More antics from PZ Myers?

Is it really a surprise ? I wonder if PZ actually thinks what he is doing is reasonable ?

Gosh, that can’t help anybody. I’d hate to admit, but I do like reading and listening to the opposition, b/c it strengthens and challenges own beliefs. But if they are using mere fabrications, no good, no good.

If I were forced to live on a desert island with either P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins, I would choose Dawkins in a heartbeat. Everything I’ve seen or read by P.Z. has been suspect at best, and at worst vulgar, mean spirited, bigoted, and outright contemptuous - certainly not the type of character that befits a scientist in the public arena. I would expect him to be lying.

Even evolved liars are still liars.

“Is it really a surprise ? I wonder if PZ actually thinks what he is doing is reasonable ? ”

Good point. But, it’s frustrating to see the minions at Phar & PT that back everything PZ says; and will defend with tooth and nail his honor and credibility. Then they have the nerve to call anyone, even in slight dissent, irrational.

Doug

Good point. But, it’s frustrating to see the minions at Phar & PT that back everything PZ says; and will defend with tooth and nail his honor and credibility. Then they have the nerve to call anyone, even in slight dissent, irrational.

You have to understand the rules of the game, Doug. Rule #1 among Darwinists, especially those at PT, is: never, ever concede a point, no matter how valid, to someone deemed a ‘creationist’(whatever the definition du jour of that term might be). Thus, PZ or any of the others can misquote, misrepresent to their hearts content knowing full well that none of their own will ever call them on it. But let a Darwin doubter even commit a typo and their all over it like a pack of jackals, whooping and hollerin’ “see what dishonest liars these creationists or IDers are!! See, we told ya, we told ya!!” Then, when someone painstakingly takes the time to point the obvious errors in their characterization of some IDP’s actual argument, they resort to the usual argumentum ad hominem, and never, ever admit error or misunderstanding, because rule #2 is: only’creationists’ and IDP’s are capable of error and misunderstanding an argument.

The Panda’s Thumb should be re-named “The Straw Man”, (or maybe “The Straw Panda?”) because, in the end, that is mostly what it is.

I’m kind of fond of “The Panda’s Dung”…

This says a lot of Wells’ book where the opposition has to make stuff up in order to attack his book.

Smidlee, they pull it out of their … see #6

Sal, why was the comment linking to Myers’s response deleted? It seems the best way to get to the truth of the matter would be to get all the information. If links to foul-mouthed christian haters are not allowed no matter what the situation, I think it would at least be appropriate to note that the accusation that Myers “changed Wells’s wording” isn’t exactly accurate.

Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit, and that Myers’s original statements were, in fact, exactly as he represented them.
Why is it so difficult to admit this?

Well, I stand rebuked and chagrined. PZ Myers defends himself on his website well, I look to the original blog to see the author’s response and see nothing as of yet.

I wonder though, given the quoted text from pp30-31 if Myers, rather than lying, is just guilty of miscontextualizing the standout graphic. If the quote box from pp.35 is meant to highlight what was already presented on pp.30-31, then Myers is wrong that Wells lied and McGraw is wrong that Myers lied. He simply missed that the quote was reviewing material covered a few pages earlier.

Your link is garbled, sal.

Sal, what Myers did was to point out, with page references and quotations, exactly how Wells had distorted Ballard’s quotation. Anyone looking at the page from Wells’s book (pg. 35) can see that Myers’s version of the quote is right there in plain sight. And anyone reading the text can see that Wells’s distorted the meaning of Ballard’s quote for his own purposes.

I think it would be better if, rather than trying to distort the published writings of evolutionary biologists, Wells published the results of his own research. That’s where real science happens: in the field and the lab, with real data and statistical analysis that anyone can review and criticize. Distortion of the works of others, no matter who does it, isn’t science, it’s politics, pure and simple.

I was the person that posted the original link to PZ’s comments. It now appears as though Im out on the street as far as UD goes. That’s unfortunate. I always appreciated the conversations I’ve had here, and I don’t think I was ever out of line.

bye.

I’d like to see screen caps of pp.30-31

It appears that Myers was quote mining a quote mining.

If this is an accurate scan

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....gdig35.gif

of page 35 (and I presume it is) Myers evidently cherry picked this box quote and ignored the text on pp. 30-31 where Wells included the gastrula stage clarification that Myers objects to as being left out.

