Storms’ “academic freedom” bill was approved by the education committee on a 4-1 vote.
[edited to add: For those of you dropping in from outside links, please see my latest blog post “Don’t Panic” for much more information. And also see the “tracking the bills” post for legislative information.]
Florida will thus insure its place as the most scientifically illiterate state in the nation.
I hope the Max Planck folks hear about this and think long and hard about locating a facility in the state. Clearly, “good science in Florida” is destined to be an oxymoron.
You hear that? It’s the sound of a dozen lawyers salivating in anticipation… The Florida BoE should plan on allocating lawsuit settlements into this year’s budget.
How disappointing. These Senators either did not research this, or they are clearly in favor of religion in our public schools. Either way, it is an embarrassment to Florida. Now we can look forward to costly lawsuits, confusion and disruption in our classrooms, and further degradation of education in Florida. Millions of dollars have been spent to attract science jobs in this state. It will be interesting to hear these representatives’ explanations as to why those jobs get sent overseas. But wait!! Maybe they will come up with an “Employment Freedom” bill so that kids without a science education will have to be hired. ARGH. What a waste. What incredible ignorance. How very sad for Florida students and teachers.
From the gradebook:
“This is very confusing to me, because I believe this will open the door to very serious problems in the school system,” said Sen. Larcenia Bullard, who suggested she might oppose the bill in a full Senate vote.
Here’s the vote tally, in case you wondered — Bullard, Wise, Lisa Carlton, and Alex de la Portilla supported the bill, Deutch opposed it, and chairman Don Gaetz and vice chair Frederica Wilson were absent.”
The chair and vice chair were absent? Oh, great. It would have been nice if Sen Bullard acted on that stand earlier.
Apparently, we will have to let the courts decide. I guess the creationists win this battle, but they won’t win the war. In thirty years, we will look back on this in the same light that people look back on the Scopes Monkey Trial.
I’m confused … doesn’t this have to get approved by the ENTIRE SENATE? As far as I know – little committees of 12 do not get to pass bills and make them law. ????
S.S.,
Yes, the bill moves to the full Senate. If it is approved, it has to go to the House, then to the Governor. Here’s hoping it gets stopped.
Here is a good flow chart about how a bill becomes law: http://www.flsenate.gov/data/civics/idea_to_law_chart.pdf
I’m green
I am mildly optimistic that this ‘academic freedumb act’ will not pass both houses. If it does, I believe that Gov. Christ has enough political ambition for his future and is intelligent enough to veto this embarrassment. Last resort … a Dover-type trial in our back yard would be kinda exciting. Maybe after the State goes bankrupt, we could get better government elected.
S.Scott …
Why would any biotech company or any company in any life-sciences field want to locate in a state that willfully withholds real science education from its children?
Actually, why would a company that employs any kind of scientist want to locate in such an intellectual vacuum?
Looks like the science faculties in Florida’s colleges and universities have been asleep at the switch.
Why are evolanders against academic freedom?
William Wallace, what are ‘evolanders’ ?
Why are evolanders against academic freedom?
This bill has little if anything to do with academic freedom. Why was evolution singled out? Why not have academic freedom to teach differing views on history, like holocaust revisionism? Why not teach that pi is exactly three, as the bible says? Wouldn’t these also be academic freedoms? Why not change the bill to let teachers teach whatever they want, regardless of the state standards?
The answer is simple. This is not about academic freedom. This is about wedging creationism into schools. This is about weaseling out of state standards for the sake of a few constituents.
PC-Bash, what does section 7 of the bill say?
ToE thumpers (Theory of Evolution Thumpers) most often Godless liberals who think the Theory of Evolution is a weapon against those who worship God. As Ann Coulter points out in Godless: The Church of Liberalism, conservatives don’t need the ToE to be false, but Godless liberals need it to be true. This is why they suppress dissent from neo-Darwinism.
For information on academic freedom, I recommend this program by National Public Radio: Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by NPR’s Barbara Hagerty
Don’t let the inevitable evolander whining fool you, though…the program has not been retracted.
I just sent this to Senator Deutch. I will be sending modified versions to the morons who voted in favor of this piece of crap.
Dear Senator Deutch:
I want to thank you for being the only Committee member with enough sense to vote against the ridiculous SR 2692. Ronda Storms and her cohorts are an embarrassment to this state and have helped to make Florida the biggest laughingstock since the school board of Dover, PA took a stand for scientific ignorance. And you know what happened to them when the school board came up for reelection…
If this ill-conceived monstrosity wends its way through to becoming law, we will likely have to reinstate the state income tax to pay for all of the Dover-esque lawsuits that will be brought to bear for violating the Establishment Clause.
I am a registered Republican but am giving serious consideration to switching my party allegiance due to the Republicans’ continuous religious pandering, as embodied in SR 2692.
Once again, thank you for being the lone Voice of Reason today in voting against SR 2692.
ToE thumpers (Theory of Evolution Thumpers) most often Godless liberals who think the Theory of Evolution is a weapon against those who worship God. As Ann Coulter points out in Godless: The Church of Liberalism, conservatives don’t need the ToE to be false, but Godless liberals need it to be true. This is why they suppress dissent from neo-Darwinism.
Nice strawman.
PC-Bash, what does section 7 of the bill say?
Section seven of the bill is meaningless in the context of the rest of the bill. What differing views do you think the bill is referring to? Care to elaborate?
It’s interesting that out of one side of your mouth, you can claim that this bill is not about religious doctrine, yet out of the other side of your mouth, you can claim that the opponents of these bills are, and I quote “most often Godless liberals”. So, what is this really about? “Academic freedom”, or a way for creationists to force their religious doctrine down our throats?
Oh, William… did you have to mention Ann Coulter? Aack, I was about to eat dinner, now I’ll spend the rest of the night vomiting. Is there a bigger skank in the entire world? 👿
PC-Bash,
See section 7. Describing the motives of Godless liberals does not mean most Christians want church teachings taught in the public schools. Most do not. Yet, most Christians, and many non-Christians, support academic freedom.
Why don’t you support academic freedom? Do you think Florida should have a bunch of Dr. Michael Dini’s punishing students who do not “believe” in the theory of evolution even though they can explain it?
Orwellian doublethink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
That’s real funny, because it was the religious extremists and other fundamentalists that brought up the possibility of evolution challenging the existence of their god, twisted its definition in a way that makes it a direct challenge to god’s existence (little known fact: evolution doesn’t challenge the existence of god), and raised hell about it, leaving every biologist thinking WTF???
This whole academic freedom is a misnomer. It makes as much sense as calling theft and robbery “property liberation.”
Also, Anne Coulter… it’s like all the comical stereotypes of the close-minded conservative types fall into place with you. Do you even hear the unintelligent and often factually incorrect crap she spouts out? She’s a professional troll for the sake of attention. By her own logic, she shouldn’t even be writing books and giving presentations what with all the cooking and cleaning she’s supposed to be doing in the kitchen.
What happened was once the evo brownshirts left Florida the average IQ of the state went up 27 points and they passed this most important legislation.
I understand many states are asking for copies of the bill’s language.
How encourgeing!!
See section 7. Describing the motives of Godless liberals does not mean most Christians want church teachings taught in the public schools. Most do not. Yet, most Christians, and many non-Christians, support academic freedom.
It’s interesting that you bring up “most Christians”. Most Christians support evolution. It is only the extreme fringe that have a problem with evolution.
Why don’t you support academic freedom?
See, I believe that we should teach students based on a strong state standard. The problem with our current educational system is that there is too much of this “freedom”: “freedom” for students to graduate completely ignorant of science, “freedom” for students to graduate with the reading comprehension of a sixth grader, “freedom” for students to graduate without enough grasp of mathematics to function in the real world, etc. This “freedom” for teachers to contradict the state standards and teach controversy where there is none is asinine. You and I both know it. Only Christians of little faith would have a problem with evolution. Is your faith so fragile that it can be destroyed by facts?
With no malice, you are simply ignorant of history. Learn about Thomas Huxley’s and Ernst Haeckel’s evangelical tirades and sermons before commenting.
Keith Eaton posted
I certainly hope this post was made in irony, what with the IQ remark and intentional(?) misspelling of “encouraging”…
As do I, with an emphasis on state as in United States not state as in government. Each state should have its own standards per federalism.
But should a science teacher be protected if s/he decides show some Powerpoint slides questioning some tenants of neo-Darwinism?
I think so.
Do you support this sort of academic freedom?
Or, a science teacher who mentions that some researchers are attempting to detect design?
Do you support this sort of academic freedom?
Hey Kieth, keep up the good work. (Note to others: I borrowed keith’s term, “evolanders”.)
“ToE thumpers (Theory of Evolution Thumpers) most often Godless liberals who think the Theory of Evolution is a weapon against those who worship God. As Ann Coulter points out in Godless: The Church of Liberalism, conservatives don’t need the ToE to be false, but Godless liberals need it to be true. This is why they suppress dissent from neo-Darwinism.”
Thank you. This is a bit confusing though: You think the Toe is not a weapon against those who worship god. Right? And also you say conservatives don’t need the ToE to be false. So who is doing all this dissent then? Are you? Why ?
Sometimes it is best not to feed the trolls.
Goody! I am so glad this bill looks like it’s going to pass. I have instructed my children to tell their respective teachers, upon ratification of this bill, that any answer or assignment that the teacher may give is in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Firemancarl,
Before making inapplicable comments check the amended bill. I think this is the url:
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/committees/Senate/meeting_packets/ED.pdf
warning – the pdf is a scan and it is over 4 megs.
Commentary starts on about p 28, new bill is pages 31 – 33.
Bottom line: the only function of the bill is to aid and abet teaching creationism.
As do I, with an emphasis on state as in United States not state as in government. Each state should have its own standards per federalism.
We do have a good standard in science education in Florida now. It’s the creationists and fundamentalists who are trying to water it down now.
But should a science teacher be protected if s/he decides show some Powerpoint slides questioning some tenants of neo-Darwinism? I think so.
Have these questions been peer reviewed? Have they gone through the same rigorous testing as evolution did? No. Should we teach every possible half-baked idea that a teacher could come up with? Would it be academic freedom if a teacher taught that leprechauns created life, if that nonsense included no religious doctrine? How is that different than ID?
Do you support this sort of academic freedom?
No. I support teaching science in the science classroom, not the personal incredulity of a teacher acting as an authority figure.
Or, a science teacher who mentions that some researchers are attempting to detect design?
If their “theory” (which isn’t even a valid scientific hypothesis) is proved, then sure. Until then, it is right up there with perpetual motion, crystal healing, and other superstitious nonsense.
Do you support this sort of academic freedom?
You mean.. teaching children superstitious nonsense with no evidence to back it up… in a science classroom? Absolutely not.
Bottom line: the only function of the bill is to aid and abet teaching creationism.
Undoubtedly. This is yet another bill that fits into the “this bill actually does the opposite of its title” category.
