Tuesday, March 26, 2013

I'm a New Friend of Ann Gauger

A few days ago I posted a message about the IDiots' list, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, of people who disagree with Darwinism. I specifically mentioned Joshua Youngkin who said that, " 'A Scientific Dissent from Darwin,' is a thorn in the side of those who say there's no scientific debate over whether evolution works in a completely naturalistic fashion." [Our "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" List: A Reader Inquires] Let's be clear about what he said, he said that the list reveals scientific debate over whether "evolution works in a completely naturalistic fashion." In other words, people who sign the list must be non-naturalists. That's another word for creationist.

Here's the statement ...
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.
Note that the statement says noting about whether evolution works in a completely naturalistic fashion. The IDiots know full well that most scientists would agree with the statement taken at face value but we all know that the IDiots will misuse the statement just as Joshua Youngkin did on the Evolution News & Views blog. You can find further proof of the treachery of the IDiots at the list website where the following quote from someone named Raul Leguizamon is prominently featured on the home page.
I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say.
The implication is clear.

Ann Gauger is thrilled to discover that I'm not a Darwinist [Our New Friend, Laurence A. Moran]. I guess she's under the impression that if you're not a Darwinist then you must be an IDiot like her.

Here's how her mind works ...
  1. People on the Dissent from Darwinism list are supporters of the statement.
  2. Larry also agrees with the dissent statement.
  3. Larry says only IDiots claim that supporters of this statement are creationists.
  4. Larry says that Project Steve is a excellent parody of the "creationist" list, thus in effect calling supporters of the statement creationists.
Wait. Following the logic there, that would seem to make Dr. Moran an IDiot, in his own eyes anyway. Not that, in pointing this out, I mean it unkindly.


  1. I know your not a creationist.
    Classification shouldn't be a issue in these matters.
    The list is simply people who say selection on mutation did not and could not explain the diversity and glory of biology.
    They need not be biblical creationists at all.
    indeed they may agree with descent concepts using in a limited way evolutionary concepts.
    It seems to always come back to the issue of a Christian god or any creator.
    Those opposed to the creator need mechanism to explain nature because of its complexity.
    Yet Toe seems to not be persuasive to many people even if Genesis is also not.
    more options are needed.
    This YEC says Genesis is right but other options are there.
    It simply is EXPLAIN human diversity in our bodies and one has explained much of what biology did do without a creator.
    It stares everyone in the face.

  2. I see your point, Larry. If one goes by a very strict interpretation of the list, as Ann Gauger says we should understand it, then you could feel comfortable about signing it. The problem is that then someone else, such as Joshua Youngkin, will interpret the list as an attack on a naturalistic view of evolution. We IDiots aren't playing fair here.

  3. Who is this IDiot Raul Leguizamon? I find it hard to believe he is any kind of biologist.

  4. "Dr. Raul Leguizamon is a Pathologist, and also a Professor of Medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico"


    Dr. Raúl Leguizamón, director del Instituto
    Creacionista de la Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara (Méjico)


  5. It's not so much the way Ms. Gauger's mind works as it is the convoluted language Larry used in his original post. As I recall, someone or other wrote pretty much the same thing in the comments section of that post.

    1. Right, Andy. It's all Larry's fault. God knows, the IDiots would never , never ever stoop to misrepresenting a scientist's statement. That would make Baby Jesus cry.

    2. no, seriously, lutesite. Check it out. The post is written like one of those 'logic' questions that appear on standardized tests. You know:
      1.) Dave never works on Tuesdays
      2.) The company cafeteria is closed on Wednesdays and Saturdays
      3.) Michelle and Dave never work on the same days
      etc. etc., so, how many days a week do Michelle and Tom have to bring their lunches?

      Except with Larry's, it goes:
      1.) Here is Statement A
      2.) Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists.
      3.) As far as anyone can tell, no 'IDiots' ARE claiming that supporters of the statement are also creationists.
      4.) Many 'IDiots' reject the label of 'creationist'
      5.) Project Steve is an excellent parody of the creationist list.

      Well, sure, that's clear as mud.

