I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://leadangel.topcities.com/girlfriend.htm

Voices For Evolution, 3rd Edition (2008)
(National Center for Science Education)
http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/11/new-edition-voices-evolution-002806

Foreword

Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, "Evolution is not a peripheral subject
but the central organizing principle of all biological science. No one
who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in
Western traditions; so no one ignorant of evolution can understand
science." Yet the teaching of evolution in the public schools of the
United States is under constant attack. Voices for Evolution is a
vital part of the defense.

The first edition of Voices for Evolution was published just two years
after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987),
ruling that teaching creationism in the public schools violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Even though the Edwards decision was a serious blow,
creationism continued to evolve as creationists regrouped in a number
of ways.

Abandoning any hope of imposing creationism in the public schools, the
flagship organization of young-earth creationism, the Institute for
Creation Research, concentrated on the development of a creationist
counterestablishment, complete with conferences, journals, and even a
graduate school. In the same vein, the youngearth creationist ministry
Answers in Genesis opened the doors of its twenty-sevenmillion- dollar
Creation Museum in the summer of 2007.

Meanwhile, a group of creationists not so closely allied with
young-earth creationism sought to repackage creationism in a way that
would survive constitutional scrutiny. The result was dubbed
"intelligent design" and introduced in Of Pandas and People (1989;
second edition 1993). Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), however, revealed
that Pandas began as a creationist textbook; "creation" and its
cognates had been hastily replaced with "design" and its cognates in
the wake of the Edwards decision.

Realizing that attempts to require or allow the teaching of
creationism - whether as "creation science" or "intelligent design" -
are likely to be ruled unconstitutional, creationists also proposed
various ways to attack evolution without mentioning any creationist
alternative. To their creationist advocates, such strategies offer the
promise of encouraging students to acquire or retain a belief in
creationism while not running afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Such fallback creationist strategies include requiring disclaimers,
oral or written, about evolution (as in Alabama in 1996); taking steps
to undermine the treatment of evolution in science textbooks (as in
Texas in 2003) and in state science standards (as in Kansas in 1999
and 2005); and calling for "objectivity" or "balance" or "critical
analysis" in the teaching of evolution (as in Ohio in 2002) - all of
which in practice are intended to instill scientifically unwarranted
doubts about evolution.

Moreover, not all creationist resistance to the teaching of education
is explicit. In a recent informal survey among members of the National
Science Teachers Association (2005), a staggering 30% of respondents
indicated that they experienced pressure to omit or downplay evolution
and related topics in their science curriculum, while 31% indicated
that they felt pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to
evolution in their science classrooms.

Amid the dizzying panoply of creationist activity, what is
gratifyingly constant is the thoughtful, balanced, and authoritative
opposition from the scientific, educational, and civil liberties
communities, as well as from a considerable portion of the faith
community. Organizations small and large, local, national, and
international, have expressed their unflinching support for evolution
education. Their statements are collected here, in Voices for Evolution.

When creationists claim that evolution is a theory in crisis,
tottering on the verge of extinction, ready for the dustbin of
history, the scientific community - including the most prestigious
scientific organizations in the country, the National Academy of
Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science -
is always there to tell the truth. "The contemporary theory of
biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific
inquiry," the AAAS observes.

When creationists claim that evolution is intrinsically antireligious,
a deadly threat to faith and morals, a goodly portion of the faith
community - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and humanist - is always
there to demonstrate that there are people of faith who regard their
acceptance of evolution as compatible with, or even enriching, their
religious faith, and who reject any creationist attempts to portray a
rejection of evolution as essential to their faith.

And when creationists claim that it is unfair not to teach creationism
along with evolution, or not to teach that evolution is in a
precarious state, the rebuttal is twofold. The science education
community - including the National Association of Biology Teachers and
the National Science Teachers Association - is always there to explain
that compromising the integrity of science education in order to cater
to creationist ideology is not fair to students or teachers.

For its part, the civil liberties community - including the American
Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and Americans
United for Separation of Church and State - is always there to insist
that for the government to promote creationism or compromise the
teaching of evolution to placate a creationist minority is not fair to
the citizens of a republic in which a basic constitutional principle
is the government's religious neutrality.

Just as gratifying as the constancy of the opposition to the
creationist assault is the increase in the number of organizations
offering it: The first edition of Voices for Evolution contained 68
statements; the second edition, a round 100; the third edition, which
you are reading now, 176. The National Center for Science Education is
grateful to the organizations represented in Voices for Evolution for
taking a stand in defense of the teaching of evolution in the public
schools.

NCSE is immensely grateful also to those intrepid people, across the
country and around the world, who have used these statements during
controversies over the teaching of evolution in their own communities.
With the powerful support of the statements contained in Voices of
Evolution, they have tirelessly fought, and largely prevailed, in the
battle to defend the teaching of evolution in the public schools. May
this new edition of Voices for Evolution help you to do likewise.

Glenn Branch
National Center for Science Education

------------------------------------------------

Read full PDF book here:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/1709000/1709901/9/print/1709901.pdf

Marjorie Chan, working on her master's degree in paleontology,
acknowledges that her conclusion in her published research article
could be wrong.

"Science is an evolving process where we seek the truth," says Chan.
"I'm interested in the truth, no matter what the outcome is."

Proving again that science is fundamentally different from young earth
creationism and intelligent design creationism, and far superior to
creationism for this very reason.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Paleontologists Question 'Dinosaur Dance Floor' Theory
(redOrbit, 11/8/2008)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1598910/paleontologists_question_dinosaur_d\
ance_floor_theory/
[link may be line-wrapped]

A highly publicized study claiming there were more than 1,000
previously unknown dinosaur tracks in the Arizona portion of
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument turns out to be a bust.

A group of paleontologists visited the northern Arizona wilderness
site nicknamed a "dinosaur dance floor" and concluded there were no
dinosaur tracks there, only a dense collection of unusual potholes
eroded in the sandstone.

"We didn't observe a single footprint," said Andrew Milner,
paleontologist at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson
Farm in southwestern Utah.

"We went up there optimistic, really hoping we were going to find
footprints," he said.

But Marjorie Chan and Winston Seiler, who conducted the research as
part of his master's thesis, say they are not retracting their
study—published in the October issue of Palaios, an international
paleontology journal.

But they acknowledge there are strong arguments for the features being
potholes rather than dinosaur tracks. The original study cited the
possibility that the features were potholes and outlined arguments
against it.

"We went through the proper scientific process of careful study,
comparisons with other published works and peer review of the study by
independent scientists," Chan added.

"We gave the project considerable critical thought and came up with a
different interpretation than the paleontologists, but we are open to
dialogue and look forward to collaborating to resolve the controversy."

Chan said if the features are potholes, they are extremely unusual
compared with typical potholes on the Colorado Plateau – and their
formation still needs to be explained fully.

Nevertheless, the geologists felt obligated to inform the public of
the difference of opinion because of wide publicity about the
"dinosaur dance floor."

"Science is an evolving process where we seek the truth," Chan said.
"I'm interested in the truth, no matter what the outcome is."

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://mckaroner.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

Evolution: Education & Outreach
Special Issue: The Evolution of Eyes
Volume 1, Number 4 / October 2008
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Editorial
by Gregory Eldredge and Niles Eldredge
PDF:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2x507k225172057/fulltext.pdf
HTML:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2x507k225172057/fulltext.html

Introduction
by T. Ryan Gregory
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u08256710677h58w/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u08256710677h58w/fulltext.html

Casting an Eye on Complexity
by Niles Eldredge
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u82568h8jj566k42/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u82568h8jj566k42/fulltext.html

The Evolution of Complex Organs
by T. Ryan Gregory
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t125078h5p201442/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t125078h5p201442/fulltext.html

Opening the "Black Box": The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye
Evolution
by Todd H. Oakley and M. Sabrina Pankey
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p52245164l342056/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p52245164l342056/fulltext.html

A Genetic Perspective on Eye Evolution: Gene Sharing, Convergence and
Parallelism
by Joram Piatigorsky
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hp5178wmn484t79v/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hp5178wmn484t79v/fulltext.html

The Origin of the Vertebrate Eye
by Trevor D. Lamb, Edward N. Pugh and Shaun P. Collin
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4t036300571k8j4/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4t036300571k8j4/fulltext.html

Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye - Fossil Evidence
by Gavin C. Young
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l876685v14p452k2/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l876685v14p452k2/fulltext.html

Charting Evolution's Trajectory: Using Molluscan Eye Diversity to
Understand Parallel and Convergent Evolution
by Jeanne M. Serb and Douglas J. Eernisse
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1741pu336457n37u/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1741pu336457n37u/fulltext.html