This bill WILL lead to a backlash against fundamentalist extremists meddling with the education system if passed and signed into law. Mark my words. Once schools start closing do to bankruptcy inducing lawsuits, no amount of “religion” can console tens of thousands of angry parents who now have their children’s future dashed to pieces. The bible puts it best with Galatians VI:
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap
Yes Pete, and then I can sue because although the bill is for fundie creationists, the FSM has another idea on how life began. One lawsuit like that, and the fundies will come out of the woodwork screaming. “Squuueeeeee!!!! We only want YEC taught! No other theory is allowed!!” And that my friend is how we’ll watch their ship sink.
Indeed, Carl, I don’t think the YECs want this version taught.
A multi-million dollar lawsuit is petty cash for a big state like Florida. The state government probably has attorneys sitting on their hands and needing some work to do. The unfortunate thing is that this bill probably would not be grounds for a lawsuit. Legislatures and school boards have been intimidated by that stupid Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. I would like to see the courts declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable.
The Darwinists are not only claiming that there are no serious scientific challenges to Darwinism now, but are also claiming that such challenges are not going to be discovered in the future.
–“Why not have academic freedom to teach differing views on history, like holocaust revisionism? “–
Well, that would be a good idea, too. Official holocaust history is full of holes.
Dear Senators and Representatives,
Bring IT On!!! I have standing – Don’t worry, I WILL bring you to court!
Larry,
First, there are no serious scientific challenges to evolution (there are no departments of Darwinism, so I’ll use the correct term). Creation science and intelligent design rely on supernatural causation, and thus have not produced a single peer-reviewed research paper. The database is public, I encourage you to examine it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
Second, if scientific challenges to any current scientific understanding arise in the future, they will impact our understanding after rigorous scientific inquiry. A perfect example is the theory of plate tectonics. Scientists do not bar new scientific findings, but we rightfully reject pseudoscience and those who would foist it upon school curricula.
Larry Fafarman said: “Official holocaust history is full of holes.”
Infamous evolution-denier troll Larry Fafarman is now also a holocaust denier. Where do you stand on heliocentrism versus geocentrism, Larry? Where do you stand on a flat versus spherical earth, Larry? How about the Apollo moon landings – were they real or fake?
Well, that would be a good idea, too. Official holocaust history is full of holes.
Heh. Larry did not catch my sarcasm, apparently. Let’s not get into a discussion that will have this thread closed again…
My point is that this so-called “academic freedom” bill is not about academic freedom. It is purposefully singling out evolution. The reason why teachers don’t have “academic freedom” in the classroom is because what students are taught should be held to some sort of standard. When teachers violate this standard, especially due to their own personal incredulity, they should be properly disciplined. If they don’t agree with the standard, then they should go through the proper channels to have it changed. Essentially, all this bill is doing is defeating the purpose of having a standard. It is ridiculous, and it is another embarrassment for the “hanging chad” state.
I was beginning to think there was hope for you yet Larry but alas, I was wrong.
Before you start encouraging our legislature to ignore the cost of lawsuits, maybe you should take a look at the state budget.
They are trying to figure out how to recover something like 86 mil. that was being used by our education system.
But you don’t give a s**t about that, do you! Of course not! Neither you nor Mr. Eaton live in Florida (I don’t know about Mr. Wallace – but I doubt he does either)
Larry, you’ve already admitted that ID is not science, so what is your true agenda? I know you have a “THING” for Judge Jones, but he doesn’t live in Florida either! So what’s your true agenda? C’mon now … be honest! 🙂
This is a lovely story from today’s AP …
Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
… sorry – I forgot to put a sarcasm tag on that one. 🙁
Will this *Academic Feeding Bull* protect those teachers who take the time to point out the unscientific, vacuous, anti-evolutionary IDeas as an alternative to scientifically supported evolutionary theory?
I also optimistically see the opportunity for the teaching of His Noodlyness’s
creation theory. After all it is the one true creation theory!
Perhaps our fleet will be ready to sail for Florida in time for such a momentous event.
RAmen
First off, I am not from Florida. I’ve been reading these comments and I’m incredibly intrigued by the ignorance of some of these commenters. Larry and William Wallace clearly have not even attempted to read a high school biology book. If either one of you is reading this, do you have any idea how stupid you would look if you had to enter a room and engage in a debate with some actual biologists? These people devote their lives to studying biology. You hide behind a keyboard and type things that you hope to be true but are too fucking dense to research for yourself. What’s worse is that it’s the children that will be dealt the short hand because of your stupidity. For the last time, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. Larry and WIlliam: Kill yourselves so the children can learn without your fucking simple minded beliefs disrupting their progress.
Churches
24 Hour Church of Elvis Abston Church of Christ
Agnostic Church Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry
Andersianism Apostolate of a Silent Soul
Atheists for Jesus Avalonian Catholic Church
Beer Church Chapel of the Snoring Possum
Charlie the Hamster Evangelistic Ministry Christian Vegetarian Association
Church and School of Wicca
Church for the Churchless Church of All Worlds
Church of Amiga Church of Ancient Ways
Church of Apatheism Church of Apeiron
Church of Ben Church of Betty
Church of Body Modification Church of Buddy Christ
Church of Buffett, Orthodox Church of Bullshitology
Church of Cash Church of Christ Ad Exchange
Church of Civilization Church of Craft
Church of Critical Thinking Church of Daler Mehndi
Church of Darwin Church of Ebriusology
Church of Ed Wood Church of Emacs
Church of Endora Church of Fandel
Church of Fear Church of Fools
Church of Frag Church of Gid
Church of Girl V4.0 Church of Gnostic Luminism
Church of God Anonymous Church of Google
Church of Googlism Church of Hank
Church of Hed Church of Hot Air
Church of Iron Oak Church of j35u5 chr15t
Church of Jeff Scholey Church of John Coltrane
Church of Johnson Church of JoJo Pieism
Church of Klugman Church of Least Resistance
Church of Light Church of Lucifer
Church of Magick Church of Mary
Church of Mez Church of Miho
Church of Mockery Church of Monday Night Football
Church of MOO Church of NO MA’AM
Church of NOJ Church of Nothing At All
Church of Now Church of O
Church of Our Lady of Malted Barley and Hops
Church of Pennywise Church of Perfect Liberty
Church of Rabin and Peace Church of Reality
Church of Reason Church of Ryouga
Church of Saget Church of Sardior
Church of Satan Church of Saturday Night Live
Church of Secularistic Holidayism
Church of Spock of Latter-Day Science Officers
Church of SpongeBob Squarepants
Church of Spork Church of Stop Shopping
Church of Telatium Church of Tetris
Church of the Almighty Dollar Church of the Almighty Kiwi
Church of the Apathetic Agnostic Church of the Avocado
Church of the Beholder
Church of the Blinding White Light of Stupidity
Church of the Blue Amazon Church of the Churchless
Church of the Covered Dish Church of the Customer
Church of the Darkside Goddess Church of the Dome
Church of the East Church of the Empty Bottle
Church of the Evil Dead
Church of the Fisher Price Record Player
Church of the Fishermen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Church of the Friendly Ghost Church of the Future
Church of the Gerbil
Church of the Great Charismatic Pineapple
Church of the Grey Church of the Heavenly Wood
Church of the Interactive Network Church of the Jelly Bean
Church of the Lambchop Almighty
Church of the Larger Fellowship Church of the Living Tree
Church of the Machine Church of the Meta-Seed
Church of the Open Heart Church of the Profit$
Church of the Quivering Otter Church of the Rain Forest
Church of the Rotate Your Envelope Stock
Church of the Sacred Swine Church of the Spiral Tree
Church of the SubGenius
Church of the Swimming Elephant Church of the Universe
Church of Tiamat Church of Tina Chopp
Church of Transport Tycoon
Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca Church of Virus
Church of Volkswagenism Church of Zen Fatalism
ChurchLite – Church for the Unbeliever
Clown Ministry
Companions Church
Cult of Bob
Cult of Cod
Cult of Da Man
Cult of Distraction
Cult of Free Inquiry
Cult of Harsh Reality
Cult of Macintosh
Cult of Scalia
Cult of Steve
Cult of the Almighty Dave
Cult of the Cat
Cult of the Dead Milkmen
Cult of the Flaky Hardware
Cult of the Great Serpent
Cult of Uranus
Cult of Vi
Cutting Edge Ministries
Demon Church
E-Commercial Church
East Los Angeles Chapel of Satan
Eclectic Movement for Inri Cristo
First Church of Appliantology
First Church of Bowling
First Church of Buster
First Church of Chumbawamba
First Church of Common Sense
First Church of Cyberspace
First Church of Dan Aykroyd
First Church of Elvis the Divine
First Church of Generic Beliefs
First Church of Holy Rock and Roll
First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis
First Church of Kurt the Redeemer
First Church of Lindy Hop
First Church of Pac-Man
First Church of Plank
First Church of Raymond
First Church of Satan
First Church of Senior Lab/Grand Lord PSI
First Church of Shatnerology
First Church of Simba
First Church of Smeg
First Church of Sushi
First Church of the Easily Amused
First Church of the Grey Goo
First Church of the Last Laugh
First Church of the Living Dead
First Church of the Sarian Way Reformed
First Church of the Synthetic Christ
First Church of Tiger Woods
First Church of Wintermute
First Electronic Church of America
First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
First Rastafarian Church of Satan
First Reformed Church of Spongebob Squarepants
First Satanglican Church of Wendall Corners
Food for Faith Fellowship International
Hair Religion
Hawaii Cannabis Ministry
Holy Church of IP
Holy Church of Moo
Holy Church of Pie
Holy Order of Sockism
Inflatable Church
Internet Church of God
Jedi Church
Jeez fer Joozis
Jenny’s Jesus Club
Jesus Is My Red Pill
Kababism
Kedonald
Kick Ass Post Apocalyptic Doomsday Cult of Love
Landover Baptist Church
Megachurch
Ministry of Charles and Paula Slagle
Ministry of Hubert the Invisible Beaver
North Texas Church of Freethought
Ordo Templi Orientis
Partridge Family Temple
Peyote Way Church
Potato God Worship Center
Process Church of the Final Judgment
Psycult
Rational Universal Church of the Philippines
Religion of the Light and Sound of God
Restored Church of the Star Goat
Saint Fechin’s Independent Catholic Church
Saint John Coltrane Church
Sanctuary of Inominandum
Sinagogue of Satan
Spiritual Temple of The Way of the Nazirene
SuperChurch
Techanism
Temple of Alife
Temple of Belch
Temple of Black Jesus
Temple of George W. Bush
Temple of Godzilla
Temple of Love
Temple of the Celestial Apostle
Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Temple of the Sacred Cat
Temple of the Spinning Shaggy
Temple of the Vampire
Temple ov Psychick Youth
The True Religion
Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn
Thralawattle
True Bethel Baptist Church
True Christian Church of Christ
United Deist Community
Universal Church of Cosmic Uncertainty
Universal Church of Google
Universal Life Church
Universal World Church
Unreality Cult
Vampire Church
Virtual Church
Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua
Wallism
Wiccan Church of Canada
Wonderfully Absurd Temple
World Church of Dragonfire
Yahshvah’s Soul Church
http://unusualchurches.blogspot.com/2006/12/hawaii-cannabis-ministry.html
I don’t think the evangelials could actually handle the opportunity to teach ID. We already know that the vast majority of ostensible ID advocates are actually creationists, and they’d come out of the closet within seconds of being given full rein.
