Scientists are baffled by his ability to survive. After the recent discovery of transitional fossil octopods, I predicted that creationists would abuse the discovery…and Denyse O'Leary fulfilled my prediction of stupidity by claiming that the fossils showed that cephalopods hadn't evolved at all. Wouldn't you know it, but Joseph Farah of World Nut Daily has upped the ante by being even more explicitly wrong.
1Scientists are baffled by the latest fossil find.
2
It's an octopus they claim is 95 million years old.3
And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.4
In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn't evolved — not one tiny bit.
1Scientists aren't baffled at all by this discovery.
2Superficially, this is true — they do say it is 95 million years old. Farah is trying to spin it, though, by implying it is only a "claim". It is a conclusion supported by the evidence.
3There are hundreds of octopod species. The level of description Farah provides is about what a four-year-old with a crayon might say, and it's false. They (there were several species identified) do not look like modern octopods, but have several tell-tale differences.
4Completely false. Farah hasn't read the paper, which fits these fossils into a long history of evolutionary change in the lineage.
That's an impressive collection of falsehoods. It takes a creationist to screw up a story that thoroughly, I guess.
- Log in to post comments
No one is dumber than Denyse "Ignore or Distort the Evidence" O'Leary. Did you see her recent post about Phineas Gage?
I'll see your Denyse Is Dumb, and raise you a Sanctimonious Prig...
"It's funny to me that many of the same scientists who discount the Flood are believers in man-made global warming. While there's plenty of evidence for a worldwide Flood, there's no scientific evidence for man-made global warming. It is a pipedream. It is a hoax to enslave mankind to global authorities."
That's a hell of a lot of retarded packed into such a small space.
I guess my experience with most of this stuff is different. In my family it's the non-religious ones that would buy into this more than the religious ones.
If they're saying that those transitional fossils are the same, and haven't changed, one wonders how far they will push this idea: will they next say that humans and its cousins are also the same?
That's *De-ny-se* to you out there. The Catholic cookie-baking nincomfuckingpoop.
WingNutDaily comes through again.
So simply having 8 legs is all the proof necessary that these are identical to modern octopi, yet having four limbs, opposable thumbs, and 98% of the same genetic material is completely insufficient evidence to think we're related to apes.
Joseph Farah has decades of practice being intensely stupid. In 1990 he helped turn the conservative Sacramento Union into a right-wing rag, publishing Rush Limbaugh columns on page one and driving circulation into the cellar. The Union went out of business in 1994, but Farah continues to be an extremist caricature of a journalist.
Reminds me of the time one of my friends was going on about God making the platypus just to make the scientists argue about which category to put it in.
I should have told him that the scientists he just insulted wholesale create whole new categories when they find something that doesn't fit in any existing category.
Unfortunately, I suffer l'esprit d'escalier for more things than witty comebacks....
The maddening part of all this is that these claims by the creotard journalists and pseudoscientists will still be repeated in years to come, if not decades. The average (and sub) creo doesn't bother to go anywhere near information that might tell him that whatever he reads on his favorite propaganda page has been thoroughly debunked for a very long time. In modern science, even a year or half a year can be a very long time - and these people deal with assertions from the 70s and 80s.
As the average creo is neither intellectually nor epistemologically equipped toeven begin properly inquiring and questioning his sources, there is just about no pressure at all on 'creation science' to come up with anything new. Their articles in themselves are evidence of this - often they will simply exchange one life form for another with the exact same false assertions built around it. 'Oh, the cephalopod argument was a lie? Well, no need to tell our readers, let's just exchange cephalopod with lizard, adjust the number of legs, switch the paragraphs around a little and publish that in the next issue'. They play on their audience's stupidity, and they know they will get away with it, because their propaganda machine and infrastructure of dumbth works the full path. From keeping the children uneducated and misinformed, to getting them through school by either homeschooling, setting a creo teacher in place or pressurizing a science teacher into omitting evolution, to paving them a road through pseudo-colleges and then creating more jobs in the machine. All the while profiting from technological and medical developments that the real scientists and engineers are working on by actually turning on their brains and putting in effort.
Especially in the US, but in some European countries (not even starting with the Middle East or SE Asia) as well, the education system urgently needs careful analysis and a rigorous effort to weed out the sources of stupidization. What good is the implementation of public schools and secularism if a community of ignoramuses can just ignore that and turn the schools into church annexes?
Thanks PZ, I just read the whole Farah article and my IQ has already dropped 10 points.
I refuse to click on a WND link, but I presume, Ryan, that this quote comes from Farah?