Evolution of Insect Eyes: Tales of Ancient Heritage, Deconstruction,
Reconstruction, Remodeling, and Recycling
by Elke K. Buschbeck and Markus Friedrich
http://www.springerlink.com/content/42h1187812186743/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/42h1187812186743/fulltext.html

Exceptional Variation on a Common Theme: The Evolution of Crustacean
Compound Eyes
by Thomas W. Cronin and Megan L. Porter
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t424710h72831147/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t424710h72831147/fulltext.html

The Causes and Consequences of Color Vision
by Ellen J. Gerl and Molly R. Morris
http://www.springerlink.com/content/yk62221178u7w348/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/yk62221178u7w348/fulltext.html

The Evolution of Extraordinary Eyes: The Cases of Flatfishes and
Stalk-eyed Flies
by Carl Zimmer
http://www.springerlink.com/content/670x13vk1nwh31g2/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/670x13vk1nwh31g2/fulltext.html

Suboptimal Optics: Vision Problems as Scars of Evolutionary History
by Steven Novella
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4052634m6895781/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4052634m6895781/fulltext.html

Bringing Homologies Into Focus
by Anastasia Thanukos
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g23113q700811w41/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g23113q700811w41/fulltext.html

Misconceptions About the Evolution of Complexity
by Andrew J. Petto and Louise S. Mead
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7v3307m37236637/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7v3307m37236637/fulltext.html

Losing Sight of Regressive Evolution
by Monika Espinasa and Luis Espinasa
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7n0p7j3254952418/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7n0p7j3254952418/fulltext.html

Relevance in Education?
by David Zeigler
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c24m25m60361127h/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c24m25m60361127h/fulltext.html

Building Stone Treasure Troves
by Sidney Horenstein
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5560113587638g8/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5560113587638g8/fulltext.html

Margaret Wertheim: Complexity, Evolution and Hyperbolic Space
by Mick Wycoff
http://www.springerlink.com/content/141r2674723042t7/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/141r2674723042t7/fulltext.html

Intelligently Discussing Design: Jones and Reiss's Teaching about
Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism
(Review of Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of
Creationism, by Leslie S. Jones and Michael J. Reiss (editors). Vol.
277 of Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education , Joe L.
Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg (general editors). New York: Peter
Lang, 2007. Pp. x?+?213. S/b $29.95)
by Michael Jordan
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a5335l0rk5h463n3/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a5335l0rk5h463n3/fulltext.html

Education in Evolution and Science Through Laboratory Activities
by Telmo Pievani and Emanuele Serrelli
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q353785348603u3m/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q353785348603u3m/fulltext.html

Jay Hosler, An Evolutionary Novelty: Optical Allusions
(Review of Optical Allusions , by Jay Hosler. Columbus, OH: Active
Synapse, 2008. Pp 127. S/b $20.00)
by Todd H. Oakley
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ml82g462v37t0245/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ml82g462v37t0245/fulltext.html

Paleontology and Evolution in the News
by Sidney Horenstein
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9r18g77522288776/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9r18g77522288776/fulltext.html

Pikaia (http://www.pikaia.eu): A New Way to Inform on Evolution in Italy
by Paolo Coccia, Mauro Mandrioli, Chiara Ceci and Telmo Pievani
http://www.springerlink.com/content/99741122v8j14t88/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/99741122v8j14t88/fulltext.html

Editor's Corner: Some Thoughts on "Adaptive Peaks," "Dobzhansky's
Dilemma" - and How to Think About Evolution
by Niles Eldredge
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b26q632756116831/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b26q632756116831/fulltext.html

GOOD VS EVIL
Let's Consider that goodness, growth, and being kind to one another,
is a superior force over the force of destruction, death, and being
mean to each other. (To do this, we consider all possibilities)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's consider a universe with only the force of destruction. As
death /destruction progress, they take whatever is alive, and kill
it, so that where life once was, now exists (is produced) nothing
and nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes scarce, while a whole lot of empty space and inanimate
material is left behind. After awhile, all the life is killed, and
then what? With no life left to kill, the force of destruction comes
to a stop (no more destroying can be done), because from nothing,
this force can go no further from there. Here is a definite bottom
to the universe.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now
consider the force of good-and-growth as being the only force
around. As this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless matter
(dust), and creates life in its place. Soon everything starts to
come alive. Pretty soon we begin to run out of improvements to make.
Emptiness and undeveloped raw material (dust) starts to come into
short supply. If everything is alive, then no more growth can be
done, and thus the force of good is stopped, right? Well, there's
not so much an absolute ceiling, as there is an absolute bottom. You
see, life forms can advance/be advanced and become ever more capable
and alive; and this thus continues the force of growth/goodness.
And, a universe that is alive (full of life), is very capable -able
to do lots of things, (unlike a barren universe consisting of
nothingness). And with that life/capability, it can bridge barriers
and reach raw material (dust) that had previously been separated
from it by a barrier. Hence, the force of goodness and growth can
survive by itself much better than the force of destruction/death
can. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or be either the force of
good-and-growth, or the force of destruction. The lack of life can't
do/be either force. Since what the force of good produces is life,
such life can continue to do forces. But since what the force of
destruction produces is death, nothingness, voids in life; since
this cannot do or support either force, then the force of
destruction alone is destined to a quick end while the force of good
and growth alone is destined to continue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO,
since only life can do-be either force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't grow, but
instead shrinks to nothing. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences
what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,
but instead, grows. So that the force of destruction needs something
other than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force), while the
force of good does not and is self sufficient with just itself. So
that when alone, good survives while destruction self eliminates and
vanishes. From this we can see that good and growth, is a superior
force to the force of death and destruction.

REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and demand; as applied to human
beings. If there is a shortage of humans, then they will have a
higher value and will be treated better. But if there is a surplus
of humans, then their value will be low, and they will be treated
poorly, according to their low value according to supply and
demand. So that when women are considering how many humans to
produce in terms of how large a family to have; collectively, they
have quite an impact on how we all are treated by those economic
forces that rule over us all.
And then there is the conservative, religious rules over our
sexuality. But first let us consider sexual reproduction in
itself. Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are not exact
copies of their parents, but who are different from their parents to
some degree. So, sexual reproduction generates differences between
each of us. Now, if we were all to have sex with each other in
unrestricted sexual reproduction, then those differences would be
spread all back among our population and we would not build on or
accentuate those differences. But that's not the way sexual
reproduction works in our world. Sexual reproduction is restricted
to one man one woman and to form a family grouping to raise the
offspring produced. So that the differences generated by sexual
reproduction are preserved and compounded over each successive
generation; so that different groups of people are developed each
being good in one particular area, while not so good in the other
areas. So that as individuals they cannot function well, but only
as a group can they work together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal whole. Thus the rulers of a
society have at their beck and call, all the humans of the society
to do their bidding, because as individuals they are all unbalanced
in their skills, incapable of being self sufficient as individuals,
who can only survive and excel by joining as a group each to
contribute their best skill. So that what the conservative rules
over our sexual reproduction do is to breed individuals who are
slaves who are easily molded by the rulers of a society, who are
incapable of much independence as individuals, so that we are more
so a commodity to be used by those who rule over us. Sometimes one
may resent being part of this conservative religious breeding
program that has made us to be not free, but slaves to those who
rule over us.
TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, SEE THE LINKS AREA of this group for
anger management, sex, and religion. Since someone is blocking me
from directly putting my link in this message.

