I have a suggestion. In order to stop the threads which ask for help in debating evolution, why don't we put more referance material here? Like as a evolution thread appears and has a question, we grab the question and answer and put them in this thread so repetitious threads won't have to exist and so we will be spared the hassle of searching for particular threads with particular questions. What say you, mighty lords?

These days Behe is more widely quoted, at least where I post, than Hovind. So is there some good short refutation someone has come up with for dealing with the irreducible complexity idea that doesn't require a biology class and a bunch of pictures and diagrams?

---

[img=left]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/SyntaxVorlon/OCPING.png[/img]
WE, however, do meddle in the affairs of others.
What part of [ ,, N() ] don't you understand?
Skeptical Armada Cynic: ROU Aggressive Logic
SDN Ranger: Skeptical Ambassador
EOD
Mr Golgotha, Ms Scheck, we're running low on skin. I suggest you harvest another lesbian!

The irreducible complexity arguement operates from the assumption that the organs such as the eye appeared fully developed.

They would have evolved over time from very simple to the current stage of complexity. So no, they could not evolve from nothing to the current stage of complexity... it took many stages.

As an added bonus, point out that the many different types of eyes present in nature show that the eye was evolved several times by different organisms... much like flight. Birds and insects fly in completely different ways, and they see in completely different ways... but they can still see and fly. This is proof of independent development.

It's an argument from incredulity, and it ignores how gradual stepwise or cumulitively selected structures, be they molecular (modern form of IC) or on the grander scale (as the IC argument was in Darwin's day), and more to the point, we can actual give explanations how the molecular structures like blood clotting factors, wasp stings and the like could come about via such a process by comparing them to other structures.

Example: the wasp sting appears to be from an augmented ovipositor, blood clotting factors in humans may be ic to humans, but they're not to other animals.

IC does exist, but to claim it can't come about by natural process is stupid. Indeed, flavobacterium k172 has evolved IC since Nylon has been invented. There are also bacteria that aren't only completely resistant to vancomycin, but actually require it to be in the environment, vancomycin and nylon do not occur naturally.

Also, MRSA is visibly in an intermediate form growing resistant to vancomycin, and noone doubts that it will become fully resistant in the future, requiring an irreducibly complex set of new genes to code for that resistance.

These predictions are made by evolutionary theory, but NOT by IC/ID.

Just because something is "Irreducibly complex" now, does not mean it always was, just as things not irreducibly complex now won't always be. Cities existed before elaborate spaghetti junctions, before cars, before roads even. They've existed without nationwide policeforces, local police forces, sheriffs, the internet, instant global communication, computers, etc etc. But now we've come to rely on them for modern life. It's an excellent comparison, for showing the different biological/societal contexts of the genes/people's influence, and shows how IC is not a good hypothesis, nor a new one (be it at the molecule or macro level), nor does it imply any designers or the supernatural.

---

EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Youtubin' one off
Ultra Secret Music
Less Secret Music
"What all this gnashing of teeth by the Nerd Rage crowd shows is that George Lucas is easily the greatest film-maker of all time." - Elfdart

Speaking of Hovind, this was brought to my attention today. Be amazed as Dinoman finds himself speaking the truth afterall.

As a member of deviantART, and a frequenter of the forums there, i had to answer this once. And i like to believe i posted the single longest forum response ever, when someone linked it.



Hmm, this assumes that group living provides only costs, and not benefits, as far as survival goes. If you live in a pack or in a swarm, the likelihood of you getting eaten by a predator decreases as the swarm size increases. If you are alone, and a predator finds you, the chance of you getting eaten is 100%. Also, this assumes life has some sort of sentient or intelligent drive to it. It doesn't.



Or Yao Ming.



Wouldn't a common creator, in the interest of welfare for all create a stable and static earth, in all respects?



