"We're Losing our grip on science"

That is according to Steve Urbon, who writes a twice weekly column for the The Standard-Times of New Bedford, MA and echoed on-line at SouthCoastToday.com.

His May 4th item was largely an entirely welcome objection to the know-nothing anti-science mobs, and a reference to a poll of professionals, and students in "higher education." More on that later.

But tacked on at the end, Mr. Urbon wrote,

The trouble is, if Americans are doubting or despising science, a part of it is the fault of the scientists — or some of them, at least. How many of them are employed by industries seeking to evade the oversight of the government, or to duck accountability for environmental damage, or to get a drug approved?

How many scientists write reports for tobacco companies for fat salaries? How many write research papers for such things as environmental organizations fueled by the oil industry?

I direct your attention to biologist Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA, who in her previous job at the Environmental Defense Fund, asserted that because of overfishing, the ocean was in imminent danger of being full of nothing but jellyfish.

Her self-serving scare mongering was quoted around the world, and is driving fishing policy in this country.

But in February, a team of researchers at the Dauphin Island (Alabama) Sea Lab totally debunked Lubchenco's claim earlier this year, saying there's no evidence at all to back it. Yet I will bet that even if you are in the fishing industry, you are reading it here for the first time. What does that tell you?

For openers, few Americans other than professional scientists ever read a science journal. What little science they are exposed to comes from the news media, or re-runs of The Big Bang. There are whores with PhDs. They are a tiny fraction of one percent of professionals. The largest concentration in the USA are in the Heartland Institute, a nest of radical far-right vipers (apologies to vipers everywhere). Then, there are the creationists who work for the anti-science gangs of the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis Ministries, or the Institute for Creation Research. These people are not necessarily whores- most are more likely mentally ill.

But, Mr. Urbon goes off into the ozone by associating Dr. Jane Lubchenco with the likes of the Heartland biostitutes, or the Disco'tutes.

Let's start with the biography of Dr. Jane Lubchenco. She received her doctorate in biology from Harvard University, and taught at Oregon State University from 1977 to 2009 when she was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She is past-president of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Council for Science, and the Ecological Society of America. She is one of the most highly cited, and respected scientists of her generation. She is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Royal Society, and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, Europe and Chile.

Mr. Urbon lied. Dr. Lubchenco was on the Board of Directors of the EDF- it was hardly her job.

A bibliographic search for Dr. Jane Lubchenco and jellyfish finally revealed an Environmental Defense Foundation report, (link opens a PDF) "Oceans of Abundance." This 10 page report had 28 co-authors. It had the following sentence, "There is scientific consensus that fishing is fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems, (5) which are increasingly likely to yield massive swarms of jellyfish rather than food fish (6). A press release from the EDF opened with, "Will jellyfish replace our favorite kinds of seafood? That appears to be the way we're headed — but a 2008 report, Oceans of Abundance, from leading U.S. policy makers and fisheries experts, says this does not have to be."

Mr. Urbon lied some more; The EDF report didn't claim the oceans were "in imminent danger of being full of nothing but jellyfish." Even the rather florid press release didn't go that far.

The relevant cited article from the EDF document is, "Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean," (Jackson, J.B.C. 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11458-11465). Jackson makes an entirely data driven observation of the biomass of the hypoxic “dead zone” covering ≈20,000 km2 ~500 km west of the Mississippi delta. The major large species surviving those conditions are jellyfish, and has wiped out a formerly productive commercial fishery.

The recent jellyfish article indirectly mentioned by Mr. Urbon was, "Questioning the Rise of Gelatinous Zooplankton in the World's Oceans," (Robert H. Condon et al, BioScience, Vol. 62, No. 2 (February 2012), pp. 160-169). In no way could it have "totally debunked Lubchenco's claim." For one thing, it was never her claim. The paper never even cited any publication by Dr. Lubchenco, nor the EDF. The authors did note that popular media accounts, like Mr. Urbon's, were far different from the scientific studies. They also concluded that much more funding should be provided to jellyfish experts like themselves so that they could do much more research. Reading the actual studies he is 'interpreting' to the public will apparently be a new experience for Mr. Urbon.


Mr. Urbon is losing his grip on reality.

The Salvation Army "debate" is off the schedule

We were supposed to have taped a "friendly" discussion tomorrow. This was the second reschedule. Just now I received an email that they wanted to change the "other side" for the third time. And the discussion topic was obviously going to be the evo-creato bullshit from Ray Comfort's "Way of the Master" wanker fest. I had already refused to discuss anything with Comfort because he is a hack. He does nothing but repeat the same tired lies he has for the last 15 years, and will continue to until he dies. He knows they are bullshit, but that is all he has to retire on, and he isn't about to get a real job.

