starting elsewhere at a place yet to be determined.

Date: 2009/05/07 23:08:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:54)
Quote (afarensis @ May 07 2009,22:53)
Awww, you guys (and Teh Witch) are the greatest. I accept, with the caveat the Bob O'H still be required to look up to me in awe!

HOMOS dt

Erm, caveats, homolog!

No that's plural and I only have the one...

See, third person singular...

Date: 2009/05/07 23:25:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Kristine @ May 07 2009,17:14)
Quote (dnmlthr @ May 07 2009,16:51)
 
Quote (Kristine @ May 07 2009,16:33)
This year has really sucked. Can I just say? Sucked with a capital SUCK. I'm on leave from school - I had to drop a class so that I don't have to many credits and be forced to graduate too early and get an ALA-unaccredited degree. (I'll graduate next year and we're sure to get the accreditation then, so it's not the end of the world - just annoying.) That means no study abroad this summer either. Rev. Barky may get laid off. Sucky. The only thing good that happened to me this year is that I was made part-time, with health benies. I think I would have lost my mind otherwise. Sucky 2009. :angry:
Okay, I'm back again.

I know this is going to sound pretty crappy, but you're solving your problems, which to me sounds like a good thing.

My problems will be solved
when the last confectionary
has sold its
last piece of chocolate. ;)

But you're right, it could be much worse. :)

I think I agree. 2009 is definitely a year that I will remember for its immense suckitude.  :angry:

Date: 2009/05/08 07:26:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ May 08 2009,04:27)
Quote (afarensis @ May 08 2009,04:53)
Awww, you guys (and Teh Witch) are the greatest. I accept, with the caveat the Bob O'H still be required to look up to me in awe!

HOMOS dt

Edit: I will be taking a blogging vacation before starting elsewhere at a place yet to be determined.

And why hast thou left the warm, loving embrace of the SciBorg Blogs?

If that's not too cheeky a question. Musical differences? Real life? Can't you just take a hiatus from the Borg and return to being assimilated?

Louis

Financial issues...

Date: 2009/05/08 19:10:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,09:26)
You'll need to learn this for your induction:


I pledge allegiance to RichardTHughes
The immortal leader of our race.
And to the order for which he stands.
One great cause,
Sacred and invincible.

Although I haven't been a CBEB long I have been studying CBEB culture, anthropologically, for several years and believe the culturally dictated response is to say "Har, Har, Har, this is Richard" followed by the posting of a salacious or insulting LoLcat:



Edit to add: I hope I have responded in the culturally appropriate fashion

P.S. pinheads evolved from afarensis...

Date: 2009/05/09 08:16:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,17:30)
Is there life after Twitter?

I've become surprisingly dependent on Twitter with my extreme time-budget crunch. It's down for scheduled maintenance at the moment, and I think I'm having withdrawal symptoms.

I think it's called being twitterpated...

Date: 2009/05/09 09:40:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (rhmc @ May 09 2009,09:09)
Quote (JonF @ May 09 2009,09:29)
Whut's a CBEB?

one of the places it's mentioned:

DaveScot

04/15/2006

1:55 am
I’m running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That’s too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-award

Ahh, those were the days, when vast herds of mighty TARD thundered across the plains bannating everything in their path. Now only a few sad and lonely stragglers remain protected, in uncommonly dense conservation areas, by praying marines...

Date: 2009/05/09 12:41:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 09 2009,11:59)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,11:00)
You're all eager for criticising Intelligent Design (by making ad hominem attacks) and defending Darwinism. But who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?

No one? I thought so.

Well, there is our (and your) gracious host, Wes for one. Then there is Albatrossity for another.  Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. If I am not mistaken, one of our French friends, Jeannot, is a biologist as well.  Is that enough?

Although I am not a working scientist, I do have a B.A. and two years of grad school in paleoanthropology. Does that count?

Date: 2009/05/09 21:45:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2009,17:49)
This is hardly a breakthrough but we've got a paper published in PNAS this week about speciation, more specifically the blurry frontier between what we may call subspecies and species. Of course, there's no strict boundary, as well as there is no qualitative difference between micro- and macroevolution, if this is relevant to the anti-evolution debate.

The work is done on an aphid species complex. Feel free to give you opinion on this. Full access requires subscription, but I can provide a pdf for those interested.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/18/7495.abstract

I'd like a copy please. You can send it to afarensis1@sbcglobal.net

Date: 2009/05/14 18:55:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2009,14:12)
Oh My Designer!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-317727

Quote
9

Barry Arrington

05/14/2009

1:36 pm
eintown, thank you for making Barb’s point even more forcefully. It shows what we already know to be the case. The fossils in question are very fragmentary (not complete skeletons as you implied), and altogether they could easily fit in an average sized coffin


Barry's use of 'know' is interesting. And 'Show'. Harry Barrington would never do that...

Oh, fur the luv o' Inuits! Barry drags out the coffin canard, with all the arrogant seriousness he can muster. It's driving me to drink I tell ya* What will be next? Granny Spice interviewing Harun Yahya :p  Wait, what? Srsly?



* Single malt Scotch only...

Date: 2009/05/15 07:33:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 15 2009,01:17)
He's back in the blogosphere.

I still look up in awe at him, though.

Yup, probably won't be posting as much though, and the next five or six posts will be reposts from ScienceBlogs...

Date: 2009/05/15 20:10:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Wow, I didn't know we had a book club. I'll bet there is a sauna hidden around here somewhere too :D

I'm currently rereading Raff's The Shape of Life. Strongly recommended for those who haven't read it.

Date: 2009/05/15 20:22:58, Link
Author: afarensis
This is pretty cool. Description of an early Cretaceous termite (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) and its associated intestinal protozoa, with comments on their co-evolution. Here is the abstract:

Quote
Background: The remarkable mutualistic associations between termites and protists are in large part responsible for the evolutionary success of these eusocial insects. It is unknown when this symbiosis was first established, but the present study shows that fossil termite protists existed in the Mesozoic.

Results: A new species of termite (Kalotermes burmensis n. sp.) in Early Cretaceous Burmese amber had part of its abdomen damaged, thus exposing trophic stages and cysts of diverse protists. Some protists were still attached to the gut intima while others were in the amber matrix adjacent to the damaged portion. Ten new fossil flagellate species in the Trichomonada, Hypermastigida and Oxymonadea are described in nine new genera assigned to 6 extant families. Systematic placement and names of the fossil flagellates are based on morphological similarities with extant genera associated with lower termites. The following new flagellate taxa are established: Foainites icelus n. gen. n. sp., Spiromastigites acanthodes n. gen. n. sp., Trichonymphites henis n. gen., n. sp., Teranymphites rhabdotis n. gen. n. sp., Oxymonas protus n. sp., Oxymonites gerus n. gen., n. sp., Microrhopalodites polynucleatis n. gen., n. sp., Sauromonites katatonis n. gen., n. sp., Dinenymphites spiris n. gen., n. sp., Pyrsonymphites cordylinis n. gen., n. sp. A new genus of fossil amoeba is also described as Endamoebites proterus n. gen., n. sp. Fourteen additional trophic and encystid protist stages are figured and briefly characterized.

Conclusion: This represents the earliest fossil record of mutualism between microorganisms and animals and the first descriptions of protists from a fossil termite. Discovering the same orders, families and possibly genera of protists that occur today in Early Cretaceous kalotermitids shows considerable behaviour and morphological stability of both host and protists. The possible significance of protist cysts associated with the fossil termite is discussed in regards the possibility that coprophagy, as well as proctodeal trophallaxis, was a method by which some termite protozoa were transferred intrastadially and intergenerationally at this time.


The article is open access.

Date: 2009/05/19 18:56:34, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
The “basic theory of evolution” tells us that either Joe is John’s father - or that Harry is.
says Granny Spice but she forgot about that sneaky guy that lives down the street - guy by the name of Tab - who presents a third suspect.

Edit to add: I just remembered an article by Schwartz and Tattersall which presents yet a fourth option. So John's father is either Joe, or Harry, or Tab Rasmussen, or Schwartz, or Tattersall. Apparently, John's mother is quite the jezabel - which must mean John is Arden's brother :O

Date: 2009/05/21 00:30:05, Link
Author: afarensis
This seemed like an appropriate place to mention that I have moved, yet again. My new, and hopefully permanent, home is here. Please adjust links accordingly...

P.S. I would PM Erasmus but I am not Jerry!

Edit: Needed to fix a typo.

Date: 2009/05/21 21:55:37, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ May 21 2009,10:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2009,09:29)
 
Quote (afarensis @ May 21 2009,00:30)
This seemed like an appropriate place to mention that I have moved, yet again. My new, and hopefully permanent, home is here. Please adjust links accordingly...

P.S. I would PM Erasmus but I am not Jerry!

Edit: Needed to fix a typo.

http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/about/#comment-8082

I see you welcomed him by pointing out his Genus! :)

You bastards! My about page was all squeaky clean, virginal, and pure as the driven snow :p  Young punk kids with your fancy caves and... and no respect for nuthin ...do you call that music...Get of my lawn! Curse you Red Baron!

Edit to add: Rich may be a Homo but we know that erectus isn't his species...

Date: 2009/05/22 23:52:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Is it me or have the denizens of UD been on a "we hate anthropology" binge of late?

Date: 2009/05/24 11:19:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,11:00)
Quote (khan @ May 24 2009,14:41)
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,09:39)
Can anyone enlighten me as to what is going on at Scienceblogs? First the departure of Afarensis, now The Wilkins has departed. What's up? Why are cool people decamping from the Borg?

Coincidence? Conspiracy? Contrafabulations?

Enquiring minds (read: nosey bastards) want to know.

Louis

Looks to me like headhunters.

ZULUS! THOUSANDS OF THEM!!

Oh not that kind of headhunters*

Who have they been headhunted by and for what? My insatiable curiosity (read: nosiness about stuff that isn't my business) demands satisfaction!

Louis

Only a Brit would think he was being attacked by a former colonial, I guess that ass whoopin' at Isandlwana still stings. I'm not sure why Wilkins and Lynch left but it seems to be for independent reasons. Since we all ended up on Wordpress blogging for free, headhunters - Zulu or otherwise - doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation.

Date: 2009/05/24 11:38:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,11:26)
Quote (afarensis @ May 24 2009,17:19)
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,11:00)
 
Quote (khan @ May 24 2009,14:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,09:39)
Can anyone enlighten me as to what is going on at Scienceblogs? First the departure of Afarensis, now The Wilkins has departed. What's up? Why are cool people decamping from the Borg?

Coincidence? Conspiracy? Contrafabulations?

Enquiring minds (read: nosey bastards) want to know.

Louis

Looks to me like headhunters.

ZULUS! THOUSANDS OF THEM!!

Oh not that kind of headhunters*

Who have they been headhunted by and for what? My insatiable curiosity (read: nosiness about stuff that isn't my business) demands satisfaction!

Louis

Only a Brit would think he was being attacked by a former colonial, I guess that ass whoopin' at Isandlwana still stings. I'm not sure why Wilkins and Lynch left but it seems to be for independent reasons. Since we all ended up on Wordpress blogging for free, headhunters - Zulu or otherwise - doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation.

So you guys had to PAY the Borg for permission to come to work? And work 28 hours day at t'blog, and when you got home your service provider would murder you in cold blood and dance on your graves singing "Hallelujah"?

Luxury.

Louis

No, they paid us. Now, we - meaning those of us who have left - don't get paid. I have to wonder if they didn't leave for the same reason that Zimmer left. The place was getting too big and it was harder to be noticed. Speaking for myself, I'm not sure that I would get involved in another corporate endeavor like that again...

Date: 2009/05/24 12:27:34, Link
Author: afarensis
I suspected as much...the forums could get pretty ugly which is why I stayed out of them other than to beg for articles.

Date: 2009/05/24 13:22:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,12:47)
Quote (ERV @ May 24 2009,18:00)
afarensis-- They left because the bitches and white-knights of SciBlogs went one step too far.

Others-- Im fairly certain you dont read the blogs of the bitches and white-knights because they dont really write about science *zips lips*  I just ignore them, and I wish the other sane Sciblings would too.

Oh I'm sorry Abbie (and Afarensis), but your lips need to be unzipped, that post just BEGS for clarification and elaboration. PM me and sate my raging curiosity if public exposure is not your thing.

I know that certain of the SciBorg are....less well thought of than others but I never suspected the rift in the lute really made the music mute for so many.

White knights? Bitches? Oh a tale lies behind that terminology to be sure to be sure.

Louis

Okay Louis, just for you here is the dirt!

Date: 2009/05/24 14:44:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ May 24 2009,14:04)
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2009,12:47)
 
Quote (ERV @ May 24 2009,18:00)
afarensis-- They left because the bitches and white-knights of SciBlogs went one step too far.

Others-- Im fairly certain you dont read the blogs of the bitches and white-knights because they dont really write about science *zips lips*  I just ignore them, and I wish the other sane Sciblings would too.

Oh I'm sorry Abbie (and Afarensis), but your lips need to be unzipped, that post just BEGS for clarification and elaboration. PM me and sate my raging curiosity if public exposure is not your thing.

I know that certain of the SciBorg are....less well thought of than others but I never suspected the rift in the lute really made the music mute for so many.

White knights? Bitches? Oh a tale lies behind that terminology to be sure to be sure.

Louis

We are contractually forbidden to talk about back forum stuff.

Its just the same internet drama that has been going on in every forum since the beginning of time: Attention whores, white knights, normal adult humans that put up with that shit because they dont understand the internet, and normal adult humans who dont tolerate bullshit in their internet homes.  Its just internet drama, but unfortunately nice people are taking whore/knight behavior personally instead of mocking them, as internet laws dictate.  Encyclopedia Dramatica should be required reading before anyone has access to the internets, I swear...

Anyway, the bloggers AtBCers know and love are in the latter two groups, and thats because AtBCers are excellent judges of character.  But its just internet drama-- nothing more ominous.

:)

You could believe that or you could believe that it is due to Afghanistani terrorist manatees:



The choice is yours...

Date: 2009/05/29 19:42:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 29 2009,17:49)
Casey, you're a star!

Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?, installment #30.

Bwahahahahahahhaa

One interesting point in the video is that PCID stopped publishing after Dover. I hadn't made the connection before...

Date: 2009/05/31 18:28:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ May 31 2009,15:29)
Right, is it just me that doesn't speak Swedish?

Louis

I don't speak Swedish either. I think you have to know the difference between Alpine and Nordic skiing before they allow you to learn Swedish. I could be wrong though...

Date: 2009/06/01 07:33:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 01 2009,06:30)
Dembski's written a really, really deep book.  

For instance:        
Quote
10At least part of Eve’s fault was that she uncritically accepted Satan’s explanation of
God’s refusal to let her eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She didn’t
ask who Satan was or why he was suddenly supposed to be an authority about God. If she
had done any checking at all, she would have discovered that Satan had been kicked out
of heaven, that his current address was far from God’s, and that he was widely regarded
as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Question: As one of the only two people on earth, who would she have asked?  Not Adam, he was as ignorant as Eve was.

A possible explanation for the quality of this book can be found on page 7:      
Quote
"Here I would like to thank ... Barry Arrington ... Joel Borofsky ... Denyse O’Leary."  "I’m especially grateful to ... Denyse O’Leary for superb editing of the final draft."