Clearly Wells wasn’t trying to hide anything as the gastrula is explicitely mentioned in the text of the book. The box quote uses “early embryo stages of vertebrates” instead of “the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates” as is used in the text.

So now we need to look at whether or not “early embryo stage” is a fair phrase to use in describing cleavage and gastrulation stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation

Gastrulation is a phase early in the development of animal embryos

The answer: yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase.

So now we ask ourselves why the big box quote might use a different phrase.

Everyone raise their hand who doesn’t have to rush to a biology textbook to have a clue what an “early embryo stage” is.

Now everyone raise their hand who immediately knows what “cleavage and gastrulation” is.

Wells simply used a fair and more widely understood phrase in a big bold text box to highlight an important point and he put the more obscure but clinically accurate biology language in the text.

Myers probably shouldn’t be a teacher if doesn’t get that. Of course we all knew that already.

No, I was referring to a comment by someone named Franky, I think. Perhaps he can verify that he posted a link to Myers’s response. Maybe it was a different moderator that deleted his comment.

The editor of the book shortened the quote in order to make it fit? That seems to be a fairly weak explanation or the hallmark of a poor editor since it managed to completely distort the meaning of the quote.

I pulled the link Franky left to Myers’ response, not Sal, and then temporarily banned Franky while I sorted the mess out. Franky’s on the moderation list not the banned list and is free to comment here subject to moderator approval. Myers won’t let me put links to our blog on his so it’s only fair that I snuff his here. I made an exception just to get the page scan from Wells’ book and left out all Myers’ vile diatribe that went with it.

Obviously I didn’t know the politics of the Pharyngula/UD link situation - if I had, I wouldn’t have posted the link in the first place.

Apologies.

Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit,

Allen,

That is not accurate, I cut and pasted things, links die in the process. Any of the readers and commenters can post links to amend the situation.

He’s refering to comment 9 by franky172 which has been removed.

9. franky172 // Nov 3rd 2006 at 10:38 am

PZ has a different take on the issue. Ignoring his foul language, it does seem he has a valid point…

http://sc... (link removed in keeping with daveScot’s policy)

Comment by franky172 — November 3, 2006 @ 10:38 am

Incidentally franky172, can you point out where PZ Myers uses “foul language” in that link?

Then, when someone painstakingly takes the time to point the obvious errors in their characterization of some IDP’s actual argument, they resort to the usual argumentum ad hominem, and never, ever admit error or misunderstanding, because rule #2 is: only’creationists’ and IDP’s are capable of error and misunderstanding an argument.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can admit the mistake without accompanying snipes at PZ.

Oops, my attempt at nested block quotes did not work. Everything up to “He’s referring” is quoted from Sal.

Patrick, you are right. I apologise.

I did also take into consideration Franky’s saying the link included foul language. Foul language isn’t allowed on this blog and that would include links to foul language. I didn’t fisk Myers’ post for it but knowing Myers I figured it was probably true.

You can argue whether or not Wells changing the quote to say early stages is a problem, or whether criticism of the change is fair. But the quoted post claims that Myers deliberately altered a quote from Wells’ book, which is false. It doesn’t take Myers to task for only quoting page 35 and leaving page 31, it actually says he altered the quote from page 31 to make it look like Wells is lying.

“The answer, yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase.”

I agree, but it is not accurate the refer to gastrulation as ”the early embryo stages”. Depending on what you define as early stages, you can argue about the amount of difference, but Ballard is specifically referring to the gastrula stage.

It seems many on both sides here jumped the gun. How ironic today is Cliche Day!

Hey Allen,

Did you bone up on astrobiology yet? Maybe we can have a rational conversation about the definition of living things from an astrobiology POV if you did. Let me know when you catch up with me.

Patrick, I think the quibble is the usage of “an early” vs. “the early.”

Chris

Ballard was actually referring to the cleavage and gastrulation stages. Both are early embyro stages so the plural is still correct.

steveh
Incidentally franky172, can you point out where PZ Myers uses “foul language” in that link?

On second reading there isn’t much foul language in this post of PZ Meyer’s. I was under the impression that the comments at the bottom were fouler than a second reading indicates as well.

