I'll continue with Kent Hovind's infamous dissertation, but first...

I can't believe how busy I've become that I've forgotten all about blogging! Luckily, quarter's almost over and I'm getting okay grades, plus I have The Best Roommate Ever -- a mad science-type like me! -- to whom I am also teaching Spanish!

Next post will be the next part of my Kent Hovind analysis, but first, a few words from the YEC who started this mad studying of mine, as well as my response.

Technically I started this incident, on a Facebook message, thusly:

...One other thing, though, seeing as this just happened as I got online. Just one video in on YouTube and I slipped upon and cracked my head open over this one:



I'm rubbing my scalp right now. Hurts like hell, and I wanted to share the pain.

Reason is, it's this guy who is asking Richard Dawkins a question that makes absolutely no sense at all, hence my cranium is still throbbing.

I started to think to myself, though, "[AR] would know what the big deal here is, wouldn't he? I should show him this."

I just wanted you to hear this question and tell me, in two or three sentences, why I would have a facepalm print.

Why I would ask you to do this, I don't know. Maybe because it's the first video I've seen with the word 'creationist' in the title for a long time, and because I was just thinking of you beforehand.

In any case, I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, I really think this is a good question to ask since I know you can do this.


He wrote me back, and I responded, although I needed to post so many additional clarifications and such afterward ("...also, I forgot to mention...") that not long after, I re-edited the entire thing, incorporating all my corrections into the original text.

In doing so, I also copied and pasted his message into my message, and responded to each of his points so that we start with a part of his response, then follow with my answer to it. This is literally my message to him, not modified in any way other than my own text is green:

"Okay, okay, we get that evolutionary theory teaches continual improvement - the idea being, that these complex organs and systems developed in less-evolved creatures, which led to the creatures themselves becoming more and more complex, etc. It's not that we think Darwinists believed the first humans or humanoids were blind - that WOULD be silly, and a blatant misinterpretation of the theory."

Indeed! Although what do you mean by 'we'? So many creationism proponents also say things that you wouldn't agree with, and many of them are disparaging towards Intelligent Design for various reasons, so it's not as though 'creationists' are a coherent group.

"So I believe the guy who wrote all the little captions for this video didn't quite understand what this cat was really asking here."

Actually, I often have heard some creationists literally say things like, "Evolutionists are so stupid because they think their ancestors were stumbling around without eyes and had to wait millions of years for eyes to evolve. Imagine! People unable to find food or make shelter, and they would have fallen off cliffs! Obviously, since that's impossible, then evolution is impossible, and that's why anyone who believes it is an idiot!"
` I'm not joking -- this is a very prominent view, which is why I would think the interviewer had the same idea.

"What he's asking, in essence, is how creatures were supposed to function WHILE these systems were coming into being in the first place - which, okay, Darwinists have a perfectly feasible explanation for, from their point of view."

Well, what do you think their point of view IS? I'm interested to know.

"The idea of irreducibility, simply put, is that these systems are too complex to function with any one part of them missing or incomplete - that these systems must be whole and in proper order to function and sustain the life they are part of."

I know the concept; the problem is is that exactly none of the systems ever proposed are actually irreducibly complex; simpler versions exist, which instead of being non-functional have a different function. Also, their various components also have other functions in other structures -- the same parts are used over and over for different things.

It's only a matter of combining components that already exist which can make more complex structures, which are far from irreducible. Which example would you like me to give you?

"An eye may be a bundle of nerves, but it is a very specifically oriented one, unlike any other in the body."

Do you think biologists aren't aware of this?

"Moreover, creationists observe patterns - we see that the eye is not really a unique system, and that, though other creatures possess variations on this theme, the eyes of most creatures are quite similar, both in their function and complexity."

That's not true: When you look all over the animal kingdom, you see eyes of various 'stages' of complexity.

That's because some animals have very simple eyes because they don't need, or are not able to use, more complex ones.

For example, the snail-like limpet only needs simple eyes for detecting the shadow of a predator. While it is feeding underwater, it pokes its eyes out from under its shell and turns them upward. When a shadow appears overhead, the limpet clamps down and cannot be pried up. Just seeing the shadow is the difference between life and death, so even crummy vision is a life-saving trait.

The nautilus is a more complex mollusc, also with a spiral shell, although it's more complex than a snail and has a modified foot that we call tentacles. It also has a hollow eye with no lens and seawater actually flows in and out of it. It can make out blurry images at best, and often clunks into things because its eyes don't point forwards as it swims, but this is certainly better than no vision at all.

This also applies to you -- when you take off your glasses, you may not be able to see everything clearly, but surely this is not the same as being blind! This is why only having 'half an eye' is very valuable.

Interestingly, the box jellyfish has many eyes, some simple and others are complex, with a retina, lens, etc. Yet, its complex eyes are out-of-focus because it does not have a brain that can process complex information:

It is a predator of small fish, but if it could see clearly, it would confuse the motion of bits of debris with small animals, so it would be completely confused and perhaps suffer a sensory overload. So, even with complex eyes, clear vision is not always the most beneficial!

Here, this 3-minute video will visually show you what these eyes LOOK LIKE, on the inside, and how they can improve in a fairly straightforward manner to become more effective. It is this that biologists actually see is going on with the evolution of eyes (or any other system you can think of, including immune systems, which are at least as variable as eyes).



So, now you've seen with your OWN eyes -- they are not irreducibly complex!

Some animals, as you've seen, only have an eye that tells them of the presence of light, and the cells of their 'eyes', if you can call them that, are scarcely different from other types of nerve cells, and among other things, allows them to figure out which way is up or down.

If a nerve cell reacts to light, rather than another stimulus, then it can be an enormous advantage. Even the simplest organisms can learn to associate one stimulus with another, such as good food and light.

If the first microorganism with a light-sensitive cell could associate, say, feeding on photosynthesizing organisms floating on the surface of the water with this new stimulus, it wouldn't get lost if it should drift farther underwater where it's darker because it could see light coming from where it needs to go.

So, how do biologists think that OUR complex eyes evolved in the first place?

I'm not an expert, so I can't describe this in great detail, but the gist of it is that since we're vertebrates, our first vertebrate ancestors had rudimentary, very simple 'half'-eyes (which are seen in simple vertebrates and vertebrate relatives).

Our first vertebrate ancestors to have something more like an eyeball were jawless animals that might be called 'fish', for lack of a better term. In modern vertebrate embryos, this is the kind of eye that develops first before going on to develop into the type of eye characteristic of their species.

An octopus, whose eyes are as complex as ours, is on a different branch of life's family tree, one that begins with molluscs that have simple eyes, so it could not have evolved its complex eyes from vertebrates. If you look at an octopus' eye, as it is developing, you can see that it forms in an entirely different way from that of a vertebrate's:

Vertebrate eyes develop from our brains extending to become a retina surrounded by specialized tissues, whereas an octopus' eye develops from a light-sensitive patch of skin that pockets inwards to become a retina and other structures. In other words, similar-functioning complex structures of an octopus' eyes are not homologous to ours.

Even more, the octopus' retina points forwards, whereas our retinae face the backs of our eyes so that incoming light has to pass through networks of nerves and blood vessels with the optical nerve 'in the way', creating a blind spot. This is one of countless things in the human body that biologists can point to as an example of the inefficiency of evolution.

Also unlike vertebrates, the octopus focuses by moving its lens back and forth, rather than changing the shape of the lens. Clearly, their eyes are similar to ours, but these complex structures could not have evolved in the same way; they evolved in parallel, one from an octopus common ancestor (something more like a nautilus), the other from a vertebrate common ancestor (which had a spine and breathed underwater).

The significance is, a vertebrate's eye may be able to become more complex or super-acute in certain ways, but it can never develop like an octopus' eye because our eyes are constrained by the eyes our ancestors had.

Insects, who belong to a completely different branch of the animal 'family tree' all have compound eyes, and why? Because they had a common ancestor that developed a cluster of tiny eyes that evolved into compound eyes, and that's what they have to work with. So on and so forth with different branches.