Well, it's in the Bible, if only that mankind wrecking hussy had bothered to read it  :D

Date: 2009/06/03 07:37:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Congrats Louis! You will be able to get some sleep in about a year, enjoy!

Date: 2009/06/05 19:22:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2009,14:56)
Quote (ERV @ June 05 2009,14:14)
Now, everyone here knows that I maintained confidentiality, right?

Didnt say shit but 'Internet drama.  Bitches and hoes.'?

*lips still zipped, aint doin nothing but linking*

I have spent well nigh 20 years in Corporate America ™, risen to the Olympian heights of Middle Management, and have to deal on a daily basis with all sorts of delicate egos. All I can say, after reading that comment thread, is that you science types are the biggest bunch of titty-babies I have ever seen*.

I had a boss that gave me the best piece of career advice I have ever heard. She told me that the best tips she ever found for dealing with executives came from parenting magazines.  So, ERV, as you make your way through the scientific world, your best survival guide may be this magazine. HTH.

*Insert obligatory caveat about that not being a blanket statement.  The scientists around here are generally very nice people. So, to Wes and Albie and all of you....*mwaahh*

All that happened after I left so I don't really have a dog in that fight, but now that it is going public on the internet (Drugmonkey has a post at ScienceBlogs) I kind of wish I would have stayed long enough to see it. I consider myself a mild mannered guy, but I do love a good, old fashioned, barn burnin' dust up every now and then. *Sigh*, might have been fun. kind of like this.

Date: 2009/06/05 19:35:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Does Paul Nelson need enzyte? He certainly has a weird obsession with size being the be all end all of evolution:

Quote
There’s no arguing the fact that normally humans can range anywhere from 4 1/2 to nearly 8 feet tall. But this is not to say that if you found a short human in the fossil record that precedes a tall human who appears later on in the column, that this can be extrapolated to ape-likes evolving into humans. This applies to many of the other minor traits as well such as proportions, hair color, eye color, nose shape etc… From what we know and observe, there are genetic boundaries in which these traits can vary, and these boundaries are defined within the genetic makeup of the organism.


Seriously, dude, get a clue as to what paleoanthropologists actually claim. :angry:

Date: 2009/06/05 20:21:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Say, is there a thread devoted to Behe and irreducible complexity?

Date: 2009/06/05 20:29:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (keiths @ June 05 2009,19:54)
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,17:35)
Does Paul Nelson need enzyte? He certainly has a weird obsession with size being the be all end all of evolution:

 
Quote
There’s no arguing the fact that normally humans can range anywhere from 4 1/2 to nearly 8 feet tall. But this is not to say that if you found a short human in the fossil record that precedes a tall human who appears later on in the column, that this can be extrapolated to ape-likes evolving into humans. This applies to many of the other minor traits as well such as proportions, hair color, eye color, nose shape etc… From what we know and observe, there are genetic boundaries in which these traits can vary, and these boundaries are defined within the genetic makeup of the organism.


Seriously, dude, get a clue as to what paleoanthropologists actually claim. :angry:

PaulN isn't Paul Nelson.  My impression is that Paul Nelson is much smarter than that, but that he's very good at self-deceiving for Jesus.

P.S. Why haven't you guys found any nephilim fossils?

H'mm, sounded like Nelson to me ???

Edit to add: Nephilim? Damn things are a dime a dozen, every time we try to excavate something we run into them. See:



We keep it a secret because we like making baby Jesus cry!

Date: 2009/06/05 20:37:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2009,20:34)
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,20:21)
Say, is there a thread devoted to Behe and irreducible complexity?

No, but hang around. It is bound to appear, with the OP and all followup replies extant, any day now.

I ask because this is really funny and seems like it would fit on such a thread. Nick Matzke found it...

Date: 2009/06/05 21:29:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ June 05 2009,21:10)
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,19:22)
All that happened after I left so I don't really have a dog in that fight, but now that it is going public on the internet (Drugmonkey has a post at ScienceBlogs) I kind of wish I would have stayed long enough to see it. I consider myself a mild mannered guy, but I do love a good, old fashioned, barn burnin' dust up every now and then. *Sigh*, might have been fun. kind of like this.

Summary, plz?  I know if I go over there I will end up feeding the attention whore......

Assuming you mean Drugmonkey's post. "Let's not jump to conclusions, blah, blah, blah, they were all just burned out, blah, blah, nothing to see here, move along. Blahbity, blahbity, rate of bloggers leaving is the same now as it has been since the beginning..."

Date: 2009/06/05 21:39:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (ERV @ June 05 2009,21:36)
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,21:29)
Assuming you mean Drugmonkey's post. "Let's not jump to conclusions, blah, blah, blah, they were all just burned out, blah, blah, nothing to see here, move along. Blahbity, blahbity, rate of bloggers leaving is the same now as it has been since the beginning..."

Because blogger burn-out explains why the leaving bloggers are still blogging elsewhere.

Shorter DM: "I accidentally outed myself as a perp on Sandwalk, so now Im doing damage control and hope no one but Larrys crew notices so I dont have to tell everyone what we did."

I think in real life, DrugMonkeys name is 'Classy'.  'Classy von Asshole'.

I'm going to have to go back and reread the Sandwalk thread, I missed that...

Date: 2009/06/06 10:11:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 06 2009,08:01)
Welcome and watch out for the RichardtHughes character. He will tell you he is the Official ATBC Hazing Committee. But, there is no such thing. He just likes to pick on the n00bs.  Sometimes it backfires on him though.

See here for his attempt to haze ERV.

Yes, he should definitely watch out for that RichardtHughes character.

Date: 2009/06/06 11:52:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ June 06 2009,11:43)
The Wilkins at AtBC?

Surely this is fulfilment of some prophecy or other. A good one of course.

Welcome, welcome.

At least the pun cascades will get better. They needed something of a boot too be honest.

Louis

HAHAHAHAHA this is Louis:

Date: 2009/06/06 12:01:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ June 06 2009,11:51)
"Puns" and "good" in a sentence that lacks a "not" operator are an oxymoron. I don't intend to reboot AtbC, but erv made me come here.

Yes, ERV can be very persuasive.

Date: 2009/06/06 12:23:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ June 06 2009,12:17)
Quote (afarensis @ June 06 2009,12:01)
Yes, ERV can be very persuasive.

Is that what you cal it??

Why yes. Doesn't everybody?

Date: 2009/06/06 14:27:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 06 2009,14:08)
HAR HAR JOHN WILKINS AM ANTIPODEAN.

HAR HAR THIS IS YOU:



PS LOUIS SAYS YOUR ALL CONVICTS AND HAVENT HAD ENOUGH  'DEAP TIEM' TO DECRIMINALIZE.





HOMO.

Proved our point exactly*


* I'm actually trying to work on a post on Anoiapithecus brevirostris but seem to have succumed to the procrastination. Stuff like this ain't helping...

Date: 2009/06/06 16:29:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 06 2009,16:06)
indeed.  i have laughed my parts off considering jerry.

but i am not so sure about this fancy lettered part

Quote
imagining him not as a standard-issue creobot but instead as an uber-genius of epic proportions


jerry, stop playing around and do it.

So, and I hope this question doesn't bother you, but what if Jerry takes his secret to the grave? What if he never PM's you and we never find out who he really is? :O

Date: 2009/06/06 17:49:13, Link
Author: afarensis
All kidding aside, I'm eagerly looking forward to his new book on species.

Date: 2009/06/06 19:15:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ June 06 2009,18:01)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2009,20:56)
Quote (ERV @ June 05 2009,14:14)
Now, everyone here knows that I maintained confidentiality, right?

Didnt say shit but 'Internet drama.  Bitches and hoes.'?

*lips still zipped, aint doin nothing but linking*

I have spent well nigh 20 years in Corporate America ™, risen to the Olympian heights of Middle Management, and have to deal on a daily basis with all sorts of delicate egos. All I can say, after reading that comment thread, is that you science types are the biggest bunch of titty-babies I have ever seen*.

[SNIP]

Well fuck you too buddy.

{Storms off in a huff, taking his toys home with him all the while pausing to chuck teddy from the pram and accuse Carlson of being a FASCIST!!!!!}

Louis

Louis, allow REM to say it for you!

Date: 2009/06/06 19:48:34, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 06 2009,19:35)
Quote (afarensis @ June 06 2009,19:15)
Quote (Louis @ June 06 2009,18:01)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2009,20:56)
 
Quote (ERV @ June 05 2009,14:14)
Now, everyone here knows that I maintained confidentiality, right?

Didnt say shit but 'Internet drama.  Bitches and hoes.'?

*lips still zipped, aint doin nothing but linking*

I have spent well nigh 20 years in Corporate America ™, risen to the Olympian heights of Middle Management, and have to deal on a daily basis with all sorts of delicate egos. All I can say, after reading that comment thread, is that you science types are the biggest bunch of titty-babies I have ever seen*.

[SNIP]

Well fuck you too buddy.

{Storms off in a huff, taking his toys home with him all the while pausing to chuck teddy from the pram and accuse Carlson of being a FASCIST!!!!!}

Louis

Louis, allow REM to say it for you!

Arfie, note that Louis is British. I think he would prefer someone with an uninviting face and poor teeth to do his singing for him.

Like this chap.

Too true, too true

Date: 2009/06/07 09:05:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2009,05:36)
Quote (sparc @ June 07 2009,00:13)
Gil is back.

Well, then let us crank up the Dodgenator 3000 and see if Gil is bringing something new to the table, shall we?

   
Quote
DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems
........  
Quote
I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Clearly, this is Argument B1, so Gil isn't advancing anything new here, although I do like the little YEC flourish of "What good is half a lung?" that he added there.

I luv teh internets! I typed "evolution of avian lung" into Google and six pages in found the article I was looking for. Makes me wish I had a sock puppet at UD so I could mention it to Gil...

Edit to fix a typo and to add that this paper is interesting as well

Date: 2009/06/07 09:29:47, Link
Author: afarensis
Yeah, I noticed that after I made the comment...got to get up pretty early in the morning to get the jump on Nakashima

Date: 2009/06/07 10:52:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 07 2009,10:42)
Quote (k.e.. @ June 07 2009,10:55)
DLL hell?

Hah.

Let us all refer to scripture shall we? (kiddie scripture that is dearly belove-ed)

And lo, Torvalds said unto the Pharanancies "We shall smite DiLLs to hell and let the GPL genetically cross drift teh mines of Soloman for Savoir cf Connaître"

And there was much smiting and gorging and oral sex.

but is there spanking first?

Naughty dvunkannon, you turned the Holy Grail light on again, didn't you?

Date: 2009/06/07 11:39:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 07 2009,11:28)
Would you geniuses quit clogging the intertubes with puns? You fancy it arch humor, but I find it pedestrian. Meanwhile the creationist hoards march in jackboot unison, tarsals pumping, swords drawn from shining aiglets. So get to work, loafers.

Don't get your laces in a wad there, RB, or we will have to stick our tongues out at you :p

Date: 2009/06/07 12:12:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 07 2009,11:41)
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,12:39)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 07 2009,11:28)
Would you geniuses quit clogging the intertubes with puns? You fancy it arch humor, but I find it pedestrian. Meanwhile the creationist hoards march in jackboot unison, tarsals pumping, swords drawn from shining aiglets. So get to work, loafers.

Don't get your laces in a wad there, RB, or we will have to stick our tongues out at you :p

I should be Gellin' like Magellan?

Yeah man, don't have a foal like Dr. Scholl!

Date: 2009/06/07 12:26:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (KCdgw @ June 07 2009,12:15)
Someone should cobble the puns together in one post.

Do you think we could shoe-horn them into one post, or would we need a pair of pumps for that?

Edit to add: Damn you, damn you all to hell! I'm trying to write a nice sensible post on a Miocene hominoid, but y'all* keep dragging me away from it. Worse yet, I keep having to delete puns from it.


* I lived in Knoxville for six years so I am entitled to say y'all.

Date: 2009/06/07 12:53:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2009,12:44)
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,12:26)
* I lived in Knoxville for six years so I am entitled to say y'all.

I'm all for the spread of the y'all meme to carpetbaggers and yankees, but it drives me crazy when some actor/actress is trying to pull off the accent and can't understand that y'all is plural, not singular.

Heh, I know the feeling.

Date: 2009/06/07 14:48:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2009,13:40)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ June 07 2009,13:05)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2009,11:44)
       
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,12:26)
* I lived in Knoxville for six years so I am entitled to say y'all.

I'm all for the spread of the y'all meme to carpetbaggers and yankees, but it drives me crazy when some actor/actress is trying to pull off the accent and can't understand that y'all is plural, not singular.

Just what is the singular form you would use?

Where does "all y'all" fit into the scheme of things?

The parts of the south I'm familiar with: Arkansas (where I was raised), Texas, Tennessee (but almost exclusively Memphis), Mississippi, and Alabama use "you" as the singular and "y'all" as the plural.  "All y'all" is used infrequently when one needs something expansive and inclusive of a large group (all of you).

Khan, I can't speak for Kentuckians as I've never actually met any to hear them talk.  Perhaps they've got a completely different set of rules.

When I lived in Knoxville, I don't think I ever heard the phrase all y'all used. It was just y'all and used for two or more people. I did hear a possessive form though.

Date: 2009/06/07 15:38:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (keiths @ June 07 2009,14:57)
Since this is Wilkins' thread, shouldn't we be mocking Strine?

I would be much to afraid of receiving a pissed off wombat in the mail to ever mock anything related to Australia.

Date: 2009/06/07 15:45:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 07 2009,15:08)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 07 2009,09:22)
How does Paul Nelson explain PYGMIES and DWARVES?  :D

(Phrase from obscure nut who wrote PZ Miers at Pharygula)

That's not obscure, that was classic.

(ETA: Ok, the nut was obscure, but the comment was classic.)

It was from a comic book by Jim Pinkowski:



PZ wrote an entire post on it.

Edit to add: I made fun of another bit from the book here

Date: 2009/06/07 17:10:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ June 07 2009,16:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2009,22:36)
Quote (sparc @ June 07 2009,00:13)
Gil is back.

Well, then let us crank up the Dodgenator 3000 and see if Gil is bringing something new to the table, shall we?

   
Quote
DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems
........  
Quote
I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Clearly, this is Argument B1, so Gil isn't advancing anything new here, although I do like the little YEC flourish of "What good is half a lung?" that he added there.

I'm still trying to parse that statement. DLL hell came from Microsoft's particular implementation of libraries in windows (or I should say it allowed bad coders to cause nightmares).

I can't for the life of me see what this has to do with the development of lungs other than Gil saying "Hey look at me, I is a real programmer because I know a TLA, so take that meanies"

IMHO, it's an irreducible complexity argument...

Date: 2009/06/07 21:40:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ June 07 2009,21:11)
Quote (keiths @ June 08 2009,05:57)
Since this is Wilkins' thread, shouldn't we be mocking Strine?

Youse better not mock Strine or I'll drop youse like an empty stubby.

Yes, let that be a lesson to all of you who are mocking Strine. If you Anoiapithecus you just might end up with a brevirostris!*


*Yes, I have been waiting all day to make that pun here.

