HorsesAss.Org

Radio Goldy

by — ,

I will be on the John Carlson Show, 570-KVI this afternoon at 3PM, opposite Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind so-called “intelligent design.”

A couple days ago I criticized the Gates Foundation for funding the institute to the tune of $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman’s $141,000 salary. If Bill Gates doesn’t understand that he is giving money and credibility to an organized effort to undermine our nation’s basic science education, then he needs to be educated. If he does understand this, then it’s his customers, employees and stockholders who need to be educated.

Neither Chapman nor Discovery are drawn from my usual cast of villains, so I can’t claim to be an expert on ID or its proponents. But lack of expertise has never stopped me from expressing my opinions before, so why stop now?

UPDATE:
John controls the debate, but I’m guessing more than a little of my focus today will touch upon the Discovery Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Here’s the New Yorker article I’m about to mention.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, I thought that went fairly well considering how unprepared I was on the subject and the fact that Chapman is not just some walking talking point like Stefan or Tim. And John had some kind words to say to me afterwards, off the air, so I thank him for that as well as the opportunity to speak on issues other than the election contest.

Comments

  6. Ask him about the Giant Green Rabbit theory! Ask him about Intelligent Falling.

    Or, more seriously, ask him if Astronomy should be taught as an alternative to Astrology.

  8. Maybe you could mention that one of their key “science advisors,” a historian of science actually(Stephen Meyer), served as a professor of philosophy at Whitworth College. Now to become a fulltime academic at Whitworth one must write an essay detailing their direct relationship with Christian faith, and how they will express this relationship and the importance of Christian faith in their teaching. Doesn’t sound very objective to me.

  9. spyder; nice guilt by association. Should we quiz Hillary about stupid classes at yale? (meyer no longer teaches at whitworth, just as hillary no longer attends yale)

  10. and spyder;

    You mean religious schools shouldn’t require belief? That’s a stupid waste of time, to want a religious school that can’t have religion.

    Yipes. Like going to school in Madison and not drinking.

  11. So Goldy wants to boycott Microsoft because he disagrees with the religious, philosophical, or political beliefs of the company’s founder and largest stockholder, and what this individual chooses to do with his own private fortune?

    Makes about as much sense as boycotting Heinz ketchup and other Heinz products because someone disagrees with the philosophical or political beliefs of Teresa Heinz Kerry and her husband.

  13. Oh Gawd, once again you are going to make me turn my dial all the way over to 570. I hate listening to that station! It makes my blood boil to realize people are so ignorant, even in Seattle. I sure hope Carlson realizes how much you do for his ratings, making us progressive folk tune into that crap.

    Make it worthwhile, Goldy. Let Chapman have it.

    http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog

  19. Tagged by Chapman??? are you nuts….

    Looks like our moderator didn’t let him describe a key point in the Wedge doc.

  21. Also, Chapman is just out right lying. Here are two good web pages that take apart their propaganda screed Icons of Evolution:

    http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

    It would be much more interesting if they had actual scientist debating, although I guess they would be hard pressed to find one from Discovery that would want to have his lunch handed to him.

    And clearly Carlson is leaning in his bosses favor, using the break to prevent Goldy from getting his points in, and cutting Goldy off every time he tries to make a point. Normal Carlson 2 against 1 when he knows he would be beat in a fair fight.

  22. Carlson gave goldy more time and respect than Chapman might get via Air America or other liberal station

  23. Oh, that… I thought he was just insulting him when he didn’t have anything to talk about.

    And all those published articles and studies??? I found maybe 20-30 of them on discovery.org. Not much in comparison to real science.

  30. man, chapman is great, really noting how the political left is going after professors….

    reminds me of the communists…

  32. Sheesh, righton, weren’t you in favor of getting rid of Ward Churchhill? So it is all right to get rid of the nutty left wing professors, but not the nutty right wing professors?