The problem would be kids like me and my friends were as teenagers. We’d start writing “science” papers on the FSM and IPU (invisible pink unicorn) immediately, and there is no way that evengelical school board members would tolerate that. They would let you say “God made the universe” all day, but there is no way they’d let any other designer be proposed. They’d drop the hammer on the FSM proponents, and they themselves would kill ID within a week by tipping their hands and revealing that it really was about Jesus after all.
I’m also curious what ID-leaning school boards would do about a teacher teaching about ID itself, about the fact that it specifies no designer, no methods, no means, nothing–the entire ID argument is “evolution can’t explain [whatever we’re talking about].” I somehow doubt that “academic freedom” would extend to a teacher standing up there and pointing out that ID doesn’t actually offer an explanation.
Mark –
That’s exactly the problem. As soon as students get the ability to dissent, they will do so as a prank. You will see students interrupting the teacher to talk about noodley appendages and the correlation between pirates and global warming. The ability of teaching science as it is will be completely lost in chaos. Of course, this is exactly what the creationists want. Better to destroy science education, to ruin the minds of children, than to have their incredible beliefs questioned by their own children.
PC,
That might not be such a bad thing. Once enough kids get enoug hteachers pissed off, then it will go back to the senate et al. and they will be forced to take that stupid idea off the books.
S.Scott Says (March 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm) —
–“Dear Senators and Representatives,
Bring IT On!!! I have standing – Don’t worry, I WILL bring you to court! “–
Exactly what would be the basis of your lawsuit? Please be specific.
The Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard,
“We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision [p594] forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S. at 42. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”
Also, the courts have become as slow as molasses at the South Pole in a midwinter cold snap. For example, in the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook-sticker case, the appeals court took 16 months just to vacate and remand the decision because of missing evidence. ACSI v. Stearns — where some fundy schools are suing the Univ. of California because of denial of accreditation for some courses that use fundy textbooks — was filed in August 2005 and the judge still hasn’t made a decision on motions for summary judgment.
S.Scott Says (March 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm) —
–“Before you start encouraging our legislature to ignore the cost of lawsuits, maybe you should take a look at the state budget. They are trying to figure out how to recover something like 86 mil. that was being used by our education system.”–
The Dover case cost the Dover school district only $1 million in attorney fees awarded to the plaintiffs, negotiated down from about $2 million (the Dover defendants were represented for free). The Dover school district had less than 25,000 residents in the 2000 census — Florida now has an estimated 18 million residents. There is simply no comparison. And if Florida wins, Florida does not have to pay. Furthermore, Florida could save a lot of money by avoiding a “Monday-morning battle of experts” who did not participate in enacting the law (see Edwards v. Aguillard).
In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
What other scientific theories would these be, Larry?
What other scientific theories would these be, Larry?
Well, I am awaiting this asnwer.
Still waiting for you to answer this question from the other day Larry
Larry, Larry, Larry. How many more times do you need to be told that just beacause you didn’t get taught in 60s’ doesn’t mean it’s not true? By your line of thinking, what is being taught to the new firefighters is flat out wrong! Ya see, I was taught about the “Fire Triangleâ€; heat, fuel, and oxygen. However, the newbies are now taught the “Fire Tetrahedronâ€; heat, fuel, oxygen, and chemical chain reaction. Obviously a fraud! I wasn’t taught it in 1988 when I was in fire school. It must be all lies! They can’t change it, how foolish!
Ergo , by using your logic Larry, anything now being taught in fire school that I didn’t learn is by its’ very nature, false.
I’ll answer your question after you answer mine Larry – Remember?
” S.Scott Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I was beginning to think there was hope for you yet Larry but alas, I was wrong.
Before you start encouraging our legislature to ignore the cost of lawsuits, maybe you should take a look at the state budget.
They are trying to figure out how to recover something like 86 mil. that was being used by our education system.
But you don’t give a s**t about that, do you! Of course not! Neither you nor Mr. Eaton live in Florida (I don’t know about Mr. Wallace – but I doubt he does either)
Larry, you’ve already admitted that ID is not science, so what is your true agenda? I know you have a “THING†for Judge Jones, but he doesn’t live in Florida either! So what’s your true agenda? C’mon now … be honest! ”
Oh yeah … What other scientific theory?
James F,
You’re too subtle. It finally dawned on me, in that YouTube video. Your point is that our children is be learning good science educashun like this (direction of earth rotation), after the ‘academic freedom ‘ bill passes ❓
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=516#comment-50017
Larry F…
Touché …A multi-million dollar lawsuit is petty cash for a big state like Florida. And …The Dover case cost the Dover school district only $1 million in attorney fees awarded to the plaintiffs…
from: https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=516#comment-50010
Seriously, leaving behind your well known objections to the way the new standards were written, for a moment … In spite of how carefully worded and what the supposed intent of the new bill is, how do you imagine that this would work, in practice? I see mayhem in the classroom. I don’t see fundamentalist teachers or students being able to restrain themselves if given the proverbial inch.
❓
Looks like there will finally be equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
–“What other scientific theories would these be, Larry? “–
You Darwinists are not only claiming that there are no serious scientific challenges to Darwinism now, but you are also claiming that no such challenges are going to be discovered in the future.
My favorite challenge to Darwinism is the theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms — e.g., pollinators and flowering plants. Here are some principles of the theory:
Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence:
In co-evolution of a co-dependent trait — unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air — there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
First Corollary:
Co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism.
Second Corollary:
Even a co-dependent trait that is not fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait provides no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent.
Third Corollary:
Two totally co-dependent organisms may have irreducibly complex sets of pairs of co-dependent traits.
Fourth Corollary:
The Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence may be a barrier to evolution even where irreducible complexity is not.
Coevolution (a concept promoted by Darwin himself) does not require anything outside of the known principles of evolutionary biology to be invoked. Your own unpublished, non-peer-reviewed idea, which relies on another non-peer-reviewed and thoroughly debunked concept, irreducible complexity, is not sufficient. Unless you produce a peer-reviewed publication to refute evolution, you have no argument for an alternative scientific concept, let alone a theory.
My favorite challenge to Darwinism is the theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms
Do you have a paper that is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that states that this problem is a challenge to Darwinism?
Without the peer review, you are merely arguing from personal incredulity, which does not belong in the science classroom.
irreducible complexity please explain what you think is irreducibly complex. None of the attempts by IDiots have stood up to scientific scrutiny, my guess is yours don’t/won’t either.
PC-Bash Says:
–“My favorite challenge to Darwinism is the theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms
Do you have a paper that is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that states that this problem is a challenge to Darwinism?”–
I don’t need a “peer reviewed” paper — the challenge is self-evident. Are you going to respond to the challenge or not?
Darwinists try to explain co-evolution by making vague statements about “mutual evolutionary pressure” and “evolution within populations.”
firemancarl Says:
–“please explain what you think is irreducibly complex”–
Co-evolution can involve irreducibly complex sets of traits involving two or more organ systems — for example, bees must be able to both digest nectar and find the flowers.
I don’t need a “peer reviewed†paper — the challenge is self-evident. Are you going to respond to the challenge or not?
You say that you think that teachers should have the ability to teach alternate scientific theories in the science classroom. I agree with you. However, you have yet to provide me with an alternate scientific theory to teach. I was hoping that you had a peer-reviewed scientific paper raising this question. However, you do not. This question is based on personal incredulity, not science. Therefore, by your own admission, it is not fit to teach in the science classroom.
I’m waiting … still … Larry. What’s your agenda? What do you want? Specifically!
Arr mateys! While we be waitin’ fer the alternate scientific theory t’ evolution, I bid ye splice the main brace and toast the alternative scientific theory t’ gravity, Intelligent Fallin’!
RAmen!
Larry Fafarman Says:
March 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“I don’t need a “peer reviewed†paper — the challenge is self-evident. Are you going to respond to the challenge or not?
Darwinists try to explain co-evolution by making vague statements about “mutual evolutionary pressure†and “evolution within populations.â€
Best you read up a little on co-evolutionary mechanisms, before spouting your ignorance of them Larry.
Many pollinators are not restricted to one type of plant as a food source, while plants also have alternative reproductive pollination mechanisms, just maybe not as efficient!
Perhaps you could provide an example where co-dependency is exclusive Your apparent concept of one plant-one pollinator-one food source?
“Co-evolution can involve irreducibly complex sets of traits involving two or more organ systems — for example, bees must be able to both digest nectar and find the flowers.”
Argument from ignorance penned for the ignorant by creation salesmen!
# S.Scott Says:
March 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“I’m waiting … still … Larry. What’s your agenda? What do you want? Specifically!”
Just a guess…but how about “to force his creationist world view down everyone’s (as well as their children’s) throats to make him feel more secure of his own beliefs”? “Social engineering and social control?”
Curious Noodle
You’re really cool. Your sound as bright as the rest of these guys who hope to be the descendants of mutated monkeys. Wile you are implicating Mr. Larry as ignorant, I would think you must have some reason to consider yourself a source of knowledge. Could you please give us a hint of what that might be? Thanks.
wingtip
That was a pretty long list of churches you posted. But I noticed that The First Church of Evolution wasn’t listed. So not to offend those here who have put their faith and trust in the imaginations of the Prophet Charles Darwin, I took the liberty to e-mail this dude with the church info. Hopefully the new listing will appear soon. Now each believer here can rest easy knowing their religious doctrine is listed with all the other bogus crap. http://www.fcefaith.org
PC-Bash said,
–“You say that you think that teachers should have the ability to teach alternate scientific theories in the science classroom.”–
Actually, if the word “theory” is assumed to mean a complete explanation for something, then my statements about co-evolution just represent a weakness of Darwinism, not a theory. Same thing with Intelligent Design. And Darwinism has so many holes in it that it should be downgraded to a “hypothesis” or even a “fairy tale.” To me, Darwinism is mostly just a hokey idea that is useful for organizing some areas of biology, like paleontology and cladistic taxonomy.
–“you have yet to provide me with an alternate scientific theory to teach. “–
There is no rule that says that a theory may not be criticized without introducing a plausible alternative theory at the same time.
–“I was hoping that you had a peer-reviewed scientific paper raising this question. However, you do not. This question is based on personal incredulity, not science”–
You remind me of those Wikipedia control-freak administrators who demand a “reliable nonpartisan source” that says that bears shit in the woods. You are just trying to weasel out of responding to my arguments.
Curious Noodle said,
–“Many pollinators are not restricted to one type of plant as a food source, while plants also have alternative reproductive pollination mechanisms, just maybe not as efficient! Perhaps you could provide an example where co-dependency is exclusive”–
Some kinds of pollen are designed to be carried by wind or water, and presumably these kinds of pollen can also be carried by pollinators. However, some kinds of pollen adhere so strongly to the plant that they can be carried only by pollinators. For example, in “buzz” pollination, the vibrations of insects’ wings are required to loosen the pollen — there’s your exclusive co-dependence. And even in gradual co-evolution, the corresponding mutations in both kinds of organisms must be present at the same time and the same place in order to be effective — and such simultaneous presence is unlikely because potentially beneficial mutations are rare occurrences.
