text:
If one is to surf the web today and try and make some sort of sense of the
bewildering array of information (running the Gardnerian gamut of 'good,
bad and bogus') so easily available there; one can become quickly mired in
the voluminous mainstream scientific and less-than-mainstream
pseudoscientific terminology, arguments and contentions. As an attempt to
hopefully help 'clear the muddied waters', level the playing field (I speak
hopefully, although not terribly optimistically, that this can be accomplished
without the use of explosives; verbal or otherwise) and turn some of the
intensely emotive partisan friction of the Creation/Evolution issue into
light, I offer the following:
What is Evolution? (and, more importantly, what is not evolution.)
Before we proceed, it is essential that we set a few ground rules and
delimit exactly to what we are referring when we speak of evolution in
the context of the evolution\creation conflict. Thus: by definition,
evolution is: (1.) precisely defined as any change in the frequency of
alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. The gene
pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. This is the
neontological (biological) definition.
Unfortunately, alleles themselves are rarely, if ever, preserved in the
rock record as fossils; which are the key data units in the examination
of the history of life on Earth. But, the expression of these alleles
is preserved in the fossils of populations of organisms, which are
readily available for examination. From this, it is readily apparent
that (2.) life has developed (not 'progressed') from one or a small set
of common ancestors as well as from 'simple' organisms to more
'complex' creatures over the span of geological time. This is one of
the paleontological definitions of evolution.
Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the
relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain
that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism
(say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is
relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green
alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a
population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more
voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is
used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the
neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.
Therefore, with these definitions in mind; evolution:
Further, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, etc.),
14. is not evil,
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"),
17. is not a religion nor Religion,
18. is not determined by popular opinion (as can be said of any science),
19. is not a socio-political program or paradigm,
20. is not dependent on the supernatural,
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
22. is not progress,
23. has not, will not and cannot be proven (as can be said of any science),
24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance',
25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,
26. Does not deny (a) God(s), and finally,
27. Falsifying evolution does not prove Creation.
That said, let us examine every claim in turn and in detail that
1. is a fact,
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than
3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around
for at least half of that period and that organised multicellular life
is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms
now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no
birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life
forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and
Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living
forms come from previous living forms.
Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that
were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No
person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny
these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative
importance of various forces in moulding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).
Just as much as gravitation is a fact, is so evolution. It has
been observed, in both the laboratory and the field, and through the
evidence of the fossil record. It is not debated in mainstream science
that evolution has occurred (and is still occurring); but it is the
mode and tempo of evolution that is being debated.
2. is also a number of theories,
Even before the time of it's formal introduction to science by
Darwin, there have been many differing and different theories advanced
to explain the fact of organic evolution and the diversity of life on
Earth. Some are over 100 years old, while others are quite recent
innovations. Some have been discarded as erroneous, while others have,
literally and figuratively, tons of evidence which support them.
A general listing of these theories include Darwinism (descent with
modification by natural selection; and in and of itself a set of
theories; i.e., 'Strict Darwinism', 'General Darwinism', etc.; and an
'umbrella' term sometimes used in other evolutionary theories as a
basis, which is then modified), Lamarckianism ("inheritance of acquired
characteristics"), saltationalism (evolution proceeding by major leaps
or jumps), gradualism (slow, uniform accumulation of modifications),
punctuated equilib rium (periods of stasis followed by brief, intense
periods of speciation), phyletic gradualism (speciation occurs
gradually over a species' entire range), orthogenesis (evolution that
follows a single direction or specific trend continuously, "straight-
line" evolution, often appearing to be independent of natural
selection), creationism (a religious, non-scientific, pseudoscientific
preconceived dogmatic construct), etc.
With the exception of creationism ('Scientific', Biblical or otherwise),
the remainder are or were scientific theories. Orthogenesis, Lamarckianism,
saltationalism (to a certain degree), and creationism have been largely been
abandoned or supplanted by other theories or combination of theories. In
fact, the union of molecular biology, genetics and natural selection
(Darwinism) lead to what is known as the Modern Synthesis. That is, the
Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of
genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly
with organisms, speciation and individuals.
One of the most recent, and generally least understood, theories of
evolution is Punctuated equilibrium:
Some palaeontologists think evolution is a hierarchical process.
The theory of punctuated equilibria attempts to infer the process of
macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil
record. In the fossil record, transition from one species to another
is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms
are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long
stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species.
However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge
the gap between the two species are sometime found in small, localised
For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris,
K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species
were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough
that some have argued they should be i n a different genera. In just
one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these
fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two
species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other
localiti es there is a sharp transition.
Gould and Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibria, interpret
this in light of theories of allopatric speciation. They concluded that
isolated populations of organisms will often speciate and then invade
the range of their ancestral species. Th us at most locations that
fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be
abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration
however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the
area of speciation must be found.
They also argue that evolution can proceed quickly in small
populations so that the tempo of evolution is not continuous. This
has lead to some confusion about the theory. Some popular accounts give
the impression that abrupt changes in the fossil record are due to
blindingly fast evolution; this is not what the theory of punctuated
equilibria says.
Some PE proponents envision the theory as a hierarchical theory of
evolution because they see speciation as analogous to mutation and the
replacement of one species by another (which they call species
selection) as analogous to natural selection. Speciation adds new
species to the species pool just as mutation adds new alleles to the
gene pool and species selection favours one species over another just
as natural selection can favour one allele over another. This is the
most controversial part o f the theory. Most biologists agree with the
pattern of macroevolution these palaeontologists posit, but many
disagree with the mechanism -- species selection. Critics would argue
that species selection is not analogous to natural selection and there
fore evolution is not hierarchical.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was designed to replace the theory
of phyletic gradualism (here, in and of itself, is a type-section
instance of scientific nature of evolution: testing, re-analysis, re-
interpretation and self-correction in action). Phyletic gradualists
held that a species would slowly transform into another species over
its entire range. Phyletic gradualism is often associated with the
assumption of a uniform rate of evolution, but this need not be the
Although all this fact vs. theory exposition may seem a tad confusing,
here's a concise binary clarification courtesy of Harvard's own Stephan
Jay Gould:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic
and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve
certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists
often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they
themselves favour). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such
a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility
does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact
and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasised the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism
of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May
3. is Science,
By definition, science (apart from being defined by definition) is:
[ME, knowledge, learning < OFr. < Lat. scientia < sciens,
pr.part. of scire, to know.]
By all aspects of the definition, evolution is science.
4. is also scientific,
Let's take a quick look at the scientific method and see just
how evolution stacks up:
1 for 1 so far.
2 for 2.
3 for 3.
4 for 4.
5 for 5.
That's 6 for 6. A perfect score.
Therefore, evolution is addressable and able to be investigated by the
scientific method; is internally consistent, physically evidenced,
observable (either directly or through the fossil record), is self-
testing and self-correcting.
As evolution is both fact and theory; evolution is both science and
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
Invokes no God(s) nor supernatural constructs in its
explanations. It is constrained by the natural laws of chemistry and
physics and does not proceed randomly. Further, evolution and
evolutionary theories all contain exactly less than one mi racle and
less than one God.
6. is falsifiable,
Evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable. Unlike
creationism, where no test, no procedure, no gedankenexperiment, can be
postulated to disprove the notion of special creation or a creator;
which is a belief system based on faith. Evolution, on the other hand,
being based entirely upon facts and evidence, and which makes
statements derived from those facts, can be falsified. Viz.: find a
fossilized skeleton of Homo sapiens in an undisturbed stratigraphic
sequence at the same level as a Tyrannosaur.
Evolutionary theory maintains that: 1. Tyrannosaurs are extinct, 2.
They existed in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era and 3. Are
never found in rocks younger than approximately 66.6 MY (million years)
old. Evolutionary theory also holds that Homo sapiens is a relatively
recent addition to the biological sphere (if you look at the history of
life on Earth from a geological standpoint), is currently extant and
whose remains are never found in sediments greater than approximately 4
MY. Therefore, if one were to be found in an undisturbed section
cheek-by-jowl with a T. rex...
7. is testable,
That is, evolutionary theory can be given to 'what-if'
scenarios. For instance, if I happen upon an environment (some may
think this a frivolous notion; but not at all. In recent years life-
bearing environments have been found that were previously thought to
be antagonistic to life, i.e., deep-sea vents on the ocean ridges,
which were found to be teeming with, admittedly unusual, life), I can
propose the test of which organisms I would expect to find there.
Conversely, given an organism (extant or extinct) and it's adaptations;
I can, through evolutionary theory, deduce the environment to which it
is best suited.
For instance, let's look at the fossil record. If I find the
remains of an organism, let's say one with wings; I can put it to the
test that it was a flying organism. But, if I find that the wings are
heavily modified and the theoretically-flying creature's remains are
always found with fossil fish fragments and cephalopod pens; and the
geology of the depositional environments indicate a cold, polar
fringing-marine environment; my test would have failed. Seems they
winged creatures are m ore well adapted to a pelagic, nektonic, open
marine lifestyle (at least for part of the time). I am forced to
develop another hypothesis and test that (this time in favour of
organisms that 'fly' through the water). The hallmark of science is
it's testability, re-analysis, re-interpretation and self-correcting
nature. (BTW, if you haven't already guessed, I was talking about
Aptenodytes patigonica.)
8. is predictive,
Logical outcome of item 7. Organisms can be used to predict
their environment and environments can be used to predict the type of
organism that could best exploit that portion of ecological hyperspace.
9. has been observed,
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of
diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved
within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid
descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when
one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and
produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not
fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types.
It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than