    Let’s face it, Chapman well knows that Gates is not in favor of non-scientific thought, and will pull his money sooner or later. Why else spend all this time whining about Goldy.

    Give Carlson credit though, he is doing a good job keeping Goldy from making any points, and Chapman, while he lies as much as the minnow, at least doesn’t sound like a stoned out loser.

  33. Oops, caught up in the filter again. Apparently calling the minnow a stoned out loser was a no no.

    (And the wingnuts think it is just there to annoy them.)

  34. We are going after the attempt to force theology in our schools. Five years of supposed “research” doesn’t contitute ID being taught to my children. And with an agenda like the Wedge it is even more suspect. They can fund all the research they want but unless they have something real to work with those classes can be electives.

  35. Goldy: “But lack of expertise has never stopped me from expressing my opinions before, so why stop now?”

    You couldn’t make a remark any easier to comment about than this one…so I won’t. :)

  36. Jimmynap; good idea on reading Genesis to find out “who”, right now i’m listening to an argument on “how”

  38. Now we got a scientist calling in dissing Goldy. Horseses ass is goldy. This guy rebutting goldy saying evolution as proved as gravity

  39. What’s ACCEPTED, Goldy, is that your ARROGANCE is only outweighed by your IGNORANCE. All science is theory, but if it’s accepted by you, it’s fact?

  40. Such an idiot you are…. What that guy was doing was merely correcting simple language of science. All are theories, (yes, even gravity righton, but I am pretty sure you are upside down in a cage somewhere…parrot.) we covered that in middle school. Accepted science is science that has MANY years of observation and scrutiny. This Chapman fucker just has a political agenda. If he REALLY believes in what he is doing then he would quietly continue his work and share the findings with the scientific community without the mounted defense of Discovery. His so called findings as it is now amount to nothing.

  44. Interesting how every time goldy is talking they have to go to break.

    Interesting how they had goldy on the defensive most of the time. I’d think that quack at Discovery is the one who should be defending his views. Cocksucker Carlson set it up so he wouldn’t have to do that mainly by going into that shit about the Smithsonian. Like we give a fuck about that, I want to hear about all the “scientific research” Discovery is doing.

    Goldy you have got to get on the offensive on these radio shows. Demand they answer your questions. The show shouldn’t have been about what you think, it’s about ID and Discovery. These conservative shows control things by putting their opponent on the defensive. I’d tried to call but I couldn’t get on.

    Fuckin bullshit. FUCK ID. FUCK John Carlson. Fuck Discovery.

  46. Here’s a link to the NYT on the publication dispute. Turns out that the journal is only marginally related to the Smithsonian, and that everyone was embarrased that the article got published in the first place:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08.....0sat4.html?
    n=Top%2FOpinion%2FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FEditorials

    And that guy was as much a physicist as I am. “We don’t know that there is hydrogen in the sun.” That is just in line with Redass Mark’s theory that we have no idea how old anything is.

    And, righton, did you hear an argument on how? I didn’t. I want to know how the Giant Green Rabbit, or the FSM did it. Or why they made so many mistakes. What, there were no answers? On par for the Discovery Institute.

    Lastly, on the Wedge document. Please name the last scientific theory that needed a PR campaign? I’m waiting.

  47. JDB @46

    Please name the last scientific theory that needed a PR campaign?

    Umm, “John Kerry can win?”

  48. Marks @ 47

    Well, if you can find a peer review that accepted that, I bet they would publish the ID theory, with or without giant green bunny.

  49. herbalizer @44,

    It’s John’s show, and he can generally control it however he wants to. He played the role of moderator a bit more aggressively than he did between me and Stefan.

    As to going on the offensive on the radio, the only way to assure that is to get my own show.

  50. A good quote from the New Yorker for you flat earthers:

    Pope John Paul II himself acknowledged, in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that new research “leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

  51. Jimmy, why not expose students to BOTH sides? A major component which has been lost in education in public schools is teaching children to THINK. Most of what they get now is liberal indoctrination. Liberals are not the only people who send their kids to public schools.