Wow, we have a serious creotroll infestation. Just curious, guys, as to why the freedom to teach your supernatural causation and origin myths in your tax exempt houses of delusion isn’t sufficient for you to continue to shackle your own offspring to ignorance. I mean, it’s not as if anybody has tried to mandate your teaching “alternate theories” in your Sunday schools. If religious wingnuts can’t counteract something their children spend a couple hours on, at most, in their public school science classes then obviously weekly church services and home-based parental brainwashing since birth are lacking, yes? Oh, wait, this is about forcing your religion down MY kids’ throats since I don’t take them to church, isn’t it? So glad we cleared that up.
Larry –
…then my statements about co-evolution just represent a weakness of Darwinism, not a theory.
No, your statements represent your own personal incredulity, not a weakness in the scientific theory of evolution. Are you saying that we should allow teachers to teach that there are weaknesses to science, when those weaknesses exist only because of their lack of understanding of the subject? “I don’t understand how evolution works, therefore, there are weaknesses in the scientific theory of evolution. I don’t understand how this evolved personally, which hints to me that it is irreducibly complex, and must have been designed.” This sort of semantic garbage and conjecture does not belong in a science classroom, period.
Same thing with Intelligent Design.
Your statement is vague here. Are you claiming that Intelligent Design, the faith based belief that life was created by a theistic designer, is somehow a valid criticism of evolution? Please provide me with a peer reviewed paper published in an accredited scientific journal that backs up this statement.
There is no rule that says that a theory may not be criticized without introducing a plausible alternative theory at the same time.
So, you think that teachers should be allowed to present teaching materials to students based on personal incredulity and that they should be free to teach students whatever they want as long as they disagree with facts. What’s next, Larry? “The theory of gravity is all wrong. I’ve never seen a graviton. There must be an alternate explanation other than the the earth being round. I’ve never seen it curve.” The so-called “teach the weakness” campaign for evolution sounds just as ignorant.
You remind me of those Wikipedia control-freak administrators who demand a “reliable nonpartisan sourceâ€
Dude, you’re the one advocating that teachers be given the “freedom” to teach any half-baked nonsense that they can think up. Do you also think that teachers should be allowed to criticize evolution because it does not explain the existence of unicorns, something that they claim to have personally seen? Do you not see the flaw in allowing teachers to spout whatever nonsense they want, instead of having some sort of reliable reference to cite? You claim to be an engineer, yet I think you never had to write a term paper or a thesis. Could you write a paper in college without providing references to back up your claims? Why should a teacher be granted immunity here?
You are just trying to weasel out of responding to my arguments.
Your arguments are utter nonsense. You don’t understand how things co-evolve, so therefore you see it as a weakness in evolution. You have not conducted a study on this, you have not attempted to look at fossil evidence, you have not bothered to read up on current understanding of the subject. You think up a few things from your armchair and assume that because you have discovered something that you can’t answer, that we should teach it in the science classroom as fact. I find the idea of giving teachers the ability of coming up with such half-baked nonsense and indoctrinating it to children as a valid weakness in evolution without any peer review to be morally reprehensible.
Wolfhound —
You lousy Darwinists are the ones who are shoving your ideas down others’ throats. You maximize rather than minimize the offensiveness of teaching Darwinism —
(1) You want Darwinism to be taught dogmatically as fact.
(2) You say false things like “evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology” (that statement is in the Florida science standards) and bring up evolution more often than necessary in biology textbooks and class lectures.
(3) Even though only evolution is actually taught, you file lawsuits against evolution disclaimers: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish.
Larry, your dogma is showing. Best leash it. That you find “Darwinism” offensive says much about the weakness of your faith. Offended by scientific evidence? Tough titty. That you are so ignorant of and threatened by the theory of evolution says nothing about its veracity but speaks volumes as to the failings of your education.
Now, please answer my question as to why you don’t find the right to teach whatever nonsense you want to children in tax exempt churches sufficient to keep them ignorant of universally accepted science. How about “competing theories” in your Sunday schools? Let’s put an evolutionary biologist in there to put things in perspective since it’s all about “freedom” and “equal time for opposing views”, right?
PC-Bash said,
–“No, your statements represent your own personal incredulity”–
Can you explain why my “personal incredulity” is not justified?
–“Same thing with Intelligent Design.
Your statement is vague here. “–
My statement is not vague — I am just saying that I view ID in the same way that I view my arguments about co-evolution: a weakness of evolution rather than an independent theory.
–“Please provide me with a peer reviewed paper published in an accredited scientific journal that backs up this statement.”–
Please provide me with a peer reviewed paper — published in an accredited scientific journal — that says that bears shit in the woods. You are just ducking the real issues here.
–“Could you write a paper in college without providing references to back up your claims? “–
I can provide you references about “buzz” pollination, how bees digest nectar and find flowers, etc.. But I am also doing some original, independent thinking here. Without such thinking, knowledge would not advance.
–“You don’t understand how things co-evolve, so therefore you see it as a weakness in evolution. “–
Well, from what I have seen, no one understands how co-evolution of total co-dependence can occur.
–“The theory of gravity is all wrong. I’ve never seen a graviton.”–
You Darwinists’ analogies about gravitation, a flat earth, etc. are just straw men.
–“You think up a few things from your armchair and assume that because you have discovered something that you can’t answer, that we should teach it in the science classroom as fact.”–
Some things in science are just philosophy — e.g., punctuated equilibrium.
–“I find the idea of giving teachers the ability of coming up with such half-baked nonsense and indoctrinating it to children as a valid weakness in evolution without any peer review to be morally reprehensible. “–
“Morally reprehensible”? WOW. Them’s fighting words.
Hey, Larry, I see you’re from Missouri. Aren’t you a bit out of your territory here on a site about FLORIDA science? I live in Tampa so this stuff actually has some bearing on me and mine since it’s MY state that will be sued into oblivion, school district by school district, if religiously motivated crap like this bill is allowed to infect our educational system and spread its cancerous roots.
Just sayin’…
Wolfhound —
You Darwinists keep asking me for an argument against evolution. Then when I come up with such an argument — an argument concerning the co-evolution of total co-dependence — you avoid it.
–“Now, please answer my question as to why you don’t find the right to teach whatever nonsense you want to children in tax exempt churches sufficient to keep them ignorant of universally accepted science. How about “competing theories†in your Sunday schools? Let’s put an evolutionary biologist in there to put things in perspective since it’s all about “freedom†and “equal time for opposing viewsâ€, right? “–
When churches are tax-supported, then I will agree that evolutionary biologists should be allowed to lecture in Sunday schools.
Um, Larry, churches ARE tax supported due to their failure to pay any. So it’s okay for you to double dip by teaching uncontested religion in church AND put your religious dogma in the public, expressly secular government funded schools. I am just so shocked you feel this way!
And *I* never asked you for an argument against evolution. All religiously motivated people have one and it all boils down to an argument from personal incredulity with a cheap dress of sciency sounding language on coupled with the immovable conviction that goddidit. Same old, same old. I’m sure the Raelians and Scientologists have their own theories, too, and are itching to get them in the science classroom door. Your professional ID scientists (chortle) failed to present anything viable in Dover (or peer reviewed journals) so why don’t you run your “theory” by them? Heck, you could be the Next Great Thing at the upcoming trials that will stem from this “academic freedom” horsepucky. Larry, Father of the NEW Modern ID Theory”. Shucks, maybe you could get a share of those tax-exempt millions that the DI rakes in from the credulous sheeple.
Larry said:
I am just saying that I view ID in the same way that I view my arguments about co-evolution: a weakness of evolution rather than an independent theory.
and he also said :
I just don’t think ID does much real scientific research, and I think co-opting real scientific research as an ID victory is an exercise in bad faith and sets a terrible witness.â€
(the above is from the UD website)
So Larry, tell me again WHY do you think it’s OK to teach this stuff when even you don’t think it’s good science??
Oh yeah. For the 3rd time … What’s your agenda???
Can you explain why my “personal incredulity†is not justified?
The burden is on your to justify your personal incredulity, not me. Evolution is the status quo. You are arguing against it, not me.
I am just saying that I view ID in the same way that I view my arguments about co-evolution: a weakness of evolution rather than an independent theory.
ID isn’t about exposing weaknesses in evolution. It is claiming that life was designed by a theistic designer. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
You are just ducking the real issues here.
No, I just want the nonsense that you want to teach children to be held up to the same amount of scrutiny as anything else in science. You are the one who things that your conjecture should be exempt from scientific scrutiny, and that these exempt thoughts should be taught with as much credibility as that which has been thoroughly scrutinized. Do you not see the double standard here?
But I am also doing some original, independent thinking here. Without such thinking, knowledge would not advance.
You want to treat this “original” thinking as fact that should be taught to students right alongside other things that have actually gone through the process of peer review and scrutiny. You think that your ideas should be exempt from scrutiny. That is where we differ.
Ack. Typos galore.
I meant: “The burden is on you to justify your personal incredulity…”
and
“You are the one who thinks that your conjecture…”
Wolfhound said,
–“Um, Larry, churches ARE tax supported due to their failure to pay any. “–
OK — so if churches pay taxes, then it will be OK to teach creationism in public schools, right?
–“And *I* never asked you for an argument against evolution.”–
Other Darwinists are constantly asking for arguments against evolution.
–“Heck, you could be the Next Great Thing at the upcoming trials that will stem from this “academic freedom†horsepucky.”–
My position is that the courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable.
To S. Scott —
I NEVER said “I just don’t think ID does much real scientific research, and I think co-opting real scientific research as an ID victory is an exercise in bad faith and sets a terrible witness.†I don’t know where you got that idea.
–“ID isn’t about exposing weaknesses in evolution. It is claiming that life was designed by a theistic designer. “–
The name “Intelligent Design” is an unfortunate one. ID says nothing about who or what the intelligent designer is or whether an intelligent designer even exists. ID just says that it is unlikely that species evolved solely by means of natural selection and what we think is natural genetic variation.
–“You think that your ideas should be exempt from scrutiny. “–
No, I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.
Are you calling me a liar, Larry?
You obviously don’t recall your post –
” 39
larrynormanfan
03/20/2008
8:11 pm”
Under the topic thread –
” 20 March 2008
Intelligent Design research published in Nature ”
Here’s the link
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-published-in-nature/
and I never said:
–â€You think that your ideas should be exempt from scrutiny. “–
You are a confused soul.
SO … for the 4th time … What’s your agenda?
Unless you are not Larrynormanfan – in that case, I apologize.
–“Unless you are not Larrynormanfan – in that case, I apologize. “–
I am not Larrynormanfan.
S.S.,
Just a note on that post – Dembski was lying through his teeth about the Nature paper. I contacted one of the corresponding authors and he said not only does the work in no way show support for ID, but also his lab’s work is routinely used in support of evolutionary principles. He also didn’t think the post merited a reply. 😆
I just can’t have my colleagues smeared as cdesign proponentsists. 😉
Yes, I found it interesting that even the people posting on UD were saying that it was not evidence of ID.
The name “Intelligent Design†is an unfortunate one. ID says nothing about who or what the intelligent designer is or whether an intelligent designer even exists.
