You be the judge. I welcome commentary and contrary accounts as the comment by McGrew has not been independently confirmed. Here is what professor Tim McGrew had to say:
Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.
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.
This can be found in the comment section of My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Douglas Groothuis.
excerpt:
Let’s start with Myers’s commentary leading up to what he presents as a quotation in which Wells quotes — according to Myers, misleadingly — the developmental biologist William Ballard. Myers’s own words are in italics.
This is the heart of Wells’s strategy: pick comments by developmental biologists referring to different stages, which say very different things about the similarity of embryos, and conflate them. It’s easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word “gastrulaâ€Â, and pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage.
Literally. He is actually that dishonest.
Now this is a very serious charge. If Wells is deliberately misleading his readers about Ballard’s meaning, then his credibility is definitely severely damaged.
Myers continues:
Here’s how Wells quotes William Ballard (a well known elder developmental biologist, who has done a lot of work on fish and is therefore familiar to me):
Myers then gives the following statement in a quote box, which I will reproduce here in bold:
It is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,†by “bending the facts of nature,†that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.†(pp. 35)
Myers goes on, after the box:
Always be suspicious when you see partial phrases quoted and strung together by a creationist. Little alarm bells should be going off like mad in your head.
This is from a paper in which Ballard is advocating greater appreciation of the morphogenetic diversity of the gastrula stageâ€â€that is, a very early event, one that is at the base of that hourglass, where developmental biologists have been saying for years that there is a great deal of phylogenetic diversity. Here’s what Ballard actually said:
Now we get another quote box, and again I’ll put the contents in bold:
Before the pharyngula stage we can only say that the embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that “gastrulas†of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults. (Ballard WW (1976))
Myers winds up his complaint:
See what I mean? He has lifted a quote from a famous scientist that applies to the gastrula stage, stripped out the specific referents, and made it sound as if it applies to the pharyngula stage. It’s a simple game, one he repeats over and over in this chapter.
What is much more significant is that Myers has misquoted Wells — not simply selectively quoted him, but out and out misquoted him, attributing to him in direct quotation something that is critically different from what Wells actually said.
Here, for comparison, is what Myers says Wells says, and what Wells actually says:
Attributed to Wells by Myers:
It is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,†by “bending the facts of nature,†that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.â€Â
Wells’s actual words:
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 their adults.”
Wells’s actual wording supplies the very detail — that Ballard is referring to the cleavage and gastrulation stages — that Myers silently edits out of his quotation from Wells. Wells isn’t talking about the pharyngula stage. He never was. That is entirely Myers’s fabrication.
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.
Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest. 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.
This sort of thing just frosts me. John and others who frequent PT and Pharyngula should be warned that they cannot take what they see there at face value.
(HT: DonaldM at teleological.org)
(Update: the words “I welcome commentary and contrary accounts as the comment by McGrew has not been independently confirmed” were added 11/6/06 in deference to objections suggesting this posting was like a newspaper article. To clarify, weblogs are opportunities for competing accounts to be discussed.)
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
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?
Sal, you should have double-checked Tim McGrew:
Patrick,
I posted it for discussion, I want the readers to decide and argue amonst themselves and provide data and links or whatever.
What is at issue is not what Ballard said, but Myers quotaion of Wells.
Sal
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.
Allen,
That is not accurate, my post was at 3am, Myers is at 10am. How the heck can I post a link to something that didn’t exist yet?
But for what it’s worth:
PZ Myers is such a LIAR!
Sal
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.
Yes, apparently Tim McGrew was focusing on the text contained within page 31 (I don’t own the book myself so I’m going on people’s word that it’s actually there in page 31). I would imagine that the editor of the book “probably” shortened the quotation in order to fit into the highlight box. So in this case Myers is simply “making a mountain out of a molehill”.
I’d like to see screen caps of pp.30-31
Allen,
See my corrected post in response to you above. There is no way I deleted myers response, since, well it wasn’t even posted until after I made this entry.
Or if Hodor was referring to the original PT post, the readers can access it easily by following McGrew’s links.
What is at issue is page 30-31, not page 35. Myers is omitting the fact he ignored what Wells actually wrote on page 31 as McGrew pointed out.
The issue is whether Myers misrepresented the clear intent of what Wells was writing by omitting what Wells wrote on page 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
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’ve been deleting snarky comments ever since this page was posted but I don’t remember zapping anything by franky172 (I even let in his latest comment; see #18).
Sal, I forget, do you even have mod capabilities?
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.
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.
Incidentally franky172, can you point out where PZ Myers uses “foul language” in that link?
It will be interesting to see if anyone can admit the mistake without accompanying snipes at PZ.
I thought I did just that, picture and all…
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.
Apparently there was some question about links or whatever being deleted.
I did not realize a link or post had been deleted by another mod. I think DaveScot explained.
For the record, I officially accused Myers of nothing. I merely reported on an analysis by a professor and invited readers to decide the accuracy of the analysis. I was curious to see what would transpire.
If Myers accuses me of this or that, well, I was just reporting what someone else said. The comment section is to help us discuss and figure out and decide for ourselves the accuracy of the analysis.
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.
I just find it funny that argument has now come down to arguing over the usage of “stage” or “phase”. Both words are right next to each other in the Thesaurus… 🙂
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.
Allen and HodorH,
I think DaveScot cleared up some of the confusion regarding the deleted link. I provided it again in one of my posts, but if he chooses to delete it again, I respect his reasons. I was unware of the evolution the very thread I started, and I’m sorry to have added to the confusion. I hope DaveScot’s remarks clarify what actually happened.
Regarding, page 30-31, in my autographed copy of Well’s book:
(bolding mne)
this seems consistent with McGrew’s quote as far as I can see.
The charge by Myers is :
(bolding mine)
That charge is hard to sustain at least for pages 30-31. The word, gastrulation is used at least 3 times, that hardly constitutes an omission. Why then does Myers accuse Wells of omitting the word “gastrula” and then not quote the very pages wells uses the word, gastrula?
PZ, if you’re reading this, you are invited to explain. Of course “gastrulation” is not exactly the same as the word “gastrula” but it points to the same concept presume.
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.
Allen, I’m not sure that squares with what Wells wrote on pages 30-31. Myers asserts:
I find the charge hard to accept that Wells pretends a quote is about the pharyngula stage when Wells uses the word “gastrulation” 3 times. In