  52. @ Goldy.

    I hope Air america offers you a job. I’d much rather listen to you then sam cedar and janeane garafalo. I know it’s very difficult to get on the offensive on these talk shows. You did the best you could. Thanks for going on.

    John Carlson is a fucking piece of shit. That son of a bitch hung up on me and then the next caller asked what happened to me and he told the caller that I hung up because that’s what liberals usually do. I didn’t fucking hang up. FUCK YOU JOHN CARLSON. You couldn’t handle a caller nailing you to the fucking wall so you had to hang up on me. Cocksucker Carlson wouldn’t have a chance in hell in an open and fair debate.

  53. @51

    Because it took a long time to observer and scrutinize the theory of evolution, AND new information is being presented all the time. This hack, (and thank you JDB) and his PR campaign for ID have a nothing but a social agenda that is destructive to a society where free thought is cherished. They can think what they want but to impose 5 or so years of research to a new theory without years of scrutiny of evolution is maddness!!

    Let them teach that in the church.

  54. Sorry, that didn’t read well but I was in a hurry to go see the evolved pigs out the county fair!

  56. “Intelligent design” isn’t a scientific theory at all, it’s a legal theory. It was cooked up by lawyers to get around the Supreme Court rulings banning religious teaching in public schools.

  57. jdb; plenty of spin and campaigns for science. I’ll bet the last drug you got at the drugstore (as opposed to liberal use of canabis) only got approved after a lot of marketing and hype.

  58. You guys assume humans today are wiser than humans say 1000 years ago. Back then we were convinced of some scientific theories, and today also convinced of some scientific theories.

    At least looking backwards we know that given enough time, theories change…

  59. Righton:

    Drugs are not a scientific theory, they are a consumer product. If you wish to admit that ID is not a scientific theory, but a consumer product, you have stumbled into the light.

    Karmalyzed:

    Should we teach both sides of economics as equal in middle school (Marx v. Keynes)? Should we teach the contraversy between Astronomy and Astrology? Flat Earth v. Round Earth? Young Earth v. Old Earth? Medical Marjuana v. Just say no? Intelligent falling v. Gravity? At what point does something have to be so far outside the field of science that we no longer have to teach it. Or can anyone start an institute, proclaim their idea a science, and then it has to be taught?

    And, maybe it is better in a highly competitive global market to just get our kids to understand science, and not that there are crack pot theories also?

  60. Goldy,

    And John had some kind words to say to me afterwards, off the air, so I thank him for that as well as the opportunity to speak on issues other than the election contest.

    I hope they weren’t along the lines of how “sweet” a guy you are! My guess is you did fine. Is there audio?

    JDB @48 & 50,

    Just to be clear, evolution should be taught in public school. It is up to the Discovery folks to present a compelling scientific theory for ID. So far, they fail on the expressly “scientific” portion (hint to the Discovery folks: the fallacy is in the math, and you got some ‘splainin to do). It is up to us, the taxpayers and parents to ensure education is truly based on scientific methodology.

    At the same time, if the foundation wants to fund ID research, why the hell not? Oh, yes, I forgot about the people who take this as Gospel. Well, Bless your hearts.

    At this point, if you want something other than evolution taught, spend the money on a private school.

  61. A popular Des Moines Barber shop had a new robotic barber installed.

    A fellow came in for a haircut. As the robot began to cut his hair, it asked him, “What’s your IQ?”
    The man replied, “130.” So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, investments, insurance and so on. The man listened intently and said, “This is really cool.”

    Later, another gent came in for a haircut and the robot asked him as it began the haircut, “What’s your IQ?”
    The man responded, “100.” So the robot started talking about football, baseball, and so on. The man thought to himself, “Wow, this is really cool.”

    Later on, a third guy came in to the barber shop. As with the others, the robot barber asked him, “What’s your IQ?”
    The man replied, “70.”
    The robot then said, “So, I understand you Democrats are really excited about Hillary running for president?”