250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification
in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could
not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution:
Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch-
species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for
consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new
phenotype never observed before, made manifest i n just a few years
In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera
lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a
different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with
O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species
and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira
malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County,
Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five
characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at
crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds
and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany
60, pp. 545-553)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969
produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties
of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus
yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which
were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house
flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine
separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for
example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of
speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B.
Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and
sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117-
Tropical fish:
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a
non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y
chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian
assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
The authors of a recent paper put this to the test by studying
the Atlantic silverside fish Menidia menidia . This fish has an
unusual life cycle in that, during the early months of the year mostly
female offspring are produced. In the summer months mostly males are
produced. The bias in the sex of the offspring is induced by the water
temperature. Female offspring are produced while the water is cold,
males while it is warm. The sex ratio across the whole year balances
out to 0.5. This sex bias is caused by temperature dependent sex
determination, not temperature dependent sex mortality. In other
words cold water makes baby female fish form, it doesn't kill male
baby fish. The same embryo could be male or female depending on the
temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not
influence the sex ratio in this species.)
The authors captured hundreds of these fish and maintained
them in aquaria for five to six years. Some aquaria were maintained
at low temperatures, others at high temperatures. In the low temp
aquaria, the populations began with mostly females. The sex ratio,
for example, in one low temp tank was 0.70 (70% female) In the high
temperature aquaria, the populations began with mostly males. In one
of the low tanks the sex ratio was 0.18. Both of these, given the
population sizes, are significantly different than 0.50.
As the experiment progressed, the sex ratios changed from the
highly skewed initial conditions. In all the populations the sex ratios
converged on 0.5. The trajectory of the sex ratios converging on 0.5
differed between many of the tanks. In one tank, the next and all
subsequent generations were at an 0.5 sex ration. In another, it slowly
converged upon 0.5. In yet another it reached 0.5, then overshot
slightly, then returned. This indicates that a sex ratio of 0.5 is
somehow adaptive be cause the fish evolved from a skewed ratio to a
balanced ratio. Since chromosome assortment does not determine sex in
these fish (temperature does), the only explanation for their
convergence to 0.5 is natural selection favoured fish that produced an
abnormal amount of the minority sex. (If males are lacking, any fish
that produces male fish will contribute more than average to the gene
This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio
approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either
sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool.
Finally, notice that evolution has occurred. The experiment
started with populations of fish that produced skewed sex ratios and
ended with populations that produced balanced sex ratios. Since the
environment was held constant, the change in the populations was
therefore genetic. In other words, the gene pool changed over time.
This is the definition of evolution.
Conover and Voorhees, 1990, Evolution of a Balanced Sex Ratio
by Frequency-Dependent Selection in a Fish, Science 250:
10. has occurred in the past,
In the July 13, 1990 issue of Science, Gingerich et. al. report
on an interesting fossil found in Egypt. It is a whale with feet. The
skeleton is of the species Basilosaurus isis.
Current cetacea do not have external hind limbs. But whales,
which are mammals, evolved from terrestrial mammals. This fossil,
therefore, is a link between the two. The skeleton they show is long
(16 m) and serpentine. The authors believe th is whale hunted in
shallow mangrove or seagrass habitat. It's hind limb has a short femur
and a slightly shorter fibula and tibia. It has no thumb and a greatly
reduced second digit. The other three fingers are quite long
(relatively). In short, another variation of the basic mammalian leg.
The authors speculate that the limbs were tucked in close to
the body while the whale was swimming (and the osteology of the
bones suggest that they are correct).
Gingerich, et. el., 1990, Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus : Evidence
of Feet in Whales, Science 249: p.154-156
11. is still occurring,
Yes, evolution is still occurring; all organisms continue to
adapt to their surroundings and "invent" new ways of better
competing with members of their own species. In addition, allele frequencies
are being changed by drift, mutation and gene flow constantly. Studying the
process of evolution as it continues to occur is a major field of
biology today. Although evolution has been observed and all the
mechanisms have been shown to work, there is still no consensus on the
relative contribution of each of the mechanisms to the overall pattern
of evolution within a lineage.
12. will continue to occur in the future,
As noted by pre-eminent geologist James Hutton: "The
present is the key to the past". Although Hutton's axiom is strictly
uniformitarian, the premise is valid. Therefore, logically, today's
present is tomorrow's past. What we see in the lab and the field
regarding the fact of evolution today indicates that it will continue
into the future as it has for the last 3.65 BY.
In addition, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinistic, etc.),
Morris, Henry M. and Robert T. Clark. 1976. The Bible Has the Answers.
San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
Morris and Clark's brutum fulmen aside, evolution is about as atheistic
as World League Soccer. That may seem sort of a ridiculous comparison,
but it is not. While soccer players may be atheist, Christian, Zen
Buddhist, NewAge Crystal Voodoo Necromancer, Tree Hugging NeoDriud, or
followers of Bob; the rules, officialdom, tenets and game of soccer
says exactly nothing regarding the presence, absence, traits or
idiosyncrasies of a supernatural being. It just plain does not concern
itself with that premise.
That is precisely the same as for evolution. Evolution neither
requires nor desires spirits, sprites, spooks, spectres, goblins,
ghouls, ghosts or God(s). It says nothing, nothing, of the presence or
absence of (a) God(s); and by definition , it cannot. Evolution, as
shown above, is science. Science, by definition, is purely naturalistic.
Therefore, the "God Hypothesis" is untenable for use or
consideration in evolution. Succinctly put, evolution only concerns
itself with the natural world; God(s) and the like, are, by definition,
supernatural and therefore not a consideration, nor are they considered,
when examining the natural world.
Evolution neither desires nor requires God(s); but it does make
them unnecessary. Sometimes the creationists drop their scientific
pretences and reveal their religious motivations by attacking evolution
on the grounds that it is an "anti-religious" or "atheistic"
theory (vide alta). The creationists would have one believe that evolution is
atheistic, because it contradicts their naively literal interpretation
of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. However, evolution is not
necessarily atheistic. Evolution is a scientific finding, and science
tells us, by design and definition, nothing about metaphysical (and
oftimes silly) issues such as the existence of God. We know through
science that evolution is a reality. Whether a God exists who used
evolution to create life is an open question; although some, like the
author, find the entire question illogical and irrelevant.
Some claim that evolution is communistic, Marxist or even
anarchist. Using the method of dialectical materialism, Marx and Engels
were able to discover the laws that govern history and the development
of society in general. Using a similar method, Charles Darwin was able
to uncover the precepts of evolution of the biological world. "Darwin
applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of
nature," states palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould. "Matter is the
ground of al l existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words
that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity."
Even if, by similar methods, Marx/Engels and Darwin devised
revolutionary concepts; this in no way makes evolution and Marxism any
more related than the fish is to the squid I caught while fishing.
14. Is not evil,
Even if was, by any standard you desire, it would not be a
reason to assume it is wrong. Chemistry is responsible for millions of
deaths every year; physics, accelerating bodies to 9.78049 m/sec/sec,
kills those who believe gravity is not a fact; but we do not reject its
findings because of this. How people use a theory is not a judgement
of its accuracy.
Fortunately we do not face this dilemma. Evolution does not
say what is right and what is wrong, but merely what has happened. A
strictly historical account of the Auto de fe or Crusades would not say
that they either were good or bad, rather, that they had happened
(although it would note their religious underpinnings). Similarly,
evolution does not say that any conclusions people might draw from it
are good or bad. Evolution simply "is".
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
It is, and should, be taught in the science classroom because
it is science and science is what should be taught in science class. As
noted by the late Judge Overton in the 1980 Arkansas vs. McLean
"Balanced Treament" case; "science is what s cientists
do", and scientists 'do' evolution; not creationism. Never has it
been legislated that evolution must, by law, be taught in the science
class, is simply was because it is science.
It is wholly amusing (and somewhat aggrieving) to witness the
machinations of the so-called "Scientific" creationists, who
have been so enflamed in trying to achieve legislation for their battle-cry
of "balanced treatment". This whole issue is so riddled with
oxymorons, it's a lexicographer's delight. For instance,
"scientific" creationism is promoted by only a few fundamentalist
Christian types with a heavy doctrinal axe to grind and a thinly disguised,
but ridiculously apparent, hidden agenda.
The Institute for Creation Research and the Center for Creation
Research are self-professed ministries; and for that, they make no apologies
nor have any qualms in accepting their tax-exempt status. They do no
research whatsoever (that is, their so-called 'research' consists almost
solely of their ransacking scientific publications for quotes from prominent
evolutionary scientists which could be lifted from their original context
and then perfidiously recontextualized in order to serve Creationist
designs; they also spend considerable 'research' time being an 'outreach'
ministry, financing expeditions to Turkey to ferret out gopher-wood
ships and expend their remaining time floating horsetails in aquaria;
such is their 'research ' activities), instead they content themselves
with trying to 'disprove' evolution (about more later).
They require the signing of a statement of beliefs (all religious,
all Biblical) in order to be counted with their little clan. Odd that this
is so diametrically opposite to what real science is and what real
scientists do. And yet these so-called, self-professed 'scientists' have
the unmitigated temerity to call mainstream scientists closed-minded. I
personally belong to 14 international geological, biological and
paleontological scientific societies and have yet to be required to sign
a single document confirming that I have a literal belief (or, for that
matter, any beliefs) in anything.
Secondly, when one looks at the strategies of the creationists;
their deceptions, shoddy work, and illogic, their 'secret' agenda
becomes all too apparent. First they clamour for 'fairness' in balanced
treatment; that is, they want their narrowly-sectarian,
fundamentalist, Biblically-literalist religious dogma taught right
alongside the science of evolution in the science classroom. Well,
besides being unconstitutional; it's devious, disingenuous, and
dastardly as well. If they truly wan t balanced treatment, then they
would be lobbying to present all the theories of development of life on
Let's balance the treatment by including the fables, myths,
parables, and legends of the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut,
Amunge, Ange vin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho,
Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine,
Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu,
Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns P
aiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis,
Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa,
Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville,
Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Cre ek, Cowlitz, Cree,
Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head,
Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha,
S'Klallam, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead,
Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, G aul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian,
Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki,
Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa,
Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, I sleta,
Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla
Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal,
Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti,
Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirg hiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath,
Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai,
Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D' Oreille, Lac Du
Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa,
Lemmi, Lower Brul , Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi,
Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski,
Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla,
Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, M
uckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-
tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem,
Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin,
Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Che yenne, Nyungar,
Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida,
Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe,
Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango,
Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo,
Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake
Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt
River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso,
San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian,
Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta,
Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz,
Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skal vian,
S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba,
Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish,
Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala,
Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, T arim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque,
Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk,
Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk,
Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umatilla, Umpqua,
Uncompagre, U-nung 'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking,
Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain
Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa,
Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yankt onai
Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir,
Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, Zulu, et al., ad
infinitum del mundi.
Just when we're going to be able to fit all of this into the
science curricula and still get to any real science is, of course, a yet
to be addressed question; particularly by the creationists.
Secondly, when creationists try to procure 'balanced
treatment', they often try and do this be attacking evolution; an
utterly fallacious endeavour (see #27: the False Dilemma [a.k.a.,
bifurcation fallacy]). The status quo now, in the science classroom,
is that evolution is 'in' and creationism is 'out'. What the
creationists so desperately desire is to overthrow that status quo and
retread it to read: evolution 'in', creationism 'in'. But notice what
a precedence this sets. The status of evolution remains unchanged! In
both cases, it is 'in'.
Now we can see just how truly unfounded and fundamentally inane are
creationist attacks on evolution. By their own admission, in striving
for balanced treatment, they are not trying to oust evolution (balanced
= equal for both); therefore anything that the creationists have to
offer must be defending or supporting creationism, on a scientific
(definitely not religious) basis; and not an attack on evolution
(however specious or irrelevant), for it's not the status of evolution
that they're trying to change, but rather the status of creationism.
20. is not dependent on the supernatural,
In fact, must exclude itself from this realm. Evolution, as all
science, must depend on exactly less than one miracle. No God(s) required
nor desired.
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
Only misinformed types, typically with a single-edged doctrinal
axe to grind, maintain this. In fact, it is about as matchless a
"straw-man" argument as can be constructed. The facts of the
matter are that evolutionary theories maintain that humans and the great
apes share a common ancestor. Nowhere is the claim made that "man
evolved from apes"; and no evolutionary theorist makes such a claim.
This is due, in my opinion, to the abysmal lack of scientific
comprehension in the world today (fully 95% of Americans can be said to
be scientifically illiterate (American Scientist, Sept/Oct, p. 439-444 [1])),
the 'bad press' received by science in the media and the psuedoscientific
pap they present under the guise of science; the generally poor reputation
of science and scientists by non-scientists ("Science geeks",
"math is too hard," "Why the hell should I care that the
Cambrian began 560 MYA? Will that earn me $ 150K a year?" and the
like), deliberate misinformation (finger pointed squarely at the so-called
'Scientific' Creationists and their thinly disguised anti- and
pseudoscientific agenda, J'accuse!), and a failing of the scientific
community in relating the incredible vistas, amazing worlds (past and
present) and life-enriching fulfillment of our calling to those who are
not scientists.
Although, in the final case there may be certain reasons for
scientists not wanting to discourse with non-scientists. For his
efforts in 'enlightening the masses', the late Carl Sagan of Cornell
University was branded the "evolutionary god-pa pa of science",
"that atheist Sagan" and "Sagan is probably a communist"
by none other than good old Henry Morris of the Institute of Creation
Research. Similar inanities and ad hominems are heaped upon Richard Dawkins,
Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Haw king, and a host of other scientists who try
and keep science in the public eye. Can one scarcely blame science for
refusing to cast "pearls before swine"?
22. Evolution is not progress,
Organisms simply adapt to their current surroundings and do not
necessarily become "better" over time. A trait or strategy that
is successful at one time may be deleterious at another. Studies in yeast
have shown that "more evolved" strains of yeast can be competitively
inferior to "less evolved" strains. An organism's success depends a
great deal on the behaviour of its contemporaries; for most traits or
behaviours there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent
23. has not, will not and cannot be proven,
There is a type of epistemological argument contra evolution.
Science maintain that that nothing in science can ever be "proven"
and this includes evolution. Semantics aside, "proof" and
"proving" are not something done in science. As the old saying
goes: "Proof is for alcohol and mathematics"; natural science
deals not with proof, but rather evidence. This is another distinction of
Continuing, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation
of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be
100%. Some would contend that this would lead to the conclusion that
evolution cannot be a fact (see #1). This kind of argument might be
appropriate in a philosophy class but it won't do in the real world. A
"fact", as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means
something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept
it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking
"Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one,
evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favour of it is as voluminous,
diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact
of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly
seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
"So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for
evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my
conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me
to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you
that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it
is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."
H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough"
School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959)
24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance',
In all aspects of evolution, natural laws and principles can explain
what has occurred. These influences act as a controlling force that
guides evolution to predictable outcomes. Evolution (at the molecular
level) abides by the laws of chemical reactions (i.e., chemistry and
physics) which can produce complicated organic molecules naturally (we
have witnessed this in the laboratory). Organic evolution is directed
by biological principles such as natural selection and genetics, which
again we have observed in the laboratory. The odds are, at the moment
of conception, over 70,000,000,000,000 (7.0x1013) to one that your
genes will not come together in the combination now in your body.
However, you are here and it was all controlled by the principles of
genetics. Natural forces and laws govern and direct evolution, not
"blind chance."
25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,
There has been much written regarding the old canard that
"evolution is impossible because it violates the second law of
thermodynamics". This is utter codswallop. Typically, if pressed, the
individual making such a claim will mutter something about "everything
in the universe tends toward chaos" and "you cannot derive order
from disorder". This evidences not a problem with evolution, but a
deep lack of understanding of basic science by the accuser.
Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics states that in a
closed system, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the
transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984,
"The Second Law", pg. 25]. Another way of stating this is that
the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication
of unusable energy and frequently corresponds to intuitive notions of
disorder or randomness order of systems will not spontaneously increase.
One may ask "What does this have to do with evolution?", and well
one might. Where it does is in the creationist caricature of the 2nd law
where they, in their sophomoric simplicity, claim that evolution derives
order from disorder; and that is in violation of the 2nd law?
What creationists fail to note (whether out of ignorance or
duplicity, one cannot reliably say, although it's probably both) is
that the Earth and it's life are not a closed system. All they would
need to do is arise early some morning, and f ace due east. Do they see
that large, luminous ball of fusing hydrogen and helium hanging in the
Creationists sometimes try to weasel around this by claiming that the
information carried by living things lets them create order. However,
not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is
exceedingly common in nonliving system s, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes,
tornadoes, crystal growth, stalactites, graded river beds, and
lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in
nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In
any nontrivial system with energy flowing through it, you are almost
certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from
disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is
it ubiquitous in nature?
One final 'argument' creationists pose is that the only true
closed system is the Universe itself; therefore evolution, taking place
in that universe, violates the 2nd law. Well, for reasons stated above,
this is totally a fallacious claim. Regions of high energy flow can
increase order at the expense of apparent disorder. Further, the solar
system (of which the Earth-Sun portion thereof is which with what we
are currently concerned) is not immortal nor infinite. One day, our sun
will consume most all of it's nuclear fuel (in 5 or so billion years,
so not to worry...yet), will go "red giant" and consume Mercury,
Venus and quite possibly the Earth. If not consumed in this phase of stellar
evolution, the Earth's oceans and atmosphere will be boiled off into
space and the Earth itself left a charred, cold, very dead world. The
bloated sun will consume the remainder of it's nuclear fuel in a very
profligate manner, spend itself and finally 'wink-out', to become a
dense, dead cinder in this region of space. Thermodynamics wins again,
and the entropy bill for the Sun-Earth system will be paid in full.
Now, can the creationists out there answer how creation be
valid when it violates the very 1st law of thermodynamics...where
matter can neither be created nor destroyed?
26. Does not deny (a) God(s),
There is no reason to "believe" that God was not a guiding
force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific
interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation
of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who "believe" in the existence of God
and in evolution. Common descent could then describe the process used by
But more fundamentally, it is fallacious to utilize the terms
"belief" and "believe" in natural science. Belief
requires faith. Faith is accepting that which is unevidenced or
unevidencable, typically without question. These concepts are totally
alien and inimical to the mode, methods and machinations of science and
the scientific method. Certainly, scientists may 'believe' and hold
beliefs; but when they speak of them, in whatever context, they are
speaking of a personal prejudice (yes, remember that they are also human;
and therefore just as subject to human foibles as any other); they are
not speaking of science.
As far as science is concerned, it cares not one whit what you
believe, but cares infinitely more about what you think. Anyone can
have and hold beliefs; although it is vastly more difficult, but
infinitely more rewarding, to have thoughts.
27. And finally: Falsifying evolution does not 'prove' Creation.
This is known as the "False Dilemma"; inasmuch as that this
argument (again, tremendously fallacious) claims that there are only two
possible explanations for a certain circumstance, in this case the
diversity of life on Earth; that is evolution or special creation.
Some maintain that if evolution is shown to be in error (this itself is
an erroneous supposition, for evolution is an observed fact; although
theories of evolution could be shown to be erroneous and therefore
would require re-analysis and possible abandonment of that particular
theory of evolution, as was done with Lamarkianism), that this would
automatically prove creationism. I think that if the gentle reader has
slogged though all this thusfar, we need not once again note the
multiple errors of that conclusion.
It can be demonstrated that there could be another possible explanation