    3. I understood Larry's argument differently, and it makes sense to me. But that's beside the point.

      Is it a logical conclusion of Larry's argument that Larry is a supporter of Intelligent Design? No, it is not. Yet Gauger and Klinghoeffer say it is.

      Why do they say this? Was Larry's post written too vaguely for them to understand? Or are they just too stupid to understand it? Or are they lying? Who knows? As is so often the case with the Creationist IDiots, there is a large grey area where it is impossible to determine the point at which their incompetence gives way to their mendacity.

      The point is that they are wrong, and any discussion of the reasons that they are wrong is merely moot.

    4. Well, in the case of Ms. Gauger, I think she is just being sarcastic. With anyone else, I can't say. Maybe 'they' ARE 'too stupid' or deliberately conflating non-NS-naturalistic evolutionary theories with ID in order to besmirch the Darwin 'brand'. I don't know. But in this case I think she was just enjoying the roundabout way that Larry seemed to write himself into a 'corner'. Okay, he didn't, and I get that, but if he is going to go around calling people idiots I think they might be excused for having a little fun with his often - er - creative use of language.

    5. Whereas, as I see it, if they are going to make a claim they should behave as responsible scientists and make sure the claim is actually supported by the evidence they are using. It's not as if this would be the first they could be accused of failing to do so.

      If I felt I was being unfairly called an IDiot, I would take extra care to make sure I did not behave in a manner that justified the appellation. But that's just me....

    6. Both Klinghoffer and Gauger have been told innumerable times, over several years, that there is a lot of difference between Darwin's original theory and modern evolutionary theory, and that "dissent" from past authorities in normal in science. They either still don't get it (which makes them dumb) or they do but they prefer to confuse the public by sticking to their demagoguery (which makes them dishonest). Note also that potential "supporters of the statement" are by no means the same class of people as "signatories of the list". Says Klinghoffer: "The list has nothing to do with creationism. Nor does it say anything about intelligent design, which also has nothing to do with creationism." No, no, absolutely nothing. It's just sincere "scientific dissent" expressed mostly by people with little or no biological expertise (meteorologists, physicists, chemists, civil engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, etc.), who suddenly feel an urge to disagree "scientifically" with something they don't even understand. And of course it's purely a matter of accident that the vast majority of the signatories are leading creationists or cdesign proponentsists.

    7. Klinghoffer: "Klinghoffer: "The list has nothing to do with creationism. Nor does it say anything about intelligent design, which also has nothing to do with creationism."

      Right, and their star, the guy whose opinion they cite prominently is Raul Leguizamon, not a scientist, a medical doctor and director del Instituto Creacionista de la Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara (Méjico).

      How dare Larry call it a creationist list!

      It's not a creationist list. It's a Creacionista list.

    8. There's something very fishy about Leguizamón. I couldn't find a list of faculty on the UAG website, but I have found this:


      Actualmente, y desde el año 2003, se desempeña como profesor-investigador en el Centro de Estudios Humanísticos y en el Departamento de Filosofía y Ciencia de la Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara.

      It looks as if he were a self-styled Director of a fake Instituto Creacionista. He doesn't seem to be a Professor of Medicine either. Oh dear, is it possible that he simply lies about everything he does and has done?

      Of his numerosos artículos en diversas publicaciones two book(let)s (and no articles) can be found via Publish or Perish:

      Y el Mono se Convirtió en Hombre. La Crítica del Evolucionismo Católico (2001) [ca. 90 pages]

      Breve Análisis Crítico de la Teoría de la Evolución Biológica (2003) [ca. 50 pages]

      The number of citations = 0

      Darwin, beware!

    9. Aaaand into English...

      Currently, and since 2003, he serves as a professor and researcher at the Center for Humanistic Studies and the Department of Philosophy and Science of the Autonomous University of Guadalajara.

      What the hell kind of "scientist" is that?

      Creationist yes. Scientist no.

      This is the guy that the IDiots cite prominently as an EXEMPLARY member of their list! I'd hate to see what the obscure ones have been up to...

    10. 3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?

      Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine.