Date: 2009/06/08 06:27:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ June 07 2009,22:36)
Quote (afarensis @ June 08 2009,12:40)
*Yes, I have been waiting all day to make that pun here.

You have? Why?

It needed the proper set up...

Date: 2009/06/08 22:45:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ June 08 2009,21:04)
Quote
Bah!

Hey, did you know:

Folks from Dubai don't like the Flintstones.

But those from Abu Dhabi do!


I hope that theory is build on bedrock and not on loose sand...

Would Pebbles do instead of bedrock?

Date: 2009/06/09 06:17:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 09 2009,00:32)
Quote (sledgehammer @ June 08 2009,23:40)
Quote (afarensis @ June 08 2009,20:45)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 08 2009,21:04)
 
Quote
Bah!

Hey, did you know:

Folks from Dubai don't like the Flintstones.

But those from Abu Dhabi do!


I hope that theory is build on bedrock and not on loose sand...

Would Pebbles do instead of bedrock?

Bett(y)er on Rubble?

OR FRED! oh..wait...  :angry:

Wilma building still stand if it is on rubble?

Date: 2009/06/10 19:21:39, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 10 2009,00:09)
at long last a rational explanation for the melungeons  too bad its not rational

Quote
THIS SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION! I GIVE MY BEST OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE ARTIFACTS AFTER 4 YEARS OF COLLECTING. ONLY EXAMINATION AND TESTING WILL REVEAL ALL THE UNDISPUTED TRUE FACTS.ALL ARE WELCOME TO YOUR OPINIONS AND THEORY.
HOME
THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO ENTER A NEW REVELATION INTO THE PALEOLITHIC ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAS AND THE WORLDS ART AND RELIGION BASED ON EVIDENCE,FACTS AND PROOF.EVOLUTION CAN NOT BE TRUE..

CLICK ON PHOTOS BELOW TO READ 2005 NEWS ARTICLE!

I HAVE CONTINUED TO COLLECT ARTIFACTS. I AM BACK TO REVEAL  OVER WHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT A ANCIENT ADVANCED CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED IN WEST VIRGINIA.


Oh Yeah it is that frikkin good

Quote
THE ARTIFACTS IN THIS COLLECTION TELL A DIFFERENT STORY OF THE STONE AGE . NOT ONLY DID THEY USE METAL BUT SOME WERE PART OF A ADVANCED CIVILIZATION.THE METAL ARTIFACTS SHOW A VERY ADVANCED FORM OF COMPLEX ART UNKNOWN TO MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY OR SCIENTIST. MANY OF THE FACES APPEAR TO BE NEGROID FEATURED EGYPTIANS LIKE THOSE OF EARLY & PRE-DYNASTIC EGYPT.IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAME EXACT TYPE NEGROID FEATURED EGYPTIANS WITH THE SAME ATTIRE AND SYMBOLS ARE FOUND ALONG THE OLDEST (NILE) RIVER IN THE WORLD AND A CONTINENT AWAY ON THE 2ND OLDEST RIVER IN THE WORLD (TEAYS) NOW CALLED THE NEW & KANAWHA RIVER.COULD THESE RIVERS HAVE BEEN CONNECTED IN PANGEA TIMES.IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT THE MOST MYSTERIOUS,CONTROVERSIAL AND MISUNDERSTOOD EGYPTIAN KING (?) IMAGE (AKANATEN) CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD ON PALEOLITHIC ARTIFACTS. THESE ARTIFACTS WERE FOUND ALONG THE 2ND OLDEST RIVER IN THE WORLD.COULD THESE RIVERS HAVE BEEN CONNECTED DURING PANGEA? WHY DID HE (AKANATEN) CHOSE TO INSTALL A MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION FOR THE LAND OF EGYPT? I BELIEVE MANY OF THESE TYPE QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED WITH THE DISCOVERY OF THESE TYPE ARTIFACTS.


go see it to get the full effect of font size and color etc.

ALL YOU ARKOLOGISTS ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST THE TRVTH.  KNOCK IT OFF HOMOS

Nooooooooooo! Shut up! You will spoil all our carefully laid plans! None of it's true anyway. Everyone ignore Erasmus' post, which is a total fabrication anyway, trust me. As for you, 'Ras, the sound you are hearing is the sound of the black helicopters. You will be reprogrammed for letting this, totally fabricated, untrue, information slip out. :angry:

Date: 2009/06/10 22:36:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2009,22:14)
Is PT down? It haven't been able to get to it for 2-3 hours now.

Henry

Works for me...

Edit to add: I just added a couple of links to the links page so PT seems to be working okay...

Date: 2009/06/11 19:08:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (KCdgw @ June 11 2009,15:51)
Clive:

 
Quote
Dave Wisker,
——”And Darwin also considered the aboriginal tribes being cruelly slaughtered in Argentina to be morally superior to the white gauchos doing the slaughtering. A real racist creep, that Darwin.”
Ironic, considering that the aboriginals in Australia were killed by Darwinists and put on display in British museums as the missing link.


As if no aboriginals were killed before 1859. The Tasmanians were pretty much wiped out by 1833.  But it's all Darwin's fault

KC .

Why they gotta be dissin' anthropology? Paleoanthropologists don't need Australians aboriginals to demonstrate the, mythical, fictitious, missing link. We have plenty of fossils and genetic evidence to demonstrate that humans evolved from apes. DOL, has some odd ideas about cultural anthropology as well. Although a number of cultural anthropologists have worked within an evolutionary paradigm (White, Stewart, Sahlins, Service, Harris, etc.), it is not, and never has been the dominant paradigm in the field (since the days of Lubbock and Morgan anyway). For most of the 20th century, here in America anyway, the dominant paradigm was Boasian Historical Particularism. Elsewhere in the world you had various forms of functionalism (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown), and structuralism (Levi-Strauss), to name a few. Lately, it's POMO that rules the cultural anthropological scene.*



*Yes, I know, this is a highly simplified version of the history of theory in cultural anthropology. I figured y'all would be bored if I launched into a long lecture about, say the cultural psychology school (Mead, Benedict, Linton), or Geertz and thick description, and then there is the French sociological school (Durkheim, Mauss) none of who embraced a particularly evolutionary view of culture and culture change, and none killed any aboriginal peoples and displayed them in museums (as missing links or anything else)**

**That I am aware of.

Date: 2009/06/11 20:48:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Disco Institute censor YouTube video criticizing attack hairball Casey Luskin. Details at Pharyngula and My post on the subject

Date: 2009/06/11 21:38:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Are you thinking that the more acidic elements will precipitate out?

Date: 2009/06/11 23:13:36, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ June 11 2009,22:51)
Quote
Are you thinking that the more acidic elements will precipitate out?


All your base belong to us!

I would respond, but that would make me a Bohr.

Date: 2009/06/11 23:41:27, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sledgehammer @ June 11 2009,23:20)
I would like to precipitate in the punfest, but the chemistry just isn't right.

Perhaps you need an decreased concentration of puns, ether that or a purer distillation.

Date: 2009/06/12 18:59:30, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2009,16:34)
ERM IT WAS A CHAIN REACTION OR A ...NO........WAIT......TEH CHEMSITRY WAS GOOD.....ABOUT A ..NO..GET A REACTION..OF..NO I'VE DONE THAT ONE ... SUBLIME? YES...ERM THIS THREAD IS SUBLIME AND... PRECIPITATE..NO..COVALENT BONDING...OH FUCK IT.



HOMOS.  :angry:

Stop the madness people! Look at what we* have done to poor RichardTHughes:



*By "we", of course, I mean all of you because I would never...

Date: 2009/06/13 21:50:23, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (darwinoid @ June 13 2009,20:05)
J-Dog told me to come here. But I've been here all along.

Bearing in mind that you have been here since 2003, Welcome!

Edit to add: Inviting a member of AtBC to join AtBC, so easy a cave man can do it! :p

Date: 2009/06/14 07:38:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday to all!

Date: 2009/06/14 08:01:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 14 2009,05:48)
Quote
So after reading a few things, I'm really starting to assume that BCF is a creationist theory undercover.


Are the "reseachers" YECs or is this another Mary Schweitzer scenario ? Or is it a case of real scientists being silly and handing the YECs a gift ? I did notice on one of the comments that Gary had linked to, that the paper appears not to have been peer reviewed.

In light of AiG's comments I think it's time for science to go into damage limitation mode, since the YECs will milk this for all it's worth.

I think the commenter misspoke on that, the research appeared in the Journal of Morphology which AFAIK is peer reviewed. As for the rest, I do not think BCF is an undercover creationist theory. I think some people just can't let a unsupported hypothesis die.

Edited to fix typos.

Date: 2009/06/14 12:29:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2009,08:40)
Well, if it's not creationism, it's at least teleology, which isn't very far.

The main arguments George Olshevsky puts up front for his theory are that a ground-based evolution is "unlikely" and that he "doesn't believe" it's possible on any time scale (I am grossly paraphrasing and simplifying).

There is no real positive, evidence-supported claims for his reasoning. At best he is trying to open the way to a new classification system, based on nothing solid whatsoever. At worst, he's a closet creationist.

One way or the other, the only thing he's achieving right now is feeding the AIG nonsense.

I don't call that science...

It smacks of orthogenesis, as espoused by Osborn, for example, sure, but I don't see Feduccia or Ruben, or some of the other BCF'ers as being creationists. Rather, they are the paleontological equivalents of the aquatic ape folks in paleoanthropology.

Date: 2009/06/14 16:54:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 14 2009,15:48)
Quote
Rather, they are the paleontological equivalents of the aquatic ape folks in paleoanthropology.


Or Halton Arp in cosmology I suppose.

I'm sure though, I've seen a documentary on the aquatic ape hypothesis narrated by David Attenborough.

I would be very disappointed if Attenborough took the aquatic ape idea seriously. Halton Arp would also be a good analogy.

Date: 2009/06/15 07:38:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 15 2009,07:26)
carlson although i am quite jealous of the explanatory value of your classification scheme, that link does not help and i am not sure what it references

He sunk your battleship...

Date: 2009/06/15 19:45:49, Link
Author: afarensis
A new paper with some interesting implications for OOL research. Self-Assembling Sequence-Adaptive Peptide Nucleic Acids

Here is the abstract:

Quote
Several classes of nucleic acid analogs have been reported, but no synthetic informational polymer has yet proven responsive to selection pressures under enzyme free conditions. Here, we introduce an oligomer family that efficiently self-assembles via reversible covalent anchoring of nucleobase recognition units onto simple oligo-dipeptide backbones [thioester peptide nucleic acids (tPNA)] and undergoes dynamic sequence modification in response to changing templates in solution. The oligomers specifically self-pair with complementary tPNA strands and cross-pair with RNA and DNA in Watson-Crick fashion. Thus, tPNA combines base-pairing interactions with the side chain functionalities of typical peptides and proteins. These characteristics might prove advantageous for the design or selection of catalytic constructs or biomaterials that are capable of dynamic sequence repair and adaptation.


And a link to Science Daily on the same article:

Simple Chemical System Created That Mimics DNA

Date: 2009/06/16 20:16:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Scooooooooore!

PNAS has three volumes (so far) - all open access -devoted to Darwin.

Volume 1 - which has an article co-written by Lenski which should get Conservapedia all riled up.

Volume 2

Volume 3

Date: 2009/06/18 19:03:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (JLT @ June 18 2009,16:51)
Quote (Pompous Bore @ June 18 2009,22:18)
When therefore I say the Philosophers do not care to concern God himself in the Search after Natural Knowledge; I mean, as it concerns Natural Knowledge, meerly as such; for 'tis a Natural Cause they seek, from a General Maxim, That all Nature has its Cause within it self...

There's only one possible explanation:

Defoe lived veeeeery long and wrote that in the last twenty five years or so because as we all know
 
Quote
The “enforcement of Methodological naturalism is about 25 years old. The idea is a little older than that, but not much.

Or he was a baby eating atheistic materialist (BEAM).

Ok there're only two possible explanations, a very long live, or BEAM.
Or            
Quote
In an attempt to rationalize the recently imposed “rule” of methodological naturalism, some Darwinist academics have resorted to rewriting history

and made up Defoe and all of his writings, including this bit. That's of course always a possibility.

Three different possibilities....

Um, hate to mention this, but there are two other options. First, Satan planted the fake evidence so that you would be led into sin and depravity (looks at AtBC'ers and realizes that didn't need any extra prompting on that score). Second, God, or baby Jesus (or the beneficent entity of your choice) planted the fake evidence so that you would not be led into sin and depravity. Either way, ID wins!!111!

Date: 2009/06/19 18:54:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 19 2009,16:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 19 2009,15:58)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 19 2009,15:41)
DaveScot siting! (and citing)        
Quote
I’m an engineer not an intellectual. Engineers design and build things. That’s what gives me satisfaction. After being cooped up indoors designing and building computer related stuff for 25 years I wanted to design and build stuff outdoors where I get exercise, fresh air, and sunshine in the process. So I bought some untouched wooded acreage on a hillside on the shore of a lake and started turning it into a place to live. After clearing a portion of it I thought a houseboat might suffice for living quarters. After four years of owning a houseboat it turned out to require too much time & effort maintaining it so I sold it in 2006, bought a travel trailer in 2007 so I’d have a comfortable spot to work from, and in 2008 began working in earnest on permanent living quarters. I’ve never been happier or more content in my life as right now. Words can hardly express how much I don’t care about your disapproval.


</delurk>

NoooooOOOOOooo! TEH FLOATING COMMAND CENTER© !!!111111

ID is sunk!

Does that mean it's available?  How does the Official Church Burnin' Ebola Boys Floating Command Center© sound?  <looks between couch cushions for change>

I don't know...Rumor has it that all the cheesy poof stains caused a mutation in the mushrooms Dave was growing and the mushrooms are now carnivorous. And large. Very,very large, carnivorous mushrooms with a thirst for brains and more cheesy poofs. Actually that sounds kind of fun, I'll check my couch for change too.

Date: 2009/06/20 10:50:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (didymos @ June 20 2009,01:20)
You gotta love this bit from DaveTard's earlier contribution to that discussion:

 
Quote

Myers and Dawkins are impotents with delusions of grandeur.


He's still got it folks.

ETA:  Oh, and I don't know if anyone noticed, but Denial Smith was in the house as well.

I noticed, he was in full suck up mode too.

Date: 2009/06/21 10:26:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 21 2009,05:28)
StephenB:
 
Quote
Ronald Numbers has been roundly refuted by real historians like Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods. Indeed, since I have read them, I know more about the subject than does Ronald Numbers, as I have made clear with my examples, which you, at the moment, are blithely unaware of having ignored everything except your own writing.


Non-real historian Ronald Numbers:  
Quote
Ronald L. Numbers is Hilldale Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin–Madison. He has served as president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History and is currently president of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, Division of the History of Science and Technology.


Anyway, what the hell is he talking about with Stark and Woods?  I have put myself on a no-talking to StephenB diet, so could someone else ferret out the reference?