The Evolution of Evolution (Scientific American, Jan. 2009)

Evolution of the Mind: 4 Fallacies of Psychology
By David J. Buller
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies

Some evolutionary psychologists have made widely popularized claims
about how the human mind evolved, but other scholars argue that the
grand claims lack solid evidence

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Testing Natural Selection with Genetics
By H. Allen Orr
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection

Biologists working with the most sophisticated genetic tools are
demonstrating that natural selection plays a greater role in the
evolution of genes than even most evolutionists had thought

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Diversity Revealed: From Atoms to Traits
By David M. Kingsley
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=from-atoms-to-traits

Charles Darwin saw that random variations in organisms provide fodder
for evolution. Modern scientists are revealing how that diversity
arises from changes to DNA and can add up to complex creatures or even
cultures

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Evolutionary Origins of Hiccups and Hernias
By Neil H. Shubin
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=this-old-body

How biological hand-me-downs inherited from fish and tadpoles evolved
into human maladies

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Future of Man--How Will Evolution Change Humans?
By Peter Ward
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-man

Contrary to popular belief, humans continue to evolve. Our bodies and
brains are not the same as our ancestors' were—or as our descendants'
will be

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Human Pedigree: A Timeline of Hominid Evolution
By Kate Wong
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-pedigree

Some 180 years after unearthing the first human fossil,
paleontologists have amassed a formidable record of our forebears

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Science of Spore--The "Evolution" of Gaming
By Ed Regis
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-spore

A computer game illustrates the difference between building your own
simulated creature and real-life natural selection

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom
By Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism

Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in
public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their
true aims under ever changing guises

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Putting Evolution to Use in the Everyday World
By David P. Mindell
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-in-the-everday-world

Understanding of evolution is fostering powerful technologies for
health care, law enforcement, ecology, and all manner of optimization
and design problems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Darwin's Living Legacy--Evolutionary Theory 150 Years Later
By Gary Stix
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwins-living-legacy

A Victorian amateur undertook a lifetime pursuit of slow, meticulous
observation and thought about the natural world, producing a theory
150 years ago that still drives the contemporary scientific agenda

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://sexylezmue.zoomshare.com/files/addme.htm

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://mckaroner.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

Intelligent design creationist Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute
displays the double-talk, incompetence, incoherence, and scientific
illiteracy that is so utterly typical of the creationist community.
Luskin's latest debacle is an excellent case in point. Creationists
get less respect than Rodney Dangerfield - and don't even deserve that
much!

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Miller debunks the Discovery Institute again
(National Center for Science Education, 1/9/2009)
http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/miller-debunks-discovery-institute-again-003690
[link may be line-wrapped]

In a three-part guest essay posted at Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom,
Kenneth R. Miller responded to a recent attack by the Discovery
Institute on his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. At issue
in the first part is the claim, found in both Of Pandas and People and
Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, that the blood clotting system in
vertebrates is irreducibly complex and therefore unevolvable. After
rebutting the claim that he misrepresented Behe's claims in his
testimony, Miller proceeds to explain the latest scientific research
that undermines Behe's claims: "The lamprey, as luck would have it,
has a perfectly functional clotting system, and it lacks not only the
three factors missing in jawed fish, but also Factors IX and V."

Miller turns his attention in the second part of his essay to the
Discovery Institute's attempt to rehabilitate the concept of
irreducible complexity. Explaining Behe's argument, he comments, "That
would be a powerful argument against evolution - if it were true.
Unfortunately, it's not, and the Dover trial demonstrated that for at
least three of ID's favorite systems, blood-clotting, the bacterial
flagellum, and the immune system." The Discovery Institute's attack
fails, he contends, even to represent Behe's argument correctly, and
"once you've demonstrated that the parts of the system do indeed work
just fine in other contexts, you're answered the ID challenge fully
and completely. Case closed. Three years ago, in fact. Case closed,
and ID lost."

In the third part of his essay, Miller wonders why the Discovery
Institute is bothering to assail the Kitzmiller decision three years
after the fact. "The only conclusion I can draw," he writes, "is that
they must be maneuvering for the next round of state board hearings or
legislative sessions - and I'm concerned. These folks are a whole lot
better at politics and public relations than they are at science, and
that means that everyone who cares about science education should be
on guard." Miller was prescient: the first two antievolution bills of
the 2009 legislative session - Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 and
Mississippi's House Bill 25 - have already appeared.

Over at the Panda's Thumb blog, Nick Matzke adds a host of details to
Miller's rebuttal, noting that Behe in fact wrote the portion of Of
Pandas and People that discusses the blood clotting system. Further,
in Kitzmiller he testified that the treatment of blood clotting in
Darwin's Black Box is "essentially the same," vitiating the Discovery
Institute's attempt to insulate Behe from the failures of Of Pandas
and People's treatment. In fact, the treatments differ somewhat,
which, as Matzke notes, was a problem for Behe on cross-examination:
"Behe could have just said 'I was wrong in Pandas, my newer definition
is right.' But of course, the whole point of Behe being there was to
defend the ID book on trial, which was Pandas, so he couldn't do that."

Miller is Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching
Excellence at Brown University and the author of Only a Theory:
Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul; he was the lead expert
witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover (Viking, 2008). A
Supporter of NCSE, he received its Friend of Darwin award in 2003, Now
a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology at the
University of California, Berkeley, Matzke worked for NCSE from 2004
to 2007. He was the lead NCSE staffer working on the Kitzmiller v.
Dover case, providing a wealth of scientific expertise and practical
advice to the legal team representing the ultimately victorious
plaintiffs.

------------------------------------------------

[note that some links may be line-wrapped]

Ken Miller's guest post: Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys
by Ken Miller
(Blog: The Loom, 1/2/2009)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/02/smoke-and-mirrors-whales-and-l\
ampreys-a-guest-post-by-ken-miller/

Ken Miller's guest post: Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys, Part Two
by Ken Miller
(Blog: The Loom, 1/3/2009)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/03/ken-millers-guest-post-part-tw\
o/

Ken Miller's guest post: Looking Forward
by Ken Miller
(Blog: The Loom, 1/4/2009)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/04/ken-millers-final-guest-post-l\
ooking-forward/

God of the Gaps... in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting
by Nick Matzke
(Blog: Panda's Thumb, 1/4/2009)
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-lus\
kin-behe-blood-clotting.html

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://gnangels.topcities.com/girlfriend.htm

Understanding Science
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/

Teach Them Science
http://www.teachthemscience.org/

Excerpt from:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39974/title/Step-by-step_Evolution
[link may be line-wrapped]

Just another example of the many transitional fossils that
creationists pretend don't exist.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Step-by-step Evolution
Mining the Gaps: Transitional fossils are the hardest to fi nd, but
sometimes tell the best stories
By Sid Perkins
(Science News, January 2009 issue)

Until recently, the gap in the fossil record separating frogs and
salamanders from their amphibian ancestors was similarly huge. About
290 million years ago, a diverse assemblage of primitive amphibians
walked the land, says Jason Anderson, a vertebrate paleontologist at
the University of Calgary in Canada.

But in rocks documenting the 50 million years or so that followed,
amphibian fossils are few and far between. Only in rocks deposited
after 240 million years ago do such fossils - and specifically, those
of frogs and salamanders - appear. These two groups of creatures are
distinct both from each other and from their ancestors, and they
apparently evolved during an interval for which few fossils have been
discovered.

Recently, however, Anderson and his colleagues unearthed Gerobatrachus
hottoni, a species whose genus name means "elder frog." The single
specimen unearthed so far is about 11 centimeters long, the size of
most modern-day salamanders. It was found in a two-foot-thick knob of
290-million-year-old, fine-grained siltstone in north-central Texas.
Even though the fossil was found in rocks deposited just before the
start of the lengthy gap in the fossil record, the remains have
features characteristic of the frogs and salamanders that presumably
descended from it or others like it, Anderson says.

A main clue is that some of the bones in the first and second
innermost toes on each of Gerobatrachus' feet are fused together, a
trait characteristic of salamanders but rarely found in other
creatures. Because some of the other bones in the fossil aren't fully
developed, Anderson and his colleagues suggest that the creature was a
juvenile, indicating the fusion of the toe bones occurred even before
adulthood - a stronger sign that it betrays an evolutionary link to
salamanders.

But like frogs, Gerobatrachus has a broad skull and a shortened tail,
the researchers reported last May in Nature. The shape and
configuration of bones in the creature's skull, and particularly those
in its palate, are very froglike. Therefore, "this fossil seals the
gap" between primitive amphibians and the frogs and salamanders that
evolved later, Anderson says.

On the amphibian family tree, Gerobatrachus and its kin are ancestors
to salamanders and frogs, the researchers contend, and the
evolutionary split between those two groups probably occurred between
260 million and 270 million years ago.

Gerobatrachus was "quite advanced" compared with other amphibians of
its era, he adds. Another way to look at it, he notes, is to consider
the amphibians appearing 290 million years ago to be evolutionary
holdovers best representing species that first evolved long before.

From:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/letter_to_editor_reveals_sham.php
[link may be line-wrapped]

"Academic freedom" is nothing more than a rhetorical strategy to
pretend that creationists' unscientific anti-evolution arguments that
have been refuted time and time again are "scientific," in order to
get around the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohition
against using government to promote religious belief. Yes, we already
knew this, but it's ironic seeing creationists stepping on each
other's toes with the contradictions they produce because of how some
creationists when speaking publicly as part of a political strategy
try to cover up the religious agenda and pretend it doesn't exist. Of
course, everyone knows better - including creationists themselves - so
it's nice to see those creationists who are honest about matters and
don't even try to put up a facade.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Letter to Editor Reveals Sham of "Academic Freedom" Law
by Ed Brayton
(Blog: Dispatches from the Culture War, 1/23/2009)

During the Dover trial, one of the lines of evidence used to show the
essentially religious nature of Intelligent Design was the fact that
the letters to the editor supporting the policy almost invariably
argued that introducing ID into science classrooms was a good thing
because it would lead to students believing in God again. Here's a
perfect example of the same thing in Louisiana in support of that sham
"academic freedom" legislation, also advocated by the very same people
who advocated putting ID into classrooms, and the same people who
denied that doing so was for the purpose of promoting belief in God:

| I thank our legislators and governor for taking a stand
| for God. Our teachers will be able to teach evolution is
| only a theory. By teaching the option of creationism, I
| pray our children will realize God created them.
|
| A Monroe attorney said it would be an economic
| catastrophe for Louisiana to be identified
| internationally as having passed anti-science
| legislation. He said Louisiana will suffer educational
| isolation and economic isolation.
|
| If you polled Louisiana and asked everyone if they
| believe in God, probably over 95 percent would say yes.
| If you believe in God, you have to believe in the Bible.
|
| The Bible says in 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, who
| are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray
| and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then
| will I hear from heaven and will forgive my sin and will
| heal their land."
|
| If we will just do what God says, He will heal Louisiana.
| We will have more jobs than we have people to fill them.
| We need to start seeking God today. We need to start
| teaching our children the truth at home and in the
| classroom.
|
| Let's avoid a real economic catastrophe and put our trust
| in the One who really created the heavens, the earth and
| each one of us. It makes me proud to live in Louisiana
| where we have a government willing to stand for God. Who
| has enough faith to believe we came from a monkey?
|
| Donnie Brown
| West Monroe [Louisiana]

No matter how much the more politically savvy ID movement claims that
the policies they advocate have nothing to do with promoting belief in
God, their followers know better and are only too willing to say so in
public. The Discovery Institute simply cannot keep them on script. And
this is a good thing.

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://emonium.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

In response to this

Modern science doesn't support the theory of evolution
by Jim Donovan (2/18/2009)
http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_049221111.html

I wrote the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Modern science doesn't support the theory of evolution
by Todd Greene (2/19/2009)
http://community.cnhi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=dl&x_id=local_story_049221111.html
[link may be line-wrapped]

I always have to laugh at the bizarre nature of the inordinately
haughty attitudes of creationists in their attacks against evolution.
They don't seem to comprehend the false and irrational nature of the
rhetoric they use.

Jim Donovan writes (2/18/2009), "As for me, I'll take Divine Creation
(Holy God) and the truth of Scripture anytime."

Of course,

(1) Religious belief isn't science.

(2) Millions of Christians believe in "Holy God and the truth of
Scripture" and accept that whatever it is that reality is, then that's
how God did, so they accept that God created evolution.

(3) If you cling to a belief regardless of the relevant factual
evidence that contradicts what you believe, then any claim you make
about following "truth" is bogus.

(4) Religious people who are not even educated in science cannot
possibly know about the relevant science so much better than the
professional scientists who actually work in those areas of research,
so it seems really silly for them to pretend to have a knowledge of
the science that is superior to that of scientists themselves who
actually do the work.

Donovan apparently doesn't even know what the word "theory" means as
it is used in science. He pretends that "theory" in science means
something like a speculative guess, the same meaning that it is given
in popular usage. Has he never heard of "the theory of gravity"? Does
that mean gravity is not a fact? Of course not. Even dictionaries
carefully distinguish between the popular usage of "theory" and the
scientific usage of "theory."

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such
fact-supported theories are not 'guesses' but reliable accounts of the
real world" (National Academy of Sciences).

Then Donovan throws in some "icons" of creationist anti-evolution.
There's nothing wrong with the Urey-Miller experiment. The problem
would be only if you were to look only at an experiment run in the
1950s and ignore everything done since then, which is a problem with
creationists, not professional science.

Haeckel's drawings of embryos are not used at all. Donovan is just
wrong. Apparently he isn't aware of the fact that developmental
biologists today use actual photographs.

There is nothing questionable about Archaeopteryx. What in the world
is Donovan talking about?

And apparently Donovan doesn't comprehend the nature of the geological
perspective. Geologists talking in timeframes of tens and hundreds of
millions of years. The Cambrian "Explosion" took place over a few tens
of millions of years. It's an explosion on a geological timeframe, but
the actual timeframe does not at all imply anything other than a
gradual evolutionary process - and Donavan conveniently ignores the
fossils of the multicellular organisms that were around *before* the
Cambrian.

Donovan pretends that "Many modern day scientists and researchers have
concluded, based on 20th-century discoveries in [science] that they
are very skeptical of Darwin's claims." The problem with this
statement is that it is belied by the facts. In almost every case
these anti-evolution scientists are opposed to evolution on the basis
of their religious beliefs, and, most definitively, we know that their
skepticism isn't really based on science because they have never
produced any research papers in the professional science literature
discussing this science that is contrary to evolution that Donovan and
other creationists allege exists.

Jim Donovan has thus given us an excellent example of what the
anti-evolution rhetoric of creationists is really based on: A facade
of critical scrutiny built on the framework of misrepresentation and
distortion.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/richard_dawkins_banned_in_okla.php
[link may be line-wrapped]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins banned in Oklahoma?
by P. Z. Myers
(Blog site: Pharyngula, 3/5/2009)

He's on his way to Oklahoma (no, that's not what rouses my envy), and an
Oklahoma legislator has proposed a resolution to condemn him.

| NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF
| REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA
| LEGISLATURE:
|
| THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly
| opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the
| University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford
| University, whose published statements on the theory of
| evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in
| the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and
| opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
|
| THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the
| University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified,
| and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution
| and all other scientific theories which is the approach
| that a public institution should be engaged in and which
| represents the desire and interest of the citizens of
| Oklahoma.

Wow. This from the same crowd that gets all fluttery and happy at "academic
freedom" bills - they want to kick Richard Dawkins out of the whole state. I
thought I was the scary one when I was the guy getting kicked out of a mere
movie theater.

----------------------------------------------------------------

View Richard Dawkins' response to creationist Todd Thomsen:

Richard Dawkins Oklahoma Intro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnHeCgcMSw

View the ranting, raving creationist at Dawkins' lecture:

"You're going to burn in hell!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYPaNV3q6Jw

RESOLUTION REGARDING OKLAHOMA HOUSE RESOLUTION 1014 BY TODD THOMSEN
(by Todd S. Greene, 3/12/2009)

A resolution expressing disapproval of the actions of creationists such as
Republican member of the Oklahoma State House, Todd Thomsen, to engage in
sophistry by, for example, falsely framing the educating of students about
science relevant to evolution as "indoctrination" because that part of science
happens to be contrary to Thomsen's religious beliefs; opposing the submission
by Thomsen of frivolous resolutions promoting his religion-motivated attack
against science and the science faculty of the University of Oklahoma; and
directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which
should be open to all ideas yet not portray ideas in a false or deceitful manner
and should train students in all disciplines of study and research to use
independent thinking, free inquiry, and critical thinking, and not mislead
students into falsely believing that religious beliefs based on faith are
scientific ideas or that scientific ideas based on empirical evidence,
experimental results, and rational analysis are religious beliefs based on
faith; and

WHEREAS, Todd Thomsen has been deceitfully framing the statement made on the
departmental homepage of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma
as "framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism" and making
the factually false and scientifically illiterate claim, on the basis of
anti-evolution sentiments engendered by his religious beliefs that evolution is
nothing more than a "hypothetical construction" in science; and

WHEREAS, not only has the Todd Thomsen been using his position as an elected
official to, on the basis of his religious sentiments, promote his factually
false opinion that evolution is "an unproven theory" in science (since it is in
fact the subject of at least several hundred research articles published in
professional science journals each and every year) and use the blatant fallacy
that it is "unpopular" with creationists (which is completely irrelevant since
this has nothing to do with science); and been using rhetorical trickery such as
deceitfully framing the correct education of students about science such as this
by the University of Oklahoma as being "one-sided indoctrination" when in fact
they are teaching all the relevant science (it is not "one-sided" to leave out
pseudoscience propaganda written by religion-motivated attackers who are not
even involved with relevant scientific research); and been misrepresenting free
thinking and proper education as excluding critical thinking and including
deliberately misinforming students that factually false or logically flawed
pseudoscience claims motivated by religious sentiments are "science" when they
are not in fact science; and