for the diversity of life on Earth, viz. for your reading pleasure:
You see, the "One, True" theory is this: that the Earth over
the span of geological time (beginning just about 3.75 BYOSA [Billion
Years Or So Ago]) was visited by a race of extremely patient
extraterrestrial genetic bioengineers from the Dinwoody Cluster in the
galaxy of Archeocetus.
Being relatively new to both space travel, blackholes, warp drives, and
recombinant DNA; they decided to start small...proteinoid microspheres,
protobioinformational macromolecules, paleoarcheviri...you know, simple
critters. Dump 'em in the ocean, give 'em a stir and stand back to watch.
Sort of a galactic sized ant-farm (of course, ants wouldn't show up until
the Cenozoic; they're a late model addition). Occasionally, back on
Arglebargle 4 (their home base), an Arglebarglian equivalent of an Einstein
would show up at their tri-century geneticfests and show off his new
The greatly revered Warroona (a state hero and developer of in situ in
vitro protoretroviri) came up with the idea of external protection for
creatures. This was too good to pass up. After all the diddling around
with multiple appendages, a stab at sexual reproduction (a fairly good
idea, as it turned out) and colonial critters; the Arglebarglians
"Strangeloved" the entire Earth (our naively so-called
"extinctions") to pave the way for Warroona's great next
It worked out great. Hoards of shelled, frustruled and carapaced
critters skittered about and littered the ocean floor. And in the
nutrient rich broth called 'seawater', they flourished. Unfortunately,
the Arglebarglians didn't account for plant life (seems that archealga
were merely an embarrassing by-product of one of their ships flushing
out it's bilges before a return trip home), and this stuff was taking
over. So much, in fact, that it changed the composition of the early
atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing (by, of all things, by-products
from their metabolism) and now was thinking about taking over the
great unwashed plains that stuck nudely out of the oceans.
So, a pattern started to develop. Approximately every 22.6 MY or so, some
bright, young Arglebarglian bioengineer would come up with some great, new
innovation. Wanting to be first on the scene with such new advances, the
Arglebarglians would turn their "death ray" on the Earth, and,
again, "Strangelove" the planet. Although competent (and terribly
patient) bioengineers, they were not overly good mechanical engineers.
Their Strangelove ray would at times be set too high (like the time 245
MYA, damn near took out everything), or too low (like 345 MYA, when the
placoderms bought the proverbial ranch). But, it worked well enough for
their purposes (they themselves evolved a culture that existed only for
per diems, frequent flyer miles and a trophism for spaceport bars; but
that IS another story) and their experiments progressed nicely.
New, young, bright AG (hey, let's shorthand these guys) bioengineers
came up with the most improbable contrivances to give a whirl on their
test-tube planet. Amphibians ("Water: Don't leave home without
it.") to let animals conquer dry land (hey, the plants snuck out
first...those slimes), the amniote egg, and other such innovations.
Then things went into high gear. More and more AG's were turning to Earth
and it's growing ecology because it was (1.) a high profile project, (2.)
chock full of new critters to mess with and (3.) a great way to milk
research grants, expense-paid vacations, junkets with their comely
secretaries, and tenure out of universities.
So, all in all, the pace of innovation accelerated. "Hey. Here's a
trick we've never tried", remarked on particularly bright AG
bioengineer after a frat party, "Let's take one of those scale covered,
toothy characters and make 'em walk on [<hee, hee, get this>] their
hind legs..."
"Wow!", remarked his frat buddies in a haze and din of alcoholic
approval, "What a great idea."
Next came opposable digits, motile hands, encephalization and, of course,
a refined bipedal stance. No, we're not to ol' Homo sap. yet. We're
discussing archeosaurians here. Dinosaurs, gang. They beat us humans to
the advanced-trait punch by over 100 MY.
Things were going swimmingly for the AG's and their experiments,
particularly ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs...Fewer and fewer Strangelove
episodes were necessary as they were content to tinker and fiddle with
what was already available. Experiments included gigantothermy,
facilitated endothermy, opportunism, gigantism, dental differentiation;
experimenta ad infinitum. After a while, they noticed some smaller
critters shivering in the cool polar nights, what with their naked skin
and all, so feathers were developed as insulation. After yet another frat
party, these feathers were noticed to be good for snaring bugs (a mistake
that the AG's never caught). They also were aerodynamic. The bugs had
flight, the pterosaurs (custom designed (by committee) after an intense
12 kegger frat party) had flight; why not little, feathered, flying
All the while, one meek little AG bioengineer (who was never invited to
frat parties) was told to get after the Terran bug problem. All of the
frat guys were working on the high-profile (and typically large, noisy and
fierce) archosaurs. Being a mousy sort of person himself, he took a
totally different tack. He fashioned little, hyperactive bug-munchers.
They were small, though fairly buzzed on a terribly high metabolic rate;
fueled by, yep, you guessed it, insects. They had to be insulated (again,
naked skin was de rigeur for the AG engineers). Feathers were already in
use, so something new had to be used. Fur made it's first appearance.
With all the archosaurs stomping around, it's good that the first mammals
were small. They, by necessity, were also nocturnal, as most larger
archosaurian predators were diurnal. Accordingly, their senses intensified
and expanded, by necessity. Larger olfactory lobes, large eyes with
colour stereoscopic binocular vision, hand [paw]/eye co-ordination, etc.
All was moving right along for the AG engineers. Oh, sure, there was
the occasional cosmic conflicts; but comets, asteroids and the like
plopped onto the Earth so infrequently that they weren't paid much
mind. Besides, with _Utahraptor_, _Tarbosaurs_ and _Carnotaurus_ to
play with, why worry about dirty cosmic ice-balls and hunks of rather
unremarkable rock tumbling around the solar system?
After the "Big One" of 65 MYA, the Arglebargian bioengineers
were most distraught. They were having trouble with their dinosaurian clans
already, and the whole of the biosystem of the Earth was out of whack.
Mountains were rising, epeiric seas draining, temperature cooling
globally, then the "Big One". Killed every blessed <wink>
creature over 25 kg in mass. That did not leave the AG's much to work with.
They tried an early dalliance with birds. Huge flightless carnivorous
ratites were given the go ahead. After only a few million years (due to
the K/T debacle being still fresh in the powers-that-be's minds), the
program was scrapped. What was left to work with? "Well, there are
the furballs", remarked one A G engineer, again one never invited
to frat parties.
Grudgingly, the elders consented and soon grant proposals and all sorts
of experiments were funded.
Hooves, claws, extensible tongues, protrusible lips, prehensile tails...
all given the green light.
After myriad mammals marched across the face of the Earth, the elders
again grew restive. "*YAWN*", commented one elder, secretly
yearning for the good, old days. "Remember the Late Cretaceous? Now
*THERE* was a time!". Hearing this was an upstart AG bioengineer who
was also keen on ancient history books. "Late Cretaceous "eh?
What was so special about that time and those critters...?"
His proposal for mammalian bipedalism, opposable digits, and increased
encephalization was greeted with mixed results.
"Nahhh. We tried that once. Worked great, but remember what
"But this time is different!", protested the engineer.
"These critters are already insulated, have a lower species and
generic diversity and live in protected environments...[turning to an
aid...what's that called again? Oh, yes...], in forests."
"Nahhh...once burnt, twice learnt. I know, let's make something
new. With...pouches...webbed feet...poison glands!" exclaimed the
elder after a 6 martini lunch.
In the end, both projects were funded, but as pilot projects. One on
an island continent, the other on a larger continent next-door. Here,
the AG's screwed up, for the first project had been started on the sly
millions of years earlier over in the old Gondwana continents. But
even the AG's were surprised by the rapid takeoff of the African
But, by this time, after all the 6 martini lunches and herds of
tenured professors roaming the steppes of their home planet, the AG
were in a bit of their own fix. Things at home were getting very messy
indeed and a bit of housecleaning was in order. They weren't able to
check their charges for a couple of million years.
When they finally returned, and saw what had happened to their project
planet, they blanched. Never before had they seen a species spread like
such wildfire over the face of a planet. In every niche, cranny, and
environment. And, they had developed technology, science and
Unfortunately, they had their scopes set upon the noisome twee little
burg of El Cajon, Ca., upon an even more noisome group called the
"Institute for Creation Research". Investigating deeper, they
noted there the worship of an ancient tome of Middle Eastern mythology, a
total disdain for logic and reason, a penchant for out of context
quoting, deliberate misrepresentations and out-and-out lies; all in
the name of some "omnipresent", but strangely absent, deity.
After seeing all this, the AG's decided to give up 6 martini
lunches, mothball the current project and return to Arglebargle to see
if they could milk grants out of the system on another, perhaps more
promising, planet. One not quite so far out i n the backwaters of some
distant, and rather prosaic, galaxy...far, far away...
Well, there you have it. The LGM theory. Neither evolution nor
creation, but consistent with the fossil record and entirely plausible.
Unfortunately, it is not testable, falsifiable nor predictive. These
are the attributes it shares with creationism.
It does though contain exactly <1 miracle and <1 deity, attributes
it does not share with creationism.
And thus endeth the lesson.
This material is copyright(c) M.R. Leipzig, 1997-1998. All rights reserved.
This article contains numerous references and copious original material.
If a reference has not been cited, or cited improperly, please comment to
the author (email@example.com or
email@example.com) so that proper
citation may be attained in future editions of this work.
Permission is granted for electronic storage, dissemination and
telecommunication as long as citations remains intact.
I wish to thank Fred and David Rice, Dr. Martin Goldberg, Dr. Don
Martin, 'Hector Plasmic', Dan Ceppa, Marilyn Burge, Judith Bandsma,
Karl Schneider, and all the other WOA's of the FIDONET HolySmoke Echo;
Wes Elsberry at the University of Ediacara, those at the Skeptic Tank,
the creators and authors of the First Amendment, and frenzied,
fulminating fundies the world over; without which whom this article
would not and could not have been possible.
Additionally: Culliton, BJ, 1989, The dismal state of Scientific Literacy,
Science, V. 243
Byrne, G, 1989, U.S. Students flunk science, math, Science, V. 243
Further, in 1996, Carl Sagan again quoted the "95% scientific illiteracy
rate" in his book "The Demon Haunted World."
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The Evolution Fact FAQ
M. R. Leipzig (c)1997-1998
Last revision 27 January, 1998
1. is a fact,
2. is also a number of theories,
3. is Science,
4. is also scientific,
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
6. is falsifiable,
7. is testable,
8. is predictive,
9. has been observed;
9a. in the field
9b. in the laboratory,
10. has occurred in the past,
11. is still occurring,
12. will continue to occur in the future.
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially
those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state
clearly that evolution is a FACT, not ("only a" - ed.) theory,
and that what is at issue within biology are q estions of details of the
process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate
rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation
replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves
in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
some other yet to be discovered.
They are based on actual experience. Evolution has been observed,
in both the laboratory and the field.
It follows the rules of logic and is consistent with known facts.
Evolutionary theories must be logical (or they are disposed of) and are
consistent with, and modifiable by, the addition of new information.
You can verify them by experimentation. It is possible to imagine
ways that they prove to be invalid. Yes, indeed. See #'s 6 & 7 for
further exposition on this topic.
They tend not to be complex, to involve fewer assumptions. By
application of the Razor of Ockham, the 'principle of parsimony', or the
'KISS' principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
They work for a relatively wide range of phenomena. Organic evolution
unites biology (neontology), molecular biology, zoology, genetics, geology,
paleontology, physical chemistry, physics, etc. I'd consider that a
'relatively wide range of phenomena'.
You are willing to give them up if they prove wrong. Has been done
and continues to be done. Lamarkianism, Creationism (special, 'Scientific',
Biblical, Qu'ranic, Talmudic, Vedic, or otherwise), and orthogenesis are
examples of unsuccessful attempts to define and describe the diversity of
life on Earth.
"Evolution is thus not only anti-Biblical and anti-Christian,
but it is utterly unscientific and impossible as well. But it has served
effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism,
socialism, fascism, and numerous other false and dangerous philosophies
over the past century."
"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you
that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty,
not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might
be dreaming the whole thing. Th us there is no sharp line between
speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference
along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we
say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an
extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and
are ready to act accordingly.
[1] Hively, Wm, 1988, How much science does the public understand?,
American Scientist, Sept/Oct, p. 439-444.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.


