This list is biased toward Americans and Englishmen. I'm sure there are many others who deserve to be in the top 25. There are other problems; for example, property values in the middle ages are probably inflated. Nevertheless, it's an interesting list of men (no women). They are ranked by their estimated net worth in 2012 inflation-adjusted American dollars. You can find out more details at: The 25 Richest People Who Ever Lived – Inflation Adjusted.
There don't appear to be any scientists (or philosophers) on the list. Three of my ancestors are on the list (#6, #15, and #16) but I didn't inherit a penny.
- Mansa Musa I of Mali (1280-1337): $400 billion
- The Rothschild family: $350 billion
- John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937): $340 billion
- Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919): $310 billion
- Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (1868-1918): $300 billion
- Mir Osman Ali Khan (1886-1967): $230 billion
- William The Conqueror (1028-1087): $229.5 billion
- Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011): $200 billion
- Henry Ford (1863-1947): $199 billion
- Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794-1877): $185 billion
- Alan Rufus (1040-1093): $178.65 billion
- Bill Gates (1955 - ): $136 billion
- William de Warenne ( -1088) $147.13 billion
- John Jacob Astor (176-1848): $121 billion
- Richard FitzAlan (1306-1376): $118.6 billion
- John of Gaunt (1340-1399): $110 billion
- Stephen Girard (1750-1831): $105 billion
- Alexander Turney ("A.T.") Stewart (1803-1876): $90 billion
- Henry of Grosmont (Duke of Lancaster) (1310-1361): $85.5 billion
- Friedrich Weyerhauser (1834-1914): $80 billion
- Jay Gould (1836-1892): $71 billion
- Carlos Slim Helu (1940- ): $68 billion
- Stephen Van Rensselaer (1764-1839): $68 billion
- Marshall Field (1834-1906): $66 billion
- Samuel ("Sam") Moore Walton (1918-1992): $65 billion
- Warren Buffett (1930 - ): $64 billion
One of my ancestors is Katherine de Roet (1349-1403) better known as Katherine Swynford since she married Hugh Swynford. Katherine was the mistress (later wife) of John of Gaunt (1340-1399) and they had several children. I descend from one of them, John Beaufort (1373-1410).1
Katherine's father was Paon de Roet better known as Sir Gilles. He comes from Hainault in Belgium and he served Philippa of Hainault who became the wife of King Edward III of England.
Katherine's sister, also called Philippa (1346-1387) [Philippa Roet] was a prominent member of Queen Philippa's court in England. At first, she was a child companion of the children of Elizabeth of Ulster and the Queen but later on she was a lady-in-waiting. Geoffrey Chaucer became a page in the household of Elizabeth of Ulster in 1357 when he was 14 and Phillipa was 11.
Queen Philippa encouraged them to marry in September 1366. Chaucer and Philippa Roet had two sons and two daughters. The youngest son, Lewis, was born in 1381 and attended Oxford beginning in 1391. Chaucer noticed that his son was interested in science and he wrote A Treatise on the Astrolabe to explain the workings of an astrolabe that he gave him when he was about 10 years old.
A Treatise on the Astrolabe
Geoffrey Chaucer
Lyte Lowys my sone, I aperceyve wel by certeyne evydences thyn abilite to lerne sciences touching nombres and proporciouns; and as wel considre I thy besy praier in special to lerne the tretys of the Astrelabie. Than for as moche as a philosofre saith, "he wrappith him in his frend, that condescendith to the rightfulle praiers of his frend," therfore have I yeven the a suffisant Astrolabie as for oure orizonte, compowned after the latitude of Oxenforde; upon which, by mediacioun of this litel tretys, I purpose to teche the a certein nombre of conclusions aperteynyng to the same instrument.