Instead they tried to switch a potentially interesting fellow, Dr. Bob Docter, with one of Ray Comfort's acolytes, Stuart G. Scott.

This was such an unprofessional operation that I don't trust them honestly editing any video. No telling how they would chop it. See Expelled Exposed for examples of how creationists lie with video edits, particularly see the section at this URL link.


ah' haz had enuff.

The new "letter to the editor" ran this morning

The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tn ran a LtE that I wrote last week. Their header is Former teacher misunderstands issues about Scopes, evolution. They have a print circulation of only about 7,500. But, Tennessee is a small population state, and a current hot-spot for creationist laws.

I'll be interested to see if there are any creationists that will comment on-line. I'd be particularly amused if Mr. Shipe tries to defend his multiple lies.

Here is the copy I emailed,]

I wondered how bills like the Monkey Law passed. Then I read the letter Jack
Shipe. Since Shipe claimed he taught science, this ignorance has deep roots.
None of his so-called facts stand against honest examination.

John Scopes was not motivated by the ACLU, which offered to defend anyone
arrested teaching evolution. There was never any “reward.” Dayton business men
brought it up to Scopes to boost travel to, and the reputation of their town.
“Nebraska Man” was never introduced at the trial. There was never any scientific
evidence introduced at the trial. Scientific materials were appended to the
record after the trial, but none of these mentioned “Nebraska Man.”

There is nothing accurate in Mr. Shipe’s other Nebraska Man assertions either.
Tooth fragments were discovered by a rancher and amateur geologist, who sent
them to Henry Fairfield Osborn. Osborn was a paleontologist, not an
archaeologist. Osborn published in 1922 that they were from a primitive ape. He
never identified them as human. Other paleontologists disagreed even with that.
1925 professional excavations showed that the tooth fragments belonged to an
extinct peccary. This was published in scientific journals, and popular
newspapers like the New York Times.

Charles Lyell published “Principles of Geology, vol. 1” in 1830. He never
suggested the Earth’s age in years. He mentions tree rings in Volume 3 (1833)
when citing another scientist’s estimate that an African Baobab-tree was 5,150
years old. Early attempts to estimate the age of the earth used the cooling time
of rock, or iron. Boffon used heated iron spheres in 1778. From their cooling
rate, he estimated that Earth to be at least 300,000 years old. Privately he
speculated the number could be billions of years. This work was continued by
Lord Kelvin in the 1860s. He estimated the Earth’s surface to be between 20, and
400 million years old. Kelvin’s estimates were overturned by the 1903 discovery
that radioactivity heats rocks.

Apparently Shipe missed simple physics. The “leap second” results from
gravitational friction between the Earth and Moon. Currently the Earth and Moon
are tidally locked slowing Earth’s rotation as the Moon slowly moves further
away. This adds only 1 second to the Earth’s rotational speed per 500 days, but
this varied over time. Currently, it is 85 days per million years.

Shipe’s next gross error is his confusion about sex. Division into
reproductively exclusive sexes was never a single generational jump. Today we
observe hundreds of species with individuals reproductively both male and
female. Some, like Semicossyphus pulcher, are first female and then transition
to male. The evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction dates back to the yeasts
which reproduce both sexually, and asexually.

Finally, Shipe does not know what a species is, let alone how they evolve. I
recommend reading, “What is a Species, and What is Not,” by Ernst Mayr which
explains why evolution must always been at the species level. We have directly
observed this in nature, and experiments. (Google: “Emergence of New Species” ).

The only comfort we can take from Mr. Shipe’s letter is that he is no longer a
teacher.

See how many errors they introduced in editing? (OK, just 1) It is instructive to me to read the original comment, versus the edited comment (above), versus the published comment.

Why are we still ignorant?

I edited the letter down to 513 words at the request of the newspaper's editor. I'll post a link if/when they publish. Most of Mr. Shipe's "facts" are copied from "Answers in Genesis Ministries."

Here is why, The Mountain Press - Letter: Evolution is a religion forced on our children

My reply as sent to the newspaper.

I wonder how bills like the new Tennessee Monkey Law are passed. Then I read a letter like the one by Jack Shipe published in The Mountain Press April 26, 2012. Since Mr. Shipe claimed to have been a science teacher, I see that such ignorance has deep roots. Not one of his so-called facts can stand against honest examination. John Scopes was not motivated by the 1925 ACLU advertisement, which merely offered to defend anyone arrested for teaching evolution. There was never any “reward” offered. Some Dayton business men brought it up to Scopes as a way to boost travel to, and the reputation of their town. “Nebraska Man” was never introduced at the trial. There was never any scientific evidence introduced at the trial. Some scientific materials were appended to the record after the trial, but none of these mentioned “Nebraska Man.”