WHEREAS, creationists such as Thomsen despise the idea that the University of
Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles
Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin's theory of evolution, called the
"Darwin 2009 Project", which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and
a course on the history of evolution; and creationists such as Thomsen use their
own religion-motivated attacks on the modern scientific theory of evolution as a
rhetorical trick to pretend that evolution is "controversial" in science when in
fact it is not a controversial theory in science, and being controversial in
certain religious belief systems is irrelevant to science; and

WHEREAS, due to their religious bigotry against atheists creationists such as
Thomsen despise the idea that the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the
Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins
of Oxford University, who for decades as a professional scientist has worked on
various areas of evolutionary science and has written a number of erudite and
critically praised books about evolutionary science for popular audiences,
because he is an atheist; and creationists such as Thomsen falsely frame
Darkins' public criticism of the pervasive scientific errors and fallacious
argumentation of creationist literature as "intolerance for cultural diversity
and diversity of thinking", and then immediately turn right around and
irrationally and stupidly contradict themselves by proving that they are not
genuinely interested in tolerance and diversity of thinking at all, that they
were only using those phrases as more of their verbal trickery, because they
tell the University of Oklahoma that they should not invite a scientist who is
world-renowned for educating the public about detailed aspects of evolutionary
science because, as creationists such as Thomsen say, these "views are not
shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the
citizens"; and

WHEREAS, the frivolous resolutions and rhetoric by creationists such as Thomsen
attacking the University of Oklahoma for inviting Richard Dawkins to speak on
the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only
serve to further the indoctrinate the public with distortions and misinformation
promoted by creationists who attack evolutionary science on the basis of their
biased religious beliefs, and whose bias is so severe that they apparently
cannot comprehend why it is that when you're teaching science not only is a
university supposed to refrain from fooling students about what science is and
is not by purposely excluding nonscientific and unscientific ideas but it is the
university's responsibility to do so and moreover it is the university's
responsibility to teach students about critical thinking and to promote genuine
diversity of thinking by inviting speakers such as Dawkins who criticize
fallacious thinking on the basis of critical thinking and who criticize
pseudoscience on the basis of scientific results.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THOSE WHO ARE AWARE OF THE RHETORICAL
SHENANIGANS CREATIONISTS LOVE TO ENGAGE IN AND WHO RECOGNIZE THEM WHEN THEY SEE
THEM:

THAT we hereby express our disapproval of the distortions, misinformation, and
frivolous nature of the current House Resolution 1014 introduced by the
creationist Todd Thomsen in the Oklahoma Legislature; and further request that
creationists stop using rhetorical trickery to pretend that "open, dignified,
and fair discussion" implies that it is wrong to openly point out the fact
religious beliefs are religious, not scientific, or implies that it is wrong to
openly criticize those who falsely pretend that religious beliefs and
religion-motivated pseudoscience attacks against evolution that have been
scientifically refuted a thousand times are "science" when in fact they are not
scientific; and further request that public institutions such as the University
of Oklahoma promote even more genuinely open, dignified, and fair discussion by
inviting even more speakers who will unashamedly use science and rational
criticism to educate students and the public about the pseudoscience and
rhetorical disinformation campaign being engaged in by creationists today as
motivated by their religious beliefs to attack areas of science that contradict
their particular religious beliefs; and further request that such public
institutions respect religious endeavors and respect scientific endeavors, and
refrain from confusing the difference between religion and science as
creationists do all the time, because this is what will responsibly serve the
desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma, or any citizens anywhere.

THAT we strongly oppose the shenanigans of a creationist such as Todd Thomsen
using his position as an elected official to vent his personal bigotry against
atheists and religious bias against evolutionary science to oppose a public
institution such as the University of Oklahoma for inviting a world-renowned
lecturer on evolution such as Richard Dawkins to speak on campus.

THAT we enthusiastically ridicule the self-contradictory nature of the rhetoric
used by creationists such as Todd Thomsen in which on the one hand they pretend
to be criticizing "dogmatism", pretend to be promoting "free thinking" and
"allowing a free discussion" and yet in the same breath, or in the immediately
following paragraph, say that a university should not invite a speaker because
what he says is allegedly "contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of
most citizens of Oklahoma"; we laugh and laugh at how creationists who use such
rhetoric seem oblivious to their blatant self-contradiction.

THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University
of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of
Oklahoma, the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma,
and also transmitted by anyone who would like to do so to any person or
communication venue where they deem appropriate for it to be so transmitted.

----------------------------------------------------------------

See the text of Oklahoma House Resolution 1014 by Todd Thomsen here:

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/03/antievolution-resolutions-introduced-oklahoma-00\
4637
[link may be line-wrapped]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3641,Oklahoma-legislator-proposes-resolution-t\
o-condemn-Richard-Dawkins,Todd-Thomsen
[link may be line-wrapped]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Repealing the law of gravity would probably require a two-thirds majority
by John Murrell
(Blog site: Good Morning Silicon Valley, Mar. 6, 2009)
http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2009/03/repealing-the-law-of-gravity-would-p\
robably-require-a-two-thirds-majority.html
[link may be line-wrapped]

Excerpt:

It is said no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is
in session, and to that endangered list we might want to add the tenets of
science:

Evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins is scheduled to speak tonight
at the University of Oklahoma as part of the school's yearlong series of events
marking Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and state Rep. Todd Thomsen is not
happy about that. This week Thomsen offered up a resolution, as yet unacted
upon, that would express the legislature's strong opposition to Dawkins'
appearance. In and among all the whereases, the resolution pulls off a nifty bit
of jujitsu on the principles of tolerance and free discussion, noting on one
hand that "the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which
should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of
study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry," while
urging that Dawkins be gagged because his "published opinions, as represented in
his 2006 book 'The God Delusion,' and public statements on the theory of
evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of
thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the
thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma." And that's toned down from
the original version.

----------------------------------------------------------------

See also:

http://blog.au.org/2009/03/09/dissing-dawkins-okla-lawmaker-attacks-evolution-ad\
vocate/
[link may be line-wrapped]

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/oklahoma_hates_richard_dawkins.php

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/oklahoma_it_gets_worse.php

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/disco_inst_gets_insulted_again.php

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://onshine.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://deannas.zoomshare.com/files/cutebabe.htm

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://ccandy.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

My comments below that were posted here:

McLeroy nomination in jeopardy
by Kate Alexander
(Austin American-Statesman, 4/22/2009)
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/\
2009/04/22/state_board_of_education_chair.html
[link is seriously way too long]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Eleni Rigual claims that the controversy about creationists trying to inject
their *religious* concerns into *science* education in *public* schools is
because "The point is that you have two antithetical world views - the biblical
world view and the unbelieving worldview". Of course, this is completely false.
This is just a typical perpetuation of the popular creationist charade that
those who are either concerned about the ill-advised - and illegal - injection
of sectarian religious belief into public education (see the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment; and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
case in Pennsylvania in 2005 where creationists on the school board there were
sued for violating the First Amendment), or concerned that children receive a
good education about real science, or both, are merely part of some big atheist
conspiracy.

Well, that notion and that rhetoric is just plain silly. First of all, even if
it really was only atheists pointing out the problem, that would not in any way
change the fact that what creationists are doing is wrong and unethical - which
makes the argument fallacious to begin with. Second, atheists make up only a
small minority of the population, so the Rigual's claim is factually wrong as
well.

This has nothing to do with being "the biblical world view" versus "the
unbelieving worldview". This has to do with science, what science is, and taking
our scientific discoveries about the real world into account. The "antithesis"
is strictly between who take science seriously - even when the facts happen to
be contrary to what we would personally like them to be - and those who for
certain reasons are not able to bring themselves to seriously deal with
scientific findings that are contrary to certain personal beliefs. In connection
with this, the simple fact is that the majority of the critics of the political
tactics creationists are using in the U.S. not only believe in God but are
Christians as well, which is another reason that the idea that the popular
creationist portrayal of this being a struggle "the biblical world view" versus
"the unbelieving worldview" is completely wrong.

We certainly realize that many people hold their religious doctrine to be so
precious to their way of thinking that they are unwilling to change those
particular religious beliefs that - because they happen to make specific
empirical claims about the nature of the physical world - happen to have been
falsified by critical scientific scrutiny. We have no problem with this. We
respect the fact that we have a widespread respect for freedom of belief in this
country, which includes freedom of religious belief, and in general you can
pretty much believe whatever you want to subjectively believe, no matter how
strange or how factually wrong it is.

But when it comes to teaching *science* to children in *public* school *science*
classes in the U.S., just as a matter of honestly dealing with the facts you
have to then teach children that which is genuinely *science*. We must teach
them *science* in *science* classes. What a concept! That's the ethical way to
do things.

