Over at Panda’s Thumb Ian Musgrave opens his article Random Nonsense with
Over at Uncommon Descent William Dembski is linking to the random mutation site with approval.
Hello Ian? Is anyone home?
That article was written by Gil Dodgen not William Dembski. Your attention to detail is underwhelming and not at all surprising. It’s characteristic of the quality of everything you boys write.
Moving along to Ian’s next older article trying to bash Ann Coulter he labors on and on and on and on about peppered moths and how Ann didn’t get some of the details right.
Hey Ian. You know, we get it that cosmetic changes happen due to selection. If we artificially breed snowshoe hares so they don’t turn white in the winter (remain brown all year round) and introduce the new strain into the far northern range no IDist will be surprised if they are caught and killed in larger number than the white hares. Variation for natural selection to act upon has observed limits. These limits are in cosmetics and scale and best delineated in the range that 20,000 years of artificial selection for any and all unusual characters in dogs has produced. We have huge variation in fur color and length but not a single feather or scale. It’s all still mammal hair. We have huge variation in scale, body length to leg length, adult weight, etcetera. But not a single retractable claw or non-round pupil or any non-canine feature.
So Ian goes on and on talking about pigment changes in moth wings while blithely ignoring Ann’s devastating comment saying “They’re all still moths”. Well Ian, they ARE still moths and shrugging this off by saying it’s an old creationist argument hardly falsifies it. Extrapolating the mechanism that drives pigment changes in moth wings into the mechanism that drives the change from bacteria into moths (of any wing color) is what we want to hear you defend. Coulter’s “They’re all still moths” is a point blank fatal shot into the crufty hoaxy heart of the modern synthesis. Get a clue, Ian.