There is nothing in Mr. Shipe’s assertions about the so-called Nebraska Man that was accurate either. The tooth fragments were discovered by a rancher and amateur geologist, and he sent them to Henry Fairfield Osborn. Osborn was a paleontologist, not an archaeologist. Osborn published in 1922 that they were from a primitive ape, and never identified them as human. Other paleontologists were doubtful that this was even correct. In 1925, controlled professional excavations showed that the tooth fragments belonged to an extinct pig. This finding was published not only in scientific journals, but in popular newspapers like the New York Times.

Charles Lyell never mentioned an age of the earth in years in “Principles of Geology, vol. 1” published in 1830. He did mention tree rings in Volume 3 published in 1833 when he cited the work of another scientist who estimated that an African Baobab-tree could be as old as 5,150 years old. Early attempts to estimate the age of the earth used the cooling time of rock, or iron. For example, in the 1700s Boffon heated iron spheres and timed their cooling rate and estimated that Earth to be at least 300,000 years old. In unpublished notebooks he speculated the number could be billions of years. This was extended by Lord Kelvin who in the 1860s estimated that the Earth’s surface could be between 20, and 400 million years old. When it was shown in 1903 that radioactivity heated rocks, Kelvin’s estimates were overturned.

Apparently Mr. Shipe cannot grasp simple physics either. The “leap second” results mostly from the gravitational friction between the Earth, and Moon. This currently keeps the Moon tidally locked with the Earth slowing its rotation, and the Moon (equally slowly) moves further away from the Earth. This is currently adding about 1 second to the Earth’s rotational speed per 500 days, but was not constant throughout time. At the current rate, this is just about 85 days per 1 million years.

The next exposure of great ignorance is Mr. Shipe’s confusion about the evolution of sex. The division into reproductive sexes was never, and could never be a single generational jump. Today we can observe hundreds of species with individuals reproductively both male and female. Some, like the fish Semicossyphus pulcher, are first female, and then later in life transition to male. The evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction dates well back to the yeasts which are both sexual, and asexual.

Finally, it is clear the Mr. Shipe does not even know what a species is, let alone how they evolve. For the first, I recommend reading, “What is a Species, and What is Not,” by Ernst Mayr which also explains why all evolution has always been at the species level. And, we have of course directly observed this in nature, and experiments. I have compiled a list of many examples available from my personal blog (Google: “Emergence of New Species” ).

The only comfort we can take from Mr. Shipe’s letter is that he is no longer a teacher.

Liars on the Right

For what seems like many years (actually over four), science blogger Richard Hope has been tracking the lawsuits, and commentaries surrounding Ohioan creationist John Freshwater's dismissal as an 8th grade science teacher. On 20, June 2008, the Mt. Vernon School Board started termination proceedings against Freshwater. The saga continues. RBH made a very insightful post this AM on The Panda's Thumb blog about the way the right-wing Christian press has consistently lied about Freshwater, and why he was fired. I highly recommend reading his comments.

Charles Darwin's Education from Wikipedia

I read the Wikipedia article on Darwin's education this morning. It was excellent. It was exceptionally detailed, but very readable. I have updated my little sketch with a link to the Wikipedia's page.

Another lecture done

My colleague Jim Hofmann, Professor and Chair of Liberal Studies at Cal State U, Fullerton, had me over on Tuesday to talk with his class, "Evolution and Creation." Jim and I met years ago when taping video interviews about creationism. The website linked above has a massive compilation of links to all sides of the evo/creato debates. My topic was "Geological Features of Great Age." I will try (again) to figure a way to post my Power Point slides to "Stones and Bones." If anyone knows how to do this, please teach me.

I was a bit ragged this time, I fear. I was getting ready for my UFO abduction audition: I had a colonoscopy scheduled Thursday morning (crack of dawn pun suppressed).

More "Steves" sign the Steve's List

The NCSE Project Steve has passed the 1,200 signatory mark (as of today, 7th April, 2012 there are 1,202).

The happy occasion was duly marked by The Sensuous Curmudgeon, who writes a pro-science blog well worth reading.

TV Debates

I was invited to do an internet TV (what's that?) debate hosted by the Salvation Army. I was apparently invited because I am on the Center for Inquiry speakers list.