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery


How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Woods in particular seems to be extreme right, here is his wickipedia entry Thomas Woods

Date: 2009/06/24 19:25:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ June 24 2009,17:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2009,12:57)
Come back Chatterbox. I has questions on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Richard - I just read THIS book, and the author absolutely despises Whorf...I get the impresson he relates to Whorf the way we ATBCers relate to posts by O'Leary, Dembski and Gordon...

Good book BTW ... with a surprise ending.  Who knew?

Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue

added in edit:  Author thinks Whorff has head up his ass and his hypothesis idea makes as much sense as ID -(I'm paraphrasing, but that's the idea).

Feh! The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was an interesting idea for its time and did generate some testable hypotheses. Turned out to be wrong, but thems the breaks.

Date: 2009/06/24 20:20:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (khan @ June 24 2009,17:49)
Does anyone else have no idea what chunkycheese is talking about?

The DI's newest strategy, trotted out around the time of the Texas education standards hearings. Basically, they are following the same strategy that was used in the lawsuit against UC Berkeley and their Understanding Evolution website (a lawsuit that crashed and burned).  It goes like this:

Quote
Fundie: Evolution does not fit with my religion. God created the world.

NCSE: But many religious people reconcile evolution and religion.

DI: Ummm, your promoting religion, unlike we here at the Discotute, who are, like totally, interested in science!


It's the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

Edit to fix typo

Date: 2009/06/25 22:51:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ June 25 2009,22:19)
Sorry! I added my vote for Grrl before I saw Wesley's claim to the icy wastes.

But I am at least conflicted, so that's OK, right?

Yeah, I did too...conflicted as well...

Date: 2009/06/25 23:32:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (darwinoid @ June 25 2009,22:58)
Same here.

Heh, the ex-Scienblogers mafia is muscling up on AtBC!  :D

Date: 2009/06/28 19:31:29, Link
Author: afarensis
H'mph! The Disco Institute gets a two'fer in an Associated Press article on Wallace. Flannery and Dembski's new "book" on Wallace gets mentioned, as does Roy Davies crud.

Date: 2009/07/02 22:28:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ June 29 2009,10:23)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2009,10:05)
ScienceBlogs is no longer a monolith.

I still haven't gotten my ok to vote, but had to put in my $.02 worth on Ed's blog - Vote For Wes - If you don't you are a commie pinko symp. I hope it helps Wes!

Did you ever get to vote? The reason I ask is that you aren't the only one having difficulties

Date: 2009/07/03 09:27:44, Link
Author: afarensis
HAHAHAHAHA! This is Richard asking for presents:



Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/07/04 11:25:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 04 2009,11:21)
Happy anniversary Merkins!

Try not to blow any fingers off.

Where's the fun in that?

Date: 2009/07/08 23:21:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ July 08 2009,21:14)
Quote
Quote
The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites,


Please explain?where does it say this?


There's a couple of points that come to mind here. One, today's blacks and whites have been evolving for the same amount of time since their last (presumably black) common ancestor. Two, that span of time is negligible compared to the amount of time since the last common ancestor of today's humans and chimpanzees (not to mention bonobos).

Henry

Anatomically modern humans arrived on the scene circa 200,000 years ago. In a strictly cladistic sense you are correct, we have all had an equal amount of time to adapt to a wide variety of environments, consequently we see a wide variety of derived morphologies. Sexual selection plays a role as well.

The idea that some "races" are more primitive than others (i.e. closer to apes than humans) predates Darwin. For example, Charles White in his 1799 book An Account of the Regular Gradation in Man, and in Different Animals and Vegetables; and from the Former to the Later came to just such a conclusion after comparing African skeletons to European skeletons. White, contrary to jlid, was a polygenist. As were Morton, Nott, Gliddon, Agassiz, and a whole host of others. The monogenist vs polygenist debate started before Darwin (who would be a monogenist).

Date: 2009/07/10 06:57:56, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ July 10 2009,06:29)
Sorry folks but I'm failing to see the big deal here.

Legal issues of recordings aside, some internet kid phoned up a proven liar and promoter of lies and said proven liar and promoter of lies lied again. Film at 11. Dog bites man. Dogs and cats still living separately, mass apathy. Sure Lasey Cuskin's* "I forgivemerise you" routine is hilarious, and hilariously sanctimonious and hypocritical, but isn't this standard fare? Wake me when someone catches him in a compromising position with a donkey or telling the truth.

Louis

* I still maintain this JADerisation of Casey's name makes him sound like an obscure, specialist merkin, which in effect he is. After all what else is he for than the covering up of a rather wilted dick (i.e. the efforts and output of the DI)?

After Luskin claimed that the issue was being misrepresented, the kid should have asked what the real facts were, as it is he let Luskin off the hook several times.

Date: 2009/07/17 16:49:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Hawks @ July 17 2009,16:34)
Anyone remember that Dembski posted a list of ID predictions a while back? He was doing them for a radio show, but for some reason they ended up being published in the comments section of a thread I can't remember. Can anyone else remember? I was trying to bring this up in Cornelius' latest "religious assumptions" thread, but my comment has failed to appear (because I am moderated?). What I wanted to do was to check if Demsbki's predictions all relied on religious assumptions.

Dembski's predictions - Carlsonjok isn't the only one with a good memory :D

Date: 2009/07/21 19:14:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 21 2009,18:30)
Reed wants to do the full reveal by slotting in the picture in the regular "1000 words" schedule, but there's a couple already in the queue, and Reed is just overwhelmed at the utterly cool identity of Mr. Mystery that he couldn't resist putting a teaser up now.

It's definitely about a 9.8 on the cool shit-o-meter!

Date: 2009/07/22 22:34:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday

Date: 2009/07/24 19:00:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Ants are more rational than Richardthughes from the abstract:

Quote
Our results confirm that ants are more rational than Richardthughes.
- okay I made that quote up, here is the real abstract:

Quote
Economic models of animal behaviour assume that decision-makers are rational, meaning that they assess options according to intrinsic fitness value and not by comparison with available alternatives. This expectation is frequently violated, but the significance of irrational behaviour remains controversial. One possibility is that irrationality arises from cognitive constraints that necessitate short cuts like comparative evaluation. If so, the study of whether and when irrationality occurs can illuminate cognitive mechanisms. We applied this logic in a novel setting: the collective decisions of insect societies. We tested for irrationality in colonies of Temnothorax ants choosing between two nest sites that varied in multiple attributes, such that neither site was clearly superior. In similar situations, individual animals show irrational changes in preference when a third relatively unattractive option is introduced. In contrast, we found no such effect in colonies. We suggest that immunity to irrationality in this case may result from the ants’ decentralized decision mechanism. A colony's choice does not depend on site comparison by individuals, but instead self-organizes from the interactions of multiple ants, most of which are aware of only a single site. This strategy may filter out comparative effects, preventing systematic errors that would otherwise arise from the cognitive limitations of individuals.

Date: 2009/07/24 19:18:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Speaking of the besweatered one:

FIRST-PERSON: Science czar as science abuser :

Quote
Holdren and his fellow scientific priests, as does our president who has promised to support them, spurn the sanctity of life. But in the short term, expect them to focus on global warming, using it as a means to amass great power to themselves ("green companies," like GE, will collaborate with them in a conflict of interest that will be marvelous to behold).

At the same time, expect them to go after education, further ramrodding Darwinian and materialistic conceptions of science down our children's throats (and outlawing intelligent design to boot). And, in the end, with great reluctance but, so they assure us, because it is the only hope for humanity, all aspects of human reproduction and life will fall under their control -- unless they can be stopped.


He goes on to say all scientists should have their heads put in a VISE, or their feet held to the fire, or something, and that we have very little freedom left. Apparently it's all a plot on the part of scientists to "...force on the wider population government-sanctioned programs for social control...", such programs were used on Bill to deprive him of access to the Baylor cafeteria so he knows what he's talking about.

Date: 2009/07/25 14:34:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (khan @ July 25 2009,12:18)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 25 2009,11:31)
Quote (JLT @ July 25 2009,07:44)
Very good video about the Disco'tutes religious roots. Some of it you'll probably know already but there were some useful little facts in it that I hadn't heard before:
Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told (part 1) and (part 2)


POTW!

Seconded!

Date: 2009/07/26 09:17:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 26 2009,09:09)
Happy Birthday!


That is a cool tattoo! Thanks everybody.

Date: 2009/08/07 21:57:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2009,16:15)
I'm having problems with my PC and I am hoping someone out there can help me.  

I am having intermittent problems with the DSL connection. While using a browser and Outlook Express, I will suddenly not be able to connect to anything for a minute or two, then it will start working again. I know it isn't the DSL service or modem because I have a work PC on the same line through a router and it continues to work fine when the home computer doesn't. I don't think it is the ports on the router or the back of the PC, because the problem seems to be limited to Firefox, IE, or Outlook Express. Other programs, like iTunes, continue to work fine downloading while ther browser is flaking out.

Any suggestions how to fix this?

Added Later: Interestingly, I am streaming a baseball game through Firefox (with adobe Flash) without any interruptions, but still have intermittent problems just surfing around.

I can relate to computer issues...I have no advice, just sympathy. My computer just died last week and I lost a lot of bookmarks and email addresses - fortunately most of the really important stuff other than that was on a portable hard drive that was unaffected. I'm back online almost entirely due to the generosity of CBEBS. Thanks to all who helped.

Date: 2009/08/07 22:39:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Now that I am up and running sign me up.

Date: 2009/08/08 11:03:20, Link
Author: afarensis
DaveScott doesn't know his haploid from a hole in the ground

I don't know if that had been mentioned....

Date: 2009/08/08 11:05:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 08 2009,09:47)
Quote
That’s why evolutionary materialist models and speculations on OOL are in crisis.


Another theory in crisis. Or at least a conjecture in crisis.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329227

And yet, they still do research...

Date: 2009/08/08 22:30:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 08 2009,21:42)
BarrettBrown braves the TARD infested waters:
Quote

Thanks for the tip, Clive. A couple of questions:

1. Does depicting a judge as repeatedly farting constitute “mudslinging”?

2. How about reporting a fellow professor to Homeland Security based on the willful misunderstanding of a speech?

3. Perhaps you can explain what Dembski meant when he wrote that “Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity and signal information inputted by God as part of his sovereign activity within Creation.” Do you share this belief? What would be some good examples of predictive prophecies within Scripture?

4. Why should anyone hold an ounce of respect for a book that cheerfully advocates the ripping of babies from the wombs of their mothers, as in Hosea 13:16?

5. Why did the Discovery Institute secretly call for churches to resume the teaching of traditional Judeo-Christian creation mythology in its Wedge Document? Does the Discovery Institute believe that the myth is true, or do they simply advocate misinformation for the purpose of social engineering?


This should be fun.

Someone should point Clive to this and this since he seems unfamiliar with the episodes.

Date: 2009/08/09 09:34:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Okay, I have made my first contribution to the time line...

Date: 2009/08/09 10:34:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy birthday!

Date: 2009/08/09 17:57:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2009,17:47)
Please tell me this is referring to a Poe. Please tell me those are not real course requirements for a real course at a real seminary. Please tell me Dembski is not this vapid. Please, please, please!

Louis

I do believe that was discussed up thread, but I wouldn't swear to it...

Date: 2009/08/09 18:10:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Reed @ Aug. 09 2009,18:09)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 09 2009,15:57)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2009,17:47)
Please tell me this is referring to a Poe. Please tell me those are not real course requirements for a real course at a real seminary. Please tell me Dembski is not this vapid. Please, please, please!

Louis

I do believe that was discussed up thread, but I wouldn't swear to it...

Way back on page 436 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y149745

Yeah I just found it, hooligans brought it to our attention...

Date: 2009/08/10 23:05:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 10 2009,22:56)
Quote
Quote
I keep my wife in a state of bearfoot preganancy and she will win the world for God with her quiver when she is better.


That sounds a bit grizzly. :p

Though I'm not sure what a "quiver" might be; is it something like a shimmy?

Henry

No, not exactly :O

Date: 2009/08/12 07:28:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Maybe we need to chum the waters some. Quick, someone pretend to be an atheist wanting to become a christian!

Date: 2009/08/12 07:30:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Someone I went to school with has an interesting post on Cornelius Hunter

Date: 2009/08/13 21:03:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ Aug. 13 2009,20:34)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2009,10:40)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 13 2009,16:53)
Hem hem. While I admit that possibility exists, personally I think it's balls. It's sew tiring to watch people cobble together these puns. Perhaps Bill is right, we should drop it, tweed be the best thing to do.

Sometimes it can be like casting pearl before twine...

But let's not pick knits.

Good thing humans didn't evolve from gorillas, otherwise they would have been too crochety.

Date: 2009/08/13 21:12:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 13 2009,19:07)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 12 2009,14:18)
I succumbed to extreme cowardice, and left my grrlfriend to talk to him.

Isn't there a nomenclature problem there now?

BOB MAY BE FROM ONE OF THEM SOCIALIST COUNTRIES BUT HE AIN'T NO INNUIT, HOMO! BESIDES, LIKE BILL SAYS KWOK ONLY HAD TO OUTRUN ONE OF THEM! dt

Date: 2009/08/16 11:59:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2009,10:37)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 14 2009,13:54)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 14 2009,13:48)
That's not exactly what I meant.

I was actually referencing this.

Indeed!  We want to see pictures; you can't have a wedding without pictures!

Pictures to come: we've been too distracted to write the blog posts.

I will, however, reveal that it was a celebrity wedding.  Of course Grrlscientist is a celeb, but we also had Prof Steve Steve present!  We felt truly honoured.

The rest of the day was spent at the AMNH (the Extreme Mammals and the Frog exhibits are both really worth seeing), and then we went to watch the latest Harry Potter in 3D.

Oh, and the bride wore the dress.  Sorry.

Congratulations!I'm Happy for you both!

Date: 2009/08/18 19:01:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 18 2009,16:55)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 18 2009,17:24)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 18 2009,17:17)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 18 2009,14:47)
     
Quote
18  August  2009
The Water Strider: Evolution’s Gratuitous Explanations
Cornelius Hunter

New research is telling us more about how water striders, those bugs that walk on water, get such long legs. Read more
at the source of the tard


guess what you get when you follow the tard to the source.  that's right, even dummer

 

No, Ras, don't follow the links!  Corny is blog whoring like Densy O'Dreary.

Hmm, has anybody ever seen Cornelius Hunter and Denyse O'Leary together?

No.  And I hope I never do.

corny + tranmaw = the beast with two eyebrows?

It could be worse, Corny + Tranmaw+ Luskin= The beast with three eyebrows ;)

Date: 2009/08/18 20:40:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (jswilkins @ Aug. 18 2009,20:27)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 19 2009,07:18)
Hey Dawk and PZ are coming downunder next March. I'll be heading down to Melbourne for the show, if there are enough ATBCers there for a Quorum, we could meet for a coffee or something.

Chris Nedin, Ian Musgrave and I will be there, forcing PZ to drink designer beer.

I'd torture him by making him drink Coors or Miller Light...ya know, make him travel all that way only to drink American beer.

Date: 2009/08/18 20:42:02, Link
Author: afarensis
I had a go at Hunter's water strider post if anybody is interested.