This same pattern of common ancestry is found for every organ and every gene in every organism ever studied, showing the same relationships no matter what you look at; the eye is just one example out of all examples.

Here's a twist: the same gene that triggers eye development in the first place is the same gene across different branches! Implant this gene from a mouse in a fruit fly and the fruit fly's eyes develop normally. This is one of the many clues that have led biologists to deduce that animals with eyes have a common ancestor that must have had simple eyespots, without the complexities of later eyes.

As different branches on the 'family tree' evolved their own kinds of more complex eyes, they still used the same gene to 'turn on' eye development, even though they use other patterns of genes to make the different forms of eyes.

So, various branches have eyes which are analogous (superficial resemblance), but largely not homologous (using the same corresponding body parts). Molluscs may have a particular homology of eye, although their eyes' level of complexity largely depends on the needs of the species, whether it be scallop, snail or octopus.

"On a side note, think about xenotransplantation - how doctors are able to implant organs from other creatures into humans. While these systems are themselves markedly different from the same systems found in humans, they are often similar enough to use in place of those systems within the human body. I dunno if that really has anything to do with this, I'm just throwing it out there..."

Since scientists once predicted that we can use organs from other animals because we share a common ancestor with other species and share similar cell types and functions -- similar to what I've described with the eye example -- I cannot think of why you would say that would contradict evolution in any way. Is there a specific reason?

"Anyway, the idea being, we see these systems as having complexity similar to machines, such as a watch or a computer. Even as you couldn't get a watch to form by leaving a lump of metal lying around, with nothing but the elements and time to work on it, so we believe that a system as complex as the life we see on earth could not have come about by random circumstances, but by design, the action and direction of an intelligent force of will."

Of course we do not see watches build themselves -- they are not alive. They are inert material that does nothing on its own. And yet, we built ourselves in nine months, with the help of our parents, and continued to develop into adults. No one put us together.

Thus, comparing things that -- by definition -- eat, grow, repair themselves and build offspring, to something which cannot do any of these things, is a false analogy. Left to themselves, buildings fall apart, but organisms continue taking in energy, which ultimately comes from the sun, and utilize it to continue building new life. (This is how they thwart the second law of thermodynamics, thus organisms as a whole will cheat death until entropy kills the sun.)

Where do we see organisms come from? We don't see anything building them; we see that their parents spawn them. Organisms 'know how to' make offspring -- they are literally a creative force, whereas pieces of metal simply oxidize.

So, if everything today came from its ancestor, and each of those ancestors came from its ancestor, all the way back to the first ancestor, then how did that ancestor come to be? What process created the creative force?

Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with 'lightning striking a mud puddle' or 'spontaneous generation' or other completely whacked-out ideas that nobody believes. This is ridicule, pure and simple; it has nothing to do with anyone's work in abiogenesis.

Luckily, I happen to know a video that I really think is wonderful for visually just showing you what the origin of life could look like, through the the first lipid spheres and nucleic acids to a living thing much simpler than a modern cell.

I do recall trying to give you some idea of this before, but this SHOWS you the kinds of processes that happen in conditions more similar to lifeless planets (such as Venus or Mars, but with a more agreeable climate!):

Also, there are other, partly distinct hypothetical ways that life could originate -- the biggest problem that scientists who study abiogenesis have is figuring out which one is correct. This one is still in the running, however, since it has been experimentally verified to a fairly high degree.

"While we are able to observe similarities in nature, and understand how various systems tend to be similar to one another, we do not interpret this as pointing to a common ancestry - rather, we see a unity in essence, in being, and in function."

Well then, are there explanations for the fact that the family tree of common descent is always seen in nature and never broken? In other words, why is it that EVERYTHING can be classified as being some twig or other on one big tree of life, no matter what evidence you look at?

For example, why can't God make a vertebrate with six limbs? Or a vertebrate whose eye (or anything else) develops like that of an octopus? Would God be able to make something that is half bird and half mammal, or any other impossible chimera, by combining two distant twigs into one organism?

It amuses me that some creationism proponents say that the existence of exactly these non-classifiable organisms such as the 'crocoduck' or 'rhinopus' or Hovind's 'banana dragonfly' and 'pine cone man' would prove evolution, when in fact they go against all evolutionary rules and would actually disprove common descent.

What about a fly that uses the mouse version of the gene that 'turns on' eye development instead of the fly version? Such things have never -- I repeat, NEVER -- been found, but if they were, common ancestry wouldn't make sense. If such 'signatures' were found all around us, we'd have reason to believe something besides evolution is going on.

I've also found some great videos which explain this visually, giving many specific examples for illustrations, but as that would take a while, I'll skip it for now.

"We see similarities exist for the sake of life being able to function together in the collective biosphere of the planet; indeed, this collective biosphere, in all its complexity and intricacy, we consider a system far too complex to be left to chance. If everything works together, in such incredible harmony, how are we supposed to believe it simply happened with no one to orchestrate that harmony?"

No biologist thinks that the world's ecosystems were left to chance, at least not random chance. Evolution is not up to chance -- the environment is the designer in nature. This also means that organisms sculpt and define one another in complex ways just by interacting, which cannot be avoided. Once you understand how this works, it is easy to see how it can create the harmony in earth's ecosystems.

Sure, mutations are random, and very common, and the individual life path of each life form is partly due to chance, and partly due to genetics. This is only a small part of evolution. What else were you under the impression was left to chance? (There are statistical patterns, yes, but this isn't what you mean by 'chance', is it?)

"In particular, how are we to believe that this came out of a system predicated on the idea of competition, of the weak being trampled under by the strong - particularly when we see that the "weak" and "strong" are co-dependent?"

I don't understand what you mean by this: Natural selection can work to increasingly change an organism BECAUSE the "weak" and "strong" are co-dependent. How? Simply put, today's "strong" is tomorrow's "weak": When something that can survive better than the previous 'best' of its species, it's going to raise the bar on survival standards.

Once raised, these standards can only 'ratchet up' because while species can go for a long time without changing much, they also cannot take a step back because the least fit members of each generation are the ones that die off. Organisms with harmful traits don't generally factor into the gene pool.

On the other hand, individuals with better survival traits, for better fighting off a particular disease, better able to outrun predators, better camouflage, etc. will consistently survive and one day be all that is left. With their new traits combined, you have a species that is better adapted to its environment.

Yet, because of the continuous stream of mutations, there will always be some born that have more/enhanced beneficial traits, and thus will have a higher reproductive fitness and replace the ones that were previously the fittest. On and on it goes like this.

When you factor in organism interactions, you can see that species ratchet one another along. Take for example the early cheetahs of North America. Looking at their skeletal structure, they were clearly not as fast as modern species. However, as their pronghorn prey became better at escaping, only the fastest cheetahs could survive.

In turn, only the fastest pronghorns could outrun these faster cheetahs, thus selecting even faster cheetahs for survival. They co-evolved in this way, forcing one another to run faster and faster. This is the reason why modern pronghorns can run as fast as a cheetah, and even keep it up for longer!

The North American cheetahs, however, did not survive past the last ice age and human colonization -- although some of them followed herds across Beringia when sea levels permitted it, and made their home in the Old World. Nevertheless, ancient North American species of antelope-like animals can be seen as 'creating' cheetahs in this way, and vice-versa.

Invoking Lewis Carroll, this concept can be thought of as the Red Queen's dilemma; running as fast as you can to stay in the same place. Although this is just an example, the same kind of thing can be seen happening across all species to this day, not only in competition but also in cooperation and symbiosis.

Does that answer your question?

"Anyway, I dunno if that answers your question or not, or if I missed something you presented that would have addressed my points."

I'm not sure it does, but it seems to have raised more questions.

"If I dig up any videos of Darwinists being made to look dumb, I'll kick them your way, but actively pursuing such things just isn't my style."