Whales and bats evolved during the mammalian explosion which occured after the end of the Triassic era. According to Punctuated Equilibrium, usually after a cataclysmic event, species tend to evolve rapidly to fill the gaps in vacant niches. Mutants are more likely to survive, since competition is low for many resources. Bats, like flying squirrels and sugar gliders are likely to have descended from rodents which developed flaps of skin on their limbs. Whales are believed to have evolved from carnviorous icthyovore mammals which lived in estuaries, a common point for species radiation in many animals from water to land and vice versa. Sea horses on the other hand, are related to pipe fish, and share much of their anatomy, except that pipefish are straight and narrow, sharing a more fishy orientation. From the beak, we can see similarities to the beaks of other reef fish, such as tangs. I'm not a marine biologist, so i am not sure of the fossil record regarding bony fish. Eyes, depending from which organism you choose (eyes evolved many times) usually evolved from photosensitive cells, usually dermal cells. Ears evolved many times as well from simple membranes which caught vibration.



As an entomology major, i feel i am qualified to answer this one. Firstly, he flagellates, of course, evolved first; there are protozoans which produces cellullase that can be independent. Termite ancestors ate predigested wood; i.e. rotting wood. Bark Beetles still do this, they collect spores from certain fungi and infect choice trees so they can feed. It is inevitable that some protozoans would be ingested as well, and somewhere along the line, some protozoans nested inside the termites, and then formed a symbiotic relationship. The earliest reproductive structures that are visible are from the gymnosperms. Very flower-like organs can be found on the cycads. Insects, flocking to the potential source of nutrients, the sex cells of plants, would naturally be attracted. The first pollinators, from the evidence were beetles which ate a lot of pollen, but also ended up carrying some to the next flower, thus aiding reproduction. This later refined down to specific flower-insect interactions.



Mimicry is a trait common in insects, such as the Batesian mimicry of Postman butterflies and non-toxic imitators, and Mullerian mimicry, as found in several species of plant bugs. It's rather simple. If you resemble a poisonous organism slightly more than found in a holotype, a predator is more likely to pause if not avoid you, allowing for you to escape. This sort of mimicry is most effective on the main predator of insects, vertebrates, which often possess learning capabilities, so predators learn that red means poison, in the case of Mullerian, which Batesians can exploit.



Punctuated equilibrium or Gradualist? i can go on, the devil, so to speak, is in the details of evolution biology. Take a look at the reptile phylogeny. It's mostly incomplete in the fossil record. People bicker over the origin of snakes and lizards. In entomology, people bicker over when certain wasps elongated the genitalia, and whether it constitutes a different genus. (Not kidding.)



Nobody else claims to have one. How would you know what to feed it? What size tank you would need? Etc.



Kantian and Utilitarian ethics. Both are secular, and provide morals which provide a greater benefit than religious ones. Neither advocate stoning as a proper execution method...



This is irrelevant to whether evolution is "correct".

---

Period.

Has a non-creationist Christian I find this question offensive in the extreme. To suggest that Genisis is necessary for belief in Christ is foolish, childish and petty.

Tell him(or anyone with the same question) that, more likely, there are more religious leaders who possibly believe in evolution but are bound to creationism out of fear of losing their job or status. Even point out examples(one being Thomas Ferguson, who remained an active mormon in spite of privately admitting near the end of his life that he lost his faith in the Mormon religion). When you are challenged on this, tell him how HIS belief is more realistic than yours.

---

"One Mamluk can hold two Frenchmen at bay; 100 Mamluks are equal to 150 French soldiers; three hundred Frenchmen do not fear the same number of Mamluks; a thousand Frenchmen will beat 1500 Mamluks." -Napoleon

"Because ten billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral...
it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness."

"If you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, you own the bank."

---

"Trailblazer, stay ballin wit vengeance
My arts is crafty darts, why y'all stuck with Laffy Taffy?"

"Niggaz want me dead, but they scared to step to me
Rip they guts out, like a hysterectomy."

- Ghostface Killah, The Champ, Fishscale

It's certainly one of the many rapidly changing theories regarding many kinds of small Theropods (namely the Maniraptors, of which birds are now included). Whether the Dromaeosaurids evolved from previously flying/gliding animals, or if they represent a different branch that never developed flight is unclear. It should be noted that the feathered Microraptor has been speculated to be arboreal and have gliding capabilities.