Date: 2009/08/19 07:39:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 19 2009,03:24)
Miller Light is what brings to mind that famous line about American beer:  "Someone has found a way to dilute water"

ITS HOMEOPATHIC BEER HOMO dt

Date: 2009/08/19 20:07:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Advance in understanding endosymbiosis

Date: 2009/08/21 19:24:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 21 2009,16:09)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 21 2009,20:21)
KhorusFreakus screeches loudly

   
Quote
BillB:

You are wrong, as long since step by step and repeatedly pointed out, and are insistent on using ad hominems against me.

You have sacrificed any right to civil discourse.

Good bye

GEM of TARD

Sploink!, there goes my irony meter (Again!!!;)

Were those ad hominems latched at each step or what? Because if they weren't latched ID proves it didn't happen :)

Date: 2009/08/21 19:59:10, Link
Author: afarensis
I saw a hawk in the parking lot at my wife's work a couple of days ago. It had caught a smaller bird and was trying to eat it. Our, unfortunate, arrival distracted the hawk and the smaller bird got away. The hawk seemed to be a bit vexed with us after that. eventually flew off. Unfortunately, I didn't have my cell phone so no pictures. Later in the day I received some payback as I was sitting at a picnic table and a rather largish spider fell, or jumped since it was spinning a thread of web as it landed on my arm. I shook it off and it proceeded to act feisty and intimidating till I moved to a different bench. It then jumped onto the bench I had vacated - a distance of about a foot. Second time this year I have had a spider land on me from the trees near that picnic table. Doesn't seem to happen to my coworkers so I am developing a complex.

Date: 2009/08/22 09:57:42, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 21 2009,21:14)
Quote
Second time this year I have had a spider land on me from the trees near that picnic table. Doesn't seem to happen to my coworkers so I am developing a complex.


Is that complex specified or unspecified? :p

Henry

Specified - although I haven't determined if it is functionally specified   ;)

Date: 2009/08/24 18:36:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!*


* I would have gotten you a LoLCat but Carlsonjok stole it :angry:

Date: 2009/08/26 19:28:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,19:05)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 26 2009,18:49)
 I'd rate it far more likely that Kibitzer is WmAD than Clive is.  Clive is just a hired flunky to do all the prole work that Dembski is too important to sully his hands with.

Agreed, yep.

You have a good memory, Carlson ; look at that one "kibitzer" comment I posted...

 
Quote
"In place of your list, let’s try

1. Why are there still Darwinists given the pathetic state of their theory?

2. Do Darwinists reproduce in the ordinary way or by parasitizing the wider public and by siphoning their tax dollars?"


You recall Dembski's posturing about them damn libbruls and their profligate, parasitic ways. Hell, *I* recall Dembski going on about taxes and liberals, but I'd have to track it down.  And I know "pathetic" is in pretty common usage, but Dembski has a penchant for that term.

The new name, the focus on Dawkins, the adolescent baiting, the cheerleading, the avoidance of responses regarding coding, the whole style of writing just seems to suggest to me (more so than anytime I can recall) -- that "kibitzer" is Slick Willy

Are you referring to this?

Date: 2009/08/26 20:18:27, Link
Author: afarensis
I wouldn't be surprised...

Edit to add that this is a response to deadman...

Date: 2009/08/28 18:37:44, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 28 2009,16:29)
Far and away the best  proof that the Schläger baramin was unintelligently designed:


Is that a picture of Denyse O'Leary in her younger days?

Date: 2009/08/28 19:19:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2009,13:34)
they're still just mice.

yawn.

wake me up when one gives birth to a dog-cat.

I'm holding out for a fishungulant myself - part barracuda, part moose, and all Sarah Palin!

Date: 2009/08/29 08:24:33, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (bfish @ Aug. 29 2009,02:55)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Aug. 28 2009,10:12)
Evidence of recent evolution in Deer Mice
Deer mice of the Sand hills in Nebraska have recently (in the last 4000 years) evolved a new, lighter color coat, that better matches their environment.

Dude, were you there?

[QUOTE]
The color change is a manifestation of a brand new gene, Agouti, that developed in around 8000 generations.  From the article:            
Quote
"The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait" until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to act on that new mutation," says team member Professor Hopi Hoekstra, also of Harvard University.

"It's a two part process. First the mutation has to occur and second, selection has to increase its frequency."


I think this isn't quite correct. I don't have access to the article from home, but agouti is a pretty well-known gene. I think she's using sloppy "popular science" speak, whereby what she means to say is that the light mutation of the already existing Agouti gene wasn't present in the population.

I'm curious to know the nature of the mutation. It would be deliciously ironic if it were a mutation in Agouti regulation rather than in coding sequence (see this for explanation). I'll bet it's a coding mutation, though. Damn cool stuff, too.

Anyone who has access to the article, please let me know if I'm wrong about any of this.

ETA: my lameness in not being able to make the block quotes work.

Yeah, I don't have access either, but would love to have a copy. Especially since one of the coauthors of the paper I mention below is involved in the new paper. This is pretty common in mice, a previous study on mainland vs beach dwelling forms indicates that an interaction between Mc1r and Agouti is responsible for the lighter color in beach forms. Be interesting to see if this is the case in the new paper also...

Date: 2009/08/29 10:48:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 29 2009,10:01)
When you follow niwraD's link niwraD's link you will find yourself in the middle of CCSI like this one:    
Quote
Male and female individuals of a species have apparatuses exactly organized to interface each other. Male and female individuals of a species have the same degree of complexity. They are quite similar but not identical. The key point here is the interface between them, which in this case is based on their differences. It would be a non-sense to consider the male reproductive apparatus alone, without considering the complementary female reproductive apparatus. Each of these two organisms independently from the other can entails Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Each of these two organisms can live in the environment and exploit many identical functions. But there are highly complex functions that can be achieved only if they strictly cooperate thank to their complementary apparatuses. So we are in front of something that is sensitive to name "complementary specified complexity

H'mmmm, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that particular argument before? Oh,  I know:

Quote
Comfort said the strong opposition easily is explained.

"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation," he said.


Proving, once again, that ID is nothing but gussied up creationism, creationism in a cheap sweater. :p

Edit to add: Perhaps we should start calling ID banana creationism, or creationism in a cheap banana.

Date: 2009/08/29 23:24:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 29 2009,22:41)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 29 2009,22:45)
Richard Dawkins states that his original Weasel code did not latch correct letters, in this thread on Pharyngula.

I'm sure that Gordon will just call him a liar.

and further, he links to the video where you can just watch "correct" letters revert to "incorrect" ones. ...from the period of time in question, with short shorts to boot.

I watched it earlier today when he linked to it (all five parts from "the unofficial Richard Dawkins" YouTube channel), and it was really interesting to watch in spite of (and because of) the anachronisms. The old computers were neat to see again, and the progress with robotic intelligence. Damn though, Dr. Dawkins looked like a college kid (kinda hawt, even then!).

ETA: and who gives a fuck what Gordon E. Mullings of the Kairos Initiative aka GEM of TKI aka Kairosfocus aka Gordy the Bahamanian Fucktard thinks? He's a moron, and a lying dipshit who doesn't know shit from shinola.

I watched it a little while ago and Dawkins is right. You can see several correct letters changing to incorrect letters. Has anyone pointed out Dawkin's response to GEM of Tinkle yet?

Date: 2009/08/30 10:13:55, Link
Author: afarensis
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Sounds like spam to me...

Date: 2009/09/02 18:29:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/09/02 18:31:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday to all!

Date: 2009/09/03 19:07:09, Link
Author: afarensis
In ancient Greek comedy the actors wore long phallic-like objects strapped to their, umm, phallus. They engaged in a lot of horse play - every time someone in Aristophanes says "here, hold this" and such like other phrases, that is what they are referring too. This idea should be incorporated into your opera.

Date: 2009/09/03 20:01:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 03 2009,19:40)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 03 2009,19:07)
In ancient Greek comedy the actors wore long phallic-like objects strapped to their, umm, phallus. They engaged in a lot of horse play - every time someone in Aristophanes says "here, hold this" and such like other phrases, that is what they are referring too. This idea should be incorporated into your opera.

Accurate codpieces for everyone! Erm, except Densey -- she has her own. Real. And Gab of Talky says it's spectacular.

ETA: Genius, Amadan. Genius.

Codpeices? Feh!! These were like 3-4 feet long and flexible. Imagine a stuffed snake...

Date: 2009/09/04 07:47:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 04 2009,05:40)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 03 2009,19:07)
In ancient Greek comedy the actors wore long phallic-like objects strapped to their, umm, phallus. They engaged in a lot of horse play - every time someone in Aristophanes says "here, hold this" and such like other phrases, that is what they are referring too. This idea should be incorporated into your opera.

So, like, you are saying k.e is going to be appearing as himself?

That is a great idea....

Date: 2009/09/04 18:42:10, Link
Author: afarensis
Wow! It's all in color and stuff, I don't think we are in the old thread anymore Toto!

Edit to add: PaV is a putz...

Date: 2009/09/04 18:53:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 04 2009,15:46)
Quote
I'm curious to know the nature of the mutation. It would be deliciously ironic if it were a mutation in Agouti regulation rather than in coding sequence (see this for explanation). I'll bet it's a coding mutation, though. Damn cool stuff, too.

She has found mutations in regulatory sequences that affected coat colour in the past.

There is some interesting stuff on her publication page.

Date: 2009/09/04 20:59:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (bfish @ Sep. 04 2009,20:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 04 2009,16:53)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 04 2009,15:46)
 
Quote
I'm curious to know the nature of the mutation. It would be deliciously ironic if it were a mutation in Agouti regulation rather than in coding sequence (see this for explanation). I'll bet it's a coding mutation, though. Damn cool stuff, too.

She has found mutations in regulatory sequences that affected coat colour in the past.

There is some interesting stuff on her publication page.

Yes, and #16 on the list

# *Hoekstra, H.E. and J.A. Coyne. 2007. The locus of evolution: evo devo and the genetics of adaptation.  Evolution. 61(5):995-1016.

is what I was alluding to when I said it would be ironic if the adaptive coat color change was caused by regulatory sequence. In that paper they list 35 examples of adaptations caused by changes in protein coding sequence while maintaining that there are (or were in 2007) zero proven examples of adaptations caused by changes in regulatory sequence. They argue that one must meet the standard of showing what the specific mutation is AND demonstrating it's adaptive value.

In the new paper they show a specific mutation AND they measure the adaptive value of a phenotype they believe is caused by that mutation. So it would have been fun if it had been a regulatory mutation. I wonder, though, if they met there own standard in this paper, because I'm not sure they PROVE that the mutation they focus on causes the phenotype. That's why I asked if it would be possible for them to take mice from the native population and replace, in their progeny, the new version of the gene with a version of the gene that repairs the amino acid deletion. Then you could see if the dark phenotype was rescued, which would be very convincing evidence that the deletion caused the light color phenotype. I'm not a mouse person, so I don't know if that is technically feasible.

Yeah, I don't think they prove that either, granted what they do have strongly suggests that it does, but they didn't seal the deal. I'll have to download the paper your talking about (among others), sigh, too many science papers, too little time to blog about them...

Date: 2009/09/04 21:11:37, Link
Author: afarensis
PaV says:

Quote
Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found.


Does anyone who has read the paper know where PaV gets this figure from? The closest thing I can find is where they calculate substitution rates in Mysticetes (they get .0081 frameshifts/kb/myr) and where they calculate gene (well technically the survival time of a 3 kb exon) survival time assuming neutral evolution and use nucleotide substitution rate in their calculation, but perhaps I missed something?Or is PaV just making shit up?

Date: 2009/09/06 13:49:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Speaking of botany there is a new paper called Xylem heterochrony: an unappreciated key to angiosperm origin and diversifications in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009; 161 (1): 26 DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00991.x. Here is the abstract:

Quote
All angiosperms can be arranged along a spectrum from a preponderance of juvenile traits (cambial activity lost) to one of nearly all adult characters (cambium maximally active, mature patterns realized rapidly early in ontogeny). Angiosperms are unique among seed plants in the width of this spectrum. Xylem patterns are considered here to be indicative of contemporary function, not relictual. Nevertheless, most families of early-divergent angiosperms exhibit paedomorphic xylem structure, a circumstance that is most plausibly explained by the concept that early angiosperms had sympodial growth forms featuring limited accumulation of secondary xylem. Sympodial habits have been retained in various ways not only in early-divergent angiosperms, but also among eudicots in Ranunculales. The early angiosperm vessel, relatively marginal in conductive abilities, was improved in various ways, with concurrent redesign of parenchyma and fibre systems to enhance conductive, storage and mechanical capabilities. Flexibility in degree of cambial activity and kinds of juvenile/adult expressions has been basic to diversification in eudicots as a whole. Sympodial growth that lacks cambium, such as in monocots, provides advantages by various features, such as organographic compartmentalization of tracheid and vessel types. Woody monopodial eudicots were able to diversify as a result of production of new solutions to embolism prevention and conductive efficiency, particularly in vessel design, but also in parenchyma histology. Criteria for paedomorphosis in wood include slow decrease in length of fusiform cambial initials, predominance of procumbent ray cells and lesser degrees of cambial activity. Retention of ancestral features in primary xylem (the 'refugium' effect) is, in effect, a sort of inverse evidence of acceleration of adult patterns in later formed xylem. Xylem heterochrony is analysed not only for all key groups of angiosperms (including monocots), but also for different growth forms, such as lianas, annuals, various types of perennials, rosette trees and stem succulents. Xylary phenomena that potentially could be confused with heterochrony are discussed. Heterochronous xylem features seem at least as important as other often cited factors (pollination biology) because various degrees of paedomorphic xylem are found in so many growth forms that relate in xylary terms to ecological sites. Xylem heterochrony can probably be accessed during evolution by relatively simple gene changes in a wide range of angiosperms and thus represents a current as well as a past source of variation upon which diversification was based. Results discussed here are compatible with both current molecular-based phylogenetic analyses and all recent physiological work on conduction in xylem and thus represent an integration of these fields.


It does require a subscription....

Edited to correct some typos

Date: 2009/09/08 18:27:56, Link
Author: afarensis
I don't know one could be a structural geologist or geophysicist without really needing evolutionary theory. Of course there is that whole age of the earth thing, but that is a separate issue.

Date: 2009/09/08 18:32:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,16:24)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,16:12)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
     
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
     
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."

Onlookers!

Khan attacked me in email. With a baseball bat.

Oh, how the heathen Darwinian materialists despise the innocent and pure of heart. I am just like Jesus, who was also persecuted.

Buy my book. Visit my site. Don't risk eternal fire, my friends. Send your donations and love offerings to fend off this encroaching tide of hate and violence.

Darn it, why do you people always break out the fun while I am at work and can't participate :angry:

Maybe I wanted to hit someone via email, with a bat (I mean a real bat, not the baseball variety).

Date: 2009/09/10 21:37:22, Link
Author: afarensis
When I follow the link to KCFS I get "No topics or posts met your search criteria"

Date: 2009/09/10 21:45:36, Link
Author: afarensis
In light of the recent paper - and fuss- on the appendix this paper is topical. Relaxed selection in the wild here is the abstract:
Quote
Natural populations often experience the weakening or removal of a source of selection that had been important in the maintenance of one or more traits. Here we refer to these situations as relaxed selection, and review recent studies that explore the effects of such changes on traits in their ecological contexts. In a few systems, such as the loss of armor in stickleback, the genetic, developmental and ecological bases of trait evolution are being discovered. These results yield insights into whether and how fast a trait is reduced or lost under relaxed selection. We provide a prospectus and a framework for understanding relaxed selection and trait loss in natural populations. We also examine its implications for applied issues, such as antibiotic resistance and the success of invasive species.