Regarding the 'other side,' I made the following remark, "Personally, if I were to just sit down for a chat it would be with Sean McDowell. Ray Comfort knows his arguments are lame, and his "facts" are false. He doesn't care. Consequently, all he does is repeat the same things he has repeated for over a decade. With Ray, it is just a job."

I'll keep you updated.

The paper debunking Joe "the surgeon" Kuhn is evolving. A ten page draft text mostly about origin of life research had 121 references. This was too much science. So, the new idea is to have a short article on all three of Kuhn's screw-ups (OOL, Irreducible Complexity, and No Transitional Species), with all the hard science parts in a separate text(s) to be hosted on-line.

Edited 12 noon, 7 April;

The debate is on with Sean McDowell. The video taping will be 23 April, and the discussion posted sometime in June. You can see Sean McDowell in action debating Jim Corbett on this link. My opinion of Jim Corbett was not improved watching his performance versus Sean McDowell.

I am almost really done with my Joe Kuhn paper

Really.

I have not posted for weeks, and I appologise my ass off. But I had a 44 page draft that had to get squished into a 10 page final. That is killing me.

It is nearly there.

This is an excellent example of why creationists have an advantage lying. They lie. Every breath they take is a lie. I took 14 pages of text, and over 100 references just to debunk 1.5 pages of creatocrap from Joe the Surgeon. And, I still don't know if the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings will publish my work. They published the creatocrap....

Sherry Rowland died last night.

Sherry Rowland, the theoretical chemist who predicted that CFCs were going to destroy the Earth's ozone, died last night from complications related to Parkinson's Disease.

I recall having lunch with a group of UCI chemists soon after Rowland and Molina's Nobel Prize was awarded. He mentioned that the weirdest thing was writing a check to the IRS (the Prize is taxable income) larger then than the price of his house.

The Rowland lab was just down the hall from my 4 feet of grad student lab space in the early '70s. When he and Molina's work was first being published, the chemical industry approached and promised any amount of "research" money if they would agree to stay silent. They refused to be bought. Next, there were Republican led "hearings" in Congress accusing Roland of being a communist trying to destroy America's industry. The same pigs are leading the anti-climate change gang today.

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.

This might explain conservative reality denial

I read with great interest, and a bit of dread, this essay by Chris Mooney, "The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science - and Reality," Saturday 25 February 2012. It was a preview of his forthcoming book of the same name.

I was favorably impressed with Mooney's 2005 book, The Republican War on Science New York: Basic Press. And will probably read this next one. But, if his premise is correct, that conservatives cannot learn, I'll be a bit depressed.

PS: the Kuhn paper is almost done, and I'll be back to blogging. Really!

More Speciation- but they are still just bacteria

The single-celled Bacteria and Archaea constitute the largest, and most successful forms of life on Earth. And, they have been for at least 3.5 billion years. For those inclined to read this sort of thing;

Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, Xavier Didelot, Nicole L. Held, Alfa Herrera1, Aaron Darling, Michael L. Reno, David J. Krause, Rachel J. Whitaker

Patterns of Gene Flow Define Species of Thermophilic Archaea
PLoS Biol 10(2): e1001265. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001265

The paper has relevance to origin of life studies, and speciation mechanisms.

PS: The paper rebutting creationist Joe the Surgeon is progressing. I'll submit it directly to the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings before posting more here at Stones and Bones.

Other critiques of Joe the Surgeon

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

Joe Kuhn, MD wrote an extended bit of creatocrap that I have been debunking- bit by bit. They are; Part 1, and Part 2. I still hope to have Part 3 (of five) ready today.
This is more like Part 2.1

The Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings had invited Charles Stewart Roberts, MD, to provide a pro-science commentary published in the same edition.

Since then, Baylor UMC Proceedings has also presented a pre-print rebuttal by Gregory G. Dimijian, MD. I find it rather significant that the Baylor folks have already linked this from their current issue's Table of Contents.

Two other critiques are on-line, one by Jerry Coyne, and one by "Afarensis."

I think there is much more to say.

One question that I really have no idea of how to answer is "Why?" Why would any editor allow this crap to run in their journal?

One possibility is that they wanted to expose Joe Kuhn.

Parallel Universe: bibliolatry v. reality

A few months ago I wrote a short item about Mail-oder Theology Degrees. My friend Richard Hope left a comment,

It's like there's a parallel universe in which it's the title that counts, regardless of its provenance. Pure Kent Hovindry. Hey--"Hovindry" as a term for it. That's more succinct than my previous term, inflationary credentialism.