[Little Lewis my son, I perceive well by certain evidences thine ability to learn sciences touching numbers and proportions; and as well consider I thy constant prayer in special to learn the treatise of the Astrolabe. Than for as much as a philosopher saith, "He wrappth him in his friend, that condescendth to the rightful prayers of his friend", therefore have I given thee a suffisant Astrolabe as for our horizons, compounded after the latitude of Oxford; upon which, by means of this little treatise, I purpose to teach thee a certain number of conclusions pertaining to the same instrument.
[Image credits: Wikipedia: Geoffrey Chaucer, Wikipedia: Chaucer Astrolobe]
1. Almost everyone who has European ancestors will eventually connect to European nobility so there are millions of people who descend from John of Gaunt [see Are You a Descendant of Charlemagne?]. If you know the names of all sixteen of your great-great-grandparents and their dates and places of birth, then chances are high that you can make the connection with only a little effort.
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. One of my Ph.D. students (Sharon Shtang) wrote her thesis on sequence comparisons and phylogenetic trees. She found a quotation from Emil Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling in their 1965 review. They were commenting on using amino acid sequences to prove evolution. This seemed at the time to be an example of overkill since evolution was then, and is now, a fact. They said ...
Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, where here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.
I was reminded of this while reading Salvador Corova's latest post on Uncommon Descent because he refers to beating dead horses [If not Rupe and Sanford’s presentation (8/6/13), would you believe Wiki? In this case, yes]. I'm not going to make any comments. Read it and weep for the IDiots.
Theme
MutationEvolutionists reluctantly admit most evolution is free of selection and therefore non-Darwinian (neutral evolution). When pressed, they’ll say neutral drift is real, but they don’t like it when the dots are connected in a way that demonstrates neutral evolution refutes Darwinism, that there is a contradiction between Dawkins’ vision and neutral evolution! The way Darwinists deal with this violation of the law of non-contradiction is to pretend no contradiction exists. They’ll obfuscate and fog the issue with myriad technical terms and irrelevancies so that the illusion of non-contradiction is protected from public view. Confusion and the illusion of some higher knowledge are their friends, clarity and education of the public are their enemies.
If Dawkins had been faithful to the facts, he wouldn’t have even written The Blind Watchmaker because population genetics precludes his vision of evolution from being reality in anything but his silly Weasel simulations.
There is a simple formula from Wiki that says the rate of new mutations is the rate at which new mutations become features of every member of the population (a process called fixation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
The population size is N and the Greek symbol μ (mu) is the mutation rate.
It stands to reason a slightly deleterious mutation is almost neutral, hence, approximately speaking the rate that slightly deleterious mutations become part of every member of the population is on the same order of the slightly deleterious mutation rate. That means if every human is getting 100 dysfunctional mutation per generation, about 100 dysfunctional mutations are getting irreversibly infused into humans every generation (a ratchet so to speak).
But as bad as that is, it’s actually worse in reality. Remember broken bacterial parts in anti-biotic resistance, or blindness in cave fish, or sickle cell anemia? Those are “beneficial” (in the Darwinian sense) mutations, but destructive in the functional sense. So it is actually generous the creationists are modeling the dysfunctional mutations as slightly deleterious (whereas a fair argument might actually model some of the dysfunctional mutations as “beneficial”). So the creationists are cutting Darwinists a lot of slack, and yet, even then the dysfunctional mutations will get fixed (become members of all individuals) in a population! Not to mention, lots of bad may get purged from a population only to get replaced with new generations of bad....
But obvious math is something Darwinism hates dealing with! The above equation should be painful evidence against evolution being some process of increasing complexity from a primordial virus to incredible minds like Newton or Einstein. Darwinist won’t come to terms with it, they won’t come to terms with even a computer simulation based on population genetic models. Oh well! But anyway, Christopher Rupe and John Sanford will be presenting the results of a computer simulation that illustrates the above equation. It’s sort of like beating a dead horse or beating living puppies. It’s not very sporting, but Darwinists keep propping up that dead horse for creationists to keep beating.
Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L. (1965) in EVOLVING GENES AND PROTEINS, V. Bryson and H.J. Vogel eds. Academic Press, New York NY USA
Trinity Western University is located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada. It wants to have a Law School so it has applied for accreditation from the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Many people are opposed, including The Globe and Mail: Trinity Western should emulate its U.S. equivalents.
The Federation of Law Societies of Canada should not accredit a new law school at Trinity Western University. Doing otherwise would be to endorse the university’s discrimination against gays and lesbians. The FLSC should also use this occasion to follow the lead of its American counterpart and adopt anti-discrimination standards for all law schools seeking accreditation.
What's the problem? The problem is that Trinity Western University is a Christian college that requires that all students and staff adhere to certain "Christian" principles. Here's what they say in their Community Covenant.
This covenant applies to all members of the TWU community, that is, administrators, faculty and staff employed by TWU and its affiliates, and students enrolled at TWU or any affiliate program. Unless specifically stated otherwise, expectations of this covenant apply to both on and off TWU’s campus and extension sites. Sincerely embracing every part of this covenant is a requirement for employment. Employees who sign this covenant also commit themselves to abide by TWU Employment Policies. TWU welcomes all students who qualify for admission, recognizing that not all affirm the theological views that are vital to the University’s Christian identity. Students sign this covenant with the commitment to abide by the expectations contained within the Community Covenant, and by campus policies published in the Academic Calendar and Student Handbook.
...
People face significant challenges in practicing biblical sexual health within a highly sexualized culture. A biblical view of sexuality holds that a person’s decisions regarding his or her body are physically, spiritually and emotionally inseparable. Such decisions affect a person’s ability to live out God’s intention for wholeness in relationship to God, to one’s (future) spouse, to others in the community, and to oneself. Further, according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond it is God’s intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation. Honouring and upholding these principles, members of the TWU community strive for purity of thought and relationship, respectful modesty, personal responsibility for actions taken, and avoidance of contexts where temptation to compromise would be particularly strong.
In other words, gays and lesbians are not going to be welcome at the Law School.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. As Veronica Abbas points out "FLSC doesn’t need to need to emulate or follow the precedents of any other countries1 law schools, it should insist that Trinity Western University follow the Canadian Human Rights Act and BC Human Rights Code as a prerequisite for accreditation" [No Gays Need Apply].
1. If I were interested in correcting her spelling and grammar, I might suggest "country's"—but I would never do that, it would get me in big trouble! 
The Chair of my department1 asked me to post this job advertisement in case any biochemists might be interested. It's a challenging position in Dallas, Texas. You'll have plenty of opportunity to investigate some of the weirdest subjects in all of biology. All you really need is an inquisitive mind—with a few minor restrictions [Wanted: Young Creation Scientists].
ICR, together with the rest of the creation science movement, has made great strides in the last 40 years. In many areas, the superiority of the creation worldview has been clearly demonstrated. Even now, ICR is making exciting discoveries in the fields of biology and geology, and we have started new research initiatives in the field of astronomy. However, there is much work that still needs to be done, and this work is hindered by a lack of trained scientists.
Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person with an interest in science—have you considered cultivating that science interest for the glory of God?
Many young people choose careers for all the wrong reasons (e.g., maybe a college major is “easy” or they can earn a lot of money). Yet some choices in this area can have negative consequences later in life.What good is it to earn a large salary if your job is unfulfilling? Is it worth it to major in an easy field if you ultimately get a job that you dislike? Little wonder that so many adults are eager to retire from the workforce—they hate their jobs!
How much better to choose a career path that will bring ultimate fulfillment, a decision inspired by a God-given desire to work in a field that will bring glory to the Creator. Young Christian, if God has given you a desire to serve Him in a particular area, then consider His promptings. Maybe He is leading you to serve Him in the field of science. It may involve short-term sacrifice, but God’s best often requires hard work.