If so, then you, Joseph Farah, are either lying or you're profoundly ignorant. Period. There is simply no geological evidence that supports a worldwide, Noachian-type deluge. I know reading is teh hard, but do try to keep up, okay? You're a couple of hundred years behind with this one.
Interesting how they're ok with the "95 million years" part, this time. I'm sure they can spin it so that it proves the world can't be that old as well as evolution not being true.
Muzz, give them some credit! They've already pointed out that it's just a "claim" of an age of 95 million years. When it comes to spin, the creotards are excellent. If only they'd put that effort into, you know, learning something.
#13 Muzz,
they're not ok with it, which is why they like to use the word 'claim' there - they're saying it with sarcasm. I bet most of their sycophants do in fact read it out loud. With appropriate pauses to mouth-breathe.
Fairytales, denial, and conspiracy theories. Yep, that pretty much sums up Joseph Farah. C'mon Joe, don't be a silly crank all your life; it's time to grow up.
Denyse is not only dumber than we suppose...she's dumber than we can suppose.
When your whole religion is based upon cherry picked myths and stories (and getting them wrong), I guess cherry picking scientific papers (and getting it wrong) is easy.
Joseph Farah:
Joseph, you don’t mean... the Bible? I think you made a slight mistake there, it should have read:
Here's my question for creationists who always ask for transitional forms: have they ever actually looked closely at their own anatomy? Had a hemorrhoid, or a backache, or a migraine, or an epileptic attack? Do they have lactose intolerance? Fallen arches? Sinus problems?
Compare and contrast human health conditions with other Great Apes. Since a transitional form would be expected soon after a major shift in adaptation and ecological niche, the test is -- why does your ass hurt when you sit on it continuously, and how many millions of years does that take to cure?
Creationists get the details wrong. They get everything wrong. For them it doesn't matter. Their point is every single species on earth was magically created. This is a proven fact because it's in the Bible. Also, since evolution is just a fairy tale, only magical creation should be taught in a biology classroom.
Creationist idiots would just be good entertainment, but unfortunately they often get elected to state boards of education, and sometimes a creationist governor will appoint them to be the chairman of the board of education, giving the creationists the power to write science curriculums and choose science textbooks. Even more unfortunate the vast majority of American voters like this just fine.
I bet people in more advanced countries (the entire Western world) find it difficult to understand why we let retarded people control our science education. I also don't understand it. I hope Obama does something. The stupid Christian assholes of America are completely out of control, and it's just going to get worse unless something drastic is done.
I love the detox patch advert at the side of the WND page. Is this a real product?! Looks like it's been stuck on someone who's never had a bath.
PZ's hypothesis, about how the creationists will twist this discovery, has again been verified !
You folks are all missing the obvious!!! It's still the octopus "kind." From there, it doesn't matter what you call it.
(I'm still trying to figure out if bats and mice are the same "kind" or not)
Amazing, you made a prediction based on past evidence, and your prediction came true! You must be a scientist or something.
Either that or a psychic. We should teach the strengths and weaknesses of both my theories.
Actually, lactose intolerance is normal. Almost all adult mammals (and most humans) are lactose intolerant. Lactose tolerance is a relatively recent mutation.
(I'm still trying to figure out if bats and mice are the same "kind" or not)
Only in German.
Thank you for making me laugh with such a perfect description!
Never read WND without a condom on your brain.
Why why why do they insist on these things!?
It's so effing stupid that it's starting to make me really sad.
JD #17 FTW.
Bunny @29 for the win!
"And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink."
what traces of ink was there? some fossilized bad checks?
Ryan @ 3,
You must be the kind of guy that goes to a specialist oncologist who diagnoses you with a malignant brain tumor which you then follow up with multiple visits to other specialists in the same area of oncology for second opinions, who *ALL* give you the exact same diagnosis. You have brain cancer!
You then talk to your buddy a proctologist who has an MD degree from a third rate medical school from a third world country who tells you not to pay any heed to the experts and suggests you get an enema instead of the prescribed chemo and radiation therapy.
You accept his advice, idiot!
It's hard to explain the truth about creation advocates to a non-scientist without out sounding like an conspiracy kook yourself.
"You mean they're all wrong?"
"Yes, and liars as well."
"What about all these books and websites and museums?"
"All lies"
"The preachers? The philosophers?"
"Mostly liars; the rest are mistaken or confused"
"My high school biology teacher said evolution is full of holes"
"She's wrong"
"You know more about biology than her?"
"Yes"
"What about PhD's like Jonathan Wells? He went to Berkeley!"