As it happens, the notion that creationists live in an alternate (if not exactly 'parallel universe' since I think they are skewed) has some other promoters. Karl Giberson, and Randall Stephens wrote an OpEd for the New York Times last October 17th, which mentioned

"... many evangelicals created what amounts to a “parallel culture,” nurtured by church, Sunday school, summer camps and colleges, as well as publishing houses, broadcasting networks, music festivals and counseling groups. Among evangelical leaders, Ken Ham, David Barton and James C. Dobson have been particularly effective orchestrators — and beneficiaries — of this subculture. "The Evangelical Rejection of Reason," (The New York Times, October 17, 2011).

We have to award priority to Giberson, and Stephens, if only by one day.

It is no surprise that Giberson and Stephens are attacked in the fundy press, or that one attack comes from creationist historian, Discotute Richard Weikart "Should We Believe the Intellectuals?"

I hope to attend to that over the weekend, as well as Joseph Kuhn: Part 3.

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.”

Freaking Weird Stupid Shit

I posted a reply to a twit creationist a few weeks ago. It was entitled "A British creationist asked." I used a public domain photo of some guys from Papua New Guinea to reply to the question, "Why do we wear clothes?" What I particularly liked was that this family was waiting to greet the next batch of Christian missionaries to their village.

There has been a steady stream of perverts using Google images searching for "Naked little boys," "Naked family," "Naked Africans," "Naked men," and so on.

Yo' stupid!

Dey aint neked!

Oh goody: Bruce R. Booker's Degrees and Affiliations

So, a few days ago I received an email from Rabbi(?) Booker. It seems he had been trying to get in contact to let me know he was unhappy with my two paragraph review of his education, and that he had composed a stunning (29 page) refutation, "Bruce R. Booker's Degrees and Affiliations." Most of it is a cut-n-paste job, and I cannot help but wonder if this follows a pattern of Booker's early scholarship. I have no idea. If one of my students passed this in for credit, I would have flunked them.

Some weeks ago, I posted a short comment about Mail order theology degrees. The focus was on the educational qualifications of a creationist pastor, Graham Lovelady, of Ogden Utah. I wondered at what sort of education this genius must have received to be able to reject the work of thousands of dedicated scientists, and millions of pages of scientific results. I found that Lovelady had his "graduate degree" from a mail-order house called "Biblical Life College and Seminary." It turned out that the Biblical Life gang has their own in-house psychotherapy, which made it all the more interesting.

In my post, I reviewed the qualifications of some of the faculty members of Biblical Life College, based on their website vita. One of these was Bruce R. Booker.

Here is what the mail-order house has to say about "dr" Bruce R. Booker, Associate Professor of Hebraic Heritage Studies (retrieved Feb. 7, 2012):

B.B.S.—Biblical Life College & Seminary | M.A.—Columbia Pacific University | Ph.D.—Columbia Pacific University | Th.D. - Biblical Life College & Seminary.

Dr. Booker received s’micha (ordination) as a Messianic Rabbi through United Messianic Jewish Alliance. He currently serves as the Messianic Rabbi of Beth Yeshua Messianic Fellowship, Priest River, Idaho. Bruce has led several Messianic fellowships and congregations since 1989, including Beth Shalom Messianic Congregation, Sandpoint, Idaho, and Beth Shalom Messianic Congregation, formerly of Colton, CA - currently in Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

He is the author of several books including: THE LIE Exposing the Satanic Plot Behind Anti-Semitism, A Merciful Severity - A Study of Christian Anti-Semitism through the Centuries, God, Give me Patience NOW!, A Call to Holiness, and What If?

So, what do have here?

Four degrees from unaccredited mail-order schools, two of them supposedly "doctorates." As I wrote earlier;

Colombia Pacific University (CPU) was closed by court order in 2000, but the court did not review degrees awarded between 1978 and mid-1997. The first implementation of the 1989 Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act was in 1991. Columbia Pacific University was given a provisional "grandfather" status until its degree programs, and faculty qualifications were reviewed. When this was done in 1996, this so-called school was found to fail minimal standards for a degree-granting institution.

So, “Doctor” Booker has quite a distinguished academic pedigree, one degree from an unaccredited correspondence school, two more from another unaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease and desist by the State of California for unethical, and unprofessional practices (i.e. awarding fake degrees), then back to the first correspondence “college” for another ‘doctorate,’ and then joining the faculty of his unaccredited alma mater.

There really is nothing to add. Rabbi(?) Booker's 29 page screed adopted the view that my post was all about himself, and not "pastor" Lovelady, or so-called "teleios therapy." For some additional fun, you might look over Booker's C.V.

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.