Also on a side-note for the noninformed in the field of Paleontology, ALL Theropods, which were active from the end of the Triassic onward are believe to have had feathers at some point in their life. This means that T-rex most likely had a layer of downy feathers during his early years.

Seen this!? lmao.

Hovind?

I should also add that he knows little about etymology or chooses to ignore it. He claims "universe" came from the Latin roots, "uni" meaning "one", and "verse", meaning "word". He's only half right, but I can say for sure that it's

UN/i/VERS/e

UN- base; one
-i- joiner vowel; N/A
VERS- base; to turn
-e general noun suffix; that which, one who

Latin, noun

"That which came from one turn"

If the big bang is correct and the matter started to spin after the universe was created, then "turn" makes sense. Even if it's not correct, he still doesn't see that the person who came up with that term must have believed that's what the universe is.

(I'd also like to know why some planets spin the other direction--is it the way they are formed, or is it their magnetivity?)

I'll get to the arguments when I have time. I'll post more later.

No, different magnetic fields will not change the rotation of the planets. The retrograde revolutions of Venus et. al, may be due to collisions during the formation of the Solar System iirc.

---

.....

My responses.



Two possibilities: It was there all along, or it was created. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.



See the first question.



We made them up based on observations, experiments and repetition of experiments. (he assumes a creator created it, and so by asking the question, he thinks we're going to answer it that way).



It's not organized, and it's not perfect. It only looks "organized" to your eyes, but all you see is a work of natural processes.



No organizing takes place. Energy can be produced in reactions, but it does not necessarily organize anything.



Inorganic compounds formed organic compounds, and the organic compounds form the building blocks of life, which eventually formed a primitive life form, which happened about billions of years ago. The environment then would have been adequate because lightening provides enough energy for the reactions to take place. As for why it happened, it's a natural process; there is no moral reason attached to it, and there doesn't need to be one.

(He already knows our scientific answer to this one, since he even admitted that this explanation requires that the Earth was billions of years old, but he chooses to ignore it because he doesn't understand it, or it doesn't match his faith in the bible.)



Life did not consciously "learn" to reproduce--the reproduction mechanism is a natural process, something that DNA is constantly doing.



Another cell of the same species. I'm not too sure what point he's trying to make here, but if he's implying that if there was only one cell to begin with, and no other cells to sexually reproduce with, then there are a variety of options:

1) There wasn't exactly one cell created at the beginning. There could have been many different cells created from the assortment of proteins, DNA, and other building blocks of life, and some of them, of the same species could have survived, while the other ones couldn't survive because of the hostility of the environment.

2) (quite obvious, isn't it?) Sexual reproduction isn't the only form of reproduction. Asexual reproduction requires no mate.



Animals and plants aren't conscious of wanting to reproduce--they do it because it is an unconscious choice--an instinct. Animals and plants don't understand that it would make more mouths to feed and decrease the chance of survival. It may not actually decrease the chance of survival because sexual reproduction increases genetic variability, which increases the chance that any one variation of a particular species could survive in a changing environment. Even in asexual reproduction, if that particular species is successful in that environment, reproduction does not decrease the chance of survival; it maintains the species' survival. Genetic drift decreases the chances of survival because it decreases genetic variability, and if there isn't enough variability, there isn't much of a chance that any one of those species would survive if the environment were to change. No individual has a conscious choice to survive--it is instinctive and unconscious. Why don't you explain why there are still people who have a drive to keep pushing creationism on others, even after they've been logically disproven?