  62. JDB @ 46

    ‘Please name the last scientific theory that needed a PR campaign? I’m waiting.’

    That global warming can be influenced by human activities, or predicted with any reasonable accuracy into the future.

  64. NEWS ITEM – RECALL PETITION AGAINST SPOKANE MAYOR UPHELD

    The State Supreme Court today ruled that a recall petition filed by a citizen against Spokane Mayor Jim West can proceed to signature gathering. The court rejected arguments by West’s lawyers that the petition was factually and legally insufficient.

  67. Richard Pope,

    I wonder as well, but more to the point, why is this on the radar for either you or RR?

  69. @ 61 Then the Robotic Barber served the next customer

    “What’s your IQ?”

    “I am PuddyBud!”

    The Robot Barber then grabbed PuddyBud by the arm, threw him into Baghdad where PuddyBud soiled himself and roamed the streets asking the Iraqi people “Where’s my mommy? Have you seen my mommy?”

    Thus another thumbsucking chicken hawk meets his cumuppence!

  70. No Wonder @ 62

    Sorry, Global warming was developed as a theory without a PR campaign. You might not like what people have done with it since, but its not like it needed a PR campaign to get published. Next try?

  71. The evidence for ID is in everything we see and do. Scientists can not accept the evidence for ID because they demand that all events and conditions must be the result of known or knowable natural law. ID asserts that an intelligence beyond mans understanding exists. Scientists in thier arrogance refuse to consider the possibility that a supernatural creator could exist. ID does not belong in the science classroom, but niether does domatic assertion of deeply flawed theories like evolution and Big Bang. a Science cirrculum should acknowledge that the theories are unprovable and that at least one widly held alternative theory exists.

  72. Gary:

    You are right, ID doesn not belong in the science classroom. It deals with the supernatural, while science deals with the real world.

    But, please, how are evolution, or, especially, the big bang (and, lets face it, even Discovery doesn’t dispute the big bang. I know of no scientist that does, since the evidence for that is truly all around you) deeply flawed? Like any scientific theory, they are not perfect, and will change with additional study, but they have proved (in the case of evolution for over 100 years, in the case of the big bang, well over 50 years) to best describe the world around us.

    I assert that a giant green rabbit exist. That doesn’t make it so. The FSM theory is as rational, and has as much proof, as ID, should it be taught?

    If there was one widely held alternative theory, you are right, it should be taught. However, there is not. Just, as you said, a theory about the supernatural, which can be taught in Church where it belongs.

  73. The “Big Bang” relies on an initial uncaused event. There has never been a “Scientific” explanation of an uncaused event. Evolution relies on the concept of life coming from non-life. This has never been observed. Natural conditions where this could theoretically occur have never been observed. All attempts to recreate this event in the laboritory have failed.

    Science is a very powerful tool that we use to develop a limited understanding of reality. Our scientific models are not reality because our minds are too limited. We develop models that “look like” reality, but are much simpler and easier to comprehend.
    There should be room in the schools for the study of philosophy. Philosophy is the basis of both science and religion.

  74. Opposition to intelligent design is just as axiomatic for libs as is protection of abortion…. you guys are all robots

  75. @73

    Nice try at rationalizing away science, Gary, but I prefer to drive on bridges whose design is based on physics, not philosophy, thank you very much. If science doesn’t work, then none of our medical techniques or medicines work either. Behaviors of physical matter in our universe do seem to follow the predictions of our science-based models, how do you explain that? If you think science doesn’t accurately explain reality then try this simple experiment. Find a cliff, jump off it, and philosophize yourself to a gentle landing on the ground below. Go ahead, Gary, see if it works. No — on second thought … don’t try this without talking to your scientific adviser first … or, if you insist on trying it, better talk to your spiritual adviser before taking the leap into the great unknown!