Thanks, but don't worry about it -- I've seen hundreds of them, it would seem, even without actively pursuing them! ;D

"I try to have a little more respect for my opponents; at the end of the day, they're humans too, and while I may not agree with them, my God still loves them. Hey. He puts up with me... :P"

While it is good to have respect for your opponents, it is not good when someone slams you for holding an argument you don't hold. THEY are the ones who have no respect, and if I've misrepresented what YOU think, just tell me.


Anyway, that's exactly what I wrote, and I even told him, in person, that I'd re-edited my original response to him for orderliness' sake, so that it would be easier for him to respond.

This was at the beginning of November and he's never responded, and probably hasn't read it. And that's why I'm posting it here -- I want SOMEone to read it!

My Annotation of NOVA's 'Judgment Day' Dover Trial Special

While my next post would be my ripping apart the so-called doctoral dissertation of one of my Arch-Rival's young-earth creationist role models (starting here), it's taking such a long time that I thought I'd post something else, which I had previously written, in longhand, just for him.

Back in February, the Arch-Rival brought up the subject of Intelligent Design and claimed that the evil atheists were suppressing its acceptance as real science. Having studied the subject extensively on and off since the late 90's, I of course argued otherwise, but as he was about to leave for work, he recommended that I watch the 'documentary' with Ben Stein called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
` He also asked me how scientists explained how life was supposed to have begun, and that the theory of spontaneous generation had been debunked long ago. I started off by telling him that the theory of abiogenesis (beginning of life) has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (change of life), nor the completely wrong concept of spontaneous generation, and that it's quite a large and complex area of study, which I could tell him more about if he didn't have to leave just then.
` On his way out the door, smirking, he winked and said something like "I think you'll be surprised" or "impressed" or something like that, as though he expected that I would be stunned by what the movie 'reveals'. I immediately went to my computer and found Expelled for Instant Download on Netflix.

I watched it no fewer than three times, becoming less impressed with each viewing, let's just say.

On one level, I became so deeply offended by its childish demonization and Nazification of evolution and the people involved in its study that I actually started to get angry and teary-eyed. On another level, I vowed to clear up this distortion, so I wrote down each of the movie's claims, and, over the next few months, I managed to use the power of facts to debunk every last one of them.
` Within the next few days after viewing, however, I did manage to write up about fifteen pages of criticism and gave it to him to read. To my surprise, he conceded that I had indeed exposed some actual 'yellow journalism', and I'll have to type that up for this blog.
` However, as that would take way too long, and because I already have a massive project going here, I should probably just wait until I post that.

As a teaser, though, just after I wrote those fifteen pages shredding Expelled, I remembered a rather good documentary that my biology teacher (years ago) had assigned for us to watch because she was terrified that some of the students would think that trying to teach them evolution was some attempt to subvert their religious beliefs.
` (And she was terrified -- shaking in fact -- because she's probably had to deal with such people!)
` This documentary was a PBS Nova special called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial, and I had thought it was such a good choice that I actually began to write up a blog post about what the other students had to say about it. As was common at the time, I didn't publish it, although someday I will dredge it up for all to see.

This documentary, I thought, might at least impress the Arch-Rival in the fact that it contains lengthy commentary from both 'sides', rather than sound bites which are taken out of context to make one 'side' look bad -- as I saw in Expelled. Also, its informativeness and its utter lack of Lord Privy Seals might also give him some idea of its level of quality.
` I told him that if he was interested in seeing a documentary that I would regard as accurate, that he should watch Judgment Day, and he agreed to the next time he went to the library.
` To help him out, I wrote him up five pages of notes of my narration/commentary of what I thought was most important, for his own reference, and his own use in formulating a response.

To my knowledge, he still hasn't watched this documentary, even though I've sent him a link two separate times to the online video, last spring after he had gotten himself a computer!
` If you want to beat him to it, you can watch it at this link, and there's also another one at the bottom of the post.

I am not sure if he has read the notes I've given him, but as I have them back now, I can transcribe them here for my loyal readers (assuming I have any) so that at least someone can really appreciate this!
` Plus, I've added just a few more bits and pieces for your own enjoyment -- including a video demonstrating the evolution of a bacterial flagellum!

My notes/annotation/augmentation:

One Dover high school student did a very well-done mural of human evolution, which mysteriously disappeared one day. This seems to have to do with the fact that many Doverians were angry that only Darwin's theory was taught in exclusion to anything else, and suggested Intelligent Design as an alternative, which they claim is based in science, not religion.
` They wanted a statement read in class, informing the students of its existence, and that there is a textbook called Of Pandas and People in the library explaining what it is.

I am not suggesting that a court of law should settle scientific matters, because the evidence should -- but that is another issue. The issue here is whether or not "ID" is even based on scientific research, and, failing that, whether or not it is based in scripture.

The Dover residents talk about "creationism" versus evolution. Is ID based on biblical creationism? We go back to earlier court cases of evolution and creationism -- Scopes losing his trial, and evolution removed from textbooks so as to prevent any more trouble from creationists.
` When Sputnik sparked new interest in science, evolution started going back into the textbooks, and creationists spoke out again. Since creationism is bible-based, it violates our Constitution's Establishment Clause if taught as a fact of the world in government-run schools, and was banned in 1987.

Creationist Bill Buckingham was appointed by creationist Adam Bonsell to review Dover's textbooks. Buckingham did not like the 9th-grade biology textbook by Ken Miller and Joe Levine because it was "laced with Darwinism," and said he did not feel comfortable approving it. The book was put on hold.
` Then, we have a very brief overview of the discovery that broke the back of Darwin's proverbial camel: When finding help in classifying Galápagos' various birds, which looked like woodpeckers, mockingbirds, etc., he found that they were all different species of finches.
` Instead of different types of birds having been separately created on different islands, it seemed that the most likely explanation was that they were all made by one species of finch having spread to different habitats and adapting to different niches.
` Whoa, that one finch has a more than 'slightly' larger beak! There were, of course, many more different types of finch beaks than the ones shown. We see a simplistic explanation of natural selection and descent with modification. Nevertheless, all this is based on the observation of countless species and not some religious text.

Some people feel that this idea takes God out of the picture, including Bill Buckingham, who was allegedly the one who had destroyed the evolution mural, and enjoyed watching it burn.
` In looking for a way to mitigate evolution's being taught in school, the Thomas More law firm directed him to websites about Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, which was consistent with his creationism views.
` He and Adam Bonsell wanted to add Of Pandas and People to the curriculum, but it didn't happen. A few weeks later, 60 copies of Pandas turned up at the school, with a statement to be read to students about 'problems' with evolution, and pointing to the textbooks.
` Six school board members resigned in protest, and their reason was that it's creationism. In September of 2004, eleven parents filed suit against the school board, saying it was violating their Constitutional Rights -- the government should not endorse/discourage the practice of any religion. They were represented by the ACLU.

[This fact doesn't win any Brownie Points with the Arch-Rival, because according to him, the ACLU is atheistic, evil and communistic, which was especially amusing when I started to do my own investigation into the matter -- but, I digress.]

Teachers refused to read the statement, so it was read for them. As we'll see a tiny hint of, ID is far from being a scientific theory because scientific processes are what decide valid and useful theories, not interference with the school board, just so we're clear on that.
` After all, when was the last time you heard of scientists trying to force unaccepted theories on kids, for any reason? There's a reason for that; bypassing the scientific community doesn't prove a thing -- but evidence does!
` ACLU was to find evidence that ID is a clever way to disguise creationism as science so that creationists could use it to get creationism in a science classroom, skipping the scientific process. Thomas Moore was to show that ID is to "make students aware of another scientific theory" and that "it is not religion."

This was what President G.W. Bush and Senator Santorum had thought too, evidently, so they made sure that the conservative Judge Jones would be presiding over the case. The first thing he would examine was whether or not ID was science. ACLU assembled some science expert witnesses. (Pay attention to the way they word their explanations.)