It is a really fascinating paper that I strongly recommend. I'll be doing a post on it - hopefully this weekend. For those who don't have access a pdf can be found here.

Date: 2009/09/11 19:04:45, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 11 2009,10:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 10 2009,21:45)
In light of the recent paper - and fuss- on the appendix this paper is topical. Relaxed selection in the wild here is the abstract:
 
Quote
Natural populations often experience the weakening or removal of a source of selection that had been important in the maintenance of one or more traits. Here we refer to these situations as relaxed selection, and review recent studies that explore the effects of such changes on traits in their ecological contexts. In a few systems, such as the loss of armor in stickleback, the genetic, developmental and ecological bases of trait evolution are being discovered. These results yield insights into whether and how fast a trait is reduced or lost under relaxed selection. We provide a prospectus and a framework for understanding relaxed selection and trait loss in natural populations. We also examine its implications for applied issues, such as antibiotic resistance and the success of invasive species.


It is a really fascinating paper that I strongly recommend. I'll be doing a post on it - hopefully this weekend. For those who don't have access a pdf can be found here.

Excellent paper. Thanks.

I noticed they cited some obscure scientist; Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species.

One of the parts that caught my attention was in the section on constitutive costs where they discuss insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and the Ace.I gene. I've been tracking down some of the literature on the subject and, leaving aside the health implications, there is an interesting story about how evolution works...

Date: 2009/09/11 19:18:19, Link
Author: afarensis
After wading through some of the threads on FL that y'all have linked to, I vote that we send Richardthugs 'round to give deadman 932 a good spankin' or something.  :p

Date: 2009/09/11 19:24:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 11 2009,15:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.

Yeah, he hides it in his sweater.

Date: 2009/09/11 20:21:43, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 11 2009,19:49)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 11 2009,19:18)
After wading through some of the threads on FL that y'all have linked to, I vote that we send Richardthugs 'round to give deadman 932 a good spankin' or something.  :p



Seriously, though: It's not really my fault. I didn't know and if I did, I didn't mean to. Plus there were extenuating circumstances. Society. Uh, I felt unloved as a child. I was possessed by spirits. Aliens. Yeah, that's it. Space demons. Satanic space demons controlled my brain.

Anyway, <Homer> sure I'm flattered, maybe even a little curious. But the answer is no!</Homer>

You have been forgetting to wear your tinfoil hat again haven't you?

Date: 2009/09/12 17:31:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 12 2009,16:50)
Quote
The different American spelling of what British English spells 'aluminium' sometimes cause puzzlement as to how it could have come about. This article tells that story.

I prefer Darwin's explanation.
Quote
Rudimentary organs may be compared with the letters in a word, still retained in the spelling, but become useless in the pronunciation, but which serve as a clue in seeking for its derivation.


Which, if I understand him correctly, means that the British insert extra letters into words because they have rudimentary organs*



* The possibility that I may have misinterpreted Darwin should be kept in mind. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

Date: 2009/09/12 17:53:47, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 12 2009,08:28)
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 12 2009,08:02)
   
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 10 2009,12:12)
Sal is still talking to my sock, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?

Sal sends regrets:        
Quote
I saw the hyperlink pointing to ATBC. I have a policy of not going there anymore. Haven't visited since 2008 or so. It's a real cesspoll and waste of time IIRC.

What happened to Jarrod? On what grounds is he not here?

Grounds? It has been carefully explained that when it comes to banning, the stated policy is "unfair fascist tyranny" with moderation effected by admitted trolls. Grounds are not required. Nor is criticism allowed.

I made the mistake of following that link. Sal pontificating on Paleoanthropology and the Dmanisi finds made me LoL for quite a long time since these finds were made in the late 1990's and the implications for human evolution have been debated ever since.

Date: 2009/09/13 00:08:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,22:21)
Oi, this ("debate" crap)  has all the makings of a debacle. I should learn to keep me big mouth shut.

Tard pimp, you're doing it wrong* :p


* If that was on a LoL cat this thread could die a happy death...

Date: 2009/09/14 22:18:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 14 2009,21:39)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 14 2009,21:06)
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 14 2009,20:31)
I am new to PT and atbc and I want to say how glad I am to find you.  I have been involved in an ongoing thread about ID on a local site and have gotten very frustrated about trying to communicate with people like FL.  It feels really good to not be alone.  

Now to this discussion:  FL's first assertion is that Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Wrong.  I am a Christian, ie, I believe Jesus Christ is my personal savior.  I also believe in evolution.

Do I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, NO.

Do I believe that FL and his ilk have the right to judge if I am the RIGHT kind of christian, NO.

A lot of the stuff you guys discuss I don't understand.  It's been more than 30 years since I studied geology and more than 20 since I stopped working in the field.

Welcome!  And don't worry if you don't understand what we're talking about.  Half the things said here are inside jokes referencing things that happened on obscure websites several years ago.  The other half consists mostly of bathroom humor.   :D

Ah... but the third half* might actually help you and be worthwhile, and we actually do have some pretty darned smart and experienced ID / Creo Warriors here.  So ask away, and welcome.**


* Using ID Maths first advanced by New York Prof Y. Berra @ 1959.

** You DO like LOL Cats, and can use them to advance / win arguments right?

Then there is the half where we are trying to figure out which one of us has a sock named Jerry and who should PM Erasmus about it...

Date: 2009/09/16 20:42:03, Link
Author: afarensis
I would like to respond to this unfair remark by Louis:

Quote
1) The Colonials cheated in the War of Not Being English. They fought at teatime and weekends, which no true gentleman would do.


The only reason why we cheated is because you lot used our own Native Americans against us. Most unfair. However in the spirit of good fellowship I can only repeat what the father in Monty Python and the Holy Grail said:

Quote
Please, please!  This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.  We are here today to witness the union of Arden and Richardthughes* in the joyful bond of the holy wedlock.  Unfortunately, one of them, my son Richardthughes**, has just fallen to his death.  But I think I've not lost a son, so much as... gained a daughter!  For, since the tragic death of her father--
etc.


*Okay, I paraphrased this bit
** This bit too

Date: 2009/09/17 18:53:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 17 2009,06:20)
This is one to wave at the Design Detectors:

 
Quote
Were crocodiles responsible for the stones we call tools?

Patrick Dempsey


Sir

Could Nature have been unknowingly publishing papers for the past 80 years about crocodilian gastroliths (stomach stones) instead of stones concluded to be 2.5-million-year-old hominid tools? This possibility could cast doubt, for example, on the nature of the Oldowan specimens described by Michael Haslam and colleagues in their Review of primate archaeology (Nature 460, 339–344; 2009).

Palaeontologists use a simple eyeball test to distinguish stone tools from gastroliths. If a specimen has wear marks on its outer surface but none on its inner surfaces, this indicates that the stone has been grinding away in some prehistoric stomach or other and is a gastrolith. But wear on both inner and outer surfaces indicates that it has been used for some sort of pounding or battering and can confidently be considered a tool. A quick look at the three Oldowan specimens reveals wear on only the extended surfaces, so they should be considered as gastroliths, not tools.

Identification of the Oldowan specimens as tools is based on the fact that the soft relict sands of Olduvai Gorge contain no natural stones of their own, so any stone found there must have been moved from distant river beds by some unknown animal transporter — concluded by high science to be Homo habilis. But crocodiles have the curious habit of swallowing rocks: these account for 1% of their body weight, so for a 1-tonne crocodile that's 10 kg of stones in its stomach at all times. Surprisingly, science has never even considered the crocodile as transporter.

Crocodiles and hippos have always lived happily together. Hippo herds would naturally trample riverside gravel stones into the shape of Oldowan cutting tools, quantities of which the crocodile would then swallow and transport to other places.

The crocodile lives and dies at the water's edge. So far, all East African Oldowan specimens have come from the same waterside environments where crocodiles are known to have dwelt. Millions, perhaps trillions, of transported crocodile stomach stones must remain where the old crocodiles left them, deep in relict East African sediments, though none has ever been reported.

Is that the entire piece or is there more? Any idea how nature chooses items for the Correspondence section? I ask because if this was peer reviewed someone goofed....

Date: 2009/09/22 20:21:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Was it Sinclair Lewis?   :p

Edit to add second guess: Clive Barker? :D

Can I get a hint?  :(

Date: 2009/09/25 19:08:49, Link
Author: afarensis
I hope things are still going well with Diane and that her recovery continues with no complications.

Date: 2009/09/28 19:37:44, Link
Author: afarensis
Some archaeology news that is very interesting. It seems the British can't figure out where the Battle of Bosworth was fought!

Date: 2009/09/28 22:38:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2009,11:49)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of this.

Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.

That is so cool! Sticklebacks are almost as cool as primates. Is there a link to the paper you co-authored?

Date: 2009/10/01 22:14:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Ardipithecus! you can download them all for free if you register. It's paleoanthropological heaven! I am sooo excited! OMG!OMG! Did I mention how excited I was? OMG!ZOMG!OMG! It is very cool! And did I mention how excited I am, stoked, or I would even say chuffed! Wooooohoooooooooooo!

Date: 2009/10/01 22:21:51, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?


Um, the isochron method was developed to address that problem

Date: 2009/10/01 22:25:54, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 01 2009,18:53)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 01 2009,14:40)
* Well I suppose in the interest of full disclosure I have to admit to behaving myself since the arrival of the little lad. Now I smoke a pipe, wear slippers and can be found in the shed sawing bits of wood for no apparent reason.

And if you begin to have urges to wear frilly shirts and start puttering about the garden, call for help!

I think you meant to say
Quote
And if you begin to have urges to wear frilly shirts and start learning piano call for help!
but I could be wrong...


Edit to add: OMG! OMG! Ardipithecus! I am so excited!

Date: 2009/10/02 18:35:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,05:42)
hey now

piano picklers ain't all bad.  just Frill

Do keyboardists count as well? I mean, they're still a lot better than cartographs!

Only if they can play Manfred Mann's bit at the end of July Morning

Date: 2009/10/03 10:26:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.

I can see the headline now "Wesley Elsberry bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator"*



*One could also insert a gratuitous Australia joke in the headline as well

Date: 2009/10/03 13:12:08, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,11:55)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.

I can see the headline now "Wesley Elsberry bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator"*



*One could also insert a gratuitous Australia joke in the headline as well

The headline would have to be, "Husband bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator." The media has close to no interest in the backstory.

I will endeavor not to provide headline fodder of that sort, or shark fodder out of my personal store of flesh.

I hope so because you are the only thing that stands between us and Louis and Richardthughes running amuck (shudders) on this forum...

Date: 2009/10/04 09:55:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 04 2009,00:52)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:            
Quote
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.

from the Christian Post


from the Christian Post (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/trustee-porn-viewing-charismatic-prayer-treated-equally-in-baptist-missionary-screening/index.html)

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
   
Quote
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"

They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.

Yes, it is basically praying tongues... and apparently is quite controversial. The SB convention is reaping the rewards of their conservatism and are being invaded, as it were, by charismatics. LoL!

Date: 2009/10/05 19:07:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Here is another picture of the Redwall Limestone that clearly demonstrates the staining:



Note the section that says "Naked Redwall" is unstained because the Supai group has either eroded away or is not exposed.

Date: 2009/10/05 22:23:25, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,09:57)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?


As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>

From [URL=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1661&keywords=south+unstratified+deposits+contemporaneous+boulders+the+on+distribution+erratic+of+americ

a+and&pageseq=1]On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America[/URL]:

Quote
The valley in which the Santa Cruz flows, widens as it approaches the Cordillera, into a plain, in form like an estuary, with its mouth (see map, Pl. XL.) directed towards the mountains. This plain is only 440 feet above the level of the sea, and in all probability it was submerged within, or nearly within, the post-pliocene period. I am induced to form this inference from the presence of existing sea shells in the valley, and from the extension far up it of step-like terraces which on the sea-coast, certainly are of recent submarine origin. Round the estuary-like plain, and between it and the great high plain, there is a second plain, about 800 feet above the sea-level, and its surface consists of a bed of shingle with great boulders. In this part of the valley, namely, between thirty or forty miles from the Cordillera, there were, in the bed of the river, boulders* of granite, syenite and conglomerate, varieties of rock which I did not observe on the high plain; and I particularly noticed that there were none of the basaltic lava. From this latter fact and from several other circumstances, more especially from the immense quantity of solid matter which must have been removed in the excavation of the deep and broad valley, we may feel sure that the boulders on the intermediate plain and in the bed of the river, are not the wreck of those originally deposited on the high plain. These boulders, therefore, must have been transported subsequently from the Cordillera, and after an interval during which the land was modelled into the form above described. Those on the lowest plain must have been transported within, or not long before, the period of existing shells.

I have said that the first erratic block which I met with, was sixty-seven miles from the nearest slope of the Cordillera; I must, however, record the case of one solitary rounded fragment of feldspathic rock lying in the bed of the river, at the distance of 110 miles from the mountains. This fragment was seven feet in circumference, and projected eighteen inches above the surface, with apparently a large part buried beneath it. As its dimensions are not very great, we may speculate on some method of transportal different from that, by which the plain near the mountains was strewed with such innumerable boulders; for instance, of its having been imbedded in a cake of river ice. Its solitary position is, however, a singular fact.


The pictures deadman932 posted come from an interesting paper by Strelin and Malagnino that, for the most part confirms what Darwin proposed. One exception being that what Darwin thought was an paleo-estuary was actually a lake created by glacial damming. The article goes on to say:

Quote
Finally, the origin of the erratic blocks (Fig. 2) found in the lower valley of the Río Santa Cruz (Site 1, Fig. 1) has not been elucidated yet. Darwin (1842b) was sensitive to this enigma, which he tried to solve when he suggested that they could have been accumulated after rafting over fluvial ice. At present we consider this feasible and furthermore that it could have been after the catastrophic draining of the ancient Arroyo Verde morainedammed glacier-lake (Strelin and Malagnino 1996).


One interesting fact that the paper brings to light is that Darwin's observations in the area allowed later scientists to map the history and extent of glaciation in the area.
You might also find this article by Strelin et al of interest.

Edit to fix some formatting errors.

Date: 2009/10/06 06:44:51, Link
Author: afarensis
On Agassiz, Darwin in his 1842 work, linked to in my previous comment, had this to say:

Quote
M. Agassiz has shown that blocks of rock are not imbedded in the ice of the Swiss glaciers, except high up near their sources, and that those numerous masses which lie on the surface, from not being exposed to much abrasion, remain angular: hence only loose angular blocks of rock (as was the case with those on the floating ice in Sir G. Eyre's Sound) can be transported by icebergs, detached from the glaciers of temperate countries. And to effect this, the icebergs must be floated off perpendicularly and in large masses, for otherwise the loose fragments would be at once hurled into the sea. These remarks do not necessarily apply to icebergs formed under a polar climate, for if a glacier in its descent, reached the sea before the fragments of rock which had fallen on the soft snow had come to the surface, icebergs would be produced with imbedded fragments of rock: I have described in the 'Geographical Journal'* the case of one huge fragment thus circumstanced, seen drifting far from land in the Antarctic Ocean.