    FYI, amino acids (the building blocks of life) have been created from inert chemicals in the laboratory. Artificial viruses also have been created in the lab.

  76. @74

    Righton, explain to me WHY we should accept “intelligent design” as an explanation of the universe’s (and life’s … and humanity’s) existence?

    FACT: ID was created by lawyers as a legal strategy to get around the constitutional prohibition on teaching religion in public schools.

    FACT: ID is not an established religion or philosophy.

    FACT: ID is not mentioned in the Bible or any other traditional religious text, manuscript, or teaching.

    FACT: ID has no scientific support.

    Righton, you’d have to be pretty stupid to confuse a legal strategy and political gimmick with religion. I have a question for you: Are you really that stupid?

  77. Roger; i’m only stupid enough to waste time w/ you on this matter.

    Your post sounds like you are anti free speech; that is, your words say we cannot accept this.

    Well heck, we can tolerate all sorts of crazy ideas. We let scientologists babble their nonsense, we let anti animal research nuts carry forth, we let space alien afficianados do their thing, what is wrong with pondering Intelligent Design.

    That said, I’m confident on my religious faith in creation, but obviiousl swayed by science that seems to show adaptation etc. But before I vote to shut down research or consideration of research, i guess i ought to go back and get a phd in science or somehting.

    The ID guys aren’t cave dwellers, peddling anti gravity theories. Instead they are being provacative, stirring the pot.

    You guys just get pissed cuz they’ve dared to confront your sacred cow. As I mentioned above, i’m not a scientist, so i don’t quite know “how” to rectify fossil remains vs current species, and all the stuff evolution, darwin, ID, seem to be debating. But i’m not the least bit troubled by opening the sacred cow up for debate.

  78. David, I more or less agree with you on Intelligent Design. See my column in this week’s The Stranger which was just posted. But putting pressure on Microsoft, because its chairman’s personal foundation supports unrelated programs at an institute that also champions intelligent design? That’s just plain silly.

    Because I’m with you on this particular issue, I’m willing to offer you some free advice — we’ll be more credible in explaining the flaws in intelligent design if we focus on the merits of the issue and not on a Salem Witch Trial of everybody who has ever shaken hands with the people who promote I.D. Your attack on Bill Gates makes you look like a nutty extremist, and discredits the real debate about I.D.

    On the other hand, I enjoy it when you’re a nutty ineffectual extremist on the issues where we disagree, so please take my advice only as it relates to this one issue!

    cheers
    Stefan

  79. righton:

    Scientologist can spew all they want, but their beliefs should not be taught in a biology class. UFOs should not be taught in Astronomy, and perpetual motion machines should not be taught in Physics. Since we are in agreement on that, then clearly neo-creo should not be taught in biology class either.

    Evolution is open to, and is, being constantly debated in science. As more information (genetics, dna, fossile records) have come forward, new and alternative theories have been moved forward. However, no evidence has surface that challanges the basic idea. No evidence has yet to surface that shows the hand of the giant green bunny or whatever designer you care to postulate.

    Gary: We can go make within milliseconds of the big bang. The event is not necessarily an uncaused event, there are in fact several theories as to why the big bang might have happen. But I think you are even conceding that the big bang took place. So we have made some movement.

    The proteins necessary to make DNA and RNA exist naturally in space. Organic compounds, by there very nature, want to form. Given time, energy, carbon and water, it really isn’t that hard to form organic compounds, and you don’t need that much time.

    As far as I know (and forgive me, I’m not as up on particle physics as I once was), an individual quark has never been seen in the lab, does that mean that all matter is in fact made up of “God Juice,” since we can’t seperate them out in the lab? The method that gavity propgates its force has never been demonstrated (particle, waves, etc), does that mean we need to teach intelligent falling? http://www.theonion.com/news/i.....3&n=2

    The simple point is that science requires theories that you can test. If you can’t test it, it is not science. The big band and evolution are constantly being tested, and are constatnly being supported by those tests. Just like Relativity, Theromdynamics, Mechanics and every other theory in science. That’s science.

