Utterly Meaningless

I would certainly not say that someone who has had the misfortune of being misled by creationist liars like Jonathan Wells or Ken Ham is an “idiot”, rather simply (and regrettably) misinformed.

Hey, Daryl, I wouldn’t exactly call that person a troll at the moment. He doesn’t seem hostile or anything. Now there were other people on this list who could possibly be called trolls, but I forget their names since they did not post too often.

Steve,
Are you really that clueless?

Trolls post for the pure joy of causing problems. They don’t necessarily believe what they are saying, and often really don’t care about the subject.

I think a better term for Steve is zealot.

Well, I’m not the biggest fan of Ken Ham, but the topic is one of my hobbies, so it caught my interest. There are many scientists that question specific aspects of evolutionary theory as well as scientists that reject all of the theory. I probably fall into the former group rather than the latter. I prefer to study the evidence for and against evolution as well as the logic used to support evolutionary arguments. In addition to Wells’ book, I also recommend Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and many of the books written by Berkely Law Professor Phillip Johnson.

Also, a bit of trivia. The NY Times article quotes Eugenie Scott. Most people reading the article would not appreciate the fact that Scott is a professional lobbyist for the evolutionary movement (not sure exactly how to describe her!) She is bright, and well informed, but do expect an objective perspective from her.

No, Daryl. Are you?

Dave, there is no “evolutionary movement”, only people who actually understand the science.

Steve – Eugenie Scott and others invest a great amount of energy and time as “apologists” for the theory of evolution and how it is taught. Here is one article that supports my claim, but there are many examples of SIG’s that are not particularly objective regarding the way evolution is currently taught.

I do not think there is anything wrong with that, but folks should know that she is not a disinterested party. (Nor the folks that pay her bills)

review...ar.php

I would like to see the science behind the claims in my college Biology text regarding 4 winged fruit flys – the specific claim that the extra pair of wings is fully functional. Jonathan Wells and others point out that while a mutation occurs that results in the extra wings, they are not functional and impede the funtion of the other pair, rendering the fruit fly “flyless?” !

(Did I get the punctuation right?)

An idiot embarassed himself in the comments here.

You’re referring to Steve, I assume?

Dave, I revisit just to invite you (and any other interested person) once more to go and read the excellent articles at talkor...ns.org. There you will find both clear lay-level introductions to some basic principles of evolutionary biology, and detailed refutations of many popular creationist claims.

Wells (typically) has no clue about the point of the fly mutation you mentioned. The point is not that four wings help the thing to fly better; they don’t. It’s that a single genetic change in a gene which functions by regulating the activities of many other genes, can cause a significant change in body plan- you don’t need large numbers of tiny changes to somehow all point in the same direction i order to get such a result. It would be exceedingly rare for such a mutation to increse fitness; the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This is neither news to evolutionary geneticists nor a problem for you. If you genuinely want to understand more, you’ll simply need to go read about some real science instead of wasting your time with loons like Wells.

There are no “apologists” for evolution unless you think there are also “apologists) for a non-flat earth. Creationism and flat-earthism are equal in their intellectual standing.

“nor a problem for you”: Sorry, that was a typo for “nor a problem for _them_.”

Roy, the only one here who’s behaved like an idiot is Daryl- who by the way knows very well that I’m correct about the science. I guess everybody has the privilege of making a fool of himself on his own blog.

Perhaps, though I believe you started this flame war by with the ad hominem attack on Dave. And, BTW, I also have the privilege of banning folks. I haven’t done that. Yet.

I’m shaking in my boots. Instead of making silly threats, you would do better to apolozize for calling me an idiot and a troll.

OK- I’m sorry you’re an idiot and a troll. Bye.

Steve – I appreciate that the mutation is significant. What concerns me is that the mutation is wrongly characterized in biology textbooks. (Including the one that I own) If the error were isolated, no problem. But it is not. There are many errors in the books and lesson plans that are used to teach evolution and related topics. And that is really what Wells is pointing out in his book. (He devotes an appendix to the topic)

Jeez, Steve sure is defensive.