I'd been wondering about the credibility of David L. Abel, an Intelligent Design creationist who claims to work in the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc. I tried to track down this foundation with the lofty title, the million dollar prize, and the elaborately specific departments, but the best I'd been able to do was find a google satellite image.
Huh. That looks suspiciously like a suburban house.
So then someone from the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's vast network of spies and agents decided to drive by and get a picture.
Why, it is someone's house at that address! It's a nice but unpretentious little place in a residential suburb. There must be some mistake. This doesn't look like a fantastic institute of advanced science — it's got shady trees and a lawn and a basket of flowers by the garage and it looks like a typical two bedroom house.
But wait…what's that by the hanging basket? It's a sign of some sort. Look closer…
Yep, that's the place.
That's every intelligent design creationism institute of scientific thinking: a cheap sign tacked up on a garage, with some guy with delusions of competence twiddling his thumbs inside.
(Also on FtB)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That is not surprising, seeing as THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIVING OR VIABLE PHOSPHOLIPID.
As for synthesizing regular phospholipids, that's basic organic chemistry.
A simple google search produces:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo010734%2B
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1934196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1198795/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7424225
http://www.arkat-usa.org/get-file/19391/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000930849290105X
Each and every one from non-living precursor molecules.
(Warning, the last one's a evil Elsevier link)
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology" Really? Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
You need to pay attention to detail. What it does make clear is the followingâ¦..
"Most of the contributors to EvolutionâThe Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and etc."
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as a hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado. "Misremembered" I have to remember not misremember that one, in case I misremember to remember it.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what!
I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this and even criticizes the Dover trial for giving the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the adequate explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
OK it looks like I'm not banned after all. Mr. Myers Ill have to to retract and apologize for my statement "so much for free thought" end
Continue.....
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology"? Really. Is this all you got out of this concerning the extended synthesis? Tell me your joking. Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
You need to pay attention to detail. What it does make clear is the followingâ¦..
"Most of the contributors to EvolutionâThe Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and etc."
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as a hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado. "Misremembered" I have to remember not misremember that one, in case I misremember to remember it.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what!
I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this and even criticizes the Dover trial for giving the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the adequate explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
Ok so I haven't been blocked after all. I will have to retract my comment "So much for forethought"
CONT.....
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology"? Really. Is this all you got out of this concerning the extended synthesis? Tell me your joking. Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
You need to pay attention to detail. What it does make clear is the followingâ¦..
"Most of the contributors to EvolutionâThe Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and etc."
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as a hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado. "Misremembered" I have to remember not misremember that one, in case I misremember to remember it.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what!
I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this and even criticizes the Dover trial for giving the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the adequate explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
SPEAKSAGAIN
Dave if you want to be taken seriously then do away with the childish name calling
Go to google scholar and type in neo Darwinism and you will see that this term is used many times in peer review articles here and abroad. The topic of this outdated and so called Junk DNA paradigm is of special interest to me also.
I'm surprised the last thread even made it in.
Since I the mayan have been blocked by the great wizard. Anyone who wants to continue this debate can choose any forum of their own liking as long as it does not arbitrary censor free speech like this one does. I can supply further data that refutes many of these assumptions, whether in peer review press or peer review published articles. I can be contacted atâ¦.vallejoben25@yahoo.com
That goes for you too Dave.
if emails are not allowed on this blog then that would beâ¦.. vallejo ben 25 at yahoo dot com. I'm sure I will be blocked again after this last response on this blog.
CONT.....
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology"? Really. Is this all you got out of this concerning the extended synthesis? Tell me your joking. Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as valid hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what! I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this, and even criticizes the Dover case and said it gives the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the way evolution works. I.e that the modern synthesis is an adequate theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
SPEAKSAGAIN
Dave if you want to be taken seriously then do away with the childish name calling
Go to google scholar and type in neo Darwinism and you will see that this term is used many times in peer review articles here and abroad. The topic of this outdated and so called Junk DNA paradigm is of special interest to me also.
I'm surprised the last thread even made it in.