Tiktaalik, an even more dramatic transitional fish-tetrapod fossil than Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc., had been discovered too late to be used in the trial as one of the transitional fossils, a few of which we see in this documentary.
` What is a theory? The ID proponents complain that evolution's not a fact, but in science, the word 'theory' means something much greater than a fact, as is explained.
` Also, the word 'law' means something quite different from a theory -- laws are simple descriptions, like the law of gravity. A theory is a complex explanation, like gravitational theory, which is meant to explain why the law of gravity exists.
` So, to review; law = description of a very simple natural phenomenon; theory = complex explanation for described phenomena. It's like apples and oranges.
` Though evolution through natural selection and other processes has been described, there is no 'law' of evolution because the number of variables (i.e. type of organism, type of niche, environment, what changes could happen, what DNA is available and what mutations occur, etc.) make it impossible to predict with complete accuracy as to what the next 'move' will be.

Genetics was an enormous test to Darwin's theory -- it could have contradicted this explanation, but instead confirmed it. (The "great details" are left out of this documentary, presumably for simplification's and time's sake.)
` A simple example is shown -- why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas our closest genetic relatives have 24. It turns out that we all have the same chromosomes, except that two of these in chimps correspond to one large human chromosome that has been found to be made up of two chromosomes fused together.

Darwin proposed his theory in 1859, and his basic ideas have been built upon and used for practical purposes (which depend on his theory being true), including medical research and even self-designing technology (through selection), as well as understanding virtually any given detail of the living world.
` What understanding does ID give us? What predictions does it make? What practical purposes does it have?
` Its proponents say that looking at nature as if it were designed is supposed to be a practical value unique to ID, but it is not; looking at the 'machinery' of nature as though it should be put together in a semi-orderly way -- by evolution's somewhat sloppy processes -- has always been helpful in figuring out how it works.

When you think about it, Intelligent Design doesn't have anything new to offer because it is almost entirely based on (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution doesn't make sense, and not on positive arguments for what one should expect in nature.
` So, even if evolutionary theory were overturned, we would then have no theory to explain all of biology, only that "something somehow designed species and it isn't evolution." It doesn't tell us what the designer is, how it designed or when. If you can't even define what it is you're arguing for, then how can you possibly test this idea?

See how that's a negative argument and not an independent concept that explains facts? It's not even a scientific hypothesis because it doesn't actually try to explain anything at all!
` And, because it isn't testable, as any scientist would explain -- even my Oceanography teacher, come to think of it -- it isn't science. How can you determine if something is true or not if you can't even check the idea against the real world?

By now, 8 of 9 seats on the school board were empty, including Buckingham's, and the situation for the people in Dover is getting very hairy -- as in death threat-hairy -- for the people who are trying to keep ID out of schools.
` What do the ID advocates in court have to say? Five of their witnesses dropped out. The remaining ones were asked whether there was a valid reason for teaching ID other than religious purposes.
` So, Michael Behe explains that design is the inference that parts which look designed are actually designed, and the most 'visually striking' example is the bacterial flagellum, which has parts he claims are ordered for a purpose. He asserts that if any of the parts are missing, then it can't function, thus there would be nothing for natural selection to act upon.
` He cites a 1998 paper by Dr. Daniel DeRosier, who studies such flagella, saying that this type of flagellum "resembles a machine designed by a human." So, De Rosier himself is asked and he says that he doesn't think it actually is designed, because it is clearly an evolved system, built up gradually by the messy process of natural selection.

So, does a 'half-formed' flagellum have anything for natural selection to act upon? Yes.

Just one example is the one they showed here, a 'half-formed flagellum', which is actually a 'syringe' that Yersinia pestis uses to inject poison into human calls -- it functions just fine as evidenced by the historical success of the bubonic plague.
` There are also other examples not included in the documentary, including a version that uses even fewer parts. Importantly, the proteins making up the flagellum are used in other structures in the cell, so it isn't as though they would have to appear just for the purpose of making the flagellum, as Behe would have you think.

* In one of my reams of Expelled-analysis, I drew a full-page illustration explaining how the flagellum could have plausibly evolved, and which has been backed up by actual biological experiments.
` Since it's on notebook paper and would have to be shrunk to show on screen, it would look very hazy and undecipherable, so I found a YouTube video that shows a somewhat informative animation of the same thing:

Also, the genetic evolution of each of these proteins is now understood. Cell biologists can see that the gene for one protein has been duplicated, that is, an extra copy was made, and this is seen to occur in nature. Because only one gene is all that is necessary to make a certain protein, one of these genes was now free to mutate without disrupting the production of that protein.
` A beneficial mutation caused one of the genes to make a different protein with a different job. This kind of thing has happened again and again, for each of the proteins, splitting and changing into new versions as different beneficial mutations accumulated in different lineages, creating new and different proteins:
` (Ignore the white dots -- they're supposed to be black but I can't get them to be!)

Original Protein
. ..|.|
. .\ . /. . . . . . . . . (mutation) . . . . . . . . . . .(subsequent mutations)
. . .V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V. . . . . . . . . .V
TAAACGTGA -- TAACCGTGA -- TAACCGTGT -- TAACCGGGT
` \\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \\
` . --TACACGTGA -- TACACGTGC . . . . . . .-- TAACCCTGT -- TAACCCTTT
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\\
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- GACACGTGC -- GCCACGTGC

...and so on.

[My original illustration was more extensive and didn't use short strings of letters, but I hope you get the idea. As this text-illustration is off the top of my head, it does not represent an actual genetic sequence, but rather represents the basic explanation for the patterns that are seen to occur in actual genomes over longer stretches of DNA.]

This pattern of genetic diversification is also seen in the genes coding for the proteins in our immune system and our blood-clotting factors. Let me emphasize that this is one way that new information arises in our DNA, from which natural selection can work with.
` Another way is when retroviruses insert their genomes into their host's DNA, adding all their genes! When this happens in a germ cell, the retrovirus can be passed on to the offspring, and host cells have even been observed to use retroviral DNA for their own purposes!
` I mention this, of course, because one of the claims of creationists and ID proponents is that no new information can be naturally created. Since it actually does happen, that claim is disproved.

In the court reenactment (from the transcript), we see how Michael Behe testified that we have no sufficient answers for the evolution of the immune system. He says he hasn't ever read the stacks of books and scholarly articles on the subject that the lawyer presents to him, yet confidently (enough) maintains that there are no sufficient answers.
` But... if he hasn't even examined the research, then how can he judge that for himself?

After weeks of 'science class' in the courtroom, ID is not deemed any sort of science -- although, that does not mean it is religion. So, they ask, is it?
` According to a catalog in the bottom of one of the boxes of donated books, Of Pandas and People is listed under 'Creation Science' (i.e. biblical creationism). Since Pandas is the manner in which ID has been presented in the school, the question is: Is Pandas, and by extension Intelligent Design, actually just 'creation science'?

An old newspaper article was found, about a biology book which 'presents both evolution and creation' by Charles Thaxton. This article was published just before the 1987 trial where creationism was banned in schools for violating the constitution.
` Charles Thaxton is also the editor of Pandas. Was this 'creation and evolution' textbook the same as Pandas? An investigation into earlier drafts shows that this is the case. (Also, the documentary doesn't mention that the original title was Creation Biology! Really!)

Looking at two drafts of this book, one just before the 1987 verdict and one just after, they show that the texts are very similar, except that in the former draft, language such as 'God' and 'creation' are used, and in the latter, these words are changed to 'Intelligent agent' and 'design' (and references to the bible are also omitted).
` According to the former draft, 'creation' is defined as 'various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
` In the latter draft, the same definition is given for Intelligent Design except that it's through an 'intelligent agency.' In making this transition, one of the editors mistakenly replaced 'creationists' with 'design proponents', resulting in a 'transitional fossil' of sorts -- 'cdesignproponentsists.'

Another good question comes; does ID offer only a critique of evolution, or does it offer something more? ID proponent and leader Paul Nelson, was asked this question, and here was his response:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" -- but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

(BTW, even to this day they haven't reported making progress on this objective.)