Date: 2009/10/06 18:37:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Yeah, I realized the distinction you were making later.

Date: 2009/10/06 19:11:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,19:03)
You still seemed to have scared away Clownshoes. I blame you for breaking this toy.

THIS is why we can't have fun things around here anymore.

Well, that plus Louis' mum still ... oh, well, never mind.

Sorry :(  Didn't mean to break the toy....

Date: 2009/10/07 20:32:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery

That may explain the change of subject.

Date: 2009/10/08 01:07:38, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:41)
The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

Given that the Redwall formation is found in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California one doubts it was transported.

Edit to add link.

Date: 2009/10/09 19:05:48, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?


Snowball earth? :p

Date: 2009/10/10 13:42:54, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,12:18)
Quote
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?

Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry

Well now, if one takes the top of Mt. Everest as their starting point then the rest of the world could be considered one giant canyon.  :D

Date: 2009/10/10 15:22:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (khan @ Oct. 10 2009,14:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 10 2009,14:42)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,12:18)
 
Quote
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?

Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry

Well now, if one takes the top of Mt. Everest as their starting point then the rest of the world could be considered one giant canyon.  :D

Well, the planet was flat back then.

Yup, and mountains aren't really the result of uplift. They are canyon walls from when the flood carved the flat earth! Jeebus Wins!

Date: 2009/10/10 21:01:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 10 2009,20:15)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 10 2009,16:19)
CannuckianYankee outs himself as a repressed gay:
 
Quote
However, on the issue of homosexuality, there are quite a number of individuals in this country who have homosexual feelings, but who do not want to live a lifestyle of having sex with others of the same gender. Their feelings are ignored because of the current PC, which renders homosexuality as natural and not a choice – even though these individuals attest to the idea that it is not natural, and that it is a choice – and from their own experience. I count myself among them.

I wonder how the homophobes at UD will respond.  I remember that a while ago someone -- I think it was russ -- confessed at UD to having "homosexual impulses".  Their reaction then was to studiously ignore him while (I imagine) slowly edging away.

ETA: I found russ's confession:
 
Quote
13

russ
05/28/2008
12:40 pm

 
Quote
Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.

I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?


My advice to both Russ and CY: stay out of politics, airport restrooms, and the pants of congressional pages if at all possible.  Do not hire male "massage therapists" either.

Also, they should not become evangelical preachers...

Date: 2009/10/12 20:45:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,22:27)
kwokkers at PT

Quote
P. S. @ RBH: Thought I’d remind you that I am making my points in this thread to educate others, not to promote myself. If self-promotion was really my intent, then I’d create my own blog and indulge in all forms of self adulation. At least Mike Elzinga realizes that I have tried to make some useful contribution here.


yeah right, tard.

He showed up on my post with:

Quote
Was wondering why Ardi was well preserved, and am pleased that you’ve discussed at length its taphonomy.


Which, is, of course, dead wrong. Leaving aside the fact that I was talking about non-hominid fossils in that post, Ardipithecus isn't that well preserved - that's why it took 15 years to study it...

Date: 2009/10/12 22:21:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 12 2009,22:14)
PeaRoast:


First, Abbey came for Erasmus and I said nothing...

Date: 2009/10/13 18:30:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,10:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 12 2009,20:14)
PeaRoast:


You're just gonna keep posting that thing until Abbie deigns to respond.  Amirite?

Or until someone goes to her blog and rats him out. Not that I would. I'm not the trouble making type...really...stop looking at me like that... :(

Date: 2009/10/14 20:47:36, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 14 2009,20:22)
An early puppet remains on teh DI's email list and received this :D.I.'s Back To School Guide

Read it and enjoy!

Kidz - It's Overwhelming Evidence that not all adults have your best interests at heart... and the sooner you understand that, the better off you'll be.

Quote
Paleontology, where ID encourages scientists to understand how the irreducibly complex nature of biological systems can predict punctuated change and stasis throughout the history of life.


Holy crap! Stephen J. Gould was an IDist!  :p

Date: 2009/10/20 22:24:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (khan @ Oct. 17 2009,15:40)
Quote (ERV @ Oct. 17 2009,16:31)
lol, wat?

She's here.  You guys are in trouble.

Don't worry, I've had training in forensic anthropology. I can identify the remains after the carnage and pandemonium of Kwokkermania...

Edit to fix typo.

Date: 2009/10/22 07:23:58, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 22 2009,03:56)
Tomorrow's ID headlines today!  From the November, 2009 Scientific American:  
Quote
Rethinking the Hobbits of Indonesia

New analyses reveal the mini human species to be even stranger than previously thought and hint that major tenets of human evolution need revision.

Waterloo!  Waterloo!  The idea of evolution is failing and probably won't last until the 21st century!!

Uhm ...

pffiittt! That is yesterday's news. If it's the story about them being closer to the australopithecines, or possibly being put in a genus of their own, that is.

Date: 2009/10/28 08:13:53, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday! :D

Date: 2009/11/16 08:57:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 13 2009,19:40)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2009,16:38)
ZDENNY is an often banned fundie troll in blogland.

At his site, http://zdenny.com/?p=2695

 
Quote

deadman_932:  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“There is no evidence for this as we have no idea what the average size of the skull was 5,000 years ago”

LOL! Excellent tard, sir.

I doubt it'll get out of "moderation" but I might just hang around his site to provoke a tardplosion.

Maybe even a Tardal Wave, properly known as a "Tardnami"

Good Golly:

Quote
There are actually two things in conflict here because Darwinian evolution teaches that if man came from Ape’s, then our brains and skulls have shrunk.


I don't think I have built my tolerance for TARD back up yet. The above comment makes me want to take a nap...

Date: 2009/11/16 09:24:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2009,08:58)
WELCOME BACK SASANFRANCIS.

Thanks! Not ready for the hard stuff yet...

Date: 2009/11/19 07:14:20, Link
Author: afarensis
Someone should tell Robert about stable isotope analysis. Using it we are able to determine terrestrial vs marine diets, diet rich in say plants that use C3 or C4 pathways, etc. Spoonhiemer was actually able to determine that female <em>Australopithecus robustus</em> left their natal groups upon maturity.

Date: 2009/11/20 20:41:41, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/11/20 20:42:32, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated Happy Birthday to both of you!

Date: 2009/11/20 20:43:57, Link
Author: afarensis
Belated happy Birthday, my your favorite NASCAR drivers always turn right! Er, I mean left.

Date: 2009/11/22 07:23:23, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/11/24 18:30:27, Link
Author: afarensis
evolutionLuskin on whale evolution:

Quote
Whales "have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," Luskin said. "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible."

and shame on National Geographic for giving him space to spout his rubbish.

Date: 2009/11/26 20:46:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 26 2009,15:51)
Granny Tard throws her Depends diaper in the H. floresiensis ring here:


 
Quote
For what it is worth, I also don’t believe that Flores man is really a separate human species, because I have seen proportionately formed women on the streets of Toronto who were not more than one metre tall.


Lol. Yeah, that's how Tardscience is done. Good job, Densey.


Gaaah! Bunches of anthropologists have been arguing about this issue for several years now. Granny Spice ignores all kinds of actual science, not to mention traits linking Homo floresiensis with Homo erectus and australopithecines to assert that H. floresiensis is human and all based on allegedly sighting some women that were only a meter tall. I am going to severely beat my head on my desk now...

Date: 2009/11/27 15:15:00, Link
Author: afarensis
Interesting news n the OOL front:

Quote
Now, Ernesto Di Mauro and colleagues found that ancient molecules called cyclic nucleotides can merge together in water and form polymers over 100 nucleotides long in water ranging from 40-90 °C -- similar to water temperatures on ancient Earth.

Cyclic nucleotides like cyclic-AMP are very similar to the nucleotides that make up individual pieces of DNA or RNA (A, T, G and C), except that they form an extra chemical bond and assume a ring-shaped structure. That extra bond makes cyclic nucleotides more reactive, though, and thus they were able to join together into long chains at a decent rate (about 200 hours to reach 100 nucleotides long).

This finding is exciting as cyclic nucleotides themselves can be easily formed from simple chemicals like formamide, thus making them plausible prebiotic compounds present during primordial times. Thus, this study may be revealing how the first bits of genetic information were created.


The paper can be found here for those who have access...

Date: 2009/12/01 23:05:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2009,22:16)
I have another post up. Let me know what you think.

Excellent!

Date: 2009/12/01 23:11:00, Link
Author: afarensis
I don't know, I found this quite hysterical:

 
Quote
His Darwinian motivational rant went on about how the Cambrian explosion was really a "slow fuse," not an explosion. Amazingly, he claimed that almost all the major phyla had ancestors 50 million years before the Cambrian. Alas, he was so far wrong that it wasn't all that much effort to point it out, completely discredit him, and then let him hang himself with his twisted rope of unearned arrogance and condescension. If you're going to be arrogant, you'd better be able to back it up with something better than, "I climbed some rocks in Russia and read an article in The New Scientist." emphasis mine - afarensis


What Prothero really said:

 
Quote
...then a quick run through the Pre-Cambrian fossil record, focusing on why it is not the “Cambrian explosion” but the Cambrian “slow fuse” (and pointing out that I’m a paleontologist, I’ve actually seen and collected these outcrops, and neither of my opponents had).


Edit to add: Prothero must have gotten a rise out of them as Crowther, Luskin, and Wells have all wrote posts specifically singling him out.

Date: 2009/12/22 19:18:05, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/12/24 22:02:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Merry Christmas UD! I hope that in the coming year you continue to make baby Jeebus smile (usually, though, when babies smile it is just gas, but never fear Bill has quite a bit of experience with that).

Date: 2009/12/30 18:51:37, Link
Author: afarensis
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

Date: 2009/12/30 20:46:39, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,19:14)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You'd get the same answer as the last time - these "differences" are just minor and unimportant compared to the way they look, and all the other similarities.  He even called the differences between placental and marsupial reproduction "minor" (IIRC).  To him, Thylacines are more like placental wolves than other marsupials.

Would you question the bibble?

What about raccoon dogs then? Are they Dogs? Raccoons? or the mutant offspring of both and hence a crime against man, nature, and baby jebus?

Byers can claim that the differences are minor but I would like to see proof that the superficial resemblances he identifies between the two have greater taxonomic weight than all the other traits that indicate other taxonomic relationships :angry:


Edit to add: I see, pulling the old bibble defense, eh :

Date: 2009/12/31 07:21:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

Date: 2009/12/31 13:37:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 31 2009,08:50)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 31 2009,08:41)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2009,16:04)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 31 2009,07:21)
 
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
     
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

That was otterly uncalled for.

I gotter resist...

So these pun exchanges are a form of gorilla warfare?

Yes, the gorilla was mad because his anteloped.

Date: 2010/01/02 10:45:50, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.

Date: 2010/01/04 18:55:46, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2010,09:09)
http://discovermagazine.com/2009....than-us

One for SassanFrancis.

I've seen it. Hawks takes it down quite nicely here and here.

This is much more interesting and via Bob O'H I have the article from Current Biology...

Date: 2010/01/04 19:19:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:48)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.

I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.

Sigh...

 
Quote
I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.


Um, hundreds of scientists have studied or are currently studying marsupials. The study of marsupials goes back at least to the time of Richard Owen. The list of folks who have studied them (meaning both extinct and extant species) includes some of the finest paleontologists and mammologists.  

 
Quote
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.


However, saying that canine wolves and marsupial wolves are the same based on a resemblance in form is questionable, to say the least. The resemblance between the two is superficial. If you want to convince us name some other traits that demonstrate a relationship between the two and make sure they are phylogenetically informative otherwise you are wasting everybodies time.

 
Quote
This concept makes my case.


No, the concept of convergent evolution makes the case that two sings look alike and have some similar adaptations, it does not, however, establish a relationship or an identity between the forms being compared. Otherwise



Hunter Thompson is a cartoon character because he looks like a cartoon character.

 
Quote
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.


Again, what anatomy is similar between the two?

Code Sample
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.


Um, no. The traits used are those that have been repeatedly demonstrated to yield useful information about relationships within and between groups.

Edit to add a correction: When I said marsupials have been studied since at least the time of Owen I was only partially correct. Cuvier studied them as well (Cuvier was about 35 when Owen was born).

Date: 2010/01/04 19:53:07, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 04 2010,18:11)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 04 2010,06:54)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 03 2010,17:08)
Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.

Luskin has this thing about ERVs.

Cue RichTard and his ERV pic in 3...2...1...

No, you have to mention John Kwok to get the picture...

Date: 2010/01/11 19:17:36, Link
Author: afarensis
I hope you get well soon. It is no fun being in the hospital. My advice, if this happens:



you should probably seek a new doctor.

Date: 2010/01/12 19:17:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2010,19:34)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 11 2010,23:27)
Louis - Beautiful pic, and thanks for the suggested therapy. Is this something you learned in your discussions with the French?

I do remember a discussion with the ghost of Jaques Benveniste last week...

I am very glad to learn that things are progressing in the right direction. The Mayo Clinic? Honestly don't you Americans think about anything but food?*

Louis

* I know, I know. I had to put at least one bad pun in for old times sake.

P.S. TexasTeach:



I wanted to make a special 5000th post chock full of exciting chemistry, but Dave deciding to dice with death dragged me from the dungeon of self imposed silence. It will now have to be a 5XXXth post chock full of chemistry. But then irrationally clinging to some specific number as if it had significance is silly. Teach me to be all OCD about it.

P.P.S. Afarensis, you should also get better dammit. Too many fine folk getting sick around here. Stop it immediately!

I am totally recovered now, but thanks.

Date: 2010/01/12 20:31:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2010,16:17)
Haven't we established through all of this fun and foolishness that the answer to the question that titles this thread is "no"?

Louis

I think that the title was discussed here and there between visits by creationists. I don't think the question received the attention it deserved though. I think the answer is the other way around. We can do geology without evolution but we can't do evolution without geology. But that is just me...

Date: 2010/01/15 22:14:22, Link
Author: afarensis
Glad to hear you are out!

Date: 2010/01/16 11:01:44, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.


The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?

Date: 2010/01/17 11:25:17, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy birthday!

Date: 2010/01/19 07:24:15, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)
Quote
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.


The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?

These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.

I don't see how it could make your case since it is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. You claim a superficial resemblance between marsupials and wolves equates to identity. I showed you a case where a superficial appearance of the eye socket did not equate to identity it lead to convergent evolution of form. I also showed you two skulls of animals that you claim are identical and you dodged the point. Being so completely different, how can the two skulls come from identical animals. Considering the superficial outward appearance of two animals as an indicator of identity without looking at the anatomy that makes up that form is meaningless.

I'm not sure where you get pretty close from, perhaps you can expand on that for us. Pretty close how. Are the teeth the same? Do both have a post orbital bar? What about the shape of the mandible? Are the ascending rami the same? How about the corpus, is it as deep in one as the other? What about nasal configuration? Cresting? Foramen size, shape, and placement? Seriously what do you mean by pretty close?