We all agree that analogies are effective devices, but only when used correctly. In other words, your analogy of English letters and Chinese books is faulty. The genetic code is all one language, as it only consists of four (five really, but they still work) "letters"--A, U, C, G and T. These are nucleotide bases. A binds with T or U, depending on whether it is DNA or RNA, and C binds with G. A mutation can increase genetic variability by adding extra nucleotides, removing nucleotides or replacing nucleotides. By doing this, the sequence of nucleotides changes and produces a new variety because the proteins that are coded by a particular nucleotide sequence can vary from the original one. It doesn't take a different language to produce a variety. If you consider the sentence, "The panda eats shoots and leaves.", depending on where you put the commas, the meaning is different. This is true with the gene sequence, and as you can see, the result is the same language, but each sequence is varied. The beauty of this analogy is that in a gene sequence, a small mutation can have drastic effects, especially when applied to control genes, which have to do with the orientation, shape and number of limbs of the body.



It still doesn't answer the question of why we aren't created perfect. As for the blood vessels in the retina of the human eye, and it being upside-down, he said in a debate that the blood vessels are there to protect the eye, but I think the retina is near the back of the eye, behind all the vitreous solution in the eye, as well as the layers of tissue, lens and the cornea in front of the eye, so there isn't really a need for blood vessels to protect the retina. As for the appendix, white cells produce are also known to produce antibodies, but whether or not the appendix has a useful function, it still shows common ancestry, not a common creator. If white blood cells are already producing antibodies, there isn't really any need for an appendix to produce antibodies, is there? That is, if your appendix were to be removed, you would still produce antibodies. A creator wouldn't go to all that trouble to produce an extra structure for producing antibodies when other structures can do that, and at a much more convenient location--in blood vessels and the lymphatic system. It shows common ancestry because a similar structure is found in other animals that helps in digesting food like grass.



Natural selection does not guarantee nor maintain that a species is stable. Natural selection depends on genetic variability, not simply a set of genetic information, as well as changes in environment. If the environment changes and the species is not likely to survive, natural selection occurs, and that species would die off unless the environment changes again, or mutation occurs. Mutations are happening constantly, but most of them constitute pseudogenes, or neutral mutations, which don't change the protein that is coded for. This can increase "complexity" in the genetic code. (I'm not too sure what he means here by "complexity"--would that be longer sequences of genes, a more varied sequence of a gene, the expressed phenotype appears more "complex", or he simply has no idea what he's talking about?)



Single-celled plants? I'm not too sure if they exist, or if he means protists with cell walls and chlorophyl, but when he's asking for two or three-celled intermediates, he seems to be poking at the question of the transition fossils. Single-celled organisms became multicellular in colonial relationships. They lived together as a colony, and when individual processes were no longer effective because of lack of space between cells, specialization in functions occurred, and the cells living in that colony would have to rely on each other.

"Fish", is a very general term for classification, and it would be a grade, but not cladistic--it is paraphyletic. Amphibians evolved from a particular species of fish that had primitive lungs. As for why they evolved, it's simply because the environment changed or mutation occurred where it was not harmful to the organisms. However, some people just choose to deny that.

For amphibians to reptiles, it's the same idea as above. Reptiles could occupy more habitats on dry land as well.

Feathers are made of the same material as scales, and the other structures developed either through mutation or genetic variation. These changes would have suited the bird's functions better. As I've explained previously, it doesn't take a big mutation to cause a big change. Control genes are responsible for that.

(Apparently, he assumes that intermediate forms were some unstable hybrid that's not quite reptile, and not quite bird, otherwise he wouldn't ask that question.) As I've said about genetic mutations, it doesn't take a very big mutation to cause drastic changes, so there wouldn't necessarily be many intermediate forms, and if there were, they would have survived, otherwise natural selection cleaned them up.



(These are all things you can look up and find just about anywhere on the Internet. I don't see the point in him posting these things, but I'll explain the last few.)

Eyes, ears, and other body parts did not evolve separately. They evolved in the organism as a whole, as they contribute the organism's survival. Squid eyeballs evolved differently from ours, but it depends on the survival--if having better eyesight would make squid survive better, then they would need it, but for us, we use our brains more often, so having eyesight like a squid's may not be necessary. (Sorry if that's a bad example, but I can't think of anything at the moment.)