If the ethics of the matter aren't persuasive enough in themselves, then there's
the law, the First Amendment, that restricts people from using government
institutions to promote their religious beliefs in a sectarian manner. And if
creationists get overly enthusiastic about pushing their religious beliefs
inappropriately such as by misrepresenting their religion-based pseudoscience as
real science, and violate that law, we will sue them in court if that's what it
takes to stop them.

- Todd S. Greene
(April 30, 2009)

Below is my response to a reply made by young earth creationist Arv Edgeworth to
an article here:

Creationists' arguments against evolution, for intelligent design show
dishonesty
by Jason Hoskin
(The Daily Toreador, 4/27/2009)
http://www.dailytoreador.com/home/news/2009/04/27/Opinions/Creationists.Argument\
s.Against.Evolution.For.Intelligent.Design.Show.Dishonesty-3726554.shtml
[link is probably line-wrapped]

Bear in mind that young earth creationists *fill* their rhetoric with all kinds
of pretensions regarding truth and honesty, promoting the idea that professional
scientists and pro-science critics of creationist propaganda are the ones
engaging in a dishonest conspiracy to put one over on people about evolution. Of
course, it is exactly the rhetoric that creationists themselves use that
demonstrates that it is they themselves who show (much) less than zero interest
in truth and honesty, because they are the ones pushing their particular
*religious* agenda on the basis of their particular religious concerns, based on
which they generate all sorts of anti-science and pseudoscience propaganda. It
is their own pervasive and flagrant use of deceitful rhetorical trickery that
shows the sheer hypocrisy that is an integral aspect of the creationist attitude
today. Whenever creationists proclaim or insinuate that scientists and
pro-science critics of creationism pseudoscience and rhetoric are the ones being
dishonest, one should always immediately point out the facts, delineate exactly
how creationists are misrepresenting matters, and set the record straight - and
then throw their claims of dishonesty right back in their faces. There certainly
are ethical standards of truth-seeking and honesty, and creationists are so far
below the bar they're not even in competition. These days creationists - but
especially young earth creationists - have earned themselves a strong reputation
for dishonesty.

By the way, I didn't mention this in my response to the Edgeworth's reply
because it wasn't relevant to me dealing with his nonsense rhetoric, but the man
parades himself as "Dr." Arv Edgeworth. After writing my response I learned that
he uses the "Dr." title purely for bogus credibility (isn't it bizarre how these
guys pretend to be so concerned about truth and honesty, yet we see them
engaging in all sorts of these little deceptive tricks like this?) - it's
nothing more than an honorary degree in Divinity (and it's hard to tell what
organization even gave him the honorary degree, because he keeps that under
wraps), and so not only has absolutely nothing to do with science but also does
not even signify any kind of record of accredited academic achievement. These
are the slimy ways of the young earth creationists.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

| Dr. Arv Edgeworth
| [April 27, 2009]
|
| Mr. Hoskin is not being honest in his attempt at showing
| that creationists are being dishonest. First, he says:
| "Fortunately, the pro-science advocates were successful
| in preventing the adoption of the "strengths and
| weaknesses" clause with respect to the theory of
| evolution." The "strengths and weaknesses" clause had
| already been in there for twenty years. They did not
| prevent anything from being added, they actually removed
| wording which could do great harm to scientific inquiry.

Well, actually, it has been widely reported in the media - incorrectly, as Arv
Edgeworth points out - that creationists were trying to add the phraseology. So
it's true that Jason Hoskin screwed up in not getting the details right, but
hardly dishonest.

| Discussing strengths and weaknesses is at the heart of
| the scientific method.

Discussing *genuinely scientific* strengths and weaknesses is at the heart of
the scientific method. Using rhetorical trickery to throw in unscientific
anti-evolution arguments based on religious motivations and pseudoscientific
canards creationists have used for decades that have been refuted a hundred
times over is not at the heart of the scientific method, and indeed has nothing
to do with science. And it's dishonest to pretend that it is.

| These are not "pro-science" advocates, they are
| "pro-evolution" advocates that may bring great harm to
| real science.

Evolution is part of modern science, just like meteorology, or chemistry, or
astronomy, or other fields of science. Those who respect science are focusing on
issues regarding evolution, precisely because that is the field of science being
attacked by creationists.

Duh.

You also have to laugh at the irony of a creationist mouthing concern about
bringing harm to real science, since that is exactly what creationists
deliberately try to do.

| Secondly, Mr. Hoskin says: "This clause falsely implies
| there is scientific evidence in favor of intelligent
| design creationism or against evolution." How does
| examining the strengths or weaknesses of a theory, which
| has been a part of science from the very beginning, imply
| there is evidence for or against anything? Mr. Hoskin is
| blowing smoke and not being honest about the issues.

In fact, it is Edgeworth and other creationists who are blowing smoke with their
"strengths and weaknesses" rhetoric. This is because the "strengths and
weaknesses" phrase is used by creationists to refer to their long-refuted
pseudoscientific anti-evolution arguments, and not to genuinely scientific
controversies that are being dealt with in the professional science literature.
So we know who it really is who is not being honest about the issues, which is
why their using rhetorical trickery.

| Mr. Hoskin is also not being honest by saying if you
| "teach the controversy" you would have to allow for all
| the minor myths about creation to be taught. The fact
| they are called "minor myths" should settle that issue.
| When over 50% of the population in America believes man
| was created and did not evolve, I would say that is a
| controversy.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's a scientific controversy, which is, after all,
the whole point. And it's not being honest to pretend otherwise. Scientific
exploration, experimentation, analysis, and discovery is not a matter of public
opinion. The determination of scientific facts is not a matter of popular
opinion. It's dishonest, and scientifically illiterate, to pretend otherwise.

| Mr. Hoskin, and others like him, do not want students to
| know a controversy exists, and that is being dishonest.

What is dishonest is engaging in false pretensions to try to fool children in
public school science classes that something is a *scientific* controversy when
not only is it based on religious motivations but is also based on pseudoscience
arguments creationists have used for decades which have been refuted at least a
hundred times over. Indeed, as we saw most recently in the Tammy Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania in 2005, it is well known that
creationists use this specific strategy of trying to pretend that their
religious concerns are "science" for the specific purpose of trying to get
around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment so that they can do this.
The depths of the dishonesty that creationists engage in to do this is quite
audacious.

| He also clearly has a pre-conceived bias in this issue by
| declaring creation to be a myth.

Oh, well gee, we're talking about people whose ideas are based on a story in the
book of Genesis in the Bible, which *is* a religious myth. It's a religious
story told in mythological language related in a religious book. For example, it
tells about God creating a firmament in the sky, separating the water on the
planet by putting some of the water above the firmament, and placing the sun,
moon, and stars *in* the firmament. There's a supernaturally created Adam and
Eve formed out of the dirt, a talking serpent, miracle fruit from a Tree of Life
(like the Fountain of Youth), and an Angel with a Flaming Sword keeping people
out of the Garden of Eden.

I don't know about you, but I haven't heard about any scientific discovery of an
angel with a flaming sword keeping people away from a garden lately. In fact,
I've never heard of any such discovery at all. I'll bet you haven't either. So,
yep, that's religious mythology all right.

Duh.

I also laugh at the irony when creationists start making complaints about other
people having a "preconceived bias", when in fact we all know that it is
creationists themselves who possess the preconceived bias of their particular
religious beliefs which lead them to attack scientific results they don't like
to try to prop up their religious beliefs. The young earth creationists in
particular are most notorious for this, denying not just evolutionary science,
but also denying geological science and astronomical science, as well as denying
related areas of chemical science and physics. (And note that the Discovery
Institute works hand in glove with young earth creationists - indeed, many of
the Fellows of the Discovery Institute are explicitly young earth creationists.)
So it's pretty dishonest for creationists to pretend that it is anyone other
than they themselves who possess the problem of preconceived bias.

| The common claim by evolutionists is: "There is no
| scientific evidence for intelligent design." When the
| smallest cell is more complex than a space shuttle, the
| most complex machine ever designed by man, I would
| challenge Mr. Hoskin to point to "anything" in the world
| around us that is not evidence of intelligent design.

Complexity doesn't imply design. We know that Edgeworth, a creationist, can
repeat all sorts of creationist canards, but the fact of the matter is that none
of these creationist arguments are found in the professional science literature.
This is because bad arguments and bad data tend to die out rather quickly under
the withering scrutiny of detailed logical and scientific analysis.

