Comments for Homologous Legs

Comment on This Week in Intelligent Design – 02/11/10 by 420 college

420 college — Mon, 07 May 2012 15:28:51 +0000

420 College is the premier medical marijuana school in California. We’ve been helping people find a new career in America’s most exciting new medical marijuana industry since March of 2009

Comment on Salvo Magazine and Scientism – If you didn’t already know… by Tobitron

Tobitron — Fri, 04 May 2012 04:41:43 +0000

You ceartainly haven’t pissed me off.. I was kind of thinking though that Regis Nicoll and and the bunch at Salvo were just a bunch of smart-aleks. What I mean is,, I’ll bet that they wouldn’t mind that YOU’RE pissed off..

Comment on Homeopathy? Energy? Mass? Stephen Hawking? by RN to MD

RN to MD — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:15:49 +0000

lol at “stephen hawkings”
absolutely-mind boggling

Comment on Callout to Creationists by cubist

cubist — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:52:36 +0000

I repeat, fortheloveofcreationism: If you can’t measure “genetic information”, how can you *tell* whether or not a mutation has created the stuff? Answer: You can’t. So when a Creationist makes noise about “mutations can’t crerate information”, I want to know if they can measure the stuff — because if they *can’t* measure the stuff, THEY DON”T KNOW whether or not mutations can create information. And if they don’t know that, their mutations-can’t-create-information argument is NOT a valid criticism of evolution, but, rather, a sequence of sciencey-sounding noises. Would you care to explain which of those two nucleotide sequences has more information, and show us all how you arrived at your answer?
As for “try reading Meyer”, I’d think that someone who complains about the putative “loose definitions” in evolution might be well-advised to be very precise indeed when making recommendations for someone else’s reading list, as opposed to doing what you just did, namely, tossing out a single arbitrary name unaccompanied by any indication of who that person is or which of their books you’re recommending. As well, it’s amusing that a Creationist who complains about the alleged “lack of rigor” in evolution does not jump at the chance to *demonstrate* the superiority of Creationism by *demonstrating* that a Creationist argument (the mutations-can’t-create-information argument, in this case) is based on real evidence, as opposed to being nothing but a sequence of sciencey-sounding noises. Of course, if you’d rather demonstrate yourself to be a flaming hypocrite, that’s your own affair…

Comment on “You Win or You Die” – Unintentionally nourishing the ID rhetoricotrophs by Game of Thrones Online Free

Game of Thrones Online Free — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:25:10 +0000

Very good information. Saved to boomarks!

Comment on Tabletop Transitional – Communicating with academics: a guide by Baby Grand Player Pianos

Baby Grand Player Pianos — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:57:11 +0000

The concepts it convey has a significance and as a whole I can say that you are an great author and not to mention you are one of the many bloggers that people need to know when it terms to dealing with the subject on Baby Grand Piano . Certainly not everybody can write this terrific blog and you are one of those people who are gifted with brilliant minds.

Comment on Skeptical Blog Anthology open for submissions by aroulpili

aroulpili — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:49 +0000

Общение на общие темы, от героина до амфетамина, все о наркотиках и не только, в разде для всех обо всем http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=45

Comment on Am I an evolutionary ideologue? by crystalsinger

crystalsinger — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:16 +0000

Wow. An excellent, articulate, cogent teasing out of what is exactly my position on such things. I usually just boil it down to “I’m technically agnostic but functionally atheist”, but I really like your nuanced discussion of the various categories into which deities fall, and that some can be rejected out of hand due to conflict with established fact.

Nice work. :-)

Comment on Cornelius Hunter’s Darwin Predictions – The DNA structure gave rise to the first life by James W

James W — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:11:25 +0000

Thanks for putting this out here for the rest of us. We at TheCarlsonCompany.net appreciate your thoroughness.

Comment on Monday Science Link – Biological extreme advertising (NSFW) by A new low | mommacommaphd

A new low | mommacommaphd — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:58:14 +0000

[...] I studied the role of DNA Polymerase Beta in mismatch repair during meiosis in rats. [See here for an irreverent and hilarious take on Pol Beta and its function.] Now, in case you forgot from [...]

Comment on This Week in Intelligent Design – 19/02/12 by Frank J

Frank J — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:46:07 +0000

Jack Scanlan: “So why would an ID proponent get so excited about such changes not being observed? Curious.”

C’mon, you know. It’s one of those bones they throw to their Biblical literalist fans. The “created kinds” thing that they know ain’t so, and occasionally (usually Behe) even admit it. ID is a “big tent” scam that originated as “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” creationism before the “cdesign proponentsists” “transitional fossil.”

Comment on This [TIME PERIOD] in Intelligent Design – 10/02/12 by Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:49 +0000

NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change.

I call fudging on the phrase “documents the origin”. For just one example, large-scale biological change is clearly documented here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

It indisputably shows the origin of mammalian ossicles. (A system that’s even occasionally been called ‘irreducibly complex’.)

I’ll bet they immediately shift goalposts and say, “Well, uh, we meant the origin of the specific changes. You can’t prove ~~God~~an intelligent designer didn’t cause those specific mutations in that order!”

Comment on This [TIME PERIOD] in Intelligent Design – 10/02/12 by WheelsOC

WheelsOC — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:56:15 +0000

It’s pretty clear from reading anything ID that they want it to be considered the default option in lieu of “we don’t know (yet).” This is implicit in their false dilemma where they pit (suspiciously straw-stuffed) evolutionary explanations against ID; if it’s not evolution (yet?), it automatically must be ID. This comes through whether you’re reading Discovery Institute blogs or just witness arguments coming from the rubes that do.

Also, I notice Luskin didn’t try tackling the voluminous Some More Observed Speciation Events page from TalkOrigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html ), which is so full of references to the primary literature and examples of various speciation models that he’d be forced to read actual science for weeks!

Comment on Tabletop Transitional – Shit Skeptics Say by John Rael

John Rael — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:09:57 +0000

Thanks for the mad props, yo!

Comment on Tabletop Transitional – What if Harry Potter was a skeptic? by corde per chitarra

corde per chitarra — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:29:40 +0000

Hi, this is a good post!

Comment on “Science Says You’re Wrong!” – How (Not) to Deal with Intelligent Design by Miles Geoffroy

Miles Geoffroy — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:28:11 +0000

It appears to be you are fairly well informed on this.

Comment on So, Discovery Institute, do I win an award or what? by I’ve been busy… | Wonderful Life

I’ve been busy… | Wonderful Life — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:53:53 +0000

[...] I note that Jack Scanlon (So, Discovery Institute, do I win an award or what?) has been flagged at another post at the ridiculously named Evolution News and Views [...]

Comment on BIO-Complexity’s opinion on intelligent design isn’t complex by The Winkler

The Winkler — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:27:24 +0000

Silly…And even sad…

It would be interesting to make the same “game” with this list (just an example)..

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/masthead.shtml

Do you think that all those guys “..hold a wide variety of views on the merits of..” evolution?

And they have economic support from the mainstream “orthodox” side of science..

“Inquisition” would be the proper word..

LOL

Comment on This Week in Intelligent Design – 14/09/10 by alfiesaden

alfiesaden — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:53:07 +0000

hi – is it just me !! can any one explain why when i type in the firefox browser “www.jackscanlan.com” i get a different site yet whe i type it in google its ok? could this be a bug in my system or is any one else having same probs ?
alf saden

Comment on This Week in Intelligent Design – 08/12/2011 by Martin LaBar

Martin LaBar — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:29:51 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts on the multiverse and ID. Not being an expert on something sometimes mean one is able to think more clearly!