"His degree was part of a stealthy plan to discredit science. They rest are fakes or idiots."
"Why would all these people go to all this trouble just to tell the same lies?"
"I don't know"
Those answers are more blunt than real life, but that's the gist of what I have to say.
When someone is so totally batshit insane as Gingi Edmonds, the mere hypocrisy of supporting theistic abortion and murder is nothing.
As the Queen told Alice, "I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Josh, I don't know how but I missed Bunny's post and I like it so I'll say they are both win worthy :)
One of the comments over at Jesus & Mo today mentioned the phrase "Irreducible Stupidity".
It makes an awful lot of sense. There do seem to be people who could not be any stupider and still breathe in and out.
Teach the controversy!!1!
*grin*
Typical, Farah quotemines Dirk Fuchs to make it seem that he is dumbfounded by the discovery. Also, Farah cuts away statements in order to claim that there is no difference between the ancient octopus and modern octopi. If Farah used this:
all of the points of his column would have been refuted. This is dishonesty of the rankest sort.
@32
I second that!
"Scientists are baffled." The guys at the Skeptic's Guide love that phrase. It usually means "No we're not." Befuddled maybe, but never baffled or anything more than slightly bemused.
Fernando:
Ryan was quoting The Dense One. His views are opposite. Go make nice, eh?
Oh. Oops. *calls off the hit on JD*
No wonder Farah's website is often called World Nut Daily.
Farah also wants the producers and directors of mildy bawdy Hollywood sex comedies prosecuted for corrupting today's youth. Remember Socrates?
(((Billy))) @27:
Assuming this is the joke I think it is (the German for "bat" glossing as "flying mouse") this is disturbingly close to how creationist thinking often goes. They really do think the the categories we divide things into in normal language must reflect really real categories of things in the world, without any fuzziness of boundary. Hence, new species of bacterium evolving doesn't impress them - they are still just "germs". But frogs evolving from fish? No way! Even a child calls those by different names; they must be essentially different.
Love of Platonism is the root of all kinds of stupid.
The great thing is that if it were any more different, they'd be telling us that it was a wholly different kind, with no evolutionary bridge possible.
There are only two kinds of fossils, after all. The ones that didn't evolve at all, or did so only insignificantly. And ones that could never evolve into anything else and which are completely lacking in transitional forms.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Spiders also have eight legs so they must be the same kind as octopi.
Naked Bunny with a Whip, as long as the hit wasn't on me, I'm easy. After all I'm just a godless, puppy squishing, baby eating, amoral atheist. But don't tell everybody :)
If octopuses evolved from octopuses why are there still octopuses?
I'm quite certain they forgot a few letters in this fancy kind sorting word: baraminology.
I know (with full sky-fairy revelation) that it should be: BARely A MINimum brain cell-OLOGY.
Eidolon @43
Oops! BIG apology to Ryan, hat tip to Eidolon.
# 46: Yes, it was meant as a joke. As in Die Fliedermaus. Sorry.
And you are correct, it is a form of faithspeak. After all, if a language conflates two species, and God(s) created language, then the species must be related (or of the same kind). Sort of like a hippopotamus. Or a Flying Fox. Or an angel fish.
Matt Heath, your comment reminds me of the episode of "My Name is Earl" when the one blonde woman (only time I ever watched the show, so excuse my ignorance of characters and stuff) was going to disprove evolution by showing that a fish couldn't evolve enough to crawl out of the water to get food. Of couse what she had was a tadpole, and in fact it did "evolve." I'm not sure this fairly obvious joke had any great point to it, but it did have the positive effect of calling out creationism as retarded.
Isn't one problem with this whole "If octopi are 95 million years old, why are there still octopi?" pseudo-question from creationists that it assumes that evolution NECESSITATES phenotypic change? On what do you suppose they would base such a hypothesis? I don't think it's very consistent to say "I deny evolution, and by the way, that's not how it works."
How long until top creo-research scientists at the disco institute offer up a scientific paper on octopi citing the WND article as a reference?
Larry, in 3...2...1...
No kidding. Of course, it's not exactly a challenging prediction. Creationists never learn from their mistakes unless it has something to do with trying to subvert the US Constitution, and even there, their 'learning' is so pathetically transparent that they manage to con no one who hasn't already chosen to be ignorant.
It's one thing to be wrong and misguided. It's a whole other thing to be disingenuously willfully wrong.
It's edging on evil.
How long until top creo-research scientists at the disco institute offer up a scientific paper?
I was under the impression that they were boycotting science until it gave them the answers they wanted.
Creationism: If I don't understand it, it must be wrong.