My real reason for including the “foul language” claim was to prevent people from UD from unsuspectingly running into bad language at another blog. I personally swear like it’s going out of style when I’m not on UD, but I thought a pre-emptive warning might be good for the sensibilities of some here.

The most powerful lies are those made by true statements. In scriptures, satan often use this type of lying.
In the box it also states “When the evidence is againest you, find a Darwinist for a lawyer.” But I really don’t think this book is suggesting when someone needs a real lawyer then get someone like Myers.
The question still remains did Wells’ try to deceive by making true statements as well did Myers himself tried the same. Tim Mcgrew did show where Wells honestly point out exactly what William Balled meant which leaves Myers (including Tim)quote misleading. Of course Both Myers and Mcgrew could have incidentally overlook some statements in the book.

This is what makes “lying” by making true statement so clever. Like buying a car from a used car salemen where you really don’t know if he lying or just doesn’t know the car was a lemon.

The bottom line is that PZ got caught red-handed and instead of fessin’ up and making an apology, he exacerbates the situation with more mis-representation. See Rule #1 in post #6 above.
It applies every time!!

Sal wrote:

I think PZ did a nice misdirection in his response to this thread.

I disagree. Regardless of whether or not PZ was correct in his assessment of Wells’ claims, the article under consideration states:

Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.

and

And not a single commentator on Panda’s Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers’s quotation against Wells’s actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.

The author goes on:
Let me rephrase that: Myers has changed Wells’s wording and then has the temerity to accuse Wells of misleading the reader at the very point where Myers himself has made the change in Wells’s words. (emphasis added).

The claim, then, is that the quote as PZ Meyers presented it is not in Wells’ text. In fact, we agree that the quote in question appears in a bolded box and is taken directly from the text of the book.

In fact, McGrew goes on to tacitly admit that the quote in question as presented in Meyer’s critique is “critically different” from a good reading of the book:

“attributing to him in direct quotation something that is critically different from what Wells actually said”

Whether the quote says what either McGrew or Meyer’s believes it to say, in or out of context, seems immaterial to the charge that Meyer’s *deliberately falsified a quote from the book*. Which appears to be the charge levied by McGrew.

Sal:

I haven’t seen him address the real issue.

And you won’t because of rule #2 in post #6 above.
Rule #3 (for Darwinists)is: If you’re caught in an error or misrepresentation of fact, rant, rave and call your opponents all sorts of names, and toss out a red-herring or two.

“Problems of gastrulation: real and verbal,” BioScience 26 (1976), William W. Ballard. Subscription may be needed.

Myers whole point was the Wells was trying to mislead people into thinking there was no morphological similarities between embryos at the pharyngula stage. I believe this is a completely false and fabricated premise.
In fact, correct me if I am wrong, doesn’t Wells use the same “hour glass” graphic in his Icons of Evolution that Myers uses on PT? I gave away my copy of Icons of Evolution so I can’t check it but if anybody has it could you confirm that?

Allan McNeil,

Sal, what Myers did was to point out, with page references and quotations, exactly how Wells had distorted Ballard’s quotation. Anyone looking at the page from Wells’s book (pg. 35) can see that Myers’s version of the quote is right there in plain sight. And anyone reading the text can see that Wells’s distorted the meaning of Ballard’s quote for his own purposes.

That is false. Myers’ allegation was that Wells was trying to mislead readers into believing that the quote from Ballard refers to the pharyngula stage and not the gastrula stage. Wells never claimed the Ballard quote referred to the pharyngula stage, on page 31 Wells specifically states that it refers to the gastrula stage, which is in fact “an early embryo stage.”

Modern embryologists confirm this. Dartmouth College biologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates “are more alike than adults”.

From the paper I just linked (emphasis mine):

“Thus, the energy of investigators and particularly students is diverted into the essentially fruitless 19th century activity of bending the facts of nature to support second-rate generalities of no predictive value. Though enthusiasm for Haeckel’s (1900) recapitulation ‘law’ died out, unfortunately the popularity of Von Baer’s ‘laws’ of 1828 was renewed. In order to defend the latter’s descriptive statements that general characters appear before special characters as an egg develops and that the less general and finally the specific characters trail along later, we have to decide intuitively that certain characters are of ‘morphological significance’ and others are not. When referring to vertebrates, we have to use words like blastula and gastrula in such a way as to imply that things that are vastly different from each other are really very much the same.