    And, since the few attempts to prove ID have constantly been shown to come up short, does that prove that there is no designer?

  81. Stefan @78,

    I would expect that we would be in agreement on Intelligent Design, as whatever we may think or say about each other, I don’t think either one of really believes the other is an “idiot.” As to opposing the teaching of this bullshit piece of junk science, your approach is certainly useful, but sometimes it takes a bit of hyperbole like my post to draw attention to the larger issue. And I’m afraid you may be missing the larger issue.

    The I.D. campaign is not about evolution… it is not even just about changing the way we teach science from the purely rational scientific process (or as Discovery calls it, “scientific materialism”) to one based on a “theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” I.D. is the wedge, and their goal is not just to impose “intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science,” but to have it “permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”

    You can not ignore the “Wedge Document” especially considering what an amazingly successful blueprint it has been.

    I would also hope that as cynical your are about progressive and Democratic institutions, and government in general, you could turn a little bit of at Discovery for moment, and not be so entirely dismissive of my efforts to discredit the parent institution. Discovery is playing a very dangerous game, it is using the credibility it earns from projects like Cascadia and contributors like Gates to lend I.D. a level of credibility it most certainly does not enjoy. It is not science, it is theology… or philosophy at the most. As you know, when it comes to evolution, there is no scientific controversy to teach, and we should not let Discovery leverage whatever credibility it might have from other activities to convince people otherwise. I would hope you can understand, quite bluntly, the strategic reasons why the larger organization must be discredited. Quite frankly, there are plenty of other effective conservative institutions; you do not need to stick up for this particular one.

    Politics aside, you and I actually have a lot in common, not the least of which being that we are both technologists and both non-Christians, and I would assume that on both counts, you would reject Discovery’s goal of imposing its peculiar theistic perspective on all aspects of modern life.

    I don’t expect that we will entirely agree on this issue and the proper approach to confronting I.D. and defeating it. But I hope we can at least complement each other (if not compliment) in our efforts to oppose it.

  82. Goldy; lets ignore the ID part of this; I think the behind the scenese issue is the way the left (you) target groups based on 1 issue.

    Borking
    Shouting down conservatives on campus
    Yelling at donors to discovery

    I think its a long list, i got lazy and stopped after 3.

    Its an ugly anti-democratic tactic, popular w/ the left, both in the US and abroad.

    I’m not boycotting Heinz cuz an heir is a nutball. Or more analogous, not boycotting some college she donates to, because i don’t like her support of her husband’s political run.

  83. Science is a very usefull tool, but it can not create data from nothing, which is what the evolutuionists are trying to do. Life has never been created in the laboratory, and if it were that would only show that a team of very intelligent people could do it by copying what was there ie Intelligent Design.
    79: Evolution and the Big Bang can not be tested. Neither can be recreated in the laboratory. Therfore by your standard they are not science.
    “Organic compounds, by there very nature, want to form.” What about the law of entropy. Everything tends to go from a state of order to a state of disorder. Life is a localised temporary reversal of entropy that could never happen by itself under accepted physical law.
    I have never tried to scientifically prove ID, but there are enough assumptions without proof in the Big Bang and Evolutioary theories that they should still be treated as theories, not dogmatically presented as fact.

  84. Gary @ 83

    The following is part of an essay from the website run by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal(CSICOP).

    http://www.csicop.org/speciala.....ology.html

    Evolution & Creationism

    Terminology in Conflict

    One of the fundamental reasons for the ongoing conflict between the religious and scientific communities involves differences in terminology and word usage. Having heard many lay people scoff “evolution is only a theory” or refer to “the theory of Intelligent Design,” it seems prudent to discuss differences in usage and understanding, as Creationists are misusing the understanding of this and other scientific terms by the average individual to further their own aims.

