how poorly David Klinghoffer can read

  

 

Following the link from Evolution News to a partial transcript of the speech was very helpful illustrating how poorly David Klinghoffer can read.

"Scientific Racism and the Confederate Flag" July 24, 2021, David Klinghoffer

 https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/scientific-racism-and-the-confederate-flag-2/

 

 According to Klinghoffer, the Confederacy was founded on scientific evolutionary terms. He cited a speech given by Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the rebelling states. 

 

Alexander H. Stephens did not refer to any scientific discoveries related to racial superiority of Whites, or inferiority of Blacks. He does claim that God had ordered White superiority.

 

He repeatedly makes religious assertions. For example, "The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

 

And then, "It (the Confederacy) is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system." 

 

And more, "The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." 

 

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws."

 

Utterly Dispensable ID Creationism.

Is Darwinian Evolution "Indispensable" to Biology? by the Disco'tute MD, Michael Egnor takes a poke at Larry Moran's blog post, ASBMB Core Concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Evolution. (ASBMB=American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology). The ASBMB offered the following as their nominees for core concepts:

Evolution
matter and energy transformation
homeostasis
biological information
macromolecular structure and function

Egnor's core observation was:

"If you have to periodically proclaim to the world the indispensability of your scientific discipline, then your scientific discipline isn't indispensable."

If you need to beg, whine and mew that your Intelligent Design creationism is really, really sciencey, and that mean ol' Darwinists should stop calling you "creationists," then you are utterly dispensable.

Illustra Media

(Sorry! I thought I posted this already).



http://illustramedia.com/

There are some amusing screw-ups in the movie. Most of the shots with the monarch butterfly pupa are shown upside down. But this is the quality of the "science" from creationist outfits like Illustra Media, and the Discovery Institute. The narration also falsely claimed that the adult butterfly has reassembled from a "chemical soup." This particular lie insults anyone capable of reading basic scientific literature.

The extensive reworking of the body, metamorphosis, is not limited to butteries. We see similar development even in fish, and amphibians. Much of these events are hidden from view in mammals within the uterus,or behind the shield of the eggshell with birds. Some of the first studies ever done in Western science were of chicken embryos. For a review of some of the magical thinking about metamorphosis, I suggest reading Hart and Grosberg, "Extraordinary Scientific Delusions about Metamorphosis," which reviews Frank Ryan’s "The Mystery of Metamorphosis." Most of their observations are applicable to the Illustra Media's nonsense.

Paul Nelson appears a few minutes into the trailer. He is a young earth creationist, and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute. He thinks the developmental biology of butterflies is a "problem for evolution" because evolutionary changes take a long time. What he want you to think is that 1) biologists are too stupid to have thought about this, and 2) that the developmental biology of butterflies are unique and isolated from all the other millions of insects. He hopes you are stupid.

As a "philosopher" Paul Nelson is a failure. Only a failure would pretend that an open question about a technical problem, even a deep theoretical problem, means that the parent science is invalidated. We don't have, and don't really need a cell by cell map of a monarch butterfly development in order to confirm evolutionary biology. We do have all we need by realizing that the Lepidoptera are only one order of insect, and they are in a continuum of developmental strategies. For a quick overview see: "Origin and Evolution of Insect Metamorphosis" by Prof. Xavier Belles.

Discotute "Dissent From Darwin"

I had this in the "draft" file. I am still grinding on Joe the Surgeon, but I offer this as an alternate bit of creationist debunking.

I realized I was repeating myself again. The creationist was Joe Jensen posting to the evocreato discussion at "Bangert: The evolution of a misguided 'choice' The topic was the Discotute "Dissent From Darwin" bullshit. So, I thought that I should post the current version here to save time.

The Discotute "Dissent from Darwin" has far more "egghead PHDs" in totally unrelated fields, like history, or sociology, or philosophy, meteorology, or electrical engineering, than they have any professionals competent to judge the data supporting the theory of evolution. In reply to this nonsense, we began "Project Steve." The Project Steve statement unequivocally presents that Evolutionary Theory is the sole organizing principle for all of biological science. We limited the signatories to only people named Steve. (Or cognates, like Stephanie, or Estiban). To make it even harder, we limited signatories to real scientists in relevant areas as opposed to the "anything, or anybody" rules for the Discotutes. (We altered the rule when Nobel winner Stephen Hawkins wanted to join. The new rule allows any Nobel Prize winner named "Steve" to sign on. All eligible Nobelists have signed).

Just today, Steve #1186 is Dr. Stephanie Wissel. Interestingly, Project Steve member #1184 is Prof. Steve Murphree. What makes this interesting is that Dr. Murphee was earlier a signatory of the Discotute "Dissent" list, in his own words, "a choice that I now genuinely regret."


Regarding the weakass "Dissent From Darwin," Charles Darwin could have signed it himself. Read the so-called "dissent"

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Darwin actually had no idea how genetics actually worked, so objecting to "random mutation" would not have bothered him at all. Modern (competent) scientists know that mutations are restricted by the chemistry of nucleic acids, and the structural chemistry of proteins, this ultimately being the chemistry of amino acids. Even so, "random" mutations in the form of SNPs are nearly always silent. This forms the foundation for Kimura's neutral theory.