I saw that article when it came out and thought, "I hope PZ doesn't have a stroke." Good to see you're okay.
I don't care for this term "creotard." My son has some mental retardation, but is far better educated than any neurotypical home-schooled child of a creationist.
Matt (46)
"Love of Platonism is the root of all kinds of stupid."
Yes.
'So what if a light-coloured moth changes into a dark-coloured moth - they're both still moths! I'll believe in evolution when a cat changes into a dog!'
However - Stupid doesn't come in kinds - it is infinitely variable.
SteveM: Actually, lactose intolerance is normal.
That's the point. Fallen arches were normal until 1~2 mya as well -- in the midst of vast ecological niche change what was normal often becomes locally pathological, with a population of mixed traits and half-ass solutions.
Ack! Please delete or ignore my post above. Wrong place for it, d'oh!
Denyse - isn't the "y" silent?
Matt Heath: They really do think the the categories we divide things into in normal language must reflect really real categories of things in the world, without any fuzziness of boundary
Isn't that an identifying characteristic of right-wing nuttery? That the world is as "I feel it in my gut", that what I learned at Mama's knee is absolutely and perfectly correct, that I never need to introspect or struggle with myself? That anyone who causes internal dissension, personal insecurity and self-questioning is evil?
Aren't these the folks who trot out "common sense" as being a valid argument?
Sorry to be OT but great news from Texas
11:13 - Mr. Mercer’s motion fails 7-7!!!
11;15 - This is huge victory for sound science education in Texas. Moreover, the creationists’ opposition to Mr. Craig’s motion exposed their hypocrisy about wanting to ensure that students can ask questions about science.
AmyD:
Point taken. I'll find any number of other terms to describe the godbots.
Here's my question for creationists who always ask for transitional forms: have they ever actually looked closely at [fill in the blank].... - frog
No.
Next.
Let it never be so. What would UD and the rest of the IDiots do without their rightful queen?
To have someone dumber than Denyse would mean that the greatest expert in ID is not a regular contributor to the ever-increasing pile of official ID bullshit.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Here's my question back to creationists who ask me that:
What's a transitional form? We don't really use that word. Oh, wait? Did you mean transitional feature? Oh, well, then have you ever looked closely at [fill in the blank]?
*and I think the "No. Next." can be inserted right about...here, perfectly*
the pro from dover:
*screams with pain*
*holds head*
How can you inflict such parody on a poor Pharyngulite who's still recovering from the concentrated FAIL of Farah's article? Do you have no decency at all?
Jonathan Smith, thanks and great news, nice to have a win for the good guys. I shall enjoy catching up on that news when I get up later.
Well, duh. You're not supposed to sit on your ass continuously! Once in a while you should get off and let the poor thing eat some oats or hay or something. Also, although most saddles are designed for full-on horses, you can get pony-sized ones that fit on asses. Even a blanket helps.
"Be kind to your ass, for it bears you."
-John Muir, epigraph to How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive
Josh: What's a transitional form? We don't really use that word. Oh, wait? Did you mean transitional feature?
Much better language than my choice. I'm giving them a strawman to play with -- on the other hand, my usage is funnier!
Frog, your usage isn't just funnier, it's way funnier.
With respect I think it is the wrong question to ask them. I would ask them to define what a transitional form is, what are the characteristics that make something a transitional form. What you'll generally find is they never answer this question and the more they harp on the non-existence of transitionals keep asking them to define what a transitional is. The vast majority simply won't answer and that's because in their mind the very definition of a transitional form is "that which does not exist". A few might give some insanely bogus definition like a fish with rabbit ears or something which you then point out why that is not a transitional form and evolution would not expect such. Of course if any of them actually give a decent definition of transitional form (not likely) this is then the opportunity to hammer them by their own definition with the abundant fossil transitionals.
Forget Dumbyse, I want Michigan footage!!
Major Tom @62:
True, but I think here on Pharyngula "kinds" is safe. Most people who come here are sufficiently continuous minded to read it as "rough clusters in stupid-space based on whatever features are relevant to the discussion".
Matt (79)
Contextual use of "kinds of stupid" hereby granted.
But - We must be careful to avoid the sharp end of our Platonic petard, lest we hoist our Forms upon it.
Charley said "Why would all these people go to all this trouble just to tell the same lies?"
"I don't know"
They tell all those lies because they are believe they are in a struggle for "salvation" that this world was made just for our use only as a place for this struggle to take place. If they win in their time of living they will live forever in pleasure with the creator in a none corporeal heaven until the god brings it all back to be physical again at the "second coming"?
bottom line they are scared to death and have an inflated sense of ego. They think it is all about them. By making up stuff they get to be "important" so people will notice them. If you agree with them you get to be important to. Have you not noticed that it is always an appeal to authority and not objective data. That they have any influence is a problem which seems to be hard to overcome.