See previous question. No system evolved before the other because it depends on the type of organism, and it depends on how developed each system is, and where and how the organism lives. Organisms that live in the dark, for example, don't need to have eyes, so they probably won't be very developed, but in other organisms that don't live in the dark, they would have been more developed, and evolved.



I don't quite see how symbiosis defies evolution. Does he even know what it is?

symbiosis

sym/BI/o/sis

sym- prefix; with, together
BI- base; life
-o- joiner vowel; N/A
-sis general noun suffix; act of, condition of, state of, process of, quality of

Greek, noun

"condition of living together"

This applies to organisms that live together in order to produce a relationship that benefits both organisms. For example, in plants, fungi can live at their roots and supply nitrogen, while obtaining nutrients from the plants. Even in humans, E. coli lives in the large intestine and produces vitamins that we need. This doesn't mean evolution can't happen--fungi don't prevent plants from producing offspring with mutations, and that certainly doesn't affect mutation in humans. Why don't you give me an example you claim where symbiosis defies evolution? Or are you afraid your examples will get pecked to death?



It's definitely not by intelligent choice, and definitely not by design. Mutation or genetic variation account for mimicry, and it can help an organism survive over other organisms of the same species that do not have mimicry. Mimicry, if you don't already know, is a feature of an organism that scares away predators because it looks like another organism. This usually has to do with patterns on the organism or what the organism appears to have or look like (eg, stingers, but don't do anything). Because organisms that have mimicry have this advantage over other organisms of the same species that don't have mimicry, they are less likely to be eaten by predators, and more likely to survive and reproduce.



Animals exhibit social behavior, but in a more primitive conduct than humans. Our brain capacity would have allowed us to develop feelings and social behavior beyond that of other animals, but it happened because of the need to work together, live together and rear offspring together. Even in nature, mates help rear their offspring (if they're not philandering or being promiscuous). This is an instinct, and is an unconscious choice, which may have to do with genes. This is probably favored by natural selection because the instinct helps the animal to survive better and reproduce. This is the more primitive part of social behavior that may have to do with evolution, but the more complex social behavior and feelings that develop are from society, not evolution.



Genetic variation and mutation that produced a particular sequence of protein that codes for chlorophyl.



If you're insisting that this has anything to do with biological evolution, you're hitting the wrong point. If you mean the medium that allows thought to develop, that would be the brain, and it's genetic variation or mutation.



Flowering plants, or angiosperm evolved from genetic variation and mutation. They evolved because they are more effective as terrestrial plants than both gymnosperm plants, mosses and ferns because they produce seeds that have a protective covering. Animals probably had to do with this as well because they are more effective as vectors than the wind is.



I didn't know there were eight or ten. I'm not answering that kind of question because it's probably your definition and your view of what an evolutionist is. I could try and explain, but it's not like you'd understand or want to realize it.



Either you're lying because you don't know what a coelacanth looks like, or you didn't have one in your aquarium and were trying to trick us.

coelacanth

COEL/ACANTH

COEL- base; cavity, abdominal cavity
ACANTH- base; thorn, prickle

Greek, noun

"(that which) has a prickly cavity"

I doubt that's all that would classify a coelacanth, but if I don't see any of those in what he calls a coelacanth, it's not a coelacanth.



(Evolution is scientific, but obviously, he doesn't think so. However, we all know it is, and his choosing to deny it doesn't mean it isn't.)

There is never going to be a prediction that proves macroevolution is proven true because science does not prove; it supports with evidence or disproves, in which case the theory is rejected or modified.

If you were going to think of macroevolution, or evolution as a religion as you've been claiming, why does it require proof? Why doesn't your religion require this so-called proof?



That's a bit farfetched, the way he puts it, and it is a Mickey-Mouse way fo looking at it. That idea he presents isn't scientific, as it's not considering the other organisms besides humans, but the idea that hydrogen reacts with other elements that form organic compounds, such as hydroxide, carbons, oxygen and others, and understanding the mechanism of DNA and RNA, how proteins are created, how DNA and RNA coil, can mutate, form genes, its relationship to forming the organism and the organism's interactions with the environment and its survival are more scientific. Evolution is not simply going from A to B; it's how life changed throughout time to create diversity.



