AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: coy_

form_srcid: coy_

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: coy_

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'coy_%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/12/31 21:38:24, Link
Author: Coyote
I submitted the following, but it is "awaiting moderation" so don't expect to see it:

The problem with ID is that it is simply not science. Its origins are clearly religious, and in fact, a particularly narrow segment of religious belief.

ID came into renewed vogue after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which banned creation “science” from the schools.

Failing to make the grade as a science, ID has been promoted, largely by the Discovery Institute and its herd of lawyers, PR flaks, English majors, journalists and other “scientists.”

Their whole sordid scheme was leaked nearly ten years ago — the notorious Wedge Strategy, but they have continued to follow the plan, pushing ID in the media instead of in the technical scientific journals. The reason? They don’t qualify for the scientific journals because they don’t follow the scientific method. Invoking an unnamed, unverified, and unverifiable deity as the source for natural phenomena is about as anti-scientific as you can get.

And if you, professor, are a closet IDer, hiding your anti-science beliefs until you get tenure, you are following the Wedge Strategy to a “T”. And, in my opinion, being dishonest.

Any affiliation or contact with the Discovery Institute you would like to tell us about? Are you one of their tame Fellows or something?

Date: 2008/01/04 14:20:10, Link
Author: Coyote
In response to Professor Smith's latest post, titled "Darwinist Indoctrination," I posted the following:

As a counter to the article you cite, here is another article that might provide some much-needed balance:

The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: The Case Against Intelligent Design
Jerry Coyne

It is "awaiting moderation" so it will probably never see the light of day.

Date: 2008/01/04 20:12:09, Link
Author: Coyote
Another one for the "Professor":

Coyote // January 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

professorsmith // January 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm

I have nothing against Jerry Coyne except that I think he is misguided.


Do you have any evidence that he is incorrect?

The evidence on ID seems quite clear: it is simply creation “science” relabeled following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wedge Strategy lays out the entire process that the Discovery Institute has been following since the early 1990s.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case was the chance for creationists to make their case, but many of them chickened out, even one who had been salivating at the chance to ask questions of “Darwinists” under oath.

And, ID was firmly linked to creationism during the trial by a lot of evidence, including the cut-and-pastes made to the “Pandas and People” book, changing “creation” to “design” but otherwise staying the same.

You claim Coyne is misguided. I think he is seeing the dishonest morphing of creation “science” into ID quite clearly. Perhaps you are the one who is misguided?

Date: 2008/01/06 01:12:51, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (BCnotAD @ Jan. 06 2008,10:17)
On Jan 2, our professor claims, based on reading a NYTimes article, that women have evoved an extra vertebra due to the ancestral transition to upright locomotion. It aids in balance during pregnancy, he avers.

Of course the article, by John Schwartz, Dec 12, says no such thing.  It seems that the lower back *curvature*, present in men and women, extends over three vertebrae in women compared to two in men.  Additionaly  s/he  claims that this nondiscovery supports ID, rather than evo, because it is "directed."

Our professor should be directed to the nearest remedial reading center.


Comment on: Evolution is so Smart:

Coyote // January 6, 2008 at 7:10 am

Professor Smith: New research apparently shows that women evolved extra vertebrae to deal with upright walking and pregnancy. But, does it really show that? I say, “No,” at least not by modern evolutionary theory.


You are correct; the number of vertebrae is the same (as is the number of ribs) in males and females.

But you are incorrect about this having anything to do with ID “science.” And you have demonstrated that you are not a professor of anthropology, anatomy or anything close.

“Purely directionless modifications,” eh? You really should study some evolutionary science if you want your comments to have any credibility.

You sound more like a professor of religious studies or some such?

Date: 2008/01/06 19:12:48, Link
Author: Coyote
Another try. The comment at the top of this page never made it past moderation, so perhaps this one will do better.

Coyote // January 7, 2008 at 1:07 am

As long as this thread is a “Primer on ID” I would like to submit the following link:

Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy, by Donald E. Simanek.

It provides a thorough discussion of the subject.

In case the link does not work, here is the URL:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Date: 2008/01/08 11:35:34, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (UnMark @ Jan. 08 2008,09:51)
What, did everyone get put into moderation except me?