Creatard strategy:
1. Pick only superficial points that other similarly uneducated creatards will understand.
2. Yell about them in a loud voice claiming that they prove the predetermined conclusions.
3. Ignore all useful evidence that is not understood, or which might prevent creatard from making case (and decide that it doesn't matter anyway).
4. When confronted by questions from someone who knows the facts, stick fingers in ears and yell "Neener, neener, neener so loud that they said person cannot be heard."
5. When knowledgeable person stops speaking, say, "See, I told you so."
None of these morons appear to understand what science is, much less know anything about any discipline of science. If the US doesn't fix its education system, the country is in a whole lot more trouble than it's in right now.
Dense? O'Clearly.
Can anyone suggest a test please?
I would like to determine if (insert your favorite creationist here) Joseph Farah is actually as stupid as he appears. Or is it genius masquerading as imbicilty?
There is, I've observed, a population of the credulous just waiting to be fleeced. Clearly some fundies are only in it (Jim Baker) for the cash. Some really are that gullible, ignorant and of limited intelligence.
How can one unambiguously differentiate the two populations?
DHill:
I think the two types of fundies you describe exist in a superposition of states - and that the results of the unambiguous differentiation you seek will be dependent on which test you perform.
It's Richard Dawkins' birthday today go to his website and show him some love.
This article proves the Bible right:
Asses do talk.
No one's commented on the best line that article holds. I'm sure he'll be begging for his words back...
"But as long as macro-evolution is taught like a religion in our schools and universities, not even leaving open the remote possibility of intelligent design, the scientists will continue to be baffled by their new discoveries."
I'm blown away by such a stupid self-incriminating comment
@DHill
Whether or not you can detect them they definitely both exist. I've always thought a large swath of the Christian Right knows better but is making too much money to stop. In my opinion their crime is greater than the masses that drink their milkshakes.
An octopus with eight "legs"! I've got to see that!
GlenD @ 47
"The great thing is that if it were any more different, they'd be telling us that it was a wholly different kind, with no evolutionary bridge possible.
There are only two kinds of fossils, after all. The ones that didn't evolve at all, or did so only insignificantly. And ones that could never evolve into anything else and which are completely lacking in transitional forms."
Bullseye. ROTFLMAO!
Okay so I go and look at Farah's "article." Disappointing. I guess it must have been written for those in the know re: ID. (Or his brand of it.) Sheesh, I did better writing in my hs journalism class.
orlando @ 90 : "An octopus with eight "legs"! I've got to see that!"
I'm reminded of the old Art Linkletter show. Art is inteviewing some kids and asks them what animal they would like to be --
Tommy: "I want to be an octopus."
Art: "Well that's unusual. Why do you want to be an octopus?"
Tommy: "Because they have eight testicles."
And French (chauve-souris "baldmouse").
Fledermaus.
The first part of that word doesn't occur anywhere else in the language, BTW. Could be related to flattern "to flap", but I'm guessing here.
To the contrary. Don't you see the "deny" part in there?
#33
"And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink."
what traces of ink was there? some fossilized bad checks?
No, no, no! It had tattoos.
You know I kinna wondered about the traces of ink thing too.
PZ, put in an appearance here and explain.
The only evidence for evolution that Joseph whats-his-name needs is that vestigial moustache hanging off his face.
Kind of, but not completely off-topic.
Just watched Expelled. Being Dutch, the movie was kind of an unknown factor. I read about it (for example on this blog) of course, but in the Netherlands, although we do not lack in religious idiots, the movie (or Ben Stein) are simply unknown. I can only say this about it: aaaargh.....
I think you've said it all with the comparison to a 4 year-old, PZ. Because of the way these people were abused as children , they just don't have sufficiently developed brains to understand grown-up stuff.
The Catch-22 is - how do we break the cycle, when they are to stupid to understand why they are wrong?
I have this creationist relative. She's in a master's degree program in something or other, and was bragging about this (she is always bragging about something or another, and simply will not ever shut up; whenever she visits I simply drink beer until I pass out - which is actually nice of me as it gives her more reason to be sure of my relationship with Satan). In particular, she was bragging about Actually Writing A Paper, With References And Everything.
I mean, Jesus Fuck Me - this is hardly something to brag about, even in a bachelor's degree program. The Wife and I chuckle about this from time to time.