I suggest you read the wedge document. Furthermore, you should look into quotes from both Behe and Dembski who have said themselves that they believe their designer to be none other than the Christian god. Even Expelled argued for a theistic designer. If the designer of ID is not theistic, then why does everyone who supports ID seem to say so?
No, I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.
I think you are confusing yourself. First, you said “My favorite challenge to Darwinism is the theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms…”, then you said “I don’t need a “peer reviewed†paper — the challenge is self-evident.”. Now you say that I am putting words in your mouth. Which is it? Does your “challenge” need to be scrutinized or not? Should your challenge be exempt by route of “academic freedom” while everything else in science, even challenges, must be peer reviewed?
In summary, there are no alternate scientific theories to evolution – not a single peer-reviewed research paper has been produced, let alone a body of work. ID is not and will never be science because it invokes supernatural causation. To teach children that any untested idea is a valid scientific view is to teach an outright lie.
Also, consider that this bill has no secular justification and thus runs counter to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and fails the Supreme Court’s Lemon Test. Why else would evolution be singled out for scrutiny in the science standards, and why is support for the bill being led by organizations like the Florida Baptist Witness and Florida Family Action?
2 things.
#1 Larry has refuses to offer a counter to my analogy of fire school vs his high school.
#2 Larry’s co-evolution crapola fits nicely into the fact that evolution is not tree, but more a jumble of bushes with offshoots.
firemancarl Says:
–“Larry has refuses to offer a counter to my analogy of fire school vs his high school.”–
So it looks like spontaneous combustion was added to the fire triangle. Big deal — we have known about spontaneous combustion for a long time. Anyway, what does that have to do with the claim that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology”?
–“Larry’s co-evolution crapola fits nicely into the fact that evolution is not tree, but more a jumble of bushes with offshoots. “–
That doesn’t answer my arguments.
Larry –
You haven’t answered my question yet. Should conjectures questioning evolution be held to the same scrutiny as the rest of science, or should they be granted religious exemption through this “academic freedom” law?
–“Should conjectures questioning evolution be held to the same scrutiny as the rest of science,”–
Did I ever say otherwise?
–” or should they be granted religious exemption through this “academic freedom†law? “–
There is no “religious exemption” in the bill. The bill grants an “exemption” for the teaching of “scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution,” and requires that students be evaluated according to normal testing procedures. Sheeesh — all these red herrings and straw men.
There is no “religious exemption†in the bill. The bill grants an “exemption†for the teaching of “scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution,â€
Okay. Now we come right back to the circle in your argument, Larry. You say that this should allow scientific information. So, show me a paper published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal related to your “theory”, or any other actual argument against evolution.
For it to be considered scientific, at the very least it needs to be published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal.
–“For it to be considered scientific, at the very least it needs to be published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal. “–
That’s bullshit — that’s just an excuse to duck my arguments about co-evolution.
And you Darwinists are not only saying that there are no reasonable criticisms of Darwinism now, but are also saying that no such criticisms are going to be discovered in the future.
That’s bullshit — that’s just an excuse to duck my arguments about co-evolution.
No, Larry, it isn’t bullshit. You think that your arguments should be taught in a science classroom without going through the scrutiny for them to be considered scientific. Do you, or do you not, think that arguments such as these should be held to the same scrutiny as any other arguments? Or, rather, do you think that teachers should be able to teach whatever they want as science without going through rigorous process?
And you Darwinists are not only saying that there are no reasonable criticisms of Darwinism now, but are also saying that no such criticisms are going to be discovered in the future.
No one is saying that. I’m just saying that before we parade these criticisms in front of children as facts they should go through the same amount of scrutiny as anything else in the science classroom. Face it, ID has yet to publish anything in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal. You yourself said that it should be held to the same scrutiny as anything else in science, that we should teach scientific concepts to children. Where are the papers supporting ID? Where are the papers supporting criticisms of evolution? Show me papers that have gone through the appropriate scrutiny, and then we’ll talk. Until then, none of this unscientific nonsense belongs in the science classroom, period.
All that you creationists want to do is legislate a loophole for your half-baked pseudoscience so they can be force-fed to children without going through the same scrutiny as other science. You want this nonsense to be paraded in front of children by authority figures (science teachers) as facts, when they are nothing more than arguments from personal incredulity, or even worse, a Trojan horse for religious dogma dressed up as a secular “criticism” of evolution.
Lar_Bear,
Tsk Tsk, it’s not spontaneous combustion. It’s a chemical chain reaction that was added. Ergo, since it wasn’t taught to me it must be false.
Should conjectures questioning evolution be held to the same scrutiny as the rest of science,â€â€“
Did I ever say otherwise?”
Why yes Larry, when answering this question
â€For it to be considered scientific, at the very least it needs to be published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal. “–
That’s bullshit — that’s just an excuse to duck my arguments about co-evolution.
And you Darwinists are not only saying that there are no reasonable criticisms of Darwinism now, but are also saying that no such criticisms are going to be discovered in the future.
*cough*cough* I’m calling bullshit on that Larry.
No one has ever said that Darwinian Evolution was a 100% learned. If that were true, there’d be no more studies ( scientific that is!) and we’d be done with it.
Please dude, provide us with a peer reviewed paper that shows a reasonable criticism.
PC-Bash said,
–” You think that your arguments should be taught in a science classroom without going through the scrutiny for them to be considered scientific. ‘–
I didn’t say anything about teaching my arguments in a classroom — I am talking about you answering my arguments right here, in this comment thread.
–“I’m just saying that before we parade these criticisms in front of children as facts they should go through the same amount of scrutiny as anything else in the science classroom. “-
They do not have to be paraded as facts — they can be presented as ideas. And who decides when a scientific idea has reached a high enough level of acceptance to justify discussion in a science classroom? And why not make the science standards flexible enough so that new accepted ideas can be accommodated without rewriting the standards?
More straw men.
I am talking about you answering my arguments right here, in this comment thread.
I’m not interested in answering your question. Why should I waste my time researching some crackpot “theory” that you have come up with. The burden of proof is on you Larry. Do the research, then try to get your paper published. In the meantime, your point is meaningless as far as I’m concerned.
They do not have to be paraded as facts — they can be presented as ideas.
You don’t seem to understand the authority of a science teacher. A teacher presenting this pseudoscientific rabble in front of children as honest criticism of evolution would make children believe that there are actual flaws in evolution — when there really aren’t. I want these “ideas” of yours to go through the same scrutiny as any other idea in science before we present these to children. Creationists want to be exempt from this, because none of their “ideas” have ever been published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal, because their “ideas” are pseudoscientific garbage that doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
And who decides when a scientific idea has reached a high enough level of acceptance to justify discussion in a science classroom?
Having a paper published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal would be enough as far as I’m concerned.
And why not make the science standards flexible enough so that new accepted ideas can be accommodated without rewriting the standards?
Your “flexibility” would allow teachers to bypass the normal scrutiny that anything in science has to go through. Essentially, this bill would allow teachers to teach whatever they want as far as evolution goes, as long as they have a belief that what they are teaching is true. It will allow teachers to teach using their feelings, not regarding fact or actual scientific scrutiny. The purpose of this bill is to destroy science to save the faith of a few weak-minded constituents, nothing more.
More straw men.
Straw men? What straw men? If you want to teach something in the science classroom, Larry, then it needs to go through the same scrutiny as anything else in science. Where are these alternate scientific theories to evolution that you keep hinting about? Please provide me with a paper published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal questioning evolution. Otherwise, you are the ones with straw men. If you want to play ball here, then you need to play by the rules. I need papers, Larry, not arm-chair conjecture.
PC-Bash driveled,
–“I’m not interested in answering your question. Why should I waste my time researching some crackpot “theory†that you have come up with. The burden of proof is on you Larry. Do the research, then try to get your paper published. In the meantime, your point is meaningless as far as I’m concerned. “–
PC-Bash, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. You are just a big bag of hot air. You remind me of those Wickedpedia control freak administrators who say, “find a reliable non-partisan source that says that bears shit in the woods and then we’ll talk.”
–“And who decides when a scientific idea has reached a high enough level of acceptance to justify discussion in a science classroom?
Having a paper published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal would be enough as far as I’m concerned. “–
Is that all? Well, then teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes is OK with you, because a few such ID papers have been published — see
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ah. I was waiting for this Larry. Near the top of the list of papers listed by the Discovery Institute is courtesy of Richard Sternberg, who forced through Meyers’ “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories†without obtaining proper peer review. He got fired from his position for doing so, and also managed to get some face time on Expelled for breaking the rules of the publication by doing so.
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
It makes me wonder about the dirty tricks that Discovery Institute used for these other papers, and what the official statements are behind these papers as well? Paying editors for a placement is not a proper peer review process, Larry.
PC-Bash,
Don’t forget that the Meyer paper was a literature review, not a research paper. No new data. Their peer-reviewed research paper tally is still zero, neck and neck with the Pastafarians. Look at what they’re trying to count: books, philosophy articles…that’s the tip off. This is nicely debunked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
And Talk Origins is being way to easy on them. No quarter, I say! Their claims of passing peer review is an insult to all of us who do actual peer review as scientists.
James F –
This is very true. All of the remaining “featured articles” on that page, with the exception of the one that Meyers subverted peer review on to get published (costing the editor his job), were published in anthologies, which do not have the same level of peer review required in an actual journal. DI is being very dishonest by claiming that these papers have been peer reviewed.
Still, that is to be expected. The entire ID movement is no more than snake oil salesmen, shills, liars, and people being taken advantage of for their ignorance.
PC-Bash Says:
–“Near the top of the list of papers listed by the Discovery Institute is courtesy of Richard Sternberg, who forced through Meyers’ “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories†without obtaining proper peer review.”–
What proof do you have that proper peer review was not obtained?
–“He got fired from his position for doing so”–
His enemies insist that he wasn’t fired or even persecuted.
James F Says:
–“Don’t forget that the Meyer paper was a literature review, not a research paper. “–
PC-Bash Says:
–“All of the remaining “featured articles†on that page, with the exception of the one that Meyers subverted peer review on to get published (costing the editor his job), were published in anthologies, which do not have the same level of peer review required in an actual journal.”–
Peer review is peer review. You jerks just keep moving the goalposts, like those control-freak Wickedpedia administrators.
Larry,
We are not moving the goal posts. I have been asking for peer-reviewed ID research papers from the beginning, and you link to a page from the notoriously mendacious Discovery Institute, which provides no such thing, as I noted.
The fact is, I’m setting the bar far too low. A true scientific theory isn’t based on a single peer-reviewed research paper anyway, that’s just the beginning. If the paper has merit, it will be cited, more papers will be published from other groups, it will be a topic at conferences, and a body of work will take root and flourish. It takes time and scrutiny. That is how real science works.
Peace,
JF
What proof do you have that proper peer review was not obtained?
Well, considering that the article was retracted, I’d say that’s a pretty good indication that it did not meet the quality standards of the journal. The link in my previous comment points to their retraction statement.
Peer review is peer review.
The peer review process to be published in a journal is much different than the peer review process one goes though to publish a non-science article in an anthology (a book!) not directly relating to scientific research. The latter peer review process consisted mostly of editing for spelling and grammar, and perhaps culling content for the topic of the book (which was on creationism / ID).