Darwin was well aware that "natural selection" was not the only force to "account for the complexity of life." In fact, he wrote four books detailing other factors. He wrote two on artificial selection, which is the basis of all agriculture and dates to the late Neolithic. He wrote one on orchids where he proposed the concepts (later confirmed) of co-evolution, and mutualism. And, in 1871 Darwin published a book on Human evolution which introduced the concept of sexual (today we say "behavioral") selection.

So, Darwin would have had no problems with "random mutation," and wrote 4 books about 3 kinds of evolutionary selection beyond "survival of the fittest." And, he was constantly an advocate of the notion that we should, "carefully examine the evidence." And So Am I. When we do carefully examine the evidence, ID creationism is bunk.

Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 2.

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

I am fraking “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).


Kuhn makes various errors of fact and logic throughout his introductory pages. Mostly the result of sloppy thinking, and ignorance. For example, Kuhn said that ‘neo-Darwinism’ “reflected knowledge of reproduction and recombination, leading to potentially greater shifts in species.” What it reflected was a rejection of Lamarckian ideas of heritable acquired characteristics. Kuhn wrote that the “modern synthesis” was “proposed in 1950 to incorporate the knowledge of genetics, systematics, paleontology, and other fields.” Actually, the modern synthesis was proposed mathematically in the 1930s to merge genetic and evolutionary theory. Prior to this, genetics was promoted by antievolutionists as an alternative explanation to the diversity of species. The modern synthesis is built on the realization that the unit of evolution is an inter-reproductive population, taxonomically equivalent with “subspecies.” The term itself was introduced in a 1942 book by Julian Huxley titled, “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” (I have highlighted below the earlier papers by the most influential contributors). Major contributors were; R.A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), J.B.S. Haldane; ten papers between 1924 and 1934 collectively known as “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection,” see also, “Possible Worlds and Other Essays” (1928), Wright, Sewall (1932). "The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution" Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet 1: 356–366.

Reading these authorities, and other contemporaries, one learns that the field of paleontology is nearly ignored by evolutionary theorists at the time. The resulting revolution in systematics, or taxonomy really waited until the 1970s. This brings up Kuhn’s next error (at least big enough to irritate me). He wrote, “These mutations can occur gradually or rapidly via a term called saltation or punctuated evolution (sic).”

What is first irritating is that ‘terms’ don’t cause mutations. Second, there is nothing outside the fevered minds of creationists called “punctuated evolution.” The idea of ‘punctuated equilibria’ was introduced very dramatically by "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972) pp 82-115 in "Models in paleobiology", edited by Schopf, TJM Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco. Steve Gould, and Dick Lewontin in their 1979 paper, “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.” (Proc R Soc Lond B 205 (1161): 581–598) extended the idea to argue that their punctuated equilibria idea could accommodate apparently non-adaptive mutation. Then “saltation” is not at all related to “punctuated” anything, it is derived from the Latin for “leap” is the notion of single-step speciation. This actually is known to happen, particularly common in speciation by plant hybrids. For example, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. (I have dozens of other examples of observed emergence of new species on this link).

I am tired, and the weather sux. So there is sadly much more time to spend tomorrow on “Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 3.”

Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 1.

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

Some creatocrap was smeared on the Internet today. (Yes, what a surprise). The bit I examined was from the Discotute touting “peer reviewed” papers supporting ID creationism. Most of the papers the Discotutes promote as “supporting intelligent design” creationism don’t really do such a thing. So, I started reading the paper at the top of their list, “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).

I didn’t get very far before I read, “John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.” (The secondary reference is eventually found to a popular press book).

Needless to say really, but Dr. Kuhn is a surgeon, and so by his logic also “uniquely capable” because over 200 years ago, John Hunter was an accomplished scientist and surgeon. What should we then conclude about the career of Josef Rudolf Mengele? When I was a professor of medicine in psychiatry, we often marveled how surgeons imagined they were “uniquely capable” in all aspects of life. Kuhn goes on to brag that physicians are the “the brightest minds, based on competitive test scores and undergraduate performance.” Since his audience are most likely physicians, I am sure this claim is accepted as sage wisdom. Kuhn does provide one early chuckle when he writes, "In fact, the physician represents the penultimate expert on applied molecular pathways as they relate to human conditions." The "penultimate" anything is the "next to last." Of course this egotist thinks it meant the 'most superior,' but that will always be the actual scientist who did the actual research that physicains learn to apply clinically.

Kuhn does do the full bore creationist dance, which I'll return to in Part 2.

I was more curious that Darwin never mentioned John Hunter. In all the later editions of “Origin of Species,” Darwin began with a “Historical Sketch” of evolutionary thinking. His remarks on the speculations of Buffon regarding the species question explain why he was less impressed with Hunter as well. Darwin wrote it was unnecessary to go into details with Buffon because he did not, “enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species.” It was this which Darwin's theory addressed.