Date: 2010/01/19 18:28:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 18 2010,17:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2010,14:12)
YOU'RE PREDICTIONS ARE RONG. I DEMAD RECOMPENSE OF A CAMERA.

Sorry, I can't afford that - I'll post a picture on my facebook page, though.  kthxbai!

SUrely you can afford a fine camera such as this for Richard!

Date: 2010/01/19 18:45:31, Link
Author: afarensis
Robert -
To recapitulate you claim:

1) The similarity in form between tarsier eye orbits and anthropoid eye orbits does not indicate a relationship between the two.

2) The similarity in form between dolphins, ichthysaurs, and sharks does not indicate a relationship between the three groups.

3) The similarity in form between some marsupials and some placentals, does however, indicate a relationship between the two.

Yet all three of these are examples of the exact same phenomena. Furthermore you argue that 1 and 2 support 3 - which makes a claim opposite to 1 and 2. It seems to me that you are being more than a little inconsistent. If 1 and 2 are true - and you admit that they are - then three doesn't look supportable.

Date: 2010/01/20 18:46:09, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2010,17:56)
Hope bubba doesn't read this; he'll figure that it supports his notions when it really doesn't!

And just to throttle up the internal incoherence he will also claim that this supports his claim too.

Date: 2010/01/21 07:08:16, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 20 2010,22:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2010,18:45)
Robert -
To recapitulate you claim:

1) The similarity in form between tarsier eye orbits and anthropoid eye orbits does not indicate a relationship between the two.

2) The similarity in form between dolphins, ichthysaurs, and sharks does not indicate a relationship between the three groups.

3) The similarity in form between some marsupials and some placentals, does however, indicate a relationship between the two.

Yet all three of these are examples of the exact same phenomena. Furthermore you argue that 1 and 2 support 3 - which makes a claim opposite to 1 and 2. It seems to me that you are being more than a little inconsistent. If 1 and 2 are true - and you admit that they are - then three doesn't look supportable.

Its all about points of anatomy and adding them up to draw relationships.
The likeness of #2 is from a special niche of a water world. For #1 , PERHAPS, some same need made a same eye socket but this is unrelated to the issue and I haven't studied eye sockets.
#3 is from examination of thousands of points of anatomy that force either a conclusion they are the same creatures as elsewhere or a fantastic concept of very closed niches creating like looking creatures from some original model.
The first conclusion should be same looking equals same before unlikely ideas of convergence take root.

The past researchers here simply were overawed by the marsupial traits.
So they classify the creatures by this.
Yet the snakes in like manner also birth by eggs or live birth. Its not a defining point in nature. Other adaptations produced different reproductive methods.
Marsupial moles, tapirs, bears, dogs, cats, mice, etc are just as their namesakes elsewhere on the planet.
Also biblical boundaries push this idea.

Sounds like special pleading to me. Moving fast through the water is a niche - one based on hunting I might add. Again you allow that 1 and to are convergence but three is not, one has to ask how we tell the difference between case of similarity that are convergence and cases of similarity that are not?

You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.

Date: 2010/01/21 18:59:21, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2010,17:01)
afarensis,
Quote
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.

Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry

You owe Richard a camera for that remark :p

Date: 2010/01/22 18:43:06, Link
Author: afarensis
I made you a special lol cat birthday card...but I eated it. Anyway, Happy Birthday to both of you!

Date: 2010/01/28 18:35:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)
YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

HAHAHAHA this is Richard!

Date: 2010/01/28 18:45:56, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,12:26)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)
Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.

That's Behe's confusion. The odds of mutations are fairly well known. Multiple rare events are rare, of course. But if each successive mutation confers a benefit, then it will become fixed in the population much faster than chance.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote
In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???

Sorry. That wasn't clearly expressed. Mutations rates are well-established. The rate a neutral mutation will fix is a matter of analysis. What isn't known is how often a neutral mutation will potentiate a beneficial mutation. And therefore, whether evolution is primarily contingent on happenstance or adaptation. In this case, it appears happenstance was important because the other lineages never discovered the adaptation. Generally, it seems there is more neutral evolution on the molecular level than with macroscopic structures, but even that is not known with certainty.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

That was the result. It took two mutations, the first of which was neutral and fixed by chance. His argument then is that this is the most evolution could accomplish. Of course, if a third mutation comes along that improves the mechanism, then there is no reason it can't be selected and fixed in the population. Or a fourth. Then a potentiating mutation, then a selectable one. As long as there is a selectable pathway, there is no Edge of Evolution.

By the way, there is no doubt that there are whole classes of functional developments beyond the reach of incremental adaptation. The vast majority of genomic sequences will never be searched by evolution.

Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Date: 2010/01/29 19:31:55, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 29 2010,11:48)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 29 2010,05:44)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,06:55)
Apparently Pandas are designed, official!
     
Quote
From the perspective of Darwinism, the giant panda genome testifies to the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to overcome problems caused by mutations. From the perspective of design, we have a story of how a superbly designed carnivore has managed to survive the effects of genetic degradation. From a conservation perspective, without human intervention, the chances of long-term survival are slender.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....in-part
Oddly the post was made by David Tyler, a self proclaimed YEC. So when he says
     
Quote
Although most place the panda in the bear family (Ursidae), a case has been made that it belongs elsewhere – in the raccoon family (Ailuridae).

I wonder what "kind" he places them in when they were in the Ark. Oddly, he does not say.

Or how much bamboo the ark was carrying. But maybe pandas were still carnivorous when they were on the ark, and only suffered the effects of the Fall during their rapid overland trip from Turkey to China.

And if they only made it to South America, Antarctica, or Australia, we'd have marsupial pandas.

Nahhh! They would have been done in by the marsupial t-rexs...

Edit to add: Damn, N. Wells beat me to it.

Date: 2010/01/29 19:45:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

Well, yes. But I was thinking of the nine mutations that occured in the pancreatic Rnase. Several of which allowed it to work in a low PH environment and several more of which helped it extract nitrogen from the plant digesting bacteria of course the ability of the Rnase to process double stranded RNA was reduced but overall the trade off was beneficial. Incidentally, Zhang calculated the number of different paths that could be taken to achieve these results - I'm not sure if it was in this paper or one of his others on the same subject. Turns out there are over forty ways to get from the initial pancreatic Rnase to the digestive one. One can see something kind of similar in some of the pesticide resistance stuff in flies. Some of the initial mutations, although they provide some resistance to pesticides, lower fitness. But then other mutations happen, mutations that moderate the detrimental effects and enhance the beneficial. So Behe's contention that that evolution runs up against an edge after one or two mutations is pure BS.

Date: 2010/02/01 07:17:17, Link
Author: afarensis
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

Date: 2010/02/01 18:42:14, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,09:24)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

Actually, I linked to Zhang's work on pancreatic and digestive Rnases. For the other you need to start with Labbe's work on the Ace gene and Weill and references therein.

Date: 2010/02/01 18:48:03, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2010,14:56)
Since marsupial mammals came first and placental mammals are an offshoot from one branch of marsupials, how many of those early branches still have living descendants? I'm just wondering if there are living marsupials that have been diverging from each other for longer than any placental mammals have been around. (Or to put it another way, if placental mammals are a subclass of the mammal class, do living marsupials form one or several subclasses?)

Henry

Does this help?



Technically, marsupials are in the infraclass metatheria, which is part of the subclass theria (in the most common classification). The other infraclass is the eutheria. Other classifications get more esoteric (see here for more details)

Date: 2010/02/01 22:09:04, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2010,20:42)
Yeah, that says that marsupials are all in one branch, and so all equidistant from placentals. That's what I wasn't sure about.

Then there's also the monotremes, that branched off first before the others diverged from each other.

Henry

The picture came from Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution. Luo has all sorts of interesting papers relevant to this thread available for download at his website.

Date: 2010/02/02 06:58:29, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 02 2010,05:56)
Afarensis, thanks for that phylogeny. It raises a question.

Were all those critters above the placentals and marsupials egg-laying mammals like the monotremes?

My understanding of the situation is that everything in 4 would be egg laying, but I could be wrong...

Date: 2010/02/03 07:25:01, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.

No, there are quite a few anatomical differences between  marsupials and wolves, just not as many as between dolphins and fish. Which is the point. If dolphins can converge on a fish shape and not be the same as fish why can't marsupials converge on a wolf shape and not be the same as wolves. You are being inconsistent.

Date: 2010/02/03 19:21:19, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.

Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.

Date: 2010/02/05 20:08:02, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.

Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.

Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.

Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:



and here are two wolves in a similar view:



Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.

Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong.

Date: 2010/02/08 20:19:27, Link
Author: afarensis
This is pretty cool:

Quote
"Records of ancient seawater chemistry allow us to unravel past changes in climate, plate tectonics and evolution of life in the oceans. These processes affect ocean chemistry and have shaped our planet over millions of years," said Dr Rosalind Coggon, formerly of NOCS now at Imperial College London.

"Reconstructing past ocean chemistry remains a major challenge for Earth scientists, but small calcium carbonate veins formed from warm seawater when it reacts with basalts from the oceanic crust provide a unique opportunity to develop such records," added co-author Professor Damon Teagle from SOES.

Date: 2010/02/09 20:04:52, Link
Author: afarensis
Huh, really! From The Thylacine Museum:

Quote
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.

Date: 2010/02/09 22:23:28, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 09 2010,18:10)
Quote
ETA Now I know what a spandrel is.


Come now!  Joe Cocker sung about them!

But only because his baby wrote him a letter ;)

Date: 2010/02/10 19:15:06, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 10 2010,17:16)
Dr. GH:

 
Quote

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.


Or to restate that in the form of an equation, since math is so highly revered:

ID = special_creationism - honesty

Rearranging we obtain:

special_creationism = ID + honesty

I prefer the equation:

ID = rubes - money

which yields an equally close approximation to the truth.

Date: 2010/02/15 19:56:40, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,00:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From The Thylacine Museum:

 
Quote
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.

They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.

And yet there are first hand accounts of thylacines hopping. People actually saw them engage in  hopping behavior. So, leaving aside the anatomical evidence that indicates they were capable of the behavior - to a limited extent - why should we take your word over that of eyewitnesses?

To answer your other question, the thylacines closest living relative is, apparently the tasmanian devil. Thylacines are part of the Dasyuromorphia. Consequently, I suspect that hopping is a symplesiomorphy, but I could be wrong.  

Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:



I haven't. I wonder what it means? I think it indicates the the jaw and the way the jaw connects to the skull in thylacines is quite a bit different from the jaw joint in wolves.

Date: 2010/02/16 07:08:59, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 15 2010,20:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 15 2010,17:56)
Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:

blah, blah, blah

Whoah! That's some freaky shit.  Ass like a kangaroo, jaws like a snake, striped like a zebra.

Wolf, indeed.

Anecdotally, that is the reaction of most people on seeing pictures of thylacines. They do not go "ahhh, look at the pretty wolf." Not that anecdotal evidence means much in the cosmic scheme of things...

Date: 2010/02/16 19:18:34, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 16 2010,18:45)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,16:32)
Stephen Elliott:
     
Quote
Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.


Sigh. I ignored it because it looked to me like the context of my comment was clear enough, and I have been ignoring rude asides and gross misrepresentations.

The post was to Albatrossity2 in response to his questioning of my observation that there is in-house dissent in regards to the mechanisms of evolution (and in challenge to the Theory of Evolution taught in public schools).

Given Al's curt dismissal of my experience with public education (and opinion of it), I perceived the looming presence of miscommunication in the exchange overall. So I responded with a lengthy (...so sue me) attempt to contextualize, a.k.a. 'clarify'. In the dim hope that small acknowledgment of my position - questioning both sides about the value to society of this 'Culture War' - would make for better communication.

I defended the importance of science itself, and listed some ways that science - or its most vocal culture warrior defenders - could lose the war. In my elucidation of why such tactics will likely backfire I described the unstable sociopolitical situation of the public (including scientists), and how that feeds into these Culture War distractions. Finally, the offending paragraph...

     
Quote
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.


Lede to the paragraph is my observation that science has a nasty PR problem. To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production. Notable things for which science hasn't earned the public's undying loyalty and support. "One too many" refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off - in that same context of public distrust of science. The context is again made clear by the closing sentence of the paragraph.

Accept as-is or choose to misrepresent. I don't care. I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.

And in the end this situation will provide yet another excellent example of why this front in the Culture War is just a distraction [i.e., 'amusement'] along the sociopolitical midway. Not important enough to stage in the main arena, but still useful enough (to Power) to justify rent on the tent.

Joy,
You ignored my original question. Why wont you answer? I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.

 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...

To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.

Yes, that is what she is referencing. UD and TT both pitched fits about it, while the rest of world pretty much ignored it.

ETA: Mike Gene did recant his/her statements

Date: 2010/02/17 19:38:24, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote
WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws?


It's not a big mouth, it is just a mouth that can open really wide (120 degrees in point of fact). I has to do with the structure of the jaw joint - which is different from that of canines. Why hasn't it changed. I think that is an assumption that would require examining the thylacine fossil record to verify. This bit from the abstract of this paper should help:

Quote
We conclude that relative prey size may have been comparable where both species acted as solitary predators, but that the dingo is better adapted to withstand the high extrinsic loads likely to accompany social hunting of relatively large prey. It is probable that there was considerable ecological overlap. As a large mammalian hypercarnivore adapted to taking small-medium sized prey, the thylacine may have been particularly vulnerable to disturbance.


The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) as others on this thread have mentioned is a subspecies of the grey wolf and helped the thylacine go extinct. Which is kind of odd if they are the same species.

Quote

Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results.
Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place.
Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way.
A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy.


I'm not really sure what all that means but if you are saying that evolutionist think that wolves and marsupials have been acted on by selection as they adapt to roughly similar niches and consequently have some similarity in traits then yes that is exactly what we think.

Quote
I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically.


Yet this is exactly what you are arguing for in the case of canine and marsupial wolves. Evolutionists argue that all marsupials are related to each other to the exclusion of other groups on the basis of the anatomy of skeletal and soft tissue traits.

So, although you claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder you have offered us nothing in the way of anatomy that would support your point - rather you just keep asserting that some superficial resemblance between the two means they are the same.

I wonder why the thylacine has different limb proportions than the wolf does?

Date: 2010/02/17 22:03:12, Link
Author: afarensis
Hi,
Welcome!

ETA: We had one in the anthro dept but didn't know it till afterwards - at least us students didn't.

Date: 2010/02/18 18:46:13, Link
Author: afarensis
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2010/02/18 18:53:35, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2010,18:21)
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.

This is what I found doing that search!

Date: 2010/02/18 20:59:18, Link
Author: afarensis
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 18 2010,11:45)
Thank you all, folks. I'm not sure how Alba found that photo of my brother, but he looks nothing like me.

Alas our router died, and we haven't plugged the new one in yet. So we had to come to a bar to get access (hang on, I'm on my iPhone). So this is a good day to spam GrrlScientist's blog.

Once we've finished drinking we're going home to make nachos, guacamole and salsa, and drink mojitos. So tomorrow might be a good day to spam GrrlScientist too.

Mission accomplished!

Girrl's blog has been spammed!

Date: 2010/02/19 18:51:04, Link
Author: afarensis