text:
Sorry, no definitions found.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Sorry, no example sentences found.
Log in or sign up to add your own related words.
Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.
brandelion commented on the word wocka wocka
as said by Fozzy the Bear!
December 23, 2006

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your browser does not support iframes.
and many more!
City-specific electricity rates, plans, articles and more.
Commercial Electricity:
Residential Electricity:
Thank you for helping us with our electricity rate. With the extra money you saved us we were able to lease another delivery truck and hire an additional driver.
- Jessica S. in Midland Read More Testimonials


text:
Bombinatoridae Gray, 1825
Bombinatorina Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2, 10: 214. Type genus: Bombinator Merrem, 1820.
Bombinatoroidea — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 36. Explicit family.
Bombinatoridae — Gray, 1831, Zool. Misc., Part 1: 38.
Bombinatores — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 26; Leunis, 1844, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 1: 146.
Bombitatores Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 32. Type genus: Bombitator Wagler, 1830 (= emendation of Bombinator Merrem, 1820). Objective synonym of Bombinatorina Gray, 1825; see Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 206; Dubois, 1987, Alytes, 6: 56-68.
Bombinatorida — Bayer, 1885 "1884", Abh. K. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., Prague, 12: 18.
Bombininae Fejérváry, 1922 "1921", Arch. Naturgesch., Abt. A, 87: 25. Type genus: Bombina Oken, 1816. Synonymy by Dubois, 1983, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 52: 271; Dubois, 1987, Alytes, 6: 56-68.
Bombinidae — Tamarunov, 1964, in Orlov (ed.), Osnovy Paleontologii, 12: 126.
Bombinatorinae — Dubois, 1983, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 52: 271; Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 7.
Bombinatoridae — Ford and Cannatella, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr., 7: 94-117.
Bombinatoroidia — Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 7. Epifamily.
Bombinatoroidea — Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 7. Superfamily.
English Names
Firebelly Toads (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 38).
France and Italy east to eastern Russia and Turkey, China, Korea, and Vietnam; Borneo (central Kalimantan, Indonesia), and the Philippines.
See Dubois, 1984, Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, A—Zool., 131: 1-64, and Dubois, 1987, Alytes, 6: 56-68, for discussion of family-group nomenclature (in the sense of Bombinatoridae being included within former Discoglossidae). See comments under Alytidae for access to literature on phylogeny of the group. Lanza, Cei, and Crespo, 1975, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 9: 153-162, and Lanza, Cei, and Crespo, 1976, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 10: 311-314, considered, on the basis of immunological evidence, that Discoglossus should be maintained in Discoglossidae while Alytes and Bombina should be placed in a distinct family, Bombinidae; Barbourula was not assigned to family. (This relationship was also consistent with a study of precopulatory behavior by Bosch and Boyero, 2003, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 41: 145-151.) Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 12, suggested that Alytes should be placed in a distinct subfamily of his Discoglossidae, Bombinatorinae Gray, 1825, along with Bombina. Ford and Cannatella, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr., 7: 94-117, subsequently recognized Bombinatoridae for Bombina and Barbourula, but retained Alytes in a putatively monophyletic Discoglossidae (now Alytidae) along with Discoglossus, with Discoglossidae and Bombinatoridae being suggested to be only distantly related. Osteology of this family was discussed by Friant, 1960, Acta Zool., Stockholm, 41: 113-139. Estes and Sanchíz, 1982, J. Vert. Paleontol., 2: 18, discussed relationships within the family. Accounts and keys to most of the genera were supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14. Roelants and Bossuyt, 2005, Syst. Biol., 54: 111-126, and Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 1-370, provided further molecular evidence that Bombinatoridae is the sister taxon of Alytidae, thereby vitiating the rationale for recognizing the two units as families. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357-364, suggested that Bombinatoridae diverged from Alytidae (Discoglossidae + Alytidae in their usage) in the late Triassic, while Blackburn, Bickford, Diesmos, Iskandar, and Brown, 2010, PLoS One, 5 (8: e 12090): 1-8, suggested a Jurassic divergence. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the placement of Bombinatoridae as the sister taxon of Alytidae (their Alytidae + Discoglossidae). Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39-55, discussed the taxonomic history of this taxon as well as the fossil taxa associated with it. Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy.
Contained taxa (7 sp.):
External links:
Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.
- For additional sources of information from other sites search Google
- For images search Arkive, CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank


text: GM To Offer 60-Day Money Back Guarantee On All VehiclesWes Siler9/10/09 12:30pmFiled to: CarpocalypseGmGM Money Back GuaranteeGM Money BackMay The Best Car WinCarpocalypse NowIndustry News46EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalinkChanneling Lee Iacoca's "If You Can Find a Better Car, Buy It" ads, new GM chairman Ed Whitacre will be promoting a new 60-day money back guarantee on all GM vehicles starting on Monday.AdvertisementThe program is intended to restore consumer confidence in GM vehicles post bankruptcy and government bailout and will be applicable to all of GM's remaining brands: Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and GMC. We think this is the first time an automaker has offered a 100% refund on all its vehicles pegged to something as nebulous as customer "satisfaction." [via The New York Times]Reply46 repliesLeave a reply


text:
more useful options | |
PerlMonks |
Re^2: String manipulationby hotshot (Prior) |
on Aug 01, 2004 at 13:57 UTC ( #379069=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
My code is working, but what about effieciency and performance, is there a difference between the for loop in my suggestion to map?
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom


text:
Forgot your password?
Gen, a Slovenian pop star, teaches New Yorkers how to be fabulous and live rich on a budget. She's a POP STAR, On Sale.
date posted: 2010-07-14 | views: 3,445 | type: Movie
Gregory Grobstin
Samantha Jane Gurewitz
Mary Williams
The Price to Race
The Price of Beauty's Gift
No photos


text:
Is the Bible the best guide for teaching morality?
3/22/2009 | Share this article:
View Comments
By KSSImage by Travis Seitler via Flickr
I wonder why the Bible is used a source book for morality? I was listening to local Christian radio and I found it distasteful to hear them trying to raise funds to put "a Bible into the hands of every child".Why is that a good thing?
(Click here for more...)
Filed Under:


text:
- +
- This is a quality product for the professional user. Everyone that picked it up or used it was impressed.
- −
- Not really, the price was high for a single tube size bender but it is a quality product. You get what you pay for.
Published on: 24 May 2016


text:
ARK Original Graphic Novel
(0 items)
After 13 years of space travel, now far past the orbit of Pluto, the crew of the spaceship Explorer has been mysteriously cut off from communication with Earth. In light of Earths sudden silence, something about Explorers missionto find and colonize an Earth-like planetdoesnt ring true anymore. The crew grows restless, and amid the turmoil, one of the meta-humans on board discovers a secret, final message from Earth that reveals shocking news. A crew member disappears, and shipwide paranoia ensues. Will the Explorer crew band together or turn on themselves? And what is the true nature of their mission?


text:
Dr. Luke, whose real name is Lukasz Gottwald, will sit alongside Keith Urban and Jennifer Lopez when "American Idol" returns for Season 13. So far, Urban and Luke are the only judges Fox has confirmed as speculation continues.
However, rumors of Lopez's return to "American Idol" have been swirling for months. Lopez's boyfriend, Casper Smart, confirmed her involvement with the Fox singing competition.
Dr. Luke was lead guitarist on "Saturday Night Live" for 10 seasons. He went on to become a songwriter, producer and owner of two publishing houses, Kasz Money Publishing and Prescription Songs. Dr. Luke co-wrote Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" and worked with Katy Perry, Ke$ha, Britney Spears and more of today's top musicians.
Luke, 39, was said to be in talks for the gig after Black Eyed Peas rapper Will.i.am turned it down in favor of remaining a coach on the British version of "The Voice."
American Idol has suffered a revolving door of celebrity judges, mentors and failed ratings in recent seasons.
The latest upheaval saw music producer Jimmy Iovine exit after three seasons, and the show scrambling to recover from the ratings slip that adding celebrity judges Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey produced.
All have been a result of the void left by show originator Simon Cowell, who departed in 2010 to start the American take on "X Factor."
Longtime judge Randy Jackson also stepped down after the season 12 finale, after serving as the lone original judge, but hinted at the time that he would maintain a connection with "Idol."
The show's resurge could come with the addition of Dr. Luke, and reappearance of Lopez. The singer's boyfriend Casper Smart recently confirmed that she will be returning to the show for its 13th season.
If these judges don't work out, Fox has a backup plan with Justin Bieber manager Scooter Braun as another potential candidate. The charismatic ex-party promoter and marketing whiz is seemingly open to the idea and has his own label deal with UMG, putting him on the right side of the Idol loyalty fence. However, with a roster than includes newcomer Ariana Grande, K-Pop sensation Psy and boy band The Wanted, Braun, like Luke, is spread thin.


text:
10 August 2006
Holy explosive device, Batman!
I have spent the past week over at Mr. Stapler's. No, we're not married. No, we don't live together. But he lets me stay over there whenever I want. He is nice that way.
This week I wanted to be there for my dear dog Goldie's sake. She hates fireworks of any sort and the county fair is on for 10 days, featuring fireworks at 10 pm every single freaking night. We live 1/2 mile from the fairgrounds. I didn't know if she could survive the nightly assault, since during the fourth of July leadup and aftermath she would not eat, sleep or urinate for 8 hours after the Explosive Amateur Hour around here every night.
So like gypsies, we packed up and moved. Tonight, with three days left of the fair, I missed my house and came home and brought her with me. But then at the last minute I left her at my parents' house, 7 miles away.
Thank Goddess. The assault just began and it is scaring ME. It is so incredibly loud. Bombs bursting in air and all that. During this time of war, I can't help but have new compassion for the people in Lebanon and Israel, who have real bombs falling on them.
I went out and stood in the driveway with Gorgeous Neighbor Leah the Surfer Girl. We oohed and aahed. I said a prayer for those living in the war zone. And then, for us, it was over.
God you're so depressing.
What is wrong with you?
Why do you WRITE stuff like this?
It was just some nice FIREWORKS fer chrissake.
What makes you think people want to read crap like this?
I thought you were supposed to be funny.
You never write anything funny anymore.
I'm worried about you.
Maybe you should get out more.
Maybe you should get mental help.
What is this stupid blog about anyway?
Why do you have to write so much?
Are you ever going to do anything with your life or are you just going to sit there in front of the computer?
Good night, voices.
Good night, Suebob
15 comments:
- Mom101 said...
I so know what you mean - living in New York, every time we hear fireworks or low flying planes...well, you can imagine. It doesn't take much for your mind to go to more troubling times and places these days.
- cameo said...
ignore those voices - it's worked well for you so far!
i like your thought! - 6:56 AM
- Donna said...
Yeah, you keep writing just the way you always have, SueBob. I enjoy it!
- Chase said...
Your voices and my voices need to hook up and have lunch sometime. I think they'd get along quite nicely. :)
- gandhi rules said...
'Good night, voices.
Good night, Suebob'
It's your damn blog you write as you like. I love what you have to say. - 7:43 AM
I like the serious shit. I also like to be a goof. And I like writers that range into goofiness and serious shit.
I am so with you on the bombs bursting in air. I can't look at them and see the pretty, pretty colors. They mimic weapons and that's what I always recall.
During a fireworks display, a homeless man approached me. His cheeks shone with tears and he said, "I hope you never see the real thing. I hope you never see the real thing."
As far as a woman that smells like a dead fish, from time to time, don't we all? - 9:48 AM
Suebob, your "Are you ever going to do something with your life or are you going to just sit in front of the computer" comment haunts me. You're a writer. Sitting in front of a computer is your life. It might not be sexy, but that's a writer's reality. And doubting your self is a human's immutable reality.
- roo said...
Suebob, those voices in your head don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Your thoughts, on the other hand, are honest and thoughtful, and I'm glad you share them.
Good night, Suebob! - 7:33 PM
- SUEB0B said...
Thanks, everyone, for the support.
Shut up, voices. - 8:40 PM
- jess said...
stop stealing my voices!
feel better soon, or happier, and sleep well. - 9:41 AM
- leahpeah said...
i took the kids to the fair yesterday. we went early to avoid the scary people so we missed the fireworks. i don't like fireworks. i think you're writing rocks.
- Izzy said...
Whenver some idiotard in my neighborhood is doing fireworks, my voices say that they wish that person would blow off a limb or two. Not sure what they'd say about the people at the fair but I'm betting it would be about the same.
Bad voices, very bad. - 11:01 PM
- gingajoy said...
glad to know i am not the only one hearing voices like that--my head's been swarming with blog lately... and the whole terrorism thing... i think i am just repressing it all.
our dog is ok with the fireworks--our preschooler, not so much... makes for a lot of creative maneovering too. - 6:18 AM
- Suzanne said...
Tell your voices that I am always happy to read anything you write, even as mundane as a grocery list. (I think even your grocery list would be chock full of great details and insight!)
- crazymumma said...
We were zoomed by a fighter plane at teh cottage we rent. It was a 'hello' to the owner...
I practically crapped my undies, my baby cried for SO long, and I was shaking for an hour afterward. I cannot imagine how scary it must be to live with the REAL fear.
I think my voices make me interesting...we cannot be entertaining all the time...Anne - 3:31 PM