In other words, ID is not a scientific theory and Nelson presumably knows this. Or, is it scientific? Michael Behe, whose definition of a scientific theory includes supernatural (i.e. non-testable) phenomena, says that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under his definition.
` Science is known as 'science' because it is based on empirical evidence, which astrology has none of, other than evidence against. Which reminds me, I remember a bill being proposed to re-define what kids are taught that science is, that it doesn't need empirical evidence.
` The point of this bill was to allow ID to be taught in government-run schools. Of course, lying to our kids that about science being something other than science only serves to keep them from understanding how science actually works and how it actually requires evidence.

The Wedge Document, which highlights the ID Movement's strategy, reveals their motives and ideals. It starts out, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built..."
` Wait... what about the Ancient Greeks? Their philosophy, arts, mathematics, architecture, science, etc. were instrumental in the development of Western civilization. What happened when Christianity took over? The Dark Ages -- that is, the decline of civilization and the spread of ignorance!
` And what happened when people started paying more attention to the Greeks' and others' ancient texts, and rediscovered all that literature and critical thinking and science? The Renaissance -- that is, the flourishing of Western culture!
` If it weren't for people who didn't believe that we're created in God's image, Western civilization might still be floundering in superstition and oppression, and wouldn't have modern technology and medicine unless another civilization invented it!

The Wedge Document also argues that the idea that we come from nature causes people to give up objective moral standards -- as though nature could possibly command us to do so!
` I can't think of anything more ludicrous -- the more-or-less objective portion of my morality certainly dictates that mass-murder is wrong, but if I thought a deity which created me wanted me to go on a suicide bombing mission, or a crusade, or kill all the Jews, or go to war in Iraq, and that anything this deity told me to do was right regardless of my compassion and concern for others, then I would have to abandon my objective moral standards in order to do it!
` It is is difficult to get people to do things they generally know not to do -- the aforementioned atrocities, excommunicating family members, genital mutilation, etc. -- unless they believe that it's for the best. This is true of any ideology, of course, not just religions -- however:
` If it's based on a 'crazy ideology' of 'mere humans', there's a small chance they could bring themselves to question it. But; what if they think that an action is being proposed by something that is supposed to be looking out for them, is all-knowing, all-good, and who promises them an eternal reward for believing, obeying, and loving -- and an eternal punishment for not doing so? It would be much more difficult to back out.

Additionally, this idea that we either come from nature or from God is a false dichotomy -- most Christians in the world also accept evolution, and in this country, because there are so many Christians, most Americans who accept evolution are Christians.
` In other words, these people think that God made them through evolution, that both things are true. How would accepting evolution mean that God wasn't responsible? Most people have a way around such black-and-white thinking.

But, back to the point -- is there religious motivation behind ID? The documentary does not mention this, but there is plenty of other documentation, including records from church meetings and public religious forums, which are hard to interpret in any other way.
` An example I can recall from the top of my head was a 1999 article for Church and State magazine entitled Missionary Man, which is about the scarily-fanatical speakers at a Right-Wing Christian conference:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

"You must unify your own side and divide the other side," Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.)

I can't picture this as being quote-mining, due to other, more direct sources I've seen, but if you'd like to challenge me on that, go ahead.
` Also, the second paragraph is important, because a big part of the object of Intelligent Design is to get rid of the details of which creation story one goes by. Did it occur over a long time? Just how much of Genesis do you have to take literally?
` These details are deliberately left out in order to garner maximum support. At the same time, without these details, there can be no hypotheses in order to test how this thing is supposed to have happened -- automatically making it not science!

The other thing is that the goal is to get evolution out of our culture, which one can only do if one has sufficient reason. If the entire object of your operation is to put forth a conclusion and then find supposed evidence to rationalize it, that's the opposite of science!

Continuing on with the documentary, the Wedge strategy's twenty-year goals include "to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
` In order to do that, they would need to do scientific research that supports their claims of ID as valid -- and they haven't! Phillip Johnson explains that the goal is to reverse cultural changes. This is their motivation, but where is their evidence of ID, and of supposed 'cultural changes'?

Now, Judge Jones must find the motivations of the Dover School board members, who proposed the teaching of ID. In the courtroom re-enactment, they show the tape of William Buckingham suggesting that evolution should be balanced with "creationism", but he says the meant to say "intelligent design."
` Also, Buckingham and Bonsell had sworn in their depositions that they did not know who had donated the books to the high school. In the trial, Buckingham admitted that he had given the check he had written for buying these books to Alan Bonsell, and that the 'unknown businessman' who had bought the books was Bonsell's father. Alan Bonsell must have known who this 'unknown businessman' was, yet he claimed that he hadn't! Accused of lying under oath, Bonsell claimed he misspoke.

Dover's local school board election was national news -- all eight elected opposed ID. December 2005, Jones' decision -- ID is not science, and was introduced for religious reasons, and thus is unconstitutional to teach in Dover science classes.
` Jones says, "Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being, and to religion in general. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect, however, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom, or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the Intelligent Design policy."
` "The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into the science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that."
` "In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in, garbage out, and it doesn't benefit any of us. We benefit daily from scientific discoveries."
` Of course, Buckingham and Bonsell disagree, as did the ID proponents, and were somewhat appalled. Even Jones received death threats, and he and his family needed police protection. Although the trial is over, he's right -- this issue isn't settled!

The End!

Assuming you, my reader, have read all these annotations/additions to Judgment Day, I hope you have appreciated it! To watch the actual documentary, now with the information I've provided in mind as a background reference, click here.

As for my Arch-Rival, I am not really surprised that he apparently hasn't seen this documentary, despite repeatedly assuring me that he would. I guess that when you think you're right about something, it's not worth taking a good look at your opposition.
` Which reminds me, in order to tie up the abiogenesis conversation we'd had, I later did try to show him a science magazine article about the various different studies that show how life could have arisen, and handed him the magazine, but he literally rolled his eyes and did not even look at the article!

Well, I hope at least someone out there has enjoyed my annotation -- now back to destroying Hovind's dissertation!

A Post From The Past; Let's Mutate!

Don't worry; I'm still writing new posts, it's just that my meticulousness and my many non-blogging endeavors prevent me from going very fast. Long ago (in early 2006), I planned on posting this some time.
` The time is now! Only, it isn't my original work; it's a piece by Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope from Oct 11, 1991. It still fits my cause of clearing up people's misperceptions about science...

Dear Cecil:

Are human beings still evolving? Or are we devolving? Are our genes, when passed on to our kids, copied faithfully like a digital recording? Or is the process more like a photocopy of a photocopy, deteriorating more and more with each generation? I hope it's not the latter, because if the results are anything like those from the self-serve copy place down the street, we're in big trouble. -- David Westwood, Santa Monica, California

Cecil replies:

David, it's obvious you not only slept through Intro to Biology, you were a little groggy during a couple key college bull sessions, too. We covered this topic a little after 2 AM the second month of freshman year. The prevailing view was that humans weren't evolving, because what with the welfare state and the miracle of modern medicine and all, natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest) had ceased to operate.

Nonsense, I argued (correctly, of course, because even then I could see I was never wrong)--natural selection by definition is always at work. If nobody dies before reaching reproductive age, well, that merely meant that everybody got naturally selected.
` You don't get it, said my opponents. If there aren't any differences in mortality among genotypes (isn't it great the way I sling these words around like you know what I'm talking about?), that means the gene pool is static and we aren't evolving.
` Sure we are, sez I. The fundamental question isn't whether people die young, it's whether they fail to reproduce, or reproduce less abundantly than others. On this basis we can say that the genes for the following physical types or traits are slowly disappearing from the population:

(1) People so lacking in sex appeal that nobody could stand to get close enough for long enough to beget children with them. We may thus anticipate that in the distant future people will be extremely good looking and sociable, but nobody will know how to operate the computers.