Most of mine have gone into moderation.

I just submitted this:

Coyote // January 8, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Mark: I don’t know of any scientist who says there are NO controversies about evolution. But nearly all also say that these exist at a level that one typically doesn’t attain until late in undergrad studies.


I had a course titled “Controversies in Evolution” — about my third year of grad school. It concentrated on fossil man, and not a one of those controversies would gladden the heart of an evolution-denier.

Not that an evolution-denier would understand any of what was being discussed without a number of years of study beforehand.

Date: 2008/01/08 21:18:56, Link
Author: Coyote
Here is a good rebuttal to Behe's The Edge of Evolution:

Behe has not fared well with his ideas outside of creationist/ID circles. His works have been demolished by numerous scientists, and his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case made him look like a complete fool.

Date: 2008/01/09 23:25:16, Link
Author: Coyote
Question: how does one edit one's own post?

I have seen several posts above edited, but I can't figure out how to do it.

Date: 2008/01/09 23:29:25, Link
Author: Coyote

Date: 2008/01/09 23:31:46, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 10 2008,09:30)
New accounts don't get edit privileges automatically.

OK. Thanks!

Date: 2008/01/10 00:03:45, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 10 2008,04:24)
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.

OK, here are a couple of pieces of evidence against the idea of a global flood.

1) In southern Alaska there is a cave, called On Your Knees Cave. A partial skeleton produced a radiocarbon date at 10,300 years ago. The mtDNA of that individual has been traced to 40+ living descendants from California to the tip of South America.

2) From my own work I have a skeleton from the west coast dated to 5,300 years ago. Its mtDNA pattern matched living descendants in the same area.

These cases illustrate continuity, and show that there was no population drop on the west coast ca. 4350 years ago followed by replacement with a Middle Eastern mtDNA pattern.

In addition, we have continuity of Native cultures, soil horizons, fauna and flora, and a lot of other lines of evidence.  All would be different if there was a global flood 4350 years ago.

But there were some smaller floods at the end of the Ice Age. Google "channeled scablands" and see what happened to central and southern Washington when some ice dams let go.

Now, if we can see those small floods, back some 9,000+ years ago, just think how obvious a global flood at half that age would be.

Can you account for this evidence?

Date: 2008/01/10 22:45:13, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 11 2008,08:04)
...the current theory has no good mechanistic explanations for evolution and no one wants to admit that.  Evolution is no longer science it is dogma because of the perceived threat from ID/creationism.

No mechanism for evolution? Could you explain this to me.

This does not reflect what I learned in grad school.

And, although it was a couple of decades ago, not once do I remember creationism being brought up -- as a perceived threat or otherwise -- and half of my coursework to the Ph.D. level was in fossil man, human osteology, human races, and related subjects.

Creationism simply was not important enough to be even mentioned in serious academic studies when I went to school. (Of course ID had not even been cooked up back then.)

So, for this old timer, please explain the "no mechanism" comment.

Date: 2008/01/20 22:14:37, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2008,03:18)
My knotheaded dogs never caught on.

Which way was the wind blowing at the time?

Might also depend on what the coyote had been doing that might affect how it smells.

Oh, and were there any roadrunners in the area? :p


I wasn't anywhere near there at the time and I ain't saying anything more until the statute of limitations runs out.

Date: 2008/01/20 22:36:36, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 19 2008,07:53)
Just wondering, but does "Teh Fall" conflict with Intelligent Falling Theory? :p


Then there's always Intelligent Delivery.

Date: 2008/01/21 21:56:03, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 22 2008,07:05)
For example, consider a population with equal numbers (50% each) of organisms with two genotypes, A and B. If the average number of offspring for genotype A is 2.0, and the average number for genotype B is just 2.2, genotype B will be over 99% of the population after just 50 generations. Fitness is not all-or-none. Selection is not all-or none. Please try to integrate this reality into your simplistic notions about natural selection and other mechanisms of evolutionary change.

It is even worse than your example describes. Change is going on in hundreds or thousands of traits in a population at the same time. And sometimes change works in two directions at once!