The collected papers from John Hunter (1728-1793) mentioned by Kuhn were published in 1861, edited, and augmented by Richard Owen. “Essays and observations on natural history, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and geology, Volumes 1, 2” John Hunter, and Richard Owen. London: J. van Voorst, 1861. In his “Introduction to Natural History,” Hunter makes the observation at the beginning of a section titled, “On the Origin of Species,” that “Are we not led on to the wolf by the gradual affinity of the different varieties in the dog? Could we not trace out the gradation of the cat, horse, cow, sheep, fowl, etc. in a like manner?”

This section is very brief, merely two paragraphs. In the second, Hunter approached a point similar to Darwin when he speculated that the East Indian cattle were probably the more primitive, as they had fewer varieties, and were “… more likely to go through varieties in new countries [i.e. under new external influences] than in its original country.” Owen is often portrayed as an opponent of Darwin’s, so I was surprised that in a footnote to this section, he remarked “The best attempt to answer this supreme question in zoology is has been made by Charles Darwin in his work entitled “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” 1859. (Footnote 2, Page 37).

I read nothing in the rest of the 399 pages of Volume 1 that Kuhn could have confused with mutation, or heritable variation, natural selection (or any other selection than agricultural). Since Kuhn's assertion apparently relied on a secondary reference, and even that rather vague, I decided to plow on through the entire ~1000 pages.

The second volume of “Essays and observations on natural history” is a 491 page text on comparative anatomy, and a number of Appendixes. Hunter in his opening essay urged that only those well versed in human anatomy should under take comparative studies. I personally went in the opposite direction, dissecting fish by the hundreds before I studied much human material, and I should add that my interest was nearly entirely on bones. Hunter and I would agree on this latter focus, as he wrote on page 2 of his comparative anatomy regarding the skeleton. On the same page, Hunter wrote, "... I dare say that the different manner of living gives rise to the different formation of the viscera." He later added that an animal's 'external matter,' "... relate to the way of life that each animal is adapted to..." To this, Owen added a footnote saying, "A question still under controversy. The advocates of the 'Transmutation' or 'Natural Selection' hypothesis may take Hunter's words in their literal sense, and claim him as of their party." (Footnote 1, Page 2).

Hunter did not finish 3 pages before his examination of humans took a powerfully racist turn. He wrote that “white” men were “the most perfect of that genus” as we have the largest hands, and heads. These were the features he felt indicated “perfection” in humans, and he asserted that “The negro from Africa has both a small head, and very small hands and feet.” Even so, these obviously false statements compare well against the notorious modern “scientific” racist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton claims to have “proven” that a large penis results in low intelligence and criminality, and thus Africans are stupid criminals due to big penises. Compare these beliefs with Charles Darwin, who wrote in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Also, "By the way, a Negro lived in Edinburgh, who had traveled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man." -- Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, p.51., Or, "I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one." (LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873).

However, there was nothing that I read which justified Kuhn's claim that Hunter, "proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation." Maybe if Kuhn knew how to provide a proper citation, we could learn what he referred to in his paper. In psychiatry, we called it "making shit up."

There was one feature of particular interest to any student of the relationship between scientific advancement, and religious bias. In 1855, Richard Owen gave a lecture to the Royal College of Surgeons as part of his appointment as the Hunterian Professor of Anatomy. The talk was examining a yet unpublished manuscript by Hunter, “On Extraneous Fossils,” written from Hunter’s address on fossils given in 1793 to the Royal Society of London. In the latter paper, Hunter described his results from treating various recent bones, and shells and similar fossil specimens with different acids. Hunter was particularly interested in what he called “the animal substance.” From his descriptions, I suspected this “animal substance” is mostly collagen, and osteocalcin, and this seems to be confirmed in Hunter’s essay “Of the Preparation of Bones,” when compared with "Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes" (Kowitsch, 1895).

The address in 1793 was never published. Owen explained that the the Society editors objected to Hunter's conclusion that the the Earth was very ancient. Variation in the degree of fossilization among the thousands of specimens Hunter examined had clearly led him to conclude that this was the result of processes across “many thousand centuries.” A Major Rennell wrote to Hunter on behalf of the Royal Society requesting that the time frame be altered to “many thousand years” so as to not alienate young earth creationists. Instead, Hunter withdrew the paper from publication only months before his death on October 16, 1793. This early example of how creationism impedes scientific understanding of Nature was new to me.


I will say that refuting creatocrap can occupy the days I am not fishing.

Here is a link to Part 2.

Another Steve leaves the Dark Side

Last October I noticed that Professor C. STEVEN Murphree wrote a letter-to-the-editor published today in the "Daily News Journal" of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Titled "Theistic evolution' can be an alternative for believers," Dr. Steve Murphree (Belmont University) wrote,

This was once my position (ID creationism, gh), one that I held until after I became a biology professor, and I do not fault Mr. Myers or others who came to hold it in much the same way that I did. I was at least as passionate though not as fearful about Darwinist control as Mr. Myers, and 10 years ago I signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," a choice that I now genuinely regret.

I suggested at the time that Prof. Steve should consider becoming one of the "Project Steve" Steves.

Well, today he did, and is welcomed as the 1184th Steve. That is one more Steve for truth, and one less for the Discotute's bogus appeal to authority, the "Dissent from Darwinism."