Besides, I never have yet seen a space shuttle get pregnant and lay eggs or give
birth to baby space shuttles. (The point being that Edgeworth is, with this
argument, precisely ignoring evolution - ignoring natural selection - and it
certainly isn't scientific to deliberately ignore the scientific facts that
contradict your argument. No, in science you take the scientific facts into
account, and if your idea has been falsified, then - if you're concerns are
genuinely scientific rather than religious - you'll move on from your bad data
and bad arguments and modify your ideas accordingly. Something creationists
don't do, which is why they're still throwing out these old anti-evolution
arguments that have been refuted over a hundred times.)

| Some humans at times may not use a lot of intelligence in
| the conclusions they arrive at, but that does not mean
| they were not intelligently designed.

This is an argument?

Some humans at times may not use a lot of intelligence in the conclusions they
arrive at, and that means their conclusions are unjustified, which Edgeworth is
good at demonstrating for us, as so many creationists are.

| Thirdly, Mr. Hoskin says: "Clearly, the "teach the
| controversy" refrain takes as its premise that all ideas
| and belief systems are equally valid in a sense, so long
| as there are people endorse them." The whole basis for
| his support of evolution is because the majority of
| scientists endorses it.

Nope. The whole basis for his support of evolution is because the *scientific
discoveries and results* support it. The fact that the (vast) majority of the
scientists who work in the relevant fields of science that due to their very
professional they would be most knowledgeable about the relevant details, and
they accept that evolution is correct because of this, is just a secondary
indicator.

By the way, it's dishonest to pretend that the scientific research and results
don't exist and that scientists merely took a vote.

| But the fact is, not all scientists do endorse it.
| Thousands of scientists from reputable universities with
| advanced degrees in science believe that Darwinian
| evolution is so flawed it cannot be repaired. But if
| someone doubts evolution, the evolutionists try to claim
| they are not really scientists. That is being dishonest.

Actually, what is being dishonest is to first argue that it's wrong to think
that things are based on a vote, and then to turn right around and make an
argument based on a vote - and a vote by creationists who have never published
any scientific research on the subject no less!

It's also dishonest to pretend that the personal opinion of some guy who is a
hydraulic engineer and who has never in his life conducted or published a single
piece of scientific research in the professional science literature relevant to
the subject in the first place, and whose opinion is based on the preconceived
bias of his religious beliefs, and not on scientific research, is relevant to
science.

Evolutionists - i.e., everyone who is not a creationist and who respects genuine
science - do not claim they are not really scientists. They simply point out the
fact that the personal opinions that scientists have, that are not based on the
results from the kinds of scientific research that they themselves actually
conduct and thus work with on a genuinely scientific basis, are not science.

And "thousands", huh? Well, first of all, young earth creationists simply don't
count. Any scientist, even a scientist who is a psychologist, or food biology
researcher, or cancer researcher, or perfume chemist, who believes that the
universe and the earth did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago, by that
very act proves that the preconceived biases of his religious beliefs have made
his personal opinions incompetently irrational when it comes to dealing with
scientific subjects that contradict his religious beliefs. So when it comes to
their anti-evolution, their opinions are utterly irrelevant, precisely because
they are not over genuinely *scientific* about evolution (their concerns derive
from their religious beliefs and are thus scientifically irrelevant).

Creationists such as Edgeworth can play rhetorical games all day long, every day
for the next hundred years, just like they've done for the last hundred years,
pretending that "evolution is so flawed it cannot be repaired", but the fact of
the matter is that they cannot produce the scientific research in the
professional science literature that backs up their assertion. (And, yes,
creationists really have been proclaiming the imminent scientific demise of
evolution for over a hundred years, which is another example of the lack of
credibility of the rhetoric they like to use.)

So all this nonsense about "thousands of scientists" is, again, just another
example of the kind of dishonest rhetorical trickery that creationists love to
use, just another smokescreen.

| The most dishonest thing about this whole issue is
| evolutionists stating that evolution is science, and
| creation is just a belief system. They claim they have
| the scientific evidence, and creationists just have
| faith. That is not only dishonest, it is an absolute lie.

Indeed.

The fact of the matter is that in the professional science literature there are
literally hundreds of research articles about all kinds of different aspects of
evolution published each and every year. Therefore, one of the most dishonest
"arguments" creationists love to make is falsely pretending that this scientific
research doesn't exist and thus absolutely lying that evolution is not science.

| Both groups are looking at the exact same evidence. Both
| creation and evolution are an interpretation of evidence,
| not the evidence itself.

And thus does Edgeworth give us yet another example of the dishonesty of
creationist rhetoric. Just as one example, we have hundreds of examples of
transitional fossils in the fossil record showing the evolution of organisms
over time, yet in their rhetoric creationists are frequently found to be making
the false claim that "there are no transitional fossils". There is also the
simple fact that when we're talking about science, then we're talking about
*scientific* interpretations of the evidence based on rational, scientific
analysis, not unscientific mythological elements dreamed up in the religious
imagination. But obviously Edgeworth wants us to ignore the distinction.

When a creationist starts talking about the dishonesty of his pro-science
critics, you know the irony has only just begun.

- Todd Greene
(April 28, 2009)

Excerpt from:
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/08/31/clint_is_dead_long_live_clint.ph\
p

I remember reading about this report of the first complete draft of the
chimpanzee genome, but I had not read this overview of it written by Carl
Zimmer. I stumbled onto Zimmer's discussion of it today, and found it to be an
exceedingly clear description of the work.

(And creationists are *such* polluters these days. There's a time and a place,
so it's annoying to read a blog entry that's an excellent piece of science
journalism and then right below it see a bunch of incompetent creationists
chiming in with their typical fallacious word games and other nonsense.)

- Todd Greene

================================================================
Clint Is Dead, Long Live Clint
by Carl Zimmer
(Blog site: The Loom, 8/31/2005)

Clint, the chimpanzee in this picture, died several months ago at a relatively
young age of 24. But part of him lives on. Scientists chose him - or rather, his
DNA - as the subject of their first attempt to sequence a complete chimpanzee
genome. In the new issue of Nature, they've unveiled their first complete draft,
and already Clint's legacy has offered some awesome insights into our own
evolution.

[...]

The analysis that's being published today is pretty rudimentary. It's akin to
what you'd expect from a reporter who got to spend an hour flipping through
10,000 pages of declassified government documents. But it's still fascinating,
and I'd wager that it serves as a flight plan for research on the evolution of
the human genome for the next decade.

First off, scientists can get a more precise figure of how different human and
chimpanzee DNA is. In places where you can line up stretches of DNA precisely,
there are 35 million spots where a single "letter" of the code (a nucleotide) is
different. That comes to about 1.2% of all the DNA. The scientists also found
millions of other spots in the genomes where a stretch of DNA had been
accidentally deleted, or copied and inserted elsewhere. This accounts for about
a 3% difference. Finally, the scientists found many genes that had been
duplicated after the split between humans and chimps, corresponding to 2.7% of
the genome.

By studying the human genome, scientists have also gotten a better picture of
the history of the genomic parasites that we carry with us. About half of the
human genome consists of DNA that does not produce proteins that are useful to
our well-being. All they do is make copies of themselves and reinsert those
copies at other spots in the genome. Other animals have these virus-like pieces
of DNA, including chimpanzees. Some of the genomic parasites we carry are also
carried by chimpanzees, which means that we inherited them from our common
ancestor. Many of these parasites have suffered mutations that make them unable
to copy themselves any longer. But in some cases, these parasites have been
replicating (and evolving) much faster in one lineage than the other. One kind
of parasite, called SINES, have spread three times faster in humans than in
chimps. Some 7,000 genomic parasites known as Alu repeats exist in the human
genome, compared to 2,300 in the chimp genome. While a lot of these parasites
have no important effect on our genome, others have. They've helped delete 612
genes in humans, and they've combined pieces of some 200 other genes, producing
new ones.

[...]

As for the mutations that make us uniquely human, the researchers point out some
suspects but make no arrests. The researchers found that a vast number of the
differences between the genomes are inconsquential. In other words, these
mutations didn't have any appreciable effect on the structure of proteins or on
the general workings of the human cell. But the scientists did identify a number
of regions of the genome, and even some individual genes, where natural
selection seems to have had a major impact on our own lineage. A number of these
candidates support earlier studies on smaller parts of the genome that I've
blogged about here. Some of these genes appear to have helped in our own sexual
arms race; others created defenses against malaria and other diseases.