PC-Bash moans,
–“Well, considering that the article was retracted, I’d say that’s a pretty good indication that it did not meet the quality standards of the journal. “–
You call that “proof” that the article was not peer-reviewed?
–“The peer review process to be published in a journal is much different than the peer review process one goes though to publish a non-science article in an anthology (a book!) not directly relating to scientific research.”–
What is this “anthology” shit? Even Talkorigins grudgingly concedes that there are some peer-reviewed scientific ID papers — see
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
Well, let’s look a little deeper into the link you posted Larry.
It says….
Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it
The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe’s paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word “design” used.
Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an “intelligent design” article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
But wait, there’s more to out your bullschitt there Larry.
With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are “true believers” of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.
Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the “intelligent design” publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).
Yes, I would like to paraphrase Public Enemy here Larry. When you talk about evolution, get your schitt correct.
Larry, you did nothing more than purpetuate the known fact that ID and YEC supporters quote mine..horribly.
Firemancarl, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. As I said, even Talkorigins grudgingly concedes that there are peer-reviewed ID papers. Talkorigins says,
“Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week’s worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
I am still waiting for a response to my arguments about co-evolution.
You call that “proof†that the article was not peer-reviewed?
Considering that this is the reason they used for the retraction, I’d have to say Yes!
What is this “anthology†shit? Even Talkorigins grudgingly concedes that there are some peer-reviewed scientific ID papers.
As usual, Larry, you post links that you haven’t bothered reading yourself, other than quote mining the top half of the article, before they tear the articles to pieces. From the TO link:
How is that any different from what I said?
I am still waiting for a response to my arguments about co-evolution.
Why should anyone here waste their time with your crack-pot theory that stems from personal incredulity?
Talk Origins is being far too easy on them. They are counting literature reviews that present no new data, but these are not research papers. You can’t build a CV on literature reviews, let alone a scientific theory. With that in mind, these should be in a separate category (just from what I can download):
Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417.
Classified as a “concepts” paper in Nature, slightly longer than a letter to the editor. Not a research paper.
Denton, M. J., J. C. Marshall and M. Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 325-342.
Not a research paper. Presents zero data, comments on other literature.
Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410.
Literature review.
Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
Literature review.
Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.
Literature review.
This whittles down the already tiny field, and the other papers are already addressed at the site.
One more point: Behe and Snoke’s paper inspired the publication of a full rebuttal paper:
Lynch, Michael, 2005. Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins. Protein Science 14:2217-25
Abstract:
A recent paper in this journal has challenged the idea that complex adaptive features of proteins can be explained by known molecular, genetic, and evolutionary mechanisms. It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic. Numerous simple pathways exist by which adaptive multi-residue functions can evolve on time scales of a million years (or much less) in populations of only moderate size. Thus, the classical evolutionary trajectory of descent with modification is adequate to explain the diversification of protein functions.
Note Stokes and Behe’s reply (Ibid., p. 2226):
“It sometimes happens in science that there is a marked difference between the stories people tell about the implications of a work and the actual details of the work. Some people have made great hay about the implications of our article. We subscribe neither to triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism, nor to overwrought ones that it supports some grand anti-science conspiracy.
Our paper (Behe and Snoke 2004) contains one simple result. When reasonable parameters are used with our model to estimate actual time scales or population sizes for the evolution of multi-residue (MR) protein features, they are unrealistically large. This implies that the model we chose, which is restricted to point mutations and assumes intermediate states to be deleterious, isn’t a plausible evolutionary pathway. One must therefore look about for a new model. We did not rule out such a possibility; in our original article, we explicitly stated, “we should look to more complicated pathways, perhaps involving insertion, deletion, recombination, selection of intermediate states, or other mechanisms, to account for most MR protein features.”
It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic.
…like the whole ID movement. 😉
Dear Larry, I find it sooooo hard to resist an ad homenim attack right now. But alas, i’ll just show you what you said
–â€The peer review process to be published in a journal is much different than the peer review process one goes though to publish a non-science article in an anthology (a book!) not directly relating to scientific research.â€â€“
What is this “anthology†shit? Even Talkorigins grudgingly concedes that there are some peer-reviewed scientific ID papers — see
Grudgingly? Are you kidding me? TO sliced that idea out of the water. Hey, you can spin it anyway you want, but we all know that TO tares your dumb assumption up. YOu are taking the opening statement by TO and spinning it to support ID when , if you had read the whole page, you’d have seen that they go on to show that the “papers” are not really peer reviweded. Oh, my bad. They are. But IDiot/Creationist sympathizers.
Right after you posted your statement about IDiots peer review, TO had this to say Virtually none of the papers show any original research. Hmmm, hard to claim scientific validity if your not producing any NEW info, but simply changing various parts of the original paper to suit your needs.
Oppps it should read “But reviewed byIDiot/Creationist sympathizers.”
PC-Bash said,
–“You call that “proof†that the article was not peer-reviewed?
Considering that this is the reason they used for the retraction, I’d have to say Yes!”–
They never claimed that the article was not peer-reviewed. See —
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
–“How is that any different from what I said? “–
“The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent.”
And what makes Talkorigins the sole judge of what is proper peer-review? Talkorigins has an ax to grind.
–“I am still waiting for a response to my arguments about co-evolution.
Why should anyone here waste their time with your crack-pot theory that stems from personal incredulity? “–
Why should I waste my time with commenters who call my arguments a “crack-pot theory” but can’t say why?
They never claimed that the article was not peer-reviewed.
Here are some of the relevant sections you seemed to have missed:
“Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor…”
“The Council… would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.”
“The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science… which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity.”
Most damning: “Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”
And what makes Talkorigins the sole judge of what is proper peer-review?
As usual, you have entirely missed the point. Those books do not go through the same peer review process that journal articles do, in fact, the books weren’t actually science books at all. The supposedly “peer-reviewed” articles that DI points to are either retracted, or not science articles at all, hence the term “peer-review” is entirely meaningless. As usual, DI is being completely dishonest.
Why should I waste my time with commenters who call my arguments a “crack-pot theory†but can’t say why?
You are the one who keeps posting “original” talking points (although, as before, this is nothing more than irreducible complexity, which has been beaten down repeatedly) asking people to try to refute them for you. Here’s an idea. If you think your “theory” is so damning, do the research yourself, and get it published.
PC-Bash moans,
–“Here are some of the relevant sections you seemed to have missed: “–
And those “relevant sections” do not say that the article was not peer-reviewed.
–“Those books do not go through the same peer review process that journal articles do, in fact, the books weren’t actually science books at all. “–
The list includes scientific journal articles as well as books.
–“You are the one who keeps posting “original†talking points (although, as before, this is nothing more than irreducible complexity, which has been beaten down repeatedly) asking people to try to refute them for you.”—
No, as I show in my following comments, my points are not “irreducible complexity,” though they can involve irreducible complexity:
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=519#comment-50610
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=519#comment-50637
–“If you think your “theory†is so damning, do the research yourself, and get it published. “–
That’s just a cop-out.
Special thanks to ‘wingtip’ for the unusual church information. Now the Darwinian believers here can have their faith listed with the ‘First Church of Spongebob Squarepants’ and all the others.
ABO = 👿 Troll 👿
ABO, as usual, has nothing useful to say. He just occasionally crawls out from under his rock to spew something about “evolution is faith”.
And those “relevant sections†do not say that the article was not peer-reviewed.
Well, first, the article wasn’t even a valid science article. How does one peer review an article that has nothing noteworthy to peer review, Larry? Second, none of the editors who should have been involved in the approval process would have ever approved it, because it was completely worthless. DI, Meyers, and the ex-editor colluded to pull something dishonest at the expense of this journal, and you haven’t denied it.
The list includes scientific journal articles as well as books.
I stopped reading after looking over the “Featured Articles”, mainly because I was laughing too hard to continue at that point. Just like everything else on DI’s website, the link that you provided me is humorously inane.
No, as I show in my following comments, my points are not “irreducible complexity,†though they can involve irreducible complexity:
You can deny it until you are blue in the face, Larry, but your argument does stem irreducible complexity. Why are you so afraid of calling a spade a spade? Also, your argument is tiring, and reads like the normal crank you turn out. I recommend you start by reading an intro to biology book, or perhaps try taking a college course in biology.
That’s just a cop-out.
I have no interest in responding to your crank “theories”, Larry. You keep posting them here over and over again, and many other people have torn them to shreds. I have no idea why you think you have any sort of insight here, you are basically ripping off Meyers, Behe, and Dembski, but using a different example written using a tenth of the elegance (which is a relative measurement only… their “papers” are anything but elegant).
Here’s some food for thought: bees can and do feed on other things besides nectar. Plants can and do self-pollinate. Neither group is entirely co-dependent on the other, theirs is a relationship of mutual benefit, entangled through millions of years of evolution. Even after all that time, bees feed on other things, and plants can pollinate on their own. The slightest amount of research would dash your “theory” to pieces.
An additional point (I actually used to keep bees). Bees can store the sugar from sugar water as “honey” (although, it resembles nothing like honey when this is done). All of the interesting “properties” of honey can be distilled into two things: when bees secrete the sugars they have collected, they add a bit of hydrogen peroxide to it. They use their wings to dry this concoction until the amount of water has dropped to the point that microbial activity becomes impossible.
Sugar water, fruit juice, rotting fruit, etc. When bees are desperate for sugars, such as when the nectar isn’t flowing, they will eat a lot of things. I watched them drain a full hummingbird feeder in less than two hours. They are very resourceful creatures. That they have adapted to better use pollen and sugars produced by flowers is something that can easily be explained through evolution.
Completely co-dependent, they certainly are not.
Hmm. That seems to bust your first corollary wide open, Larry. As I said, your crank theory is beneath my efforts.
PC-Bash said,
–“Well, first, the article wasn’t even a valid science article”–
You’re begging the question.
–“Just like everything else on DI’s website, the link that you provided me is humorously inane. “–
You are humorously inane.
–“You can deny it until you are blue in the face, Larry, but your argument does stem irreducible complexity. “–
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. I explained in great detail the differences between irreducible complexity and my ideas about co-evolution.
–“I recommend you start by reading an intro to biology book, or perhaps try taking a college course in biology.”–
That is no argument. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting that.
–“I have no interest in responding to your crank “theoriesâ€, Larry.”–
But you are responding to them.
–“Here’s some food for thought: bees can and do feed on other things besides nectar. Plants can and do self-pollinate. Neither group is entirely co-dependent on the other, theirs is a relationship of mutual benefit, entangled through millions of years of evolution. “–
I thought you said that you weren’t going to respond to my “theories.” Are you going to respond to them or not?
Some co-dependencies are total — with no alternate possibilities — and not just a convenient relationship of mutual benefit. For example, in “buzz” pollination, the pollen adheres so strongly to the plants that it can be shaken loose only by the vibrations of insects’ wingbeats.
Also, that co-evolutionary principle that there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait is likely to be locally absent in the other organism applies even to gradual changes that do not produce immediate complete co-dependence. For example, if an insect suddenly develops a longer proboscis for feeding from deep flowers, that longer proboscis gives the insect no advantage over competing insects unless deep flowers appear at the same place at the same time.