If you have an interest in science, then pursue it. An aptitude and a genuine love for science is a rare gift—maybe you can be the one to make a startling discovery or a life-changing advancement in the field. Maybe history will be different because of you. Perhaps you can be the one to finally break the evolutionary monopoly on our institutions of higher learning.
Of course, not everyone has an interest in science. God has given us all different gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and called us to different areas of service. But Christian young people might consider the challenge to seek God’s wisdom about their future, to consider His direction when they are making their career choices.
For those who do have an interest in science, we wish to offer a few words of advice. Work hard to get the best possible grades and push yourself to truly understand the material. When choosing a school, choose one with a rigorous academic program and a research program that truly interests you. Although you should not be dishonest about what you believe, it’s probably prudent to not draw attention to your creationist beliefs while you are a student, particularly if you are in a field that directly touches upon the origins controversy (such as paleontology, biology, or geology).
Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences. Academically gifted young Christians should therefore “redeem the time” (Ephesians 5:16) before that door of opportunity closes.
They don't say how many letters of reference they need. They also don't mention salary. Something in the range of $100,000 - $120,000 would be typical for real scientists at a good school in Texas. ICR probably has to pay more in order to get the very best candidates.
Start-up funds are negotiable but you should probably ask for one million dollars to set up a decent lab. That's about the minimum you're going to need since your chances of getting NIH or NSF funding are pretty slim.
1. He has a great sense of humor. I'm not sure if he wants to be identified by name on this blog but you can find him on our website under Justin Nodwell, Chair.
Melissa Wilson Sayres blogs at mathbionerd and Panda's Thumb. A recent post on Panda's Thumb address a tweet from Daniel Wegmann where he said "Every non-lethal genome position is variable in the human population."
She asks "Is this true?" and proceeds to show that it is [How many mutations?]. She assumes that the human mutation rate is 1.2 × 10-8 per sit per generation. Multiply this by 7.16 billion people on the planet and you get an average of 86 mutations at every single base pair in the human genome.1
Many of these mutations will be deleterious and they will be quickly eliminated from the population if they are lethal or cause severe problems. Some moderately and slightly deleterious mutations will be present in the population because they haven't yet been eliminated by negative selection. (Some will have no effect if they are present in only one copy of your diploid genome.)
To a first approximation, the statement is pretty accurate. If it's true that most of our genome is junk then the nucleotide sequence is not important.2 As we sequence more and more genomes we should see heterogeneity at 90% of the base pairs in the genome. We haven't reached this sort of coverage but all available evidence is consistent with the idea that most positions can be variable.
1 I prefer a larger mutation rate of 100 new mutations per generation for a total of 112 mutations at every site.
2. This doesn't rule out functions that are not sequence-specific. Such functions are known to exist but there are no reasonable hypotheses that justify such functions for most of the genome.
Well, maybe not really serious. His latest post on Evolution News & Views (sic) is about something called "Darwinian censorship" ["Shut Up," They Said: On the Medved Show, John West Discusses Darwinian Culture of Censorship].
At the end, he asks ...
When did you last hear of a Darwinist willing to seriously entertain -- not merely condemn and shout down -- counterarguments. The most frequently employed argument in the Darwinian arsenal at the moment is "Shut up."
It seems to me that real scientists and philosophers have spent a considerable amount of time addressing the claims of Intelligent Design Creationism. I could even argue that they have spent too much time given that IDiots rarely pay attention.
In my own area of expertise, I've addressed many of the claims made in Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Icons of Evolution, The Myth of Junk DNA, Science & Human Origins, and Signature in the Cell. I've also discussed dozens of blog posts over the years.
And I'm not alone. There are hundreds of articles and posts by dozens of scientists and philosophers. David Klinghoffer's question is ridiculous. Perhaps he's confused because he demands "seriously entertain" and he's disappointed when we seriously entertain their arguments and conclude that they are silly. Perhaps he will only accept that we have "seriously entertained" their arguments when we agree with them? That wouldn't surprise me, it's perfectly consistent with creationist logic.
Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.
Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of them—because there are some really, really, stupid IDiots—but certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?
The facts say otherwise. Off hand, I can't think of a single IDiot who has an adequate understanding of the science they attack. Believe me, I've tried harder than most to find an intelligent believer.
I remember meeting Andrew Brown in a London pub seven years ago. He didn't like the New Atheists then and he still doesn't like them. I remember struggling to understand his accommodationist position back in 2006 and failing completely. At the time I attributed it to the beverages we were consuming but later on as I read his articles—when we were both sober—I realized that his position made no sense.
Andrew Brown sat down with Dan Dennett to discuss "Do the New Atheists have any new ideas?.
Andrew Brown challenges philosopher and atheist Daniel Dennett to convince him that the New Atheists have new ideas – and that they have really changed the face of belief in America. Dennett, one of the original 'four horsemen' of new atheism (along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), has argued that belief in God is not merely mistaken, but dangerous.
Watch the short video and judge for yourself whether Andrew Brown is making sense.
[Hat Tip: Jerry Coyne]
I don't mean to pick on PZ Myers—he's just one of many seemingly intelligent people who think that the American system of government is far superior to the governments of countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Australia, Jordan, Spain, Sweden, Malaysia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark.
Here's what he posted today [My deepest regrets to the people of the United Kingdom ] ...
Apparently, your antiquated monarchy is going to continue, and the birth of a child of extraordinary privilege warrants far more attention than the birth of thousands who will live in poverty. I hope you get over it soon, and I hope it doesn’t infect my country; despite fighting a revolution to get out from under a king, there are a lot of conservatives with a bizarre sentimental attachment to the idea of a hereditary aristocracy.
There's a certain irony in this statement since Americans are fond of celebrating babies born into extraordinary privilege, especially if they are movie stars. Furthermore, the percentage of children born into poverty in the USA exceeds that of many of the European monarchies. I'm reminded of pots and kettles.
But, more importantly, the condescending attitude of superiority is totally unjustified. The UK is a democracy with a parliamentary system of government and a ceremonial Head of State who happens to be a monarch. It's a system of government that is vastly superior to the American system, in my opinion. The people of the United Kingdom (and all other democratic monarchies) are perfectly capable of abolishing the monarchy if they choose. The fact that they haven't must mean that they like it that way.1 Why can't Americans respect that? They certainly demand that the rest of the world respect their choices!
Why do Americans have so much trouble seeing the world as non-Americans see it?
1. Of course there are many citizens of monarchies who wish to abolish the monarchy. You can be sure that quite a few of them will show up in the comments below.
Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Ironly.
Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
Another common tactic of creationists is credential mongering. They love to flaunt their Ph.D.'s on their book covers, giving the uninitiated the impression that they are all-purpose experts in every topic. As anyone who has earned a Ph.D. knows, the opposite is true: the doctoral degree forces you to focus on one narrow research problem for a long time, so you tend to lose your breadth of training in other sciences. Nevertheless, they flaunt their doctorates in hydrology or biochemistry, then talk about paleontology or geochronology, subjects they have zero qualification to discuss. Their Ph.D. is only relevant in the field where they have specialized training. It's comparable to asking a Ph.D. to fix your car or write a symphony--they may be smart, but they don't have the appropriate specialized training to do a competent job based on their Ph.D. alone.
Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
Here's a post for all my friends and acquaintances who think they have to load up on vitamin supplements ever day. You don't need them (unless you are ill or pregnant).
If you think you do, then chances are you've fallen victim to one of the biggest scams of modern times. It's not much different than the pitches made by snake oil salesmen over one hundred years ago. There are people making big money by convincing gullible citizens that they have vitamin deficiencies. Some of those people are doctors and many of the enablers are family physicians who don't know the scientific evidence behind vitamin supplements.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
David Hannum
(frequently attributed to P.T. Barnum)The Atlantic has published a nice summary of the current evidence: The Vitamin Myth: Why We Think We Need Supplements. Most of the article is about Linus Pauling and why he was spectacularly wrong about vitamin supplements. Here's the bottom line ...