But what is my point? I think this is part of the creotinaceous mindset: Just having references makes your own prose correct. It looks all academic-y 'n stuff and ought to be convincing on those "merits" alone. Appearance is just as worthy - or even more so - than substance.
This is text from Fuchs et al. 2009 (page 67 (I compressed two paragraphs into one)):
Figures 2 and 5 note the sacs in specimens. I have a good copy of the paper, but the sac still isn't 100% clear. But it seems that the ink sac is a shallow impression (essentially a mold of the original organ) in the limestone fabric with some apatite mineralization on it (this is essentially a mineral coating (apatite is a mineral) on the limestone fabric).
This interpretation seems to be corroborated by another paragraph on page 71:
The leaked ink is really cool. It's very clear as a dark stain on the limestone matrix in Figure 2. It's directly adjacent to what they interpret as being the ink sac. And the stain kind of looks like a little puddle. It has an irregular shape that seems like it could have been a fluid.
The fools, can't the see the obvious here? The octopus hasn't changed its' tentacled goodness in 65 million years because IT IS PERFECT! There is no need for an organism to evolve when it the best possible creature for its environment. When our future tentacled masters are gulping Farah and his kind like so many human M&Ms it will be too late for Farah to realize he is wrong.
The ink cloud that will blind Farah before he is consumed will only reflect the cloud of ignorance that blinds his mind.
Something else to be beyond pissed off about:
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/reuters/2009/03/26/un-body-adopt…
WTF
It should be pointed out that in terms of Baraminology, bats are birds, not mice. ;-)
Maybe we should embrace their stupid, starting "thinking" like they "do." It makes things so much easier.
We could have a whole new taxonomy:
If it flies, it's a bird. Period.
If it swims, it's a fish. Period.
What about flying fish? When did gawd make those and where would they be placed? I shall pray for an answer.
Got nothing.
Thanks Josh. Now we are more informed.
iLLogicaL: the UN resolution things been beat to death.
What about flying fish?
(Someone had to say it)
What a great day for Science.
Creationists in Texas fail.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/03260…
The law suit against Berkeley's Evolution site has been dismissed:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/24/Court_rejects_evolution_on_the_N…
double victory!
Like Wolford, I note belatedly. :-(
OT, but should be of interest:
There have been other reports, but I went with this one because it's the best I've seen at explaining what this particular victory means. Not much by itself, but will be important if science continues to prevail for another 30 hours or so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
In terms of Baraminology, where would one place The Flying Lizards?
I see that WND's still going on about the Obama Citizenship Non-issue, too.
Is it possible that's all we need to know about his credibility? That, basically, he and anyone who contributes to WND can be written off with a sweep of the hand?
Well, yes, it does.
Even "regular" Republicans are pointing and laughing at the citizenship non-issue.
Get over it, WND. It ain't gonna happen.
I know PZ had a post about this... Some Christian website posted an argument that many organisms that live in the oceans aren't really alive. I remember this stance being particularly annoying to PZ because it singled-out squid as being in this category.
So, seein' as how squid aren't alive, would it violate any of the "rules" (as Farah would define "rules", that is) if they evolved? So what's their problem?
(For the record, I laughed pretty hard at the link in PZ's post. That position was so completely ludicrous that even a guy with a BA in computer science had to laugh hard.)
Halfmooner #36:
We did that. We called it "morning devotions", or "time alone with God to start the day off right."
Have you ever noticed that the crazier they are, the less likely they are to accept comments?
EVen if the lineage hadn't evolved, what would it have to do with anything?
The real Farah gem is a little later in the article:
It's funny to me that many of the same scientists who discount the Flood are believers in man-made global warming. While there's plenty of evidence for a worldwide Flood, there's no scientific evidence for man-made global warming. It is a pipedream. It is a hoax to enslave mankind to global authorities.
Stalin, Hitler, & Farah: giving people with mustaches a bad name since 1889.
Geez, don't you atheists/evolutionists know anything? You can't be dumber than Denyse O'Leary. That's like asking "what's north of the north pole" or "what came before the big bang". It even says so in the babble (Stupidicus 1:23).
speaking of creationists . . . WHOOT TEXAS!!! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/26/breaking-news…
Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed. At least until they pass an IQ test in science, since their ancestors thought babies were born from a fertility god.
I think he was expecting a four-legged cephalopod.
Ouchimoo at #120:
Thanks for the update. Good news. A narrow victory (the narrowest, I suppose), but victory nonetheless.
For now.
Until the superstitious start their next effort.