There is a big difference between co-evolution and evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air. A pig that suddenly sprouts wings anywhere in the world can fly immediately because the atmosphere is everywhere. However, as the First Corollary says, co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism, and as the Second Corollary says, even a co-dependent trait that is not fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait provides no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent.
–“Hmm”–
“Hmm” yourself.
Special thanks to ‘wingtip’ for the unusual church information. Now the Darwinian believers here can have their faith listed with the ‘First Church of Spongebob Squarepants’ and all the others.
Ah, ABO.
How do I love thee? Lemme count -1,-2,-3
But I digress. Welp, because you fundies want an “academic freedom bill” kids will now be able to say that they belong to the First Church of Spongebob Squarepants and the teachers will have to give ’em an “A” because thats what the bill states. Oh, I canna wait.
For example, in “buzz†pollination, the pollen adheres so strongly to the plants that it can be shaken loose only by the vibrations of insects’ wingbeats.
…or a heavy rain, or a strong breeze, or by an animal trampling the plant.
Also, that co-evolutionary principle that there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait is likely to be locally absent…
You are describing an arms race, which makes perfect sense in evolution.
…where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism…
Care to provide an example? I already busted the bee / flower example.
Expanding upon “buzz” pollination, I grew tomatoes and eggplants in my house one summer, using hydroponics, a light, and a fan. Interestingly, these plants are supposed to require “buzz” pollination to be productive. I guess they must have spontaneously mutated or something, because I had enough yield to wire both the tomato plant and the eggplant.
Maybe some bumblebees snuck in my house while I was at work? …or maybe your co-evolution crank “theory” is full of crap. If you read a book on botany, you’d realize that “buzz” pollination increases fertilization, it does not cause fertilization.
Your co-dependent species do better together, but are not fatally flawed apart. Go fish.
Now, can we stop with your crank “theory”?
PC-Bash wheezed,
–“…or a heavy rain, or a strong breeze, or by an animal trampling the plant.”–
…. i.e., a flood, a tornado, or an elephant that escaped from a circus. The plants would be destroyed, so there would be no pollination.
–“You are describing an arms race, which makes perfect sense in evolution.”–
Wrong — I am describing mutualism. Arms races occur only in predator-prey and parasite-host relationships.
–“Care to provide an example? I already busted the bee / flower example. “–
You only busted yourself.
–“Expanding upon “buzz†pollination, I grew tomatoes and eggplants in my house one summer, using hydroponics, a light, and a fan. “–
You grew them from seeds that were already pollinated.
–“Now, can we stop with your crank “theoryâ€? “–
No.
There is always some easy explanation, isn’t there, no matter how silly.
The plants would be destroyed, so there would be no pollination.
Pollination occurs without bees. Your analogy is flawed, Larry.
You grew them from seeds that were already pollinated.
Larry, if the plants were incapable of fertilization without your bees, then I would not have gotten fruit. Tomatoes drop blossoms that are unfertilized. Like what I said, you need to read a book on basic botany.
Arms races occur only in predator-prey and parasite-host relationships.
Not true. For instance, most birds have evolved an immunity to capsaicin. Pepper plants use capsaicin to inhibit insect predators, yet the capsaicin does nothing to prevent these plants from being eaten by birds. Here, we have an arms race (plants versus insects) and mutualism (birds distributing seeds from plants) rolled into one. Like what I said, you need to read a good intro to biology book, it would dissolve a lot of your personal incredulity on the subject.
Had you bothered to do the most basic of research (e.g. reading a middle school text book on the subject), you’d see how ridiculous your “theory” is.
PC-Bash the haughty Darwinist ignoramus strikes again.
–“Pollination occurs without bees.”–
Yes, I know that. Some pollen is carried by the wind or by water. But some kinds of pollen — particularly the pollen in “buzz” pollination — need pollinators.
–“if the plants were incapable of fertilization without your bees, then I would not have gotten fruit. “–
You can buy seeds that are the result of pollination. Also, some plants are self-pollinating.
–“For instance, most birds have evolved an immunity to capsaicin. Pepper plants use capsaicin to inhibit insect predators, yet the capsaicin does nothing to prevent these plants from being eaten by birds. Here, we have an arms race (plants versus insects) and mutualism (birds distributing seeds from plants) rolled into one. “–
How is it “rolled into one”?
Is the relationship between the birds and plants good or bad for the plants — or both? You said that the birds eat the plants but also distribute the plants’ seeds. How do the birds distribute the plants seeds? Do the seeds stick to the birds’ bodies or pass through the birds’ digestive tracts?
So you are apparently saying that the capsaicin affects the plants’ relationships with birds and insects in different ways. That does not change the fact that your original statement, “You are describing an arms race,” is wrong. See https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=516#comment-50767
–“Like what I said, you need to read a good intro to biology book, it would dissolve a lot of your personal incredulity on the subject. “–
And you need to read a good book on common sense.
There is a name for broad, vague general references to the literature — it is called “bibliography bluffing” or something like that. It is a sign of desperation.
Personal incredulity, personal incredulity, personal incredulity — click, click, — this is a recording.
That is all you crackpot Darwinists can say. You have no credibility.
Anyway, you said that you weren’t going to debate my theories. You have obviously changed your mind.
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
But some kinds of pollen — particularly the pollen in “buzz†pollination — need pollinators.
Please provide a specific example. Every “buzz” pollination plant that I know of can still be fertilized without a bee.
You can buy seeds that are the result of pollination. Also, some plants are self-pollinating.
I don’t care about seeds. I grew fruit, which in the tomato, is evidence that the tomato was pollinated. Tomato plants are considered a rather famous example of so-called “buzz” pollination, but they still pollinate on their own without the need for bees.
Is the relationship between the birds and plants good or bad for the plants — or both? You said that the birds eat the plants but also distribute the plants’ seeds. How do the birds distribute the plants seeds? Do the seeds stick to the birds’ bodies or pass through the birds’ digestive tracts?
The relationship between the birds and plants is beneficial to the plant. Not required, but beneficial. The birds distribute the seeds through their digestive tracts.
That does not change the fact that your original statement, “You are describing an arms race,†is wrong. See
Yes, it does. Arms races can still lead to mutual co-evolution, something that you claim is impossible.
And you need to read a good book on common sense.
Is that honestly the best response you can come up with.
There is a name for broad, vague general references to the literature — it is called “bibliography bluffing†or something like that. It is a sign of desperation.
No, it is an appeal for you to get an education, Larry, and stop talking out of your ass.
Here’s something else for you to consider. Bumble bees perform “buzz” pollination, not honey bees. Yet honey bees are used to increase crop yields. Note that I said “increase”. Without bees, all plants still pollinate, including “buzz” pollinators. They just do so less often.
If this was an example of your co-dependence crank, then why would these plants be able to pollinate at all without bees? How could I get my tomato plants to fruit? Why would bees even bother to feed off of anything else besides nectar and pollen? Your example is just as broken as your crackpot “theory”, Larry.
PC-Bash said,
–“But some kinds of pollen — particularly the pollen in “buzz†pollination — need pollinators.
Please provide a specific example. Every “buzz†pollination plant that I know of can still be fertilized without a bee. “–
OK — in buzz pollination, the degree of dependence on pollinators varies — see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_pollination
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/ic/buzzpol/buzzpol.html
–“That does not change the fact that your original statement, “You are describing an arms race,†is wrong.
Yes, it does. Arms races can still lead to mutual co-evolution, something that you claim is impossible. “–
OK, I agree that “arms races” can be involved in complex interspecies relationships involving mutualism, but your statement “you are describing an arms race” is still wrong. Here is what I originally said:
Also, that co-evolutionary principle that there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait is likely to be locally absent in the other organism applies even to gradual changes that do not produce immediate complete co-dependence.
That statement includes things that have nothing to do with “arms races,” so your statement “you are describing an arms race” is wrong.
–“No, it is an appeal for you to get an education, Larry, and stop talking out of your ass. “–
You are obviously not interested in learning anything new, dunghill. You only want to show off your own supposedly superior learning, but you are just a stupid, conceited ignoramus.
–“Here’s something else for you to consider. Bumble bees perform “buzz†pollination, not honey bees. Yet honey bees are used to increase crop yields. Note that I said “increaseâ€. Without bees, all plants still pollinate, including “buzz†pollinators. They just do so less often.”–
And doing so less often can place the plants at a disadvantage in natural selection.
–“If this was an example of your co-dependence crank, then why would these plants be able to pollinate at all without bees? “–
As my above references state, there are different degrees of dependence on “buzz” pollination.
And doing so less often can place the plants at a disadvantage in natural selection.
No, not really. Natural selection would actually cause these plants to adapt quite quickly to other pollination mechanisms. Members of the species which are able to pollinate easier without bees would prosper, while members of the species that had a more difficult time pollinating without bees would be culled. In a few hundred or thousand generations, the seemingly co-dependent plants would have absolutely no disadvantage in a bee-less world. Natural selection works just as well within a species as without.
As my above references state, there are different degrees of dependence on “buzz†pollination.
None of the plants listed on the wikipedia page are truly dependent on bees. Bees provide an advantage, but not a mutually co-dependent advantage. As before, your example is flawed.
PC-Bash said,
–“Natural selection would actually cause these plants to adapt quite quickly to other pollination mechanisms. “–
But adapting to an environment that lacks animal pollinators is not co-evolution.
–“Members of the species which are able to pollinate easier without bees would prosper, while members of the species that had a more difficult time pollinating without bees would be culled. “–
That is what I said, i.e., And doing so less often (i.e., being pollinated less often) can place the plants at a disadvantage in natural selection.
–“In a few hundred or thousand generations, the seemingly co-dependent plants would have absolutely no disadvantage in a bee-less world. “–
What we have here is not natural selection but natural de-selection — the plants most dependent on bees would become extinct or less numerous.
–“Natural selection works just as well within a species as without.”–
I don’t understand what you mean by this.
–“None of the plants listed on the wikipedia page are truly dependent on bees. “–
So you think that there is no situation in nature where one species is totally dependent on another? Anyway, the dependence does not have to be total — the dependence only needs to be partial in order to place a species at a disadvantage if the co-dependent species disappears.
There are the following two kinds of evolutionary mutations:
(1) Evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air. This kind of mutation does not require a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism.
(2) Evolutionary adaptation to other organisms (often called “co-evolution,” particularly when the adaptations of two kinds of organisms are mutual). This kind of mutation often does require a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism, and often that other mutation must occur at the same time and place in order to be effective, and such occurrence of the corresponding mutation at the same time and place is often very unlikely.
But adapting to an environment that lacks animal pollinators is not co-evolution.
No, it’s evolution. It’s only your “theory” that’s broken here. According to your “theory”, the plants would go extinct due to natural selection. Instead, in the real world, they would most likely adapt.
…the plants most dependent on bees would become extinct or less numerous.
Extinction is what happens to species, not individual members within a species.
I don’t understand what you mean by this.
You are making the assumption that natural selection happens to species and not individuals of a species. You talk of these plants going extinct, when instead only individuals of the species may die off.
So you think that there is no situation in nature where one species is totally dependent on another?