text:
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
4 comments:
- la la Lovely said...
Anna, I just left the Laudree site before I came to yours and was just looking at that very image for my blog today! I'm wishing I was there today. How funny.
- 2 July 2008 at 00:58
- girl meets glamour said...
If only my office was as cute as this one here!!
~Kate - 2 July 2008 at 03:29
- Brooke said...
How fun! You don't see that everyday.
Clever indeed.
Great inspiration. - 2 July 2008 at 06:15
- Paris Hotel Boutique said...
Anna, do you have larger images of the first two? I'd love to see the details. Great idea! Lynn
- 15 July 2008 at 00:41
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text: Sport Sports Letters: Artificial sweeteners From MR N MCGRATH Wednesday 26 May 1993 23:02 BST Click to followThe Independent Online Sir: In the midst of all the boardroom power struggling at Spurs, Alan Sugar demonstrated his ignorance of the game and its supporters. His assertion that 'if we win three or four games, the manager and the team become heroes and the cruel harsh reality is, maybe, Terry is forgotten' is an insult to Spurs supporters and Venables himself. It will take more than four victories to wipe out the memory of Venables's achievements at White Hart Lane. Without Venables Spurs would probably be in the hands of Robert Maxwell's creditors and looking at a future of mid-table obscurity. For football and Tottenham's sake let's get rid of artificial sweeteners. No Sugar and more Venables.Yours sincerely, NICK McGRATH Knebworth Hertfordshire 24 May More about: Loans And Lending Market Premier League Sweeteners Tottenham Hotspur Comments


text:
Taking a Toll By AMY L. WITTMAN, Editor in Chief
In the $613.9 bil- lion defense budget proposal President Barack Obama sent to Congress on Feb. 13, $208.8 billion has been proposed for operations and maintenance depart-ment-wide. Of that, the Navy and Marine Corps would get a total of $59.5 billion, which includes Overseas Contingency Operations funds, according to a budget documents.
Maintenance can be daunting in a maritime environment, its effects taking a toll on billions of dollars worth of equipment and making ships, aircraft and vehicles increasingly expensive to operate and less safe for the operators.
The Navy spends an estimated $7billion just to combat corrosion and,as Special Correspondent Daniel P.Taylor points out in his report,"Fighting the Silent Enemy" (page22), the actual cost may be higher."It doesn't look at mission systems, itdoesn't look at up-front investments,trade studies, things like that," saysStephen Spadafora, the Navy's corro-sion control and prevention execu-tive. "So that $7 billion is essentiallya low figure."To address the issue, the Navy haslaunched a multi-agency effort aimedat not just fixing the damage causedby corrosion, but addressing thepotential problems as early as the sys-tem design phase.
Special Correspondent Edward Lundquist explores ways to keep ships out of dry dock and extend hull life in "A Maintenance-Free Hull?"
(page 18). The Officeof Naval Research isstudying the use ofmaterials other thaniron and steel in shipconstruction to lessenthe impact of corro-sion, such as alumi-num, composites andtitanium. Larry Schu-ette, director for inno-vation with the Officeof Naval Research, notes that "interms of ship design and production,maintenance, protection and surviv-ability, we're trying to build thingsthat last longer."In "Sleek Exterior, Trouble Inside"(page 24), Taylor recounts the prob-lems encountered in executing theLPD 17 program that some have saidis indicative of a lack of focus on shipmaintenance and shipbuilding over-sight fleetwide. Doug Lounsberry,Huntington Ingalls Industries' vicepresident and LPD 17 program man-ager, said various communities with-in the Navy and the shipbuilder hadto come together to get to the heart ofthe program's problems.
Rounding out our special report on Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul, Managing Editor Richard R. Burgess, in "Branching Out" (page 28), notes that independent naval engineering firm Gibbs & Cox has expanded its work to include offering sustainment and support services to shipyards too small to have their own engineers on site, and to the U.S. government in support of ships sold to other countries.
THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES Volume 55, Number 3, March 2012
Philip L. Dunmire
Dale A. Lumme
Amy L. Wittman firstname.lastname@example.com
Peter E. Atkinson email@example.com
Richard R. Burgess firstname.lastname@example.com
John C. Marcario email@example.com
Charles A. Hull email@example.com
DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Kerri Carpenter firstname.lastname@example.com
Megan Scully
Lisa Nipp
Jean B. Reynolds
Amy Billingham and Rob Black Pensaré Design Group
2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-5424 TEL: 703-528-1775 — editorial
703-528-2075 — advertising FAX: 703-243-8251 E-MAIL: email@example.com WEBSITE: www.seapowermagazine.org TWITTER: @seapowermag
COMMUNICATIONS BOARDCHAIRMAN: Brandon R. "Randy" Belote IIINATIONAL OFFICER: Philip L. DunmireMEMBERS: Merritt Allen, Maureen Cragin,Daniel Dayton, Robert Hamilton, MargaretB. Holtz, Guy ShieldsEX-OFFICIO: Karen Crawford, Dale A.Lumme, Tom Van Leunen, Amy L. WittmanSEAPOWER / MARCH 2012