I could believe everything came from nothing, but it wouldn't mean anything if experiments and observations showed it didn't. I could believe an eight-eyed, six-armed, two-toed, ten-tentacled creature with blue fur and gold scales existed, but it wouldn't mean anything if there is no evidence to show that such a creature exists.



There's no such thing as scientifically provable, and I don't know why I bother to answer such erroneous questions, except to reveal the faults in them. I'm aware there's a chance I could be wrong, or my sources could be wrong, but if I really, really wanted to find out, I could just grab my microscope and take a look. There are certain things we know now, but it doesn't mean we won't discover them later. We used to have limited knowledge of the natural world, including in chemistry, like the ideal gas law, but by studying it further, we see the problems in it, which lead us to things like Van der Waal's equations.

My answers reflect science as much as possible, though he's likely to reject that notion, being that he still doesn't understand what science is.



If I can explain something logically, without resorting to we don't know the answer, therefore God must have designed it, then it's not faith. If we don't know the answer, either: I haven't chanced upon a good, peer-reviewed report that answers some of the problems, or we don't know the answer because there isn't enough evidence, experimentation or observation done, and work there will continue to be done.



(That's his job, right? Except he still doesn't understand science, and he's not doing a very good job of it.)

There are several ideas on the existence of the creator, one being deism, where the creator created everything, but did not interfere with the natural universe and its mechanisms. If this happened, we would have no observations of his interference or presence, and hence no experiments or evidence to build upon his existence. Or, if you mean the creator is unseen because God could be a bacteria, then I'd gladly explain that one, but that only applies to living things.



(If he knew the definition of theory, he wouldn't be asking this question.)

In science, the things we know are based on observation, and supported evidence, but not once would we consider it an absolute fact. Just because we teach students about it doesn't mean it's absolutely true. If you are implying that teachers or professors are teaching the theory of evolution as a fact, then they're not doing their job; they should tell them that evolution is a theory, and that it has enough evidence and support to be valid, regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not. But one should also note that it's a common misunderstanding to say that evolution is just a theory because you can't simply throw it out the window--as I've said, the ideas are valid, supported with evidence, and if you were to disprove it, you would have to consider how the supported evidence could be wrong, and so far, any creationist that comes up with a fallacious argument falls short because they come up with cheap, salesman-type convincing arguments with little or no basis, or they themselves don't understand it, and still try to attack it, and they do both because they can't disprove it.



Evolution is a scientific idea that explains how we got here, the diversity of life, and the history of life. What makes him think it has to explain what happens to us after that, and what it does for us in terms of lifestyle, society, etc, etc, etc? Evolution and morals are mutually exclusive. You can believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean we don't have morals; the above mentioned are decided by oneself; not by evolution, not by creation, not by Christianity, and not by any other religion. You decide you want to believe there is no God, you decide you want to believe in Christianity, or you decide what you think is right. One's morals are based on what one feels, not whether some scientific or religious explanation dictates.



(This just shows how he doesn't understand evolution.)

In some of these quotes, I might call them pot calling the kettle black because some fundamentalists are doing this. However, evolution is accepted because:

-It makes sense, and complies with supported evidence.
-It explains why antibacterial products don't always work.
-Scientists have interest in understanding it more, and polishing up its ideas, so it is constantly updated and peer-reviewed.
-Creationist's arguments have been debunked. See above answers to questions to see why creationist arguments fail.



(In his mind, some of the evidence is disproved, but only because he wants to believe it and hear only what pleases him.)

Of course we shouldn't use outdated or inconclusive evidences. Why do you think experiments and observations are repeated? Why scientific reports are peer-reviewed? The fact that Lucy and all the other evidences you provided are there, doesn't mean the interpretation of them can't change; it can, and a supported interpretation is most likely true and tested. We don't necessarily have all the fossils or evidence because it's like trying to restore a burnt library--some of the books would have been completely destroyed, or certain pages so badly damaged, that it can't be read. Not all organisms fossilize, and the ones that do can be difficult to classify.