That is why, for example, sickle cell anemia can be detrimental on one hand and can confer some malaria immunity on the other hand. Somehow the adaptations came as a package and were 1) useful enough to convey some survival advantage while 2) not being too detrimental.

It is too easy to think of evolution in terms of single, isolated traits, but many traits are changing all at the same time.

Date: 2008/01/23 10:51:54, Link
Author: Coyote
Here is one from FreeRepublic (post #416 if the link does not go to the exact spot):

Here’s the great hting (for the evo side) most of the assumptions about past unkowns can’t be proven, but they sure can be shoved down our kids throats despite a complete lakcof evidence and biological support- infact- it’s worse than that- it’s shoved down our kids throats despite overwhelming evidences that show the impossibiltities of it and it’s called science? If the evidence backs them into a corner? Heck, no problem- just adjust the assumptions to suit your needs with hypothesis that also rests entirely on assumptions.

And no, this is not a spoof.

Date: 2008/01/26 11:57:56, Link
Author: Coyote
Another one from FreeRepublic (no, it is not a spoof):

I’m not hteo ne going against htis- it is Macroevolutionists that go against this as the last 150 years of research have shown the impossible nature of evolution, AND that design is both observably irreducible, and that design is present in everything - those insisting otherwise are doing so purely on religious beliefs that a process as yet undocumented ‘could have been possible’ despite hte incredible problems associated with the process as a whole and at every level. Macroevo’s can’t even demonstrate one small aspect of Macroevolution, and yet they ask that we teach our students that trillions of law violating steps took place and that NEW information just appeared out of nowhere due to a manipulation of a species specific information and that NEW parts and systems arose that violate the biological process. The ONLY way for NEW ifnormation to come about is through leteral gene transference, yet the Macroevo insists that stepwise accumulations that violate hte second law could create NEW information- Everythign science has found contradicts this, and every experiment to show the creation of NEW information has failed. The Macroevo is forced then to insist that CHANGED information within species specific parameters is equivelent to NEW information, and that CHANGED information can produce NEW organs- and htere simply isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest htis- ONLY assumptions driven hypothesis.


Date: 2008/01/28 21:47:53, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2008,07:28)
In the evolutionary theory, humans were vegan long before we turned to an unnatural diet of dead animals. Before tools, weapons and fire there was no meat-eating.

Methinks that claim should be reviewd by an expert in nutrition. Unless I've misunderstood what I've read on that subject, without meat humans need either a carefully planned diet (that most likely involves some non-local food items), or else manufactured supplements to fill in for what they don't get in the diet (and for kids the planning and/or supplements would be even more critical than for adults). I don't see either of those as being possible prior to modern technology.


Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?

Date: 2008/02/02 13:31:42, Link
Author: Coyote
There hasn't been a comment posted on "Professor Smith's" blog since January 21.

Looks like he's just talking to himself.

Date: 2008/05/04 14:00:49, Link
Author: Coyote
Appropriate to the discussion of Darwin=Hitler from Expelled, here is a blog from that may be of interest.

I can't  guarantee its accuracy but, well... take a look.

Date: 2008/05/12 22:14:12, Link
Author: Coyote
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 13 2008,05:14)
Well, I went to see the stinker this afternoon.  I took about 20 pages of notes (in the dark).  I can hardly think of how to begin describing how bad this piece of crap is.



Date: 2013/08/18 06:19:31, Link
Author: coy_
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 14 2013,23:25)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 15 2013,05:02)
These two fill in most of the story after the "grenade" post:

Shermer's lawyers

David Silverman tweeted:

David Silverman ?@MrAtheistPants 11h

I liked a @YouTube video from @mrdeity  Mr. Deity and the Hat
View media


David Silverman ?@MrAtheistPants 11h

Mr. Deity and the Hat:  See @mrdeity @ #aacon14

I list his twitter source of the youtube (at least the top one works) because Silverman is president of American Atheists.  The shots taken at Myers by Mr. Deity begin a little after the five minute mark.

Glen Davidson

Brian Dalton should know better than to present false equivalences. Rape is not an extraordinary claim, let alone a miraculous one! Idiot.