(2) Yuppieness, since yuppies typically have fewer children later than other population groups. The people of the future, in all likelihood, will drink Bud, eat jalapenos, and believe that Cleopatra was ... well, let's not get into it. But you won't have your parking space stolen by some sphincter in a Beamer, either.

(3) Certain other well known spiritual and physical callings, shall we say. You know who you are.
` OK, so maybe Cecil is kidding around a little. We can't assume any of the alleged traits above have a genetic basis. What's more, widespread interbreeding among population groups has a leveling effect.
` You generally only see noticeable changes when a group is reproductively isolated and key genes get passed around by inbreeding, as with sickle-cell anemia in blacks and Tay-Sachs disease in Jews.
` But you get the idea: as long as some folks reproduce more than others for reasons related however tenuously to their genes, the gene pool isn't completely static.
` As for whether our genes are accurately reproduced, you silly goose, the genes always accurately reproduce.
` Except sometimes.
` On the latter occasions one of several things results: one, monsters-- that is, grossly malformed babies resulting from a genetic mistake. Years ago most monsters died, but now many can be saved. This has made possible the National Football League.
` Two, useful mutations increasing one's chances of reproductive success. Think of the first little mutant to discover he could comb his hair in a ducktail. Or, to bring up a more sober possibility, the first to become resistant to AIDS.
` Three, maladaptive but not immediately fatal mutations, such as those causing certain diseases.

So yes, we're still evolving. But not very quickly. Most students of the subject say we haven't changed much in the past 30-50,000 years, except that we're now willing to eat head cheese. As for that sci-fi stuff about evolving giant brains ... well, modesty prevents me from saying much about it. But it sure does make it a bitch to buy hats. --CECIL ADAMS

` I could add; evolution is also difficult for humans because our gene pool is so small to begin with - much smaller than that of our closest relatives!
` Of course, I don't expect that sexually unattractive people will go extinct because they're probably created due to many different processes, many of them environmental.
` Now... if some humans were to move to Mars, they might become isolated out there and become better adapted for living on a planet with such weak gravity that we couldn't walk, and whatever other environmental differences they would be exposed to.
` Maybe their lungs would become more efficient to help save precious oxygen? Perhaps they would have lesser heat requirements? Maybe their eyes would adapt better to seeing on the red planet?
` Who knows?

Explain This: How Can People Believe That Normal Things Are Unexplained?

Well, my subjects, I'll have the Easter Island post I promised up and running whenever my research material arrives. (I actually had to order it, and it's taking a long time to get here.) For now, please make an attempt to let this monstrous post (pardon the pun) make up for it.

April 22, 2008:

Ashamed a thing as it is, I admit that I have recently been surfing through YouTube, only to find several 'mystery-mongering' videos. What do I mean? First, take a look at this photo, which initially gave me the impression that the darn Coyote had met an untimely demise during one of his schemes to roast the Roadrunner alive:

In actuality, this X-coyote had apparently been afflicted by a painful and itchy mite infestation called 'mange'. The animal's almost total lack of fur and thick, blue, scabby skin are two typical symptoms of the parasitic disease.

And yet, what do you think I saw being promoted as a mystery on a TV news program? One of the mangy canines killing Texas rancher's Phylis Canion's kittens and chickens. Neighbors of hers suggested that it was a mythical, red-eyed, green-skinned human-like creature (usually covered in spikes) called El Chupacabra. Don't ask me what they were smoking. Please.

Update, May 3: Here's a Chupacabra sketch I did about seven years ago, lifted from an art post of mine....

therealchupacabra Wow, they're so similar aren't they? Not.

This news story is not really about chupacabras, it is about the fact that even big game hunters and ranchers can be utterly incapable of recognizing canines once their fur is displaced by the blue scales so characteristic of mange.

Unfortunately for this news story, this is hard to see through the sensationalism! I invite you to watch and then read my analysis, if you could be so brave.



How's that for shoddy reporting? It saddens me to see this amount of hype and exaggeration found in most news broadcasts these days. This is partly due to the fact that, if there is not enough excitement in a particular news story, the journalists will create a controversy to draw in viewers for the giant popularity contests between networks.

In any case, much of the content of American network news programs is purely for shock value entertainment. That's why American television is one of the worst sources of news. Period. ...Unless you're watching PBS news, which is simultaneously about the most accurate and low-key source of TV news, barring news programs from Britain or Canada.

Indeed, the people at PBS are not commercially motivated to distort information for profit because they get their money from 'viewers like you'!

Besides just plain popularity stunts, there is a more specific reason for massive quantities of hype. I believe I've written about it before: Basically, it amounts to the fact that enough people in America do not want to be told what the truth is. Instead, they would like to be given a topic that seems controversial - even when there is no controversy - so they can 'decide for themselves'.

Thus, 'the other side' of an issue may be highly contrived, simplified down from three or more different 'sides', or worse, fabricated out of whole cloth. Sure, it's a great exercise for someone who is training their critical thinking skills, but most Americans don't seem to know what the term 'critical thinking' actually refers to. That's why it's supposed to be the journalist's job!

In this instance, we see the wildlife expert John Young - the one who is familiar with every mammal species in the area - saying that he thinks it is a gray fox with a 'typical' case of mange. For one thing, I'm sure that Young sees this exact thing on a regular basis - and yet, his opinion is being held at the same level as someone who says she is so unfamiliar with the animal that she calls it the 'Texas Tasmanian Devil".

Can't you hear the alarm sirens going off? Warning! Warning!

Of course, I'm not just taking the guy's word for what he says it is. As someone who has had a bit of journalism training, I've learned that one of the most important parts of a journalist's responsibility is to check your facts using independent and reliable sources. And, also having a bit of training in recognizing wildlife, I have already had input from independent sources.

I'll tell you right now, it is a member of the dog family, Canidae. Notice how the 'Chupacabra' looks... well, pretty much exactly like the photograph at top? It may be a diseased gray fox, although to me it seems to be a bit too large and its tail seems to be a lot shorter.

So, I did a little bit of research to figure it out. Thank goodness the teeth were visible - I checked them against this gray fox skull, this coyote skull, and the skulls of medium-sized dogs. Right away, I could see that the animal's teeth matched the dogs and coyote more closely than they did the fox.

I also noticed that the teeth also looked very rounded. Like they were badly worn. Is that what they meant by saying it had 'strange teeth'? And what's with the dent on the canine tooth? Was that there before the animal was struck by the car? Either way, I can see that it had some serious dental issues.

Also to my great surprise, the segment did not mention the fact that the dog's front legs had been seriously twisted and deformed. Considering all the hype, I'd think that would be one of the first things mentioned - though perhaps not pointing out certain details is another sensationalist tactic.

The first few times of looking at the footage, I thought that perhaps its leg tendons had dried out after it had died, causing the front feet to curl underneath. Then, I noticed that its back legs, nor any other part of its body, were not similarly bent. I thought a minute about what that might mean. Maybe its legs had been mangled by the car? But both of them, in the same way? Not likely.

Then I realized; that explains why it was attacking helpless animals! A canine with crippled legs and bad teeth would scarcely be expected to hunt for itself!

Doesn't that make sense? However, the journalists involved in this story evidently had decided to not go the 'fact-checking' route and simply refer to the animal as a 'beast' instead of a 'canine' in order to leave the question as wide open as they possibly could.

Accordingly, the wildlife expert is given a short amount of time to give his two cents, and after that his observations are downplayed. That includes the clever trick of bringing up the point that he 'admits there are undiscovered species'. Yes. Of course there are. There always are undiscovered species in every country on earth! You're always going to get that answer from a wildlife expert.

That's probably why they asked.

Of course, in Texas he says that most species being discovered nowadays are typically cave insects, fish, and other inconspicuous animals that live in places where humans do not usually venture - certainly he does not expect that such a large and obvious land animal would be found anywhere near humans, much less raiding someone's ranch!

Nevertheless, at the end of the segment we see Canion saying that clearly the canine is a 'cross between' two different species - and it's so baffling to her that she was sending some tissue to a lab for genetic analysis!