I don't consider creation a scientific theory, as there have been no peer-reviewed reports, hypotheses or evidence to be considered part of science. Evolution isn't and shouldn't be taught as a fact because it is taught as a theory. If he's so obsessed about having to teach creation, there are institutions that teach it, and there are religion courses on it in university. However, for the stated reasons above, creation is not scientific.



If we're wrong (not bloody likely), then there are many other religions or ideas out there that could be correct. Like mormonism, gnosticism, deism and others.



He misrepresents evolutionists being afraid of creationism being taught as science than being presented in public schools at all. Creationism can be taught as religion, and as for why they don't teach religion courses in public school, I wouldn't know, but evolution is taught in public school because it is considered science, but Mr. Hovind doesn't seem to think so. He considers it as if it were a religion, which is fallacious. See above reasons for why evolution is a science.

I haven't read the previous posts, so I don't know if any of them overlap; sorry if they do.

(If you've seen any anti-Hovind sites, you'll see that his Ph D. is from a diploma mill. His Ph D. isn't even science-related.)

Looked up him for fun.



Sounds like something I would have written when I was... 10. This is not post-graduate writing, nor is it graduate writing, nor is it undergraduate writing, nor is it high school writing, nor is it even middle school writing. The sentence I just wrote requires more thought to formulate than his short sentences using a single pronoun.

What a fucking moron.

Brian

Oh by the way, that's not actually what Dr. Dino wrote, so I misquoted him. Not that it matters.



^--- inserts the quotation above.

Brian

i just read his "thesis"...

oh...my...fucking...god....

---

"Trailblazer, stay ballin wit vengeance
My arts is crafty darts, why y'all stuck with Laffy Taffy?"

"Niggaz want me dead, but they scared to step to me
Rip they guts out, like a hysterectomy."

- Ghostface Killah, The Champ, Fishscale

Well the article writer couldn't quote from Hovind's thesis directly because she needed her permission. I always thought with academic works you didn't need the other person's permission as long as you cited properly... why does that change at the PhD level?

Brian

I would have gone ahead and quoted it anyways. See what he can do about it.

my mistake. i didn't actually read the thesis, just that person's review.

it's still an "oh...my...fucking...god..." type of thing.

---

"Trailblazer, stay ballin wit vengeance
My arts is crafty darts, why y'all stuck with Laffy Taffy?"

"Niggaz want me dead, but they scared to step to me
Rip they guts out, like a hysterectomy."

- Ghostface Killah, The Champ, Fishscale

Agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It just means you don't know. That's the only thing you know. Not Godless ideas.

And he calls the man racist, when he simply held the same beliefs as practically everyone else during his time.

I just had to add this, as the ultimate speciation reference:

Xiphoporus maculatus [Endler, J.A. (1977) Geographic Variation, Speciation, and Clines. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.], that lives in rivers up the east coast and exibits various stages of speciation, from simple diversity of a single population, to subspecies, to full isolated species. Mayr [ Mayr, E. (1963), Populations, Species, And Evolution Harvard University Press. p.281] points out "Here then we have a series of related, allopatric populations showing every stage from the local genetic race, to the ordinary subspecies, to the almost specifically distinct subspecies ([X.] xiphidium), to the full species (couchianus)."

---

EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Youtubin' one off
Ultra Secret Music
Less Secret Music
"What all this gnashing of teeth by the Nerd Rage crowd shows is that George Lucas is easily the greatest film-maker of all time." - Elfdart

Do you have any links to more than just the abstract?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/bioevo.htm

That site gives a more general overview and explains the methods of speciation involved and gives a slew of references.

---

EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Youtubin' one off
Ultra Secret Music
Less Secret Music
"What all this gnashing of teeth by the Nerd Rage crowd shows is that George Lucas is easily the greatest film-maker of all time." - Elfdart