------------------------------------------------

Note: These days Zimmer's *The Loom* is hosted by Discover Magazine, here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/

Sexy Models and Beauty Queens looking for Sugar Daddy! Check their sexy profile
here:
http://ssugarbabe.zoomshare.com/files/sugar2009.htm

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://rabeauty.zoomshare.com/files/invite.htm

From:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/13/in-the-prebiotic-kitchen/

----------------------------------------------------------------

In The Prebiotic Kitchen
by Carl Zimmer
(Blog: The Loom, 5/13/2009)

To explain the origin of life, scientists seek to explain the origin of its
components. The three most important of these are RNA, DNA, and proteins.

Just about all life today uses DNA to encode its genetic information. The only
exception are viruses that use a single-stranded version of DNA, known as RNA.
The rest of us have RNA in our cells as well, but it carries out other
functions. Some RNA molecules are copies of genes that our cells use as
templates to build proteins; others can silence genes or act as sensors or help
to build proteins. As I wrote in an essay published in Science in January, this
sort of evidence has led a number of researchers to argue that life as we know
it, with DNA, RNA, and proteins, started out with just RNA. In the so-called RNA
world, this versatile molecule acted both like DNA (storing genetic information)
and proteins (carrying out chemical reactions, such as building new RNA
molecules). It's a big hypothesis, and certainly not simple to test. No one has
discovered any truly free-living RNA-based organisms, and so if the RNA World
did exist once, its inhabitants may have been driven extinct when some of them
gave rise to DNA-based life. And there's another big question: if there was
RNA-based life, where did the RNA come from?

One possibility is that the raw ingredients on the early, lifeless Earth reacted
with each other and produced RNA. For 40 years, scientists have been
investigating the chemistry of those ingredients - stuff like formaldehyde and
cyanide - to see if they could indeed combine into the first biological
molecules. It's been quite a struggle - but it turns out that it was a struggle
the scientists brought upon themselves. They tried to make RNA the obvious way,
but nature doesn't care what we consider obvious.

RNA is a word-like molecule, with four different letters that can be combined
into a vast variety of strings. Each letter is called a ribonucleotide. It has
two parts. One part lets the ribonucleotide bind to the ribonucleotides on
either side, to form a backbone. It's made of phosphate and a sugar called
ribose. The other part is the nucleobase, which comes in four different forms
and encodes genetic information.

So it seemed obvious that if indeed RNA emerged on the early Earth, its two
parts must have emerged first. Scientists discovered reactions that suggested
that nucleobases can indeed form from prebiotic molecules, as can the
riboose-phosphate backbone. But when it came time to join together the two
parts, the scientists hit a wall. The two molecules just don't like each other
much. Their dislike of each other led some scientists to look into the
possibility that life did not start out with RNA, but with another molecule that
doesn't exist anywhere on Earth today. Later, RNA replaced that mystery
molecule, and then later still DNA and protein evolved.

But as I explained in my Science essay, University of Manchester John Sutherland
thought it was too soon to rule out the possibility that life had started out
with RNA. He began to look for other routes from prebiotic chemistry to RNA
besides the obvious one. Today, in Nature, he and his colleagues report that
they found it.

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible
conditions
by Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland, and John D. Sutherland
(Nature journal, 5/14/2009)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/abs/nature08013.html

In their paper, they published a kind of chemical road map that sums up what
they did. Don't be put off - I'll explain the lay of the land below.

[biochemical diagram]

The blue arrows represent the obvious route to RNA, going from prebiotic
compounds (marked here by 7,8, and 10) to nucleobases (3) and ribose (4). And
the big red X shows the point at which this route fails.

Sutherland and his colleagues started with the same ingredients, but cooked them
in a different recipe, marked in green. Instead of trying to build the two parts
independently, the scientists instead built a single molecule that had more and
more components of the two parts already in place. They used just four
reactions, all of which worked efficiently, to get one of the four
ribonucleotides, known as cytidine. At the end of the process, the scientists
zapped the mix with ultraviolet light (something that would be easy to come by
on the early Earth, unprotected by an ozone layer). They eliminated some of the
unwanted side products and turned some of the cytidine into another unit of RNA,
known as uracil.

In an accompanying commentary, Jack Szostak of Harvard calls this experiment a
"tour de fource." Of course, it doesn't answer all the questions about the RNA
World - for starters, scientists still have to synthesize the other two letters
in RNA's alphabet. But it does show how careful scientists must be not to
declare things impossible. Sometimes they just need to redraw the map.

Excerpt from:
Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
(Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

The proponents of intelligent design, or creationism, who say it's only fair to
consider their ideas, have a very curious idea of what fairness is because
they're not interested in developing evidence. They're not interested in
engaging in this process of peer review - of publishing their work, of going to
scientific meetings and trying to win a scientific consensus. In effect what
they want to do is do an end run around the entire scientific process by
appealing to boards of education or legislatures to insert their ideas into the
classroom even though they haven't won a scientific consensus.

So you have to ask yourself, what's fair about that? Every other idea in science
has to fight its way through the criticism and analysis of the scientific
process. But [with] these ideas [they] claim that they want to be exempt from
that process in the name of fairness. In reality what they're asking people to
do is to cheat on the process of science and give them a shortcut that will get
into classroom and textbook. That would be very bad science policy and be even
worse in terms of educational policy.

- Kenneth Miller, Ph.D.
(Professor of Biology, Brown University)

Video that shows the ludicrous absurdity of the rhetoric that creationists like
to use, such as "The Bible has always been years ahead of scientists, and is one
of the most advanced science books around."

Creationism versus Science
by Thunderf00t (Jan. 5, 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

Excerpts below from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm

By the way, note that the editorial preface to the research article in the
professional science journal in which it is published explicitly states the
following:

| Although much of the coverage describes this fossil as a
| "missing link", it is important to bear in mind that this
| term is, perhaps, a misnomer - evolution proceeds via
| incremental changes, and the fossil record of each change
| is inevitably incomplete. However, this fossil clearly
| provides useful information about the evolution of
| primates during a time period for which little evidence
| currently exists and so is of great importance and
| interest.

http://everyone.plos.org/2009/05/19/plos-one-introduces-darwinius-masillae/
[link may be line-wrapped]

As a supporter of the general open source philosophy myself, I also quote here
the following:

| ...as the article was published in a PLoS journal, each
| of the millions of people who read about the fossil in
| the world's media will be able to read the detailed
| scientific description of Darwinius masillae for
| themselves. PLoS ONE has published many other significant
| paleontology papers - if you are interested in reading
| them, you will find them in our Paleontology Collection.

http://www.plosone.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fi\
ssue.pone.c01.i02
[link may be line-wrapped]

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Scientists hail stunning fossil
by Christine McGourty
(BBC News, 5/19/2009)

The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature
have been unveiled in the US.

The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and
even traces of its last meal.

The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's
higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.

But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are
sceptical of the claim.

And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida.

The fossil was launched amid great fanfare at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, by the city's mayor.

Although details of the fossil have only just been published in a scientific
journal - PLoS One - there is already a TV documentary and book tie-in.

Ida was discovered in the 1980s in a fossil treasure-trove called Messel Pit,
near Darmstadt in Germany. For much of the intervening period, it has been in a
private collection.

The investigation of the fossil's significance was led by Jorn Hurum of the
Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway.

He said the fossil creature was "the closest thing we can get to a direct
ancestor" and described the discovery as "a dream come true".

The female animal lived during an epoch in Earth history known as the Eocene,
which was crucial for the development of early primates - and at first glance,
Ida resembles a lemur.

But the creature lacks primitive features such as a so-called "toothcomb", a
specialised feature in which the lower incisor and canine teeth are elongated,
crowded together and projecting forward. She also lacks a special claw used for
grooming.

The team concluded that she was not simply another lemur, but a new species.
They have called her Darwinius masillae, to celebrate her place of origin and
the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Dr Jens Franzen, an expert on the Messel Pit and a member of the team, described
Ida as "like the Eighth Wonder of the World", because of the extraordinary
completeness of the skeleton.

It was information "palaeontologists can normally only dream of", he said.

[...]

In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen
represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what
Ida is.

He told BBC News that the key to proving this lay in the detail of the foot. The
shape of a bone in the foot called the talus looks "almost anthropoid".

He said the team was now planning a 3D reconstruction of the foot which would
prove this.

"We're not finished with this specimen yet," said Dr Hurum. "There will be
plenty more papers coming out."

------------------------------------------------

Direct reference to the research article:

Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany:
Morphology and Paleobiology
by Jens L. Franzen, Philip D. Gingerich, Jörg Habersetzer1, Jørn H. Hurum,
Wighart von Koenigswald, B. Holly Smith
(PLoS ONE - May 19, 2009)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
PDF version:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.\
1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723&representation=PDF
[link may be line-wrapped]