Is he also implying that PZ made it all up? To what end?

Myers is not trying to get Shermer convicted. Also pretty sure he would have known that if he gets sued, he will almost certainly lose.

With his "personal responsibility" remark, what is Dalton saying? It is okay to have sex with women who are too drunk to consent? Women shouldn't drink at all? Both?

Contrary to received wisdom, women do not generally lie about rape and sexual assault.

But most important of all, a victim's choices are NOT the point. To see this, think of anyone who commented on a murder or non-sexual assault charge with criticism of the victim's intoxication level. Irrelevant victim blaming isn't it?

Whilst bad choices do not exonerate blame from a perpatrator, ignoring the bad decisions that someone made that lead them to be vulnurable to a perpatrator is not very smart. Mentioning that a victim was intoxicated and that it may have contributed to their likliehood of being a victim on that occasion isn't victim blaming. Victim blaming actually exists and when people misrepresent stating a fact such as "the victim was drunk" as victim blaming which would look more like "she deserved it because she was drunk", it invalidates the cases where victim blaming is actually an issue.

Whenever it comes to any other type of assault, people's first response is not to speculate on what the victim might have done to facilitate the attack. Think about that. We don't do this for any other crime, I don't think, let alone assault.

Every time a child is kidnapped/murdered we do the exact same thing. We want to know who was responsible for looking after this child. When someone gets burgled, we ask how they got in, we talk about how we can be "safer" next time. IF someone physically assaults you in the street, we immediately ask what led to them taking this action. We never (or the rational never) say that justifies the action, but we look for reasons why that person became a victim, probably to minimise the risk of it happening to us.

Most accounts of rape are not lies.

I'm sure that this is true, just because I find it difficult to believe that the majority of people who claim they have been raped would make it up knowing the consequences for the other person as well as themselves. However, I don't know this to be true. It would need some pretty awesome research methods to ascertain how true this is. I'm unsure how you could say this with such absolute certainty.

Where "leaving your doors unlocked" is drinking wine at a conference.

What people seem loathe to understand is that consuming alcohol makes everyone more susceptible to being a victim of a crime. Anyone getting so drunk that they lose their inhibitions/are unaware of their surroundings/cannot remember what happened becomes more likely to be in an accident or the victim or perpetrator of a crime. This isn't specific to gender, biological sex or even rape itself. If someone went out, drinking enough alcohol that they were oblivious to the fact that the people he saw as new drinking buddies were actually stealing his wallet, people would criticise his behaviour as well as condemning the thieves. In fact, they would be more likely to dismiss the actions of the thieves as opportunistic behaviour  rather than malicious larceny. The principle remains: some people are criminals - they seek to commit crime. There are steps we can all take to reduce our chances of being a victim to their crimes.

You know what is most wrong about this "if only she had not done X" stuff? It helps perpetuate the perception that women can always avoid rape if they are "sensible". This is patent bullshit.

You are less likely to be a victim of any crimes if you take some precautions that make you less vulnerable to being a victim of crime. Of course, that doesn't mean you will never be a victim of crime, but there are ways of minimising risk. Dismissing this concept actually "helps to perpetuate" the idea that people should not make responsible decisions because nobody should take advantage of their vulnerabilities anyway. An idea that belongs with the unicorns.

Where if we tell of a man who goes out to a bar and gets drunk and then is followed home and assaulted for his wallet, the overwhelming reaction is condemnation of the assailant not "men shouldn't go out to pubs and get blind drunk" or "I don't believe it happened". Of course, because it is fucking ridiculous to be hyperskeptical about someone getting assaulted. However, the same people, good people too, react to testimony of rape with victim blaming and denial.

As I said earlier, this isn't my experience at all. People will even go as far as to say he probably wasn't mugged at all and lost his wallet/fell over drunk.

However, nothing you said is evidence.

And this is the key point. What I want to know from people on this side of the argument is whether they want the evidence needed to take someone to court/convict them of rape should be of a lesser standard than that of other crimes? Ie you need pretty good circumstantial evidence to secure a murder conviction, should you need "okay" circumstantial evidence to convict someone of rape?