Dude, the burden of proof here is on you. I asked you for a specific example, and you keep coming back to plants and bees. As I have shown, this example is wrong. If no species exist that follow your “theory”, then your theory is most definitely invalid.
Anyway, the dependence does not have to be total — the dependence only needs to be partial in order to place a species at a disadvantage if the co-dependent species disappears.
That doesn’t even make sense. You have been using terms like fatal and mutualism. If the dependence isn’t total, then how exactly would the lack of one species or another be fatal? How exactly would your “theory” apply at all. Think about it.
There are the following two kinds of evolutionary mutations:
Really? All this time, I thought mutations were supposed to be random. 🙄
This kind of mutation often does require a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism, and often that other mutation must occur at the same time and place in order to be effective, and such occurrence of the corresponding mutation at the same time and place is often very unlikely.
So, you don’t believe in causation? Obviously, you seem to be confused about mutations. Mutations occur to individuals, not the entire species. If a mutation put the plant at an advantage, then it would be somewhat likely to propagate into the rest of the species. Of course, species would have a negative pressure against just any mutation, so the mutation would need to be special to actually affect the entire species in any short period of time (e.g. thousands of generations).
Meanwhile, either the bees adapt or they don’t. As I’ve shown, co-dependence is not tightly coupled. If they do adapt, they are put at an advantage by gaining an additional food source. If they don’t adapt, then they must rely on the hundreds of other species that they feed off of. Either way, the co-dependence relationship is certainly not fatal, as your “theory” claims.
If you don’t have a better example here, then your theory is busted. If you can provide another example, maybe I can attack more than just your first corollary.
PC-Bash said,
–“But adapting to an environment that lacks animal pollinators is not co-evolution.
No, it’s evolution. “–
What do you mean, “no”? I essentially said that it is just evolution — it is not the special kind of evolution called co-evolution, which is adaptation to other organisms.
–“According to your “theoryâ€, the plants would go extinct due to natural selection. “–
I never said that — you keep putting words in my mouth. However, they could go extinct if they are co-dependent with animal pollinators which disappear.
–“Instead, in the real world, they would most likely adapt.”–
Not necessarily — and the adapted forms may be so different from the old forms as to be new species.
–“Extinction is what happens to species, not individual members within a species. “–
Did I ever say otherwise?
–“I asked you for a specific example, and you keep coming back to plants and bees. As I have shown, this example is wrong. “–
It is possible that some plants could go extinct if their animal pollinators disappeared — or at least those plants could be reduced in number. And as I said, the co-dependence need not be total in order for there to be an adverse effect on the plants.
–“If the dependence isn’t total, then how exactly would the lack of one species or another be fatal? “–
The dependence could be so great that the extinction of one co-dependent species could cause the extinction of the other — or at least a decimation of the numbers of the other.
–“All this time, I thought mutations were supposed to be random.”–
Well, they are. But mutations can be adaptations to either the physical environment or to other kinds of organisms (the latter adaptation is often called co-evolution, particularly where there is mutual adaptation).
–“As I’ve shown, co-dependence is not tightly coupled. “–
No, you have not shown that co-dependence is not tightly coupled. In a type of pollination between wasps and orchids, the orchid actually mimics a female wasp in order to attract a male wasp — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/x-rated-orchid.html
One reference says,
“Plant and animal interactions. Some orchids are pollinated by male insects that try to mate with the flowers. This bizarre behaviour occurs because the flowers produce chemicals that are the same as chemicals emitted by female insects. Usually a mixture of common chemicals is involved. An Australian orchid named Chiloglottis trapeziformis is only pollinated by a wasp named Neozeleboria cryptoides. Scientist who studied the wasp and orchid were surprised to find that the chemical signal involved was “one unique compound, requiring a rigid biosynthetic process and a highly specific receptor a system with seemingly limited evolutionary flexibility.†(Science, vol. 302, p437, 17 Oct 2003.)
“Limited evolutionary flexibility†means that if either the orchid or the wasp got any of the steps wrong in making this compound, emitting it at the right time and making the receptors that detect the chemical in the air, then the orchid would die out for lack of pollinators. The highly specific relationship between some plants and their pollinators is the classic evolutionary problem – both orchid and wasp had to evolve their part of the system at the same time or it wouldn’t work at all.”
— from
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/complexity-f.htm
Anyway, you have been dodging my main points: A mutation which is an adaptation to another kind of organism often requires a corresponding mutation in that other kind of organism, and often that other mutation must occur at the same time and place in order for the two mutations to be of benefit, and such occurrence of the corresponding mutation at the same time and place is often very unlikely. This problem applies to gradual co-evolutionary change where the co-dependence is not total, as well as applying to a sudden co-evolutionary change where the co-dependence is total.
Again, orchids do not require animals to pollinate. Certainly, imitating a wasp would help in cross-pollination, but orchids do just fine without animals, period. Orchids seed all the time in green houses. This example is busted too.
You have yet to provide any proof of your “theory”. You only wave your hands and say “This looks complicated… I can’t understand why these two species evolved this way.” This doesn’t mean that they did not evolve this way, it only means that you do not know how that occurred. You have yet to provide an example that can only be explained by your “theory”. The examples that you provide have holes in them large enough to drive a semi-truck.
Even if some of these questions are unanswered by evolution yet, it doesn’t mean that evolution is invalid. It just means that we don’t yet understand how these plants evolved. There is no valid alternative to evolution, period. Certainly, ID isn’t a valid alternative.
A mutation which is an adaptation to another kind of organism often requires a corresponding mutation in that other kind of organism, and often that other mutation must occur at the same time and place in order for the two mutations to be of benefit, and such occurrence of the corresponding mutation at the same time and place is often very unlikely.
I’m still waiting for an example that shows this beyond any doubt. Your thinking on this “point” of yours is flawed. You assume that all members of a species evolve this mutation simultaneously. You assume that as soon as this magic simultaneous mutation occurs, it puts the co-dependent animal at a disadvantage. All of these assumptions are wrong.
Species have resistance to accepting new mutations. Individuals have mutations, and it can take many many generations for these mutations to propagate throughout a species. While this mutation is propagating, pressure would be put on other species to adapt. Species that “hook up” with a corresponding adaptation are more likely to follow the adaptation of the plant in the future, thus leading to co-evolution.
The burden of proof is on you to find a counter-example that cannot be explained through normal evolution, not on me to “disprove” your “theory”. I cannot disprove something that has absolutely no evidence other than your own personal incredulity.
–“Again, orchids do not require animals to pollinate. “–
According to my source, there is an orchid species that can be pollinated by only one species of wasp.
–“I’m still waiting for an example that shows this beyond any doubt. “–
Have you proven Darwinism beyond any doubt?
A lot of things are uncertain. For example, DNA testing companies say that there is one chance in a few billion that two DNA samples that appear to come from the same person actually come from two unrelated people.
–“You assume that all members of a species evolve this mutation simultaneously.”–
I never said that.
–“You assume that as soon as this magic simultaneous mutation occurs, it puts the co-dependent animal at a disadvantage. “–
I never said that either, and that is absurd.
–“Individuals have mutations, and it can take many many generations for these mutations to propagate throughout a species. “–
How fast is a potentially beneficial co-dependent mutation going to propagate if it cannot even get started because it is fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent mutation which is locally absent in the other organism?
–“The burden of proof is on you to find a counter-example that cannot be explained through normal evolution, not on me to “disprove†your “theoryâ€. “–
No, you have an equal burden to defend evolution theory.
No, you have an equal burden to defend evolution theory.
Evolution has already been established as a scientific theory. ID and your crackpot “theory” have not, nor could ever be established as such. I have no burden to defend evolution. It is the status quo.
According to my source, there is an orchid species that can be pollinated by only one species of wasp.
…unfortunately, if this is even true (I highly doubt that the orchid is unable to reproduce in the absence of wasps), it is not an example of co-evolution. I see an orchid that has adapted, not an adaptation of both orchids and wasps. This orchid is doing nothing more than taking advantage of the wasp’s mating habits. Remove it, and the wasps don’t die out.
[crank] …if it cannot even get started because it is fatal… [crank]
What is fatal, Larry? Where’s your example? The lack of orchids certainly isn’t fatal to the wasps, and the lack of wasps is most likely not fatal to the orchids.
Again, we are without an example for your crackpot “theory”.
–“Evolution has already been established as a scientific theory. ID and your crackpot “theory†have not, nor could ever be established as such. I have no burden to defend evolution.”–
So that’s a convenient excuse to sit on your can and not say anything.
–“…unfortunately, if this is even true (I highly doubt that the orchid is unable to reproduce in the absence of wasps), it is not an example of co-evolution “–
You weren’t asking then for an example of co-evolution — you were asking for an example of total dependence of one organism upon another, and I gave you the best such example that I know of. However, there is a high degree of co-dependence in bee-flower relationships — one of the organisms would at least be greatly harmed by the disappearance of the other, if not becoming extinct.
–“What is fatal, Larry? Where’s your example? The lack of orchids certainly isn’t fatal to the wasps, and the lack of wasps is most likely not fatal to the orchids.”–
The article said that the orchids would die off it the wasps disappeared.
PC-Bash
Global warming has also been established as a scientific theory/fact. Having placed science as the ultimate source of reason, I would think you’re probably a global warming fan. Is it science or a crackpot theory?
And do you think Al Gore will receive the reverence Charles Darwin has acquired, someday?
Just curious.
As normal, ABO comes out of left field spewing his usual nonsense.
Larry –
I’m still looking for an actual example for your crank theory. Can’t you provide even one?
Bees / flowers: busted.
Orchids / wasps: busted.
PC-Bash: bashed.
PC-Bash: bashed.
I’ll take that as a “no.”
Thanks for playing.
–“Thanks for playing.”–
Thanks for losing.
Thanks for losing.
Let’s see. I ask for an example for your crackpot “theory”, and you cannot provide me with one. Yet… I somehow lost here?
Larry the crank, somehow interprets his loss as a win, somehow thinks that he has some sort of unique “theory”, which is nothing more than irreducible complexity, which is itself garbage.
I also think it’s funny that I asked for an example, you gave me an orchid, then you backpedaled by claiming that this wasn’t an example of your crackpot “theory”.
PC-Bash
“As normal, ABO comes out of left field spewing his usual nonsenseâ€
I can agree global warming is nonsense, but I would have expected to get an answer about Al Gore. Even perhaps the well established universal evolutionary answer, ‘we don’t know yet.’
Go troll somewhere else, ABO. Global warming and Al Gore have nothing to do with evolution, other than in your own demented head.
PC-Bash
As I suspected, no answer.
Now AL and the U.N.’s governmental Panel have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their imagination in perfecting the newest scientific fantasy. This is evolution, the evolution of man’s faith in anything branded scientific. Surly you care.
Surly you care.
“Surly” the only thing worse than your broken logic is your spelling.
You sound like a broken record. “Dur, science is faith ’cause that’s all I understand. I ain’t no kin to no monkey. I’m gonna form an evolution church, that’ll show them lib’rals I kin brain reel guud.”
Do you have a single intelligent thing to say? Larry may be a crank, but at least he can actually form coherent sentences from time to time.