In fact, the most obvious structural characteristics of either the eggs or the cleavage stages of a shark, a salmon, a frog, a bird, or a mammal are unique each to its own class, not generally shared. We would not consider them very much alike unless we had been taught so at a very early age. Very few vertebrates pass through a stage which can strictly be called a blastula. The embryo in its period of most active morphogenetic movements is usually called a gastrula, but as all agree this word has no morphologic meaning anymore. Each class of vertebrates (in mammals we might almost say each particular order) develops and then loses its own set of temporary structures - like the parade ground ‘formations of maneuver’ - during this period. The plain fact is that evolutionary divergence has taken place at every stage in the life history, the earliest no less than the latest. To bolster the partial truths in Von Baer’s generalities by insisting that the eggs of vertebrates are more like one another than their ‘blastulas,’ the blastulas more like one another than their ‘gastrulas,’ and to homologize all theoretical ‘functional blastopores’ where ‘invagination’ is taking place would be running the risk of assuming what is not yet demonstrate - that the genetic physiologic, and cell-behavior processes going on are the same in time and nature.”

PZ Myers’ obfuscation and distortion is stunning. His defense is becoming more twisted and confused. Wells never denies the similarities of the pharyngula stage. Here is what Wells writes on page 31

So vertebrate embryos start out looking very different, then they become somewhat similar midway through development (though not as similar as Haeckel made them out to be) before diverging again. Embryologists call this pattern the “developmental hourglass”

Wells is not trying to hide the pharyngula stage, and if you think about what is going on, there is no reason to. The apparent similarities of the pharyngula stage are not probative to the issue of evolution. Yet evolutionists like Myers hang their hat on the pharyngula stage, claiming that because embryos at that stage show some similarity, Wells’ point that early stage embryos are radically different is not valid? Myers is wrong and his accusations are without merit.

Sal,

Can someone cut an paste and provide a link to Myers explanation of how he can accusse Wells of omitting the word “gastrula” (or the concept thereof) when Wells uses the word gastrulation 3 times and not pharyngula?

Well, this is as close as it gets. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....r.php#more

PZ just ignores the fact that the quote on page 35 is accurate because the gastrula stage is in fact an “early embryo stage.” Wells never tries to make it look like he is refering to the pharyngula stage.

Another PZ Myers lie?

To add to what Sal just posted. Here is what PZ says on his blog, discussing Wells’ book:

The previous paragraph quotes Sedgwick (1894) saying that “…a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development.” Then Wells says, “Modern embryologists confirm this,” and uses the Bill Ballard quote. Bill Ballard did not confirm that at all. Ballard coined the term “pharyngula”, and in that paper he specifically affirms his acceptance of the idea of great similarity at the pharyngula stage, as I quoted above.

Really? Ballard does not support Sedgwicks statement? Well, from the quote of Ballard’s paper that Todd posted, this is what Ballard says,

In fact, the most obvious structural characteristics of either the eggs or the cleavage stages of a shark, a salmon, a frog, a bird, or a mammal are unique each to its own class, not generally shared. We would not consider them very much alike unless we had been taught so at a very early age. Very few vertebrates pass through a stage which can strictly be called a blastula. The embryo in its period of most active morphogenetic movements is usually called a gastrula, but as all agree this word has no morphologic meaning anymore. Each class of vertebrates (in mammals we might almost say each particular order) develops and then loses its own set of temporary structures - like the parade ground ‘formations of maneuver’ - during this period. The plain fact is that evolutionary divergence has taken place at every stage in the life history, the earliest no less than the latest. To bolster the partial truths in Von Baer’s generalities by insisting that the eggs of vertebrates are more like one another than their ‘blastulas,’ the blastulas more like one another than their ‘gastrulas,’ and to homologize all theoretical ‘functional blastopores’ where ‘invagination’ is taking place would be running the risk of assuming what is not yet demonstrate - that the genetic physiologic, and cell-behavior processes going on are the same in time and nature.”

Notice how PZ doesn’t actually quote from the Ballard article, he just rambles on about the pharyngula stage.