      You see, Diogenes, he was so eager to sign the list that he just HAD to lie about his position at Guadalajara to make himself eligible. It was a noble lie in a noble cause, a true creationist lie! Perhaps it was unnecessary: there are a number of signatories who either have no PhD/MD or otherwise fail to meet the criteria but whose signatures have been accepted with gratitude. Beggars can't be choosers.

  6. Robert Byers said:
    "The list is simply people who say selection on mutation did not and could not explain the diversity and glory of biology."

    You all can say that is often as you like; it isn't what science says either! I believe creationists, sharing an intense dislike of science don't bother to update themselves on evolutionary research.

    Whereas religions explain nothing with respect to science.

    Robert, should I prepare a list of books for you to read? Although I am having doubts about your reading comprehension ability.

    1. Your saying evolutionary biology is not about selection on mutation plus time?
      Maybe they include details about sexual selection or other minor ideas of genetics but surely this is most of it.
      This forum is about the SANDWALK of Darwin.
      Darwinism is celebrated for getting the big truth about origins.
      Its like a shyness is happening amongst evolutionists about the idea of mutations having created the world.!

    2. Robert, I am sorry but evolutionary biology is about so much more that just RM&NS + time, but you wouldn't know that. How could you? Have your read anything about what has been going on in evolutionary research the last twenty, ten, or five years?

      No Robert, RM&NS + time isn't all there is but I'll leave you to find out for yourself. A term like Evo-Devo might help a little, but in my opinion, that's only the beginning.

      Nobody without a honest desire to learn, and to keep updated on the exciting 21st century research can be expected to really understand the theory of evolution.

      Being a firm believer in a literal interpretation of Bible and creation 6 thousand years ago, you don't stand a chance.

      Would any evidence short of Mr. God descending on the Planet, pounding his chest declaring: Here I am, I DIDN'T DO IT convince you?

    3. I'm not an expert of the Bible, but I know one thing; the Hebrew word used in the Bible as "day" can mean many things including 24 hour day or long periods of time as long as thousands of years. Also, I think that the creation of the Heavens and Earth had taken place before the 6 creative days have began, which could have lasted thousands, tens of thousands or more. The difference can be distinguished by the Hebrew word "bara"-which means create something new and "asah"-which means "make". The word "bara" was used in Genesis 1:1 and "asah" later in the book in regards to the transformation of the heavenly bodies like light etc.

  7. Sometimes people say that Dr. Moran is rude and unkind for calling ID-proponents IDiots, but this row over the list really shows that these IDers are, in fact, rude and horrible and Dr. Moran is quite justified.

  8. Ann Gauger likes research too

    "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking
    Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness
    Ann K. Gauger1, Stephanie Ebnet2, Pamela F. Fahey1, and Ralph Seelke2*
    1Biologic Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
    2Department of Biology and Earth Science, University of Wisconsin, Superior, Wisconsin, USA


    New functions requiring multiple mutations are thought to be evolutionarily feasible if they can be achieved by means
    of adaptive paths—successions of simple adaptations each involving a single mutation. The presence or absence
    of these adaptive paths to new function therefore constrains what can evolve. But since emerging functions may
    require costly over-expression to improve fitness, it is also possible for reductive (i.e., cost-cutting) mutations that
    eliminate over-expression to be adaptive. Consequently, the relative abundance of these kinds of adaptive paths—
    constructive paths leading to new function versus reductive paths that increase metabolic efficiency—is an important
    evolutionary constraint. To study the impact of this constraint, we observed the paths actually taken during longterm
    laboratory evolution of an Escherichia coli strain carrying a doubly mutated trpA gene. The presence of these
    two mutations prevents tryptophan biosynthesis. One of the mutations is partially inactivating, while the other is
    fully inactivating, thus permitting a two-step adaptive path to full tryptophan biosynthesis. Despite the theoretical
    existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid
    culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant
    trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease
    the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken. This finding has particular significance for models of
    gene recruitment, since weak new functions are likely to require costly over-expression in order to improve fitness.
    If reductive, cost-cutting mutations are more abundant than mutations that convert or improve function, recruitment
    may be unlikely even in cases where a short adaptive path to a new function exists."