    In science, the word “theory” is not used in the manner understood by most people, i.e. I have a theory that if I do X, Y will result or perhaps my theory is that man was created by divine intervention. They equate the word with “conjecture,” “supposition,” or at worst “guess.” However, phrases such as these fall under the heading of “hypothesis” or “hunch” for the purpose of scientific enquiry. In a scientific context, the word theory is reserved for ideas that have been repeatedly tested experimentally under very rigorous conditions and confirmed to behave as expected. Quantum electrodynamics, heliocentrism, and plate tectonics are other examples of scientific theory; they are areas that have been independently studied and repeatedly verified over decades or centuries using increasing amounts of hard data.

    Science also relies on facts, which are either data gathered through observation or instances in which some phenomenon has been tested and verified so many times that there is no longer good reason to suspect any variation in outcome. Even in this case a fact is not immutable, since it is always possible for new evidence to be introduced that will overturn a long-established fact. Evolution is a fact in the respect that we have hard data – an ever-expanding fossil record – proving that species have changed over time; dinosaurs, early mammals, Trilobites, and other forms no longer exist as living species. The exact mechanism by which these changes occurred (e.g. natural selection and environmental pressures) is the realm of evolutionary theory and is based on interpretation of that fossil record and other available data.

  85. Ogg: Making a record of the history of species on this planet does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. It shows that different species existed at different times, but it does not show why they appeared or dissapeared. The “Origin of the Species” does not even rise to the level of theory, it is pure conjecture There has never been an experiment that produced a new species. I am not advocating that ID replace evolution in the science cirricula, but the “science” of evolution that relies on some fragments of bone and a lot of conjecture should not be taught as immutable fact as it is in most classrooms. today

  88. Headcase: OK Przewalski’s Horse is a nearly extinct variety of horse that originated in central asia. Now what does that have to do with the origin of a species? Variation within a species is not the same as a new species.

  89. Gary:

    “There has never been an experiment that produced a new species.”

    Well, that’s not true, is it. I don’t know what you mean by species, but through genetic engineering, we have already created tons of new life forms, totally different species from anything that came before. Of course, you can look at all the different breeds of cattle, horses and dogs, just to get a start, on the basics of evolution. A breed, admittedly, isn’t a specices, but it defnintily shows proof of concept. And we have really only had a good working understanding on genetics and genetic engineerin in the last 30 years, evolution has had millions to develop species.

    Look at the evolutionary tree for horses or whales. Watch as the predecesors to whales loose there hind legs, but modern whales keep the hip bone and vestigial legs. Heck, go get an x-ray of your sacrum and look at your own vestigial tail. Why did the designer give you a tail similar to a monkey and then hide it?

    And let’s not forget Darwin’s Finches. In correcting errors found in ID theory:

    “As for Wells’s second charge, not only did Peter Grant and his colleagues observe finch evolution as it was happening in the Galápagos, but the rate of evolution was far faster than anyone expected. The only cannonball Wells can lug out to discharge against this inspiring work is that the weather will always oscillate, and there won’t be long-term trends, and that any such trends are just “speculation.” Unfortunately for Wells, while it’s still difficult to predict the future, we’re getting better and better at measuring the past. Ice core and sedimentary evidence show that the benign climate of the last 10,000 years is NOT normal; there have been huge temperature swings in just years and decades on occasion, and these non-equilibrium environments are exactly what is needed to drive speciation.

    The third charge leveled by Wells is similarly flawed. Recent molecular research shows conclusively that Darwin’s finches, all of them — the Warbler finch, the vegetarian finch, the tree finches, the Cocos finch, and the ground finches — all came from a single common ancestor. The finches are a “monophyletic group,” just as Darwin had surmised in his diary. And even though the ground finches may not represent as many species as once thought, and the tree finches likewise, the cold, hard molecular evidence shows very clearly that there are now indeed separate species on the islands. Wells has not supplied a single clue as to how “Intelligent Design” might explain why there are now five separate groups of finches on the Galápagos, when once there was but one.”