No kings,
Robert
#106: Flying fish are an abomination unto the LORD. *nods* A conscientious baraminologist will stone them on sight.
Really spectacular levels of willful ignorance on display. That bit about the Flood is just a perfect lump of distilled stupid, 2 parts Biblical idiocy, 1 part paranoid conspiracy theory, stirred vigorously inside a tiny, tiny brain and spat out into an article on a Christofascist website.
Bats are moused birds, kinda like crocoducks only different.
I just sent an email to Mr. Farah. below I have it in its entirety.
Dear Mr. Farah,
I am appalled at the intellectually dishonest article titled "An amazing fossil find". To state that the find of a 95 million year old Octopod disproves evolutionary theory is beyond dishonest. Actually, the fossil find proves the exact opposite if you understood the differences that are plainly visible from the fossil. The fossils actually show the transition from earlier forms to the species we see today. The largest change is to be found in Gladius. Octopods, being mollusc's, have the remnents of shells, known as the Gladius. The fossile of Keuppia levante clearly show at the top of the head the gladius looks like two large clamshells and are nearly connected. Now in fossils found in later strata and in current forms, the Gladius is much smaller, much further seperated, and in the current forms, nearly gone. Another fossil found in the area, Styletoctopus annae, shows the Gladius is two lateral stylets, spaced quite far apart. If you would have taken the time to look at ALL the physical evidence found up to this point, including current Octopods, you would see a gradual shrinking of the Gladius and the gradual change (evolution) of this very interesting lifeform. You want to disprove evolutionary theory because you see it as an assult on your religious beliefs, yet to intentionally lie about scientific findings to try to bolster your claims is not just intellectually dishonest, it's down right dispicable.
Sincerly,
Cameron Coale
I hope the only factual problems with it are the spelling errors.
peace
Just read his entire article. Too stupid for words, so I'll stop now.
@27 about the similarities between bats and mice.
Not only in German =). Russian too (летучая мышь), as well as Ukrainian (летюча миша), Dutch (vleermuis), Danish (flagermus), Swedish (fladdermus), Norwegian (flaggermus), French (chauve-souris ~ bald mouse), and Estonian (nahkhiir ~ skin mouse).
Wow--it's 50 pounds of Stupid stuffed into a 10-pound sack!
MikeM @ 133:
Yea, I agree that the WND is obsessed with the Obama citizen issue. It's effing laughable the way they can't let this go.
I refuse to believe anyone can be more full of teh stupid than DO, not even Casey Luskin.
Believing so would completely disrupt the very fabric of the universe, or at least my concept of it.
World Nut Daily is also a haven for 9/11 truthers, Kennedy assassination fans, and various other conspiracy nuts. It's fun to dip into from time to time, just to see what the lunatic fringe is up to.
Even if the claim of the stasis of form were completely true, how is that supposed to disprove evolution? If a species happens to be perfectly adapted to its environment and the environment doesn't substantially change, evolution would predict that the species would not change. Sharks come to mind. In fact, evolution would predict that the selective pressure would be to conserve those traits that made the species well adapted in the first place. Don McLeroy of the Texas Board of Education clearly has this same misunderstanding. On the other hand, if a species doesn't change and the environment changes abruptly, then one sees extinction of the species as those species that had changed are now better able to compete. I just don't see the problem.
Scott, I think you're giving them too much credit. The extent of their argument is just saying the opposite of any scientific opinion. It's like arguing with a two year old. I bet we could pull a Duck Season/Wabbit Season on them and get them to endorse evolution.
"Would you like to shoot him now, or wait till you get home?"
"Shoot me now! Shoot me now!"
"Ha! That's it! Hold it right there! Pronoun trouble."
Creationists: Show us the BONES! Show us the transitional fossils!
Scientists: Here ya go! (Point to tiktaalik, icthyostega, acanthostega, etc.)
Creationists: I hope you get hit by a church van tonight and you Die slowly...
Regarding post 82:
I'm a former fundamentalist going through the "deconversion" process. I still attend church functions with my wife, although I mostly offend people with my comments and I generally treat it as a source of good comedy. Anyways, I happened to be at a Bible study tonight where the speaker discussed creation vs. evolution. I'm a civil engineer, and I'm still undoing nearly 30 years of YEC indoctrination, so please be patient with me. I have a lot of catching up to do.
Steps 4 and 5 mentioned in your post are spot on. A guy whose only scientific training is literally bird watching had the nerve to sit in front of 20 people and 6 kids with a PowerPoint presentation and say that macroevolution has never been observed, scientists can't agree on species so it's all wrong, and all species of dog came from 1 male and female wolf on the ark. After that last one, I could not be quiet any longer.