Since I have been blocked by the great wizard. Anyone who wants to continue this debate can choose any forum of their own liking as long as it does not arbitrary censor free speech like this one does. I can supply further data that refutes many of these assumptions, whether in peer review press or peer review published articles. I can be contacted atâ¦.vallejoben25@yahoo.com
That goes for you too Dave.
if emails are not allowed on this blog then that would beâ¦.. vallejo ben 25 at yahoo dot com. I'm sure I will be blocked again after this last response on this blog.
CONT.....
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology"? Really. Is this all you got out of this concerning the extended synthesis? Tell me your joking. Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as valid hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what! I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this, and even criticizes the Dover case and said it gives the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the way evolution works. I.e that the modern synthesis is an adequate theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
SPEAKSAGAIN
Dave if you want to be taken seriously then do away with the childish name calling
Go to google scholar and type in neo Darwinism and you will see that this term is used many times in peer review articles here and abroad. The topic of this outdated and so called Junk DNA paradigm is of special interest to me also.
I'm surprised the last thread even made it in.
Since I have been blocked by the great wizard. Anyone who wants to continue this debate can choose any forum of their own liking as long as it does not arbitrary censor free speech like this one does. I can supply further data that refutes many of these assumptions, whether in peer review press or peer review published articles. I can be contacted atâ¦.vallejoben25@yahoo.com
That goes for you too Dave.
if emails are not allowed on this blog then that would beâ¦.. vallejo ben 25 at yahoo dot com. I'm sure I will be blocked again after this last response on this blog.
THEMAYAN
CONT.....
I asked if you thought the neo Darwinian synthesis was an adequate theory and you continue to dance.
If you cant even answer a simple question like this then I think this shows just how little confidence you actually have in the theory.
You saidâ¦..
"That's not an "article". It's an introduction to the book collecting the results from Altenberg.
And as the introduction makes clear, all that the biologists who contributed are trying to do is extend the understanding of evolutionary biology"
"Extending the understanding of evolutionary biology"? Really. Is this all you got out of this concerning the extended synthesis? Tell me your joking. Do you really think someone would go through all that trouble just to state an obvious? Its interesting how you chose the words evolutionary biology instead of using the term neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis which evolutionary biology is currently based on.
Furthermore a hypotheses is used to formulate a theory, but if the theory is found to be inadequate, then the proper term is assumption, especially when there isn't even enough confidence among the writers to refer to these constructs as valid hypothesis. If these were truly a valid hypothesis, then logic would dictate that these men would not want to relax them. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone trying to relax a working hypothesis? This makes no sense, and that it is why the word assumption is used in both your and my citation. It seems you believe in detail when it comes to distinguishing the difference between an article and introduction. Fair enough, but it is still a peer review press nonetheless.
You saidâ¦.
"I infer that David misremembered who Pigliucci was."
Yeah, sure he "misremembered" and misremembered with a lot of childish name calling and bravado.
You saidâ¦.
"The scientists who met at Altenberg are trying to make the case. They still have to convince other scientists that they are correct"
Almost no one disputes this new data save for the hardest heads, and the only real criticism is that this seems to show a chink in the armor and one that that dissenters of the theory will jump on, but so what! I.e be careful how you speak and how you phrase this extended synthesis in public. This data has been known and understood by evolutionary development biologist for a long time now, and only now are people speaking out and challenging these old assumptions that make up the modern synthesis.
Stuart Newman who was one of the major players at Altenberg in an interview with Susan Mazur entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please stand up" (which is a five part interview around thirty + minutes long) says that this is a culmination of many years of work and that it is a global international enterprise and that he has colleagues from around the world who are a part of it.
If you listen to the whole interview. He gradually starts to speak openly about the fact that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. He also blames others in the scientific community for this, and even criticizes the Dover case and said it gives the public the wrong impression, namely that neo Darwinism is the way evolution works. I.e that the modern synthesis is an adequate theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O2Founays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaE6PiWu9i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXI5_1Fg1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI&feature=related