    The more information we get, the more proof we have of evolution. What is amazing is that a whole school of science, genetics, has come to full fruitation since the 1960s, and has only proved evolution right over and over again.

    So there you go, several examples of evolution at work, species forming, both in nature and in the lab. Care to show me one instance of design in the lab?

  90. JDB: All of your examples are variation within a species. There has never been a species created by man. Look up the definition of species. Science has documented the fact that different species existed at different times. Science has not proved any process of development of a new species. Until origin of a new species is observed in nature, it is conjecture. Observation of various fossil fragments in various locations is not the same as observing the event.

  91. A species is defined as unable to produce fertile offsprings. All Dogs are the same species, a horse and a donkey are seperate species (they can only produce a infertile mule). As stated above, the Darwin Finches are seperate species. They cannot interbreed. However, genetics makes it clear that they did share a common ancestor.

    If what you are asking for is proof that a dog becomes a hippopotamus, htat is not how evolution works, and you are never going to be able to show that. However, as is shown in the fossile record, you get gradual change that takes you from a hippo ancestor through changes to a whale. How does showing the gradual development from one form to another, when the forms follow a steady chonilogical change, not show a process of development? Given how hard it is to produce a fossile, it is amazing how complete the record is.

    As for observing the event, what is the event you wish to be observed? You do not have one day a hippo, the next day a whale. there is no event to be observed like that. Given that we have only been looking for about 150 years, isn’t it strange that all the evidence fits the theory?

    Another example I didn’t think of at the time. Where do you think the new flu viruses or SARS or AIDS comes from? Mutation, over time, leading to new and different forms. Same with antibiotic resistant forms of bacteria. Exactly the same thing with the Darwin Finches, Exactly the same thing with the evolution of man from austrolopithicines to Homo Sapien Sapien.

    What is your counter? That the giant green rabbit or the FSM had to keep practicing, so s/he, they, it moved from less complex forms to more complex forms? Why does the line of human descent make so much sense? Why does it not go Homo Erectus, Austrolopithiciens, Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, then Homo Sapien Sapien? If there is a designer, why does he follow the path dictated by evolution?

    Further, why is it that all fossiles follow this pattern? You don’t see hippo like creature, than whale, and now we have the mid point. You see hippo like creature, than a slightly less hippo, more aquatic animal, than a more whale than hippo, than a whale over time. Strange how that pattern flows every time.

    Evolution predicts the rise of new species better adapted for their enviorment when random mutations, guided by natural selection, lead to change. The fossile record is consistent with that, genetics are consistent with that. Everything in science is consistent with that. Evolution is a consistent theory; its prediction are matched by the evidence. It is as good of theory as Relativity or Gravity.

    I have given you every thing you asked for. Demostrations of change from one species to another. Creation of new life in the labortory. If you want a photo of a dog giving birth to a bird, you are going to be sadly disapointed. Evolution doesn’t work that way, no one ever said it did. But look hard upon the monkey, and realize the difference between you and that chimp is 2% of your genetic code. Given three million years, is it that hard for you not to recognise your ancestor?

  92. “when the forms follow a steady chonilogical change” The fossil record does not show a steady chronilogical change. There are sudden appearances, fossils found in the wrong layer of rock, fossils whose radiocarbon date does not agree with thier level of development. These difficulties have been dealt with by theories like “Punctuated Equilibrium”. They have recalibrated radiocarbon dating to match thier theory. They have conjectured that a giant meteor strike wiped out the old life forms and suddenly produced new ones.
    I don’t contend that there is a conspiracy, only that science must have a theory that is based on natural law. That is a fundimental ASSUMPTION of science. Therefore scientists must explain away any evidence that appears to be outside of natural law, no matter how flimsy the explanation is.
    I don’t want to have ID taught in the classroom, I just want scientists to admit that a theory patched together from fossil fragments and conjecture is far from proven.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldyha.bsky.social

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.