text:
San Gabriel Mountains > Mount San Antonio (Mount Baldy) > Climber's Log
Mount San Antonio (Mount Baldy) Climber's Log
[ Sign the Climber's Log ]
hol571 | Baldy Bowl Date Climbed: Feb 9, 2008 | |
great conditions, went up the ski hut trail, then straight up the bowl to the summit, then across the backbone to the notch and down the ski lift. | ||
Posted Jun 23, 2008 8:39 pm |
SoCalHiker | Beautiful mountain Date Climbed: Jun 8, 2008 | |
Have done it multiple times this year (2008) from Baldy Bowl, Devil's Backbone, and Baldy Canyon trail. | ||
Posted Jun 8, 2008 6:31 pm |
eikehugo | great hike Date Climbed: Jul 8, 1999 | |
great hike in socal - just perfect for a day. | ||
Posted May 20, 2008 1:52 pm |
bruceg | North, South East, and West | |
10 times between 1984 and 2007. From Bear Flats, Ski Hut trail, Manker Flats to Baldy Notch, Blue Ridge. I have had the summit to myself, and shared it with 100 others. | ||
Posted May 19, 2008 4:38 pm |
jonmeek16 | AWESOME | |
Some of the funniest hiking locally in So Cal. | ||
Posted May 3, 2008 1:06 pm |
Sam Page | 6x | |
Climbed by various routes in various seasons from 1999-2004. | ||
Posted Apr 20, 2008 12:08 pm |
Fins129 | great hike Date Climbed: Nov 18, 2007 | |
Up the ski hut and down devil's backbone. Fun during the winter too up the bowl. | ||
Posted Apr 10, 2008 2:39 am |
citizen453 | Great Fun | |
Went with the family, great way to get above the smog. | ||
Posted Mar 16, 2008 10:31 pm |
david whiting | Don't do this at night in winter Date Climbed: Dec 27, 1998 | |
After being very kind to two stupid, inexperienced hiker-climbers, Baldy let us summit her after spanking us pretty bad on a crazy, snowy attempt in the dark. Learn - and live! | ||
Posted Mar 15, 2008 6:59 pm |
jmc | Blue Bird day Date Climbed: Mar 9, 2008 | |
A little windy on top. Good snow conditions. | ||
Posted Mar 10, 2008 4:27 pm |
JCarlson | Baldy Bowl Date Climbed: Feb 19, 2008 | |
My first snow climb. Climbed to the skihut and went up the right side of the bowl. Had beautiful weather and only saw two other folks the whole day. Clouds covering the valley floor made for some great views! Excellent snow conditions in the bowl. It took 8 hours round trip. Not bad for a couple flatlanders eh? | ||
Posted Feb 20, 2008 5:13 pm |
Aaron Dyer | Nice Day Date Climbed: Feb 18, 2008 | |
Once you got above the smog. | ||
Posted Feb 18, 2008 5:49 pm |
Beaver1believer | A Night Hike Date Climbed: Jan 30, 2008 | |
Summited Baldy via the Bowl. Perfect conditions. Started at 3:30 pm, summited at 8:15 pm. Solo. Beautiful! Returned to car at 10:15pm. Crampons/ice axe a must. No avalanche danger in bowl (7pm onward). Good snow. Superb view! | ||
Posted Jan 31, 2008 4:16 am |
Uncleman | Ski Hut Trail to SBSAR Rescue Date Climbed: Jan 19, 2008 | |
Successful ascent via the Ski Hut Trail. Great day, great conditions. Bumped into fellow SPer's at the Ski Hut. Descent was capped off with a ride in a SBSAR helo. My trip report explains it all. Will be making another summit bid soon… | ||
Posted Jan 27, 2008 1:51 am |
Day Hiker | Baldy Bowl Date Climbed: Jan 19, 2008 | |
Great snow climb, not too difficult or dangerous, but a great workout, great photos, and a lot of fun. Went with Rick Kent, forjan, patrickfinley, uwjennie, and . . . sorry I don't know all names, but it was great to hike together. | ||
Posted Jan 25, 2008 9:13 pm |
forjan | Baldy Bowl Date Climbed: Jan 19, 2008 | |
Climbed with Patrick, Rick Kent and Day Hiker. Ran into uwjennie, her b/f and friend. Awesome day in the Bowl. Great glissade down too! Afterwards we all went for burgers & beers at the Mt. Baldy Lodge (thanks for the suggestion Rick!) ---------- Route Climbed: Traverse from Iron Mtn. Date Climbed: January 21, 2007 Started the day hike from Heaton Flats trailhead to Iron Mountain. Then, traversed over from Iron Mountain along the San Antonio ridge to West Baldy and finally Baldy summiting at 4:08pm under 60mph to 80mph winds (almost got blown off the mountain!). Descended the Ski Hut trail to Manker Flats. ---------- Route Climbed: Bear Canyon/Bear Flat Date Climbed: November 13, 2004 After meeting with Alex Gorokhov at 7:00am at the bottom of the ski lifts, I left my car there at the parking lot and Alex gave me a ride to the Baldy village church (the start of the Bear Canyon trail). Alex then went on to Icehouse Canyon as his agenda was to climb Cucamonga Peak. I started hiking at 7:30am. By 10:20am, I was taking my lunch break at 9080 feet. At about 9400 feet, the puffy clouds blowing from the northeast created a white-out. This is my 1st white-out on Baldy. It got cold quick and very windy (approx 40mph with gusts up to 50mph). The white-out was very persistant all the way to the summit and beyond. I had to slow down to hike through the white-out....and then, as soon as I gained the upper ridge at about 9800 feet, the snow was very very hard. In fact, there were patches of ice sheets. I had to take my crampons out and put them on with ice axe on hand. It took me like 1 1/2 hours to go from 9080' to the summit (10,064') because of the white-out conditions. I only stayed 15 minutes on the summit (sheltered against the ground) hoping it would clear, but it didn't. I decided to bag Mt. Harwood (9552') on the way down. I kept my ice axe out and crampons on all the way down the Devil's Backbone. I arrived at Baldy Notch (7800') by 3:00pm. Then, I took the ski lift down to save my knees, and at 3:30pm (8 hrs later after I started in the morning) I was sitting on my car warming up. ---------- Route Climbed: The Bowl Date Climbed: December 30, 2002 Yet another great Baldy winter ascent. Sunny skies and generally not too cold. Went with fellow SCMA member Alex Gorokhov. We started at the Manker Flats trailhead. There was a bit of ice right at the trailhead this morning. We took our first snack break at the green Ski Hut. We then climbed pretty much the middle (more to the East) of the bowl. Snow was good for kicking steps. I personally did not use crampons but Alex did. After summiting, we descended about 100-200' from Baldy's summit towards the Devil's Backbone and found a nice run-out slope to practice self-arrest. Alex and I practiced all the self-arrest fall positions. We then continued down via the Devil's Backbone to Baldy Notch. We stopped at the restaurant there and had a beer. Got lazy and caught the ski lift down to the parking lot. All in all, a very nice day! ---------- Route Climbed: July 28, 2001 Date Climbed: Bear Canyon/Bear Flat Day hiked with Tom McKnelly to prepare for the Vitesse Whitney day hike in August 2001. ---------- Route Climbed: North Backbone (Blue Ridge) Date Climbed: June 17, 2001 Started from Guffy campground. Up and back on the North Backbone (Blue Ridge) trail. Ran out of water early on and had a slow day. ---------- Route Climbed: Bear Canyon/Bear Flat Date Climbed: June 3, 2000 Backbacked up via Bear Flat with Will Felten. Slept at the summit. Next day descended via San Antonio Sierra Ski Hut. Will was tired so I walked from Manker Flats to the Baldy Village church to pick up our car. | ||
Posted Jan 20, 2008 12:48 pm |
Bill562 | Baldy Bowl Date Climbed: Jan 13, 2008 | |
Climbed with Dave Gonzalez. The snow conditions in the bowl were excellent. Winds made the walk to the summit above the chutes challenging. Had to fight traffic to get out of the trailhead. Sunday afternoon snow play for the LA crowd I guess... | ||
Posted Jan 13, 2008 11:06 pm |
Etaoin | Meant to be a Ski Hut to Backbone loop | |
My first substantial hike after a year living in Southern California and it was quite tough. The plan was to hike up the Ski Hut trail to the peak, then across the Backbone ridge and back down along the fire road (I don't think the lift was running). We ended up doing it backwards and the steep downhill on the Ski Hut trail cost me a toenail when all was said and done. It was a beautiful, cold day before the snow hit that year. It made be truly appreciate our wilderness areas. Let's hope there is plenty of rain and snow up there for the spring PCTers. | ||
Posted Jan 12, 2008 1:30 am |
mtndonkey | Fun SoCal Hike | |
Climbed all seasons and winter is my favorite. On good snow years the most enjoyable route is directly up the bowl. In March 2005 I was able to snowboard all the way down to the Manker Flats trailhead via the ski hut trail. Weekdays are much better than weekends, sometimes you will have the mountain all to yourself. | ||
Posted Jan 3, 2008 9:17 pm |
Jackalopes | Devils Backbone several times Ski Hut twice Date Climbed: Dec 20, 2006 | |
Done it in all four seasons... Both routes are great. The Ski Hut trail a bit more challenging but easily done in 3/4 of a day. Devils Backbone give you the option of riding the ski lift down if you do it in winter, on a holiday or on a weekend. | ||
Posted Dec 4, 2007 2:13 pm |


text:
The most popular videos on YouTube are unrepeatable phenomena. It's a big world, and there are a lot of weird people out there, but not until YouTube became such a global sensation did everyone realize exactly how many weird people are out there, and exactly how weird they are. You have the Star Wars Kid, an overweight teenager who became famous when he filmed himself pretending to be Darth Maul using a broom handle as a lightsaber, and his schoolmates got hold of the tape. You have the Numa Numa guy, another overweight teenager who sings along to a bizarre Eastern European song with hilarious expressions, and waves his arms around. You have the Dramatic Prairie Dog, about whom there is nothing further to say other than "the funniest 5 seconds of your life". And in this august company, you have Chocolate Rain, a song by Tay Zonday.
At first it seems hard to grasp why on Earth over thirty million people have viewed this song on YouTube. That's 30,000,000. That's a very large number of people, and it's really not a very good song. It features Tay, a nerdy-looking bespectacled black kid (in fact, Tay is 26), standing in front of a studio mic. At the start of the clip, he stands up, having just started up his backing track, a tinny loop that sounds like it was knocked together on a Casio keyboard. When he sings his first words - "Chocolate Rain" - his voice is incongruously deep. The delivery of the lines is strangely stilted, the rhythm of the words matching the rhythm of the backing track too closely, so that he sounds somewhat mechanical. Tay's expressions are odd - he sings with a kind of grimace on one side of his face, and with an expression of wide-eyed unselfconsciousness. He moves away from the mic to breathe in. So that people know what he is doing this for, some large white text appears, saying "**I move away from the mic to breathe in". When asked why he put this text in, Tay replied, "I just figured that if I didn't mention it people would wonder what I was doing." The lyrics are somewhat obscure, but seem to deal with issues of racism and social inequality.
Part of the charm of Chocolate Rain is the sincerity and naivety of Tay Zonday himself — the idea that he has put in this piece of text to explain one piece of weirdness, but seems to have no clear idea of the full extent of the weirdness of this song and by extension himself. In fact, it is just this sincerity and unselfconsciousness that characterizes almost all of the most popular internet memes. The Star Wars Kid, the Numa Numa guy, and Tay Zonday, are just people doing something that they are very into, without (it seems) much idea that anyone else will find it weird or hilarious, and certainly without any idea that it will be seen thirty million times.
"I'm pretty sure the 'Chocolate Rain' attention started as a joke at 4chan.org, an image board that is credited with starting lots of popular internet phenomena. It spread to a general audience and people started uploading spoofs. I don't know what causes people to listen to my music." — Tay Zonday
Like many of the biggest memes, Chocolate Rain was popularized by 4chan. It was first posted on YouTube in April 2007, and by October 2008 had hit the 30,000,000 views mark, due to a number of factors — it became widely parodied on 4chan and YouTube, and eventually Tay Zonday appeared as a character in a South Park episode, in which his head is made to explode by the Dramatic Prairie Dog. Chocolate Rain has been parodied an unknown (but very large) number of times, both on YouTube and in more mainstream productions; Tay, who seems like a good sport and an interesting guy, has also parodied the song himself, as "Summer Break" and "Cherry Chocolate Rain". It's unclear whether he has managed to profit from his unexpected fame in any big way; Chocolate Rain was released under a Creative Commons license, a fact which may have assisted its rapid proliferation across the internet and other media.
"I want nonprofit radio and small mom/pop cafes to be able to play my music for free. But I also want giant corporations who can afford to give me a dime or two to pay fair royalties." — Tay Zonday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Rain
Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.
Sign up
Need help? firstname.lastname@example.com