I created an uproar when I asked him how there could possibly be enough genetic variation in a population of two individuals to allow for all the allele combinations to be used to shape all the types of dogs we see today. In other words, two dogs can't possibly breed into everything else without genetic drift problems. The response was God can do anything; he's powerful. I told him he had a lot of work to do because he didn't understand genetics. It was the equivalent of standing up, pulling my pants down, and taking a dump in the middle of the room. People audibly gasped. There was at least 5 seconds of that awkward silence where eveyone is uncomfortable. Then the final comment was: Well you're just using man's judgement and God says that's foolishness. All you've done is increase my faith.
In case you didn't know, that's the Jesus way of saying Fuck Off, I told you so, and I have no way of refuting you.
Guy, you say that you have thirty years of YEC indoctrination?. Just from that story, I would say you made some damned good progress. Thank you for that. We all need constant reminders that people can get past these kind of obstacles.
Guy #136
You made my night! Love your story and I'm glad you're on your way back to sanity.
I found this excellent video about our president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtL3maK8aU
ok I'm on vacation with Mrs. BigDumbChimp but I thought I'd check in.
What the hell is the SP after facilis' name?
Guy #136
That was great. i myself would sooner hobble myself than be caught dead at any such event, although if an unlikely series of events gone horrifically awry landed me in such a situation when told god can do anything I probably would've replied...
"You mean like inspire an allegorical story that involved a man saving his family from a flood that taught an important moral lesson, but didn't necessarily reflect a specific historical event?"
Um, Facilis, I have a silly question to ask. Why would any of the regulars here want to follow any link you might provide? You have never gave any reason to trust your judgment.
Pablo #24
Don't be silly. Bats and Mice the same kind? Ridiculous.
Bats are birds, read your bible heathen. It says so in Leviticus.
Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Did everyone else miss that Farah claims that no other octopod fossils have ever been found?
It's like they just know that the faithful will never think to check references.
probably should have read down further before posting. I should have known the bats are birds joke would have already been done. It's still one of my favorite biblical stupidities though.
It's even funnier that it is actually perfectly logical compared to most of the bible.
According to Willy Ley, 'fliedermaus' means 'ragged mouse.'
Fledermaus, just like the related Dutch vleermuis, simply means winged mouse, using a now obsolete word for wing.
By the way, what do creationists think about the evolution of language? Do they think German and Dutch were separately created? The Tower of Babel comes to mind.
RBDC, Facilis has awarded himself a "Survivor, Pharyngula" designation.
I prefer to leave out the Y entirely and refer to the writer as "Dense".
Ah geez, the godidiots are still crowing about Darwin being wrong about a few things, and how that proves all evolutionary theory is bunk. Of course this wont be any different. They LIKE being stupid. They're even too stupid to misinterpret the information for themselves in the first place, usually.
I, who do not know the difference between a leg and a tentacle, cannot see any signs of evolution affecting this cephalopod. Therefore god* did it. Beat this unshakable logical reasoning, atheists!
*) of course the god of the bible
Dem octopusses all looks de same, dey's da same, dey ain't ee-volved.
Denyse O'Leary is proof that monkeys have not evolved. Yeah, I mean monkeys; I can't see how she can be related to the apes. Apparently a proto-ape species developed without a brain, evolved into a hysterical class of monkey, and plagues us modern apes by pretending to be one of us.
OT but a bit of fun:
BEIJING (AP)—Forestry officials in far western China have resorted to scattering abortion pills near gerbil burrows in a bid to halt a rodent plague threatening the desert region’s fragile ecosystem, state media said Wednesday.
The League of Catholic Gerbils has condemned the decision. Cardinal Rodentia restated the Church's position that "It's a gerbil, not a choice."
This is for cannabinaceae #100. The quality of creating a superficial appearance of scholarship with none of the actual work that goes into it and with no realistic expectation from informed objective observers that it will produce anything of value but only serves to create a facade of accomplishment when there is none is referred to as "cargo cult". To The Pro it is a violation of the principal of "videre quam esse". Ray Bolger would be proud.
Farah has comments shut off, so you can't respond to his ignorance. I guess that is "debate the controversy?"
When I tried to follow the link, it failed.
Did O'Weary really say cephalopods did not evolve? Could it possibly be that she is entirely ignorant of the fantastic evolution of the ammonites (as well as the nautiloids and others)??! J#@&$-F*#%#!) C&^%#@, how did she pass Introductory Paleontology?
What's that? She never took paleontology and she's just ranting in ignorance? Oh, nevermind.