I'm willing to bet - just like all alleged 'dog-like Chupacabras' whose DNA is sent off for testing, it will turn out to be a dog species we already are familiar with, though sometimes with a disease that causes deformities or hair loss.

Update - April 30, 2008:

Since this was an old story, I decided to look for a follow-up on the DNA report. Though the 'Chupacabra' had turned out to be a coyote, I was horrified to also come across some of the massive amounts of hype that had been built up around it in the previous four months before the test results had come in.

The first thing I found was an online San Antonio news article which said;

"The DNA sequence is a virtually identical match to DNA from the coyote [already in the database]," Mike Forstner, a Texas State University biologist, said in a news release Thursday night. "This is probably the answer a lot of folks thought might be the outcome. I, myself, really thought it was a domestic dog, but the Cuero chupacabra is a Texas coyote."

...

"Folks fear what they don't understand, and a big part of the goal in science is to explain the natural world," Forstner said.

You can read the whole thing and watch the accompanying news segment on KENS, which - unlike the article - I was utterly disgusted at.

First of all, the intro of the news segment showed many artist's representations of green, devilish Chupacabras flashing in rapid succession. I got the impression that this story had been hyped all to hell for the past four months, but I wasn't prepared for this:

First of all, the news anchor is listening to Canion talk about her 'Chupacabra' head, which she has displayed, and she is still saying that she doesn't think the animal is known to science. Then the anchor briefly speaks to Forstner, referring to it as 'maybe a mythical creature' and then they move off to a taped segment.

The first thing we see is the animal's body and music with the words "Heeeyyyy Chupaaacabraaa!" and then some shots of the DNA lab. Then we hear about the different opinions coming from viewers as to what it is. We see a hallway in a school with two teenaged girls - one modestly suggests it is a 'manged up' wolf and the other rolls her eyes condescendingly and says "it's a Chupacabra." (Later on, the first girl says, "Yeah, Chupacrazy. That's you!")

I don't care whether or not a couple of teenaged girls disagree on what it is - just get on with the results!

Then, we get a couple of sound bites from Forstner, who is saying that they have taken something unknown and made it known. This is, he points out, the object of science.

After that, we see the extent of the sensationalism created by one dead dog: Jimmy Kimmel, host of his own national late night talk show, is poking fun of Canion's chupacabra. We see that this hype is a worldwide phenomenon and Canion has sold four thousand Chupacabra T-shirts to countries all over the globe. On top of this, hundreds of students at the local Cuero high school wore them for Chupacabra Day!

Chupacabra day? They have Chupacabra day now? Because of a dead coyote? (Then again, stranger things happen on a regular basis.)

Even worse, the images on the shirts do not even look like the coyote corpse! Instead of showing what it was in life - an ill and deformed canine that was probably suffering and too sick to hunt wild animals - it is depicted as a fierce and able-bodied super-beast standing on two legs, looking so much like a dog version of the Velociraptor in Jurassic Park!

I am just blown away by the amount of utter empty fluff produced by this one very non-mysterious incident!

After a recap of the original news story, they finally come back for some more live footage with Canion and Forstner. Come on, this is driving me crazy! Why don't they just tell people what it is right away so that we can skip this nonsense?

(The reason is, of course, that they're trying to make sure that people stay tuned to their station and don't change the channel, in hopes that the answer is revealed.)

...But they don't! After five minutes of largely sensationalistic footage, they take a break, leaving the viewers hanging in suspense.

And to think that none of this crap would have happened if the journalists had actually tried to be journalists and figure out what it was in the first place (the old-fashioned way) instead of implying that the animal is a complete mystery without a DNA test!

Instead, these people promoted the idea that, well, maybe it's a normal canine with a skin disease like the expert says, or maybe it's really a mythical beast. We aren't going to actually investigate this for ourselves, so it's up to you to decide!

And then they promoted the mythical beast idea for the next four months, spreading the idea that there is some kind of mystery, and setting a bad example for the viewers! ("Oh, news journalists think it's a mystery? It must be okay to think that there's something weird going on!") Not only is that irresponsible journalism, it insults the intelligence of the public!

Finally, after the weather, they find that... "It's a coyote." Great! Now the segment can finally end!

But first, Phylis wants to know why it had no hair, why its front legs were shorter than its hind legs, why its ears were so small and why it was missing teeth. I'd like to note here that they could have already discussed this for several minutes by now instead of reinforcing the idea that a dead dog is the corpse of some paranormal being!

Forster explains that the animal was very old, which is obvious from the skull. (It probably had arthritis, too!) Its DNA matches that of coyotes, so it's definitely a coyote, and the cause of its skin condition will be determined at yet another lab.

Here's my question; why wasn't the skin tested in the first place when Young said it had mange? Because the object was to keep it as much of a mystery as possible; you don't want to hear that your ferocious dinosaur-dog has no hair because it's sick. You want to hear that it has no hair because it's an undiscovered species!

Then the guy promotes the news website in case the viewers, including biology students, would like to "figure out for yourself if you in fact believe it's a coyote". Figure out if you believe? Sure! The identity as to what species it is may have been conclusively revealed, but you're still given the idea that it might not be.

Is the animal that looks like a coyote really a coyote, or does its DNA just match coyote DNA exactly? Those DNA tests may well be worthless! For all we know, it could be a green-skinned, red-eyed, ape-like creature that comes from alien spaceships! (The popular definition of El Chupacabra.) You decide!

On top of that, I searched for news on the results of the skin tests and could find none. Perhaps, after the 'mystery' was revealed, no one wanted to hear about it anymore. Typical.


Back to April 22:

If you haven't gotten enough of the bass-ackwards Chupacabra craze, I have a few more videos for you to look at - and this time they're not done by journalists so I won't nit-pick at length about the utter lack of criticality.

Here we have a video featuring several different depictions of El Chupacabra. Back when I first heard of them, they were crouching little humanoids with green skin and red eyes and sometimes white things along the spine.

Since then, - as with all mythical creatures - the descriptions have changed over time and become more various. This particular video shows different versions - one with a dog-like snout, one looking like a dinosaur-like monstrous baby with bat wings, and the other more typical of earlier interpretations. Even better, this video promises 'proof' of a real chupacabra. Oh boy! I can't wait to see....



Awww! Poor puppies! These are actually mangy foxes, instead of coyotes - you can tell from the long tail. Also, one has a bit of bright orange-red fur in the midst of its blue scabs, which indicates it must have been a red fox.

I'll get back to El Chupacabra shortly, but first, how about being cheered up by this video of a very much living ratel, better known as the honey badger (Mellivora capensis) as it... well... kills and eats a deadly cobra:


Please note that after the cobra is dead, the honey badger takes a nap, exposing the thin fur on its underside - and its enormous testicles! Please note that I am also pointing out the testicles for educational reasons.

Now look at this next video - the first half of it is a text story that alleges a Saudi Arabian shepherd was terrified by three creatures he mistook to be human - at first. It says he shot one of them and the other two 'flew' away. It also encourages people to save this video on their computer because it's the clearest video yet of a 'chupacabra'.

The second half is footage of a dead honey badger - portrayed as the purported chupacabra that has been shot - being poked with a stick. Note the thin fur, large testicles, long claws, flat ears, sloping shoulders, light-colored 'cap' on the head and other features you saw on the animal in the previous video.



I think (or at least hope) that my readers will agree that this is the same species. But what does the YouTube user presenting this video have to say about the matter?

"A chupacabra is a hybrid animal from PLANET EARTH people, its not a space alien, please do your research first.
I understand people who were expecting an alien like species, but this is IT, its an animal that lives in hot areas all over the world.
This is not a badger, please watch the video carefully and compare it to a badger
This is not a dog, Please focus on the paws, they are no dog paws"

Unable to create a YouTube account so that I could correct him (the website kept repeating that I was 'ineligible', whatever that means) I was glad to see that several people had commented that it was a honey badger, and one person said that they actually had one as a pet!

