Jonathan Wells shows his ignorance. Man bites dog at page 75645

Jonathan Wells, a fellow of the Dishonesty Institute posted on the "Evolution News and Views" website the following in a post attacking Donald Prothero, someone who actually does know his shit:

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesn’t work, because a two-winged fly hasn’t simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop “halteres,” or balancers. The halteres are located behind the fly’s normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gain—not loss—of an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book "Icons of Evolution"). (Emphasis mine)

Really?

Well, Jonathan Wells, tell me, why is this large and complex gene found in other insects than Diptera?

Michael Egnor's unsubstantiated claims

Michael Egnor keeps claiming that ID has produced evidence for design:

Some aspects of biology, particularly molecular biology, show clear scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Really, the same rehashed creationist claims that are presented over and over again as 'evidence' for design? Show us the irrefutable proof before claiming once again that you have proof. But let me guess, he does not have it.

And before you claim that each and every person who thinks evolution is the only sensible explanation is an atheist, I am not, you are wrong!

"Quantum fluctuation" verus "God"

I am amused by the discussion between PZ Myers and Ray Comfort. I don't agree with either position (I come to that in a minute), but they are at least equal stubborn and convinced they know the truth and the other is wrong. Personally, I think PZ is a raging evangelical atheist, while Ray is nothing more than your average raging evangelical christian. Both annoy me to no end.

The issue at hand is: "Where did it all start?" The devout christian will say: GOD! The devout atheist will say: QUANTUM FLUCTUATION! Ray launched a new website called: "Pull the plug on atheism", PZ of course responded like stung by a bee with: "The banana man thinks he's got atheists on the run" after which Ray fired back with: "A Challenge to a Professor" followed by PZ response: "Called out by a clown" with of course a response from Ray: "Professor Myers Flakes"...... Somewhere on the line, PZ indicates that Ray's answers have been answered in the comments, and sure enough, many provided little pieces to that answer. Most interesting is a comment by "cosmologist" here:

Ray, the universe began from a quantum fluctuation (big bang); a phase transition from potential energy to kinetic energy.

Quantum fluctuations were the FIRST CAUSE and PRIME MOVER of the universe. The universe before the big bang was in a quantum state. There's no need to resort to asking what came before quantum fluctuations because CAUSALITY breaks down at the subatomic level (the condition the universe was in the beginning).

Because the universe was in a quantum state before the big bang, it adheres to the quantum uncertainty principle. There can be NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING in this universe as long as the generation of energy via virtualparticle pairs does not violate the law of energy conservation; it requires no miracle or supernatural act to create the energy in the universe.

Ah, it contains the convenient escape hatch:

There's no need to resort to asking what came before quantum fluctuations because CAUSALITY breaks down at the subatomic level

Cosmology (religious or scientific) has a fundamental problem, and that is to explain the beginning in a way that does not require a ultimate cause. So, the break down of causality is convenient, and even if true, it does not rescue the problem, because:

Because the universe was in a quantum state before the big bang

So, before we had the big bang, there was a universe in a quantum state that already existed:

Because there can be no such thing as 0 energy in the universe, the universe also adheres to the thermal laws of thermodynamics, which basically says absolute zero is unattainable. This shows that there cant be or never was NOTHING in this universe.

So, there was always something. And where did that something come from? No answer.

I understand that people at that point invoke gods, but heck, as PZ correctly asked:

who made god?

I think this is an eternal stand-off, because neither can answer the others question, and it is here where neither knows.

And I, I don't know where it all started, but I do know that both are wrong with their limited and narrow-minded world views...... But that is for another time......

I am not a Darwinist

Ok, lets make this clear, and maybe biologist everywhere should clarify this:

I am NOT a Darwinist!

To label evolutionary biologists as Darwinists is a old trick used by creationists to make it sound as if we and the theory of evolution have not evolved since the inception by Charles Darwin. Well, nothing could be more from the truth than just that.

Demski's illusions

Over at Uncommon decent (sorry, no link to that tard site), Dr. Dr. William Dembski definately does not get it. He asks a former Intelligent Design proponent to agree to the following:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

Hummm, lets see.

(1) ID raises important issues for science.

No, it doesn't. ID is religion, not science, so it cannot raise any issue for science.

(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.

They got their fair hearing, and failed.

(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.

Part one, yes, because ID is not promoted through doing research and finding facts, but through popularisation and high school curricula. Part two, no, because it is discussed freeely at universities, found to be creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Do some research and show some proof, and you will have a case.

(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

No, the lack of coherent logical thinking (crucial for academia), the underhand way of promoting articles (what, should I use the normal rules of peer review?), the lack of publications, etc. cause that.

O well, Demski will never learn that he is not even a pseudoscientist. Two Ph.D.'s does not change that. That is only a sign that you can jump the hoops, the proof is in the peer-reviewed articles!

Meeting Prof. Steve Steve

Recently, at the evolution meeting, I had the great honour to meet Prof. Steve Steve. he was hanging out with Wesley R. Elsberry and others of the Panda's thumb crew. Proof of the excounter can be found here, where it is obvious that Prof. Steve Steve is fully in love with Nick Matzke.