On October 10, 2011, researchers from the University of Minnesota found that women who took supplemental multivitamins died at rates higher than those who didn't. Two days later, researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that men who took vitamin E had an increased risk of prostate cancer. "It's been a tough week for vitamins," said Carrie Gann of ABC News.
These findings weren't new. Seven previous studies had already shown that vitamins increased the risk of cancer and heart disease and shortened lives. Still, in 2012, more than half of all Americans took some form of vitamin supplements.
I'm not convinced that moderate amounts of vitamin supplements will actually cause you much harm—the jury's still out on that IMHO. However, it's now abundantly clear that, for the average healthy person, spending money on vitamin supplements is no different that flushing that money down the toilet, which, coincidentally, is where most of the vitamins you take will eventually end up.
See also: What Kind of People Take Vitamins?.
Ms. Sandwalk and I are going to be in St. Petersburg (Russia) in a few weeks. We plan on spending four hours in the building on the right (and adjacent buildings) although I'm told that's not nearly enough time.
I'm trying to remember my Russian. I last studied it in high school 50 years ago. We've been watching videos of the main tourist spots in St. Petersburg and I can usually figure out what the signs are saying. For example, it was pretty easy to recognize the sign below. In fact, most of you could probably figure it out even if you haven't taken Russian.
Here's the problem. The language in most Western European cities is quite casual compared to the way it was in the past. A typical greeting might be similar to "hi" instead of "How are you?" The comparable words in Russian are Привет and Здравствуйте. Which one is more appropriate in Russia today? And which pronunciation of Здравствуйте should I use?
Similarly, I was taught to say Как вы поживаете (How are you?) but that's a very formal phrase. I get the impression that it's now thought to be archaic and you can easily skip the pronoun by saying Как поживаете. Can you get away with addressing a stranger using the informal first person version of "you," e.g. Как поживаешь?
Last week's molecule was the "go" conformation of the leader sequence in the E. coli trp operon. The winners were Rosie Redfield and Quyen Huynh. [Monday's Molecule #209].
Today's molecule isn't very complicated but it has a big effect. You need to be very specific in identifying the exact molecule shown in the figure. I won't accept answers that are ambiguous.
Email your answers to me at: Monday's Molecule #210. I'll hold off posting your answers for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your email message.)
The IDiots are getting all excited about Nick Matzke because he dared to criticize Darwin's Doubt, a book about evolution written by a philosopher.
The latest post is by Salvador Cordova (scordova) on Uncommon Descent [Two-faced Nick Matzke].
I don't think I can do full justice to the stupidity in this post, you have to read it yourself. Here's the gist ...
Matzke said, quite correctly, that phylogenetic methods can only detect sister groups, not ancestors. This is pretty obvious in the case of sequences because, in most cases, we don't have access to DNA or proteins from extinct ancestors.
Salvador Cordova thinks he was the first one to realize this ...
Not much difference between what Matzke said and I said! I’ve been telling him that since 2006, and now he finally acknowledges it publicly.
Now that's good for a laugh at the expense of IDiots but it gets even funnier. The IDiots think that the absence of living ancestors proves that god(s) created modern species.
I’ve said that it was creationists (like Linnaeus) before Darwin’s time who lumped humans along with the primates, and the primates along with the mammals, etc. The creationists perceived the “sister groups” with no physical ancestor (which suggests the “parent” was an idea in the mind of God, not a physical common ancestor).
The reason Darwinists have all these phylogenetic conflicts is that the ancestors which would resolve all the conflicts are the very ones they will not admit a priori because those ancestors are conceptual, not physical, and conceptual ancestors are anathema to Darwinsits because conceptual ancestors imply ID.
Like I said, you have to read the whole thing ... if you can stomach it.
I wonder why we call them IDiots?