Undaunted, the YouTube user was evidently not impressed because he found no photos of the underside of a honey badger, which is lighter in appearance than the topside and pinkish in color, though note that in a dead individual the skin would be grayish from lack of blood flow

"Id would like to challenge any viewer to find me a photo of the same animal,, a GREY one please, with the same features. If anyone suceeds to prove this animal being a badger or dog, I will remove this video immediatly. Please watch this critters features closely, its not a dog, and badgers are not grey, not even if they have mange. This is a hybrid animal."

Oh, so even though it has the right body characteristics and markings, it can't be a honey badger just because it looks too 'grey' in the video! How is that for logic? And as for the assertion of a hybrid between a dog and a badger - I'm sorry, that's biologically impossible.

For one thing, two animals from different families - such as the weasel family and the dog family - cannot breed, no matter how hard humans try to make them. Today, we know the reason has to do with the fact that chromosomes from two drastically different species are so different from one another that they cannot swap genes and are otherwise incompatible.

There is sometimes the possibility of hybrids between two animals in the same genus - like the mule (horse-donkey) and the liger (lion-tiger) - and occasionally hybrids between animals in the same family - the cama (camel-llama) and the wholphin (orca-dolphin) - but as far as breeding two animals as distantly-related as dogs (dog family) and honey badgers (weasel family), it's improbable that this could ever happen, even if gene-splicing biologists were on the job!

So, no matter how they try, this badger and this dog could never have puppies together. Yes, even if they are of the opposite sex and managed to become attracted to one another.


The honey badger is not a hybrid. Like its cousin, the wolverine, it is a distinct and unusually fearless species of the weasel family. While the wolverine terrorizes wolves and even bears across the Northern Hemisphere, the honey badger goes nose-to nose with many animals in Africa, the middle east, and much of Asia.

Behold its amazing ability to eat baby African honeybees while the adults sting it in the face!



Yes, honey badgers are not mysterious animals in the least! Neither are foxes, even if they are disfigured by legions of tiny arachnids! We know all about them! Enough mystery-mongering! Now raise your right hand and repeat after me: "Some people just need to be shaken!"

Ah, but I'm not done yet. While I was still on YouTube, I also saw video of a dead Regalecus fish - with the title, 'Oh God, we saw a dead dragon in China!' Really it is - contrast and compare with these many photos of oarfish and ribbon fish. The largest species grows up to 50 feet long - the longest bony fish on record!


Doesn't it look, like, I don't know, exactly the same!? After a few minutes of scanning the comments, I noticed that other people have noted this as well. Good for them!

Oh, but there's more than just dead dogs and dead fish and dead honey badgers... some videos just whack you over the head with an entire montage of stuff with no explanation at all! With no explanation for any of them, I figure, it's not worth doing research on - even so, I can actually recognize what most of them are just from previous knowledge!

For your benefit, I have compiled a list of what thoughts went through my head while viewing this next video. These are just my casual observations this time. The point of this list is to demonstrate how unimpressed I was with this video.

People make crop circles all the time. This is no different. Perfectly normal. Moving on.

A joke picture of a giant human skeleton being dug up, thanks to the wonders of Photoshop. It was originally meant to be funny, not mysterious.

I see some sea monsters that are known fakes and paintings.

The baboon-head fish is actually a sculpture and is part of one of those 'weird animal' art exhibits like the freaks of nature made by by Patricia Picinini.

The photo of the guy holding the 'sea serpent' is another oarfish - a brown one instead of a white one.

The shark with the wide-open mouth is a perfectly normal basking shark - a shark that is known for catching plankton with its enormous, cavernous mouth.

The viperfish? Yes, that's a normal animal, too.

There's also a shark that's apparently missing the sensory part of its snout region, perhaps due to rotting or mutation.

Wow. A lobster! I never saw one of those before!

And there's a mermaid sculpture made by an artist, as well as some more... taxidermied mermaid hoaxes.

Lumped in the same category is a perfeclty normal... mutated baby with fused legs! That happens sometimes.

I see a fossilized fish-amphibian. Perfectly normal fossil find, might I add.

The long, scaly white thing with arms is a normal, everyday lizard-like animal called an amphisbaen. Ironically, I've recently read a satirical blog post about them, and it used the same photo!

Gee, an alligator with white skin, like I've never seen one!

The thing that says 'Sasquatch' is actually a dead, but otherwise normal, spider monkey.

The thing that says 'Bigfoot' has been determined to be a normal Bob Heironimus in a suit.

Pigzilla, a farm-raised hog, was not really quite as big as it was portrayed, and the giant cat I know for a fact was very not secretly a product of digital manipulation. As for the very fat orange cat, I've seen it on the humor website Can I Has Cheezburger?

I see a dog with an obvious rubber mask that has a crudely-painted open mouth, as well as some models of fake animals.

Sphynx cats? Gee, a popular cat breed! What a mystery!

If I had not already known what the 'winged cat' photo was, I may not have seen that anything was unusual about it. Luckily, I read all about it on this web page and recognized the photo - apparently cats can develop skin flaps on their backs from certain skin disorders.

Cyclokitten -yes, it is a real mutation called cyclopia. Happens to many animals, including humans. Here are some photos, but I'll give you warning that they may be disturbing!

Alien autopsy- well-known to be a fake. This is most obvious in that the hoaxers didn't even know how to conduct an autopsy. Also, there are some alien puppets.

There are also some reconstructions of extinct animals - the one labeled 'moon head lizard' is actually a model of a prehistoric amphibian called a Diplocaulus.

The dead pterosaur not only is particularly fake-looking, but it resembles drawings of pterosaurs from long ago when the photo was probably taken.

Wow, it's a fish with a mutated jaw. Like that's supernatural or something.

And... a perfectly normal elephant shrew, which isn't weird at all. (Correction: It's a perfectly normal solenodon, which has teeny-tiny eyes and is considerably less cute than an elephant shrew.)

On top of that... a perfectly normal frilled lizard, which is also no secret.

A joke ultrasound of a demon, created as a joke, not a hoax.



What my point is here is that all those images, one after another, of normal animals, extinct animals, hoaxes, and creative artwork of fanciful creatures, are all shoved into the same category, thus blurring the lines of what is actually strange or not. Yes, the truth is out there. They're all different things and none of it is particularly unusual.

If you think you can take another slew of mystery-mongering photos, I've done one more:

The first two shots I recognize from a 'time traveling' nature program called Chased by Sea Monsters - that's the host, Nigel Marvin, messing with one of them!

I recognize another photo as a really icky piece of art, but art nonetheless.

Oh, a cyclops pig! Yes, that's real, just like the kittens!

I see a group of seals. What is so unusual about this group of seals? It appears that the adults are protecting the young pup who is standing behind them. I don't get it. Perhaps the seal pup, which is circled in red, is supposed to be a monster or a strange growth from the back of one of the adults?

A two-headed calf? Well of course it's real - they are technically two individuals, conjoined twins.

Of course the chupacabra that says 'FAKE' really is fake - it's clearly a statue made ofut of fiberglas or plastic! (Notice how its eyes are the same texture as the rest of it.)

Another sea repitle underwater! ROTFL indeed, it was a toy submarine and it was very small, not an elephant.

Hey it's the elephant shrew again!

Wow, it's a bat!

Conjoined kittens? Blugh!

It's a squid!

It's a seal!

It's the extinct and famous marsupial, the thylacine!

Wow, it's a liger!

Ha! This bat with a bird's face I actually saw on a manipulated animal photo website. (Yes, there are websites full of photoshopped animals with the body of one animal and the head of another. It's meant to be humorous.)

I see a kinkajou-like or coatimundi-like animal on the forest floor - it's hard to say what it is because its head is obscured.


If you're still with me, I commend you. Personally, it's too much for me to take in one bite - that's part of the reason it took so long for me to finish this post. Now I'm going to go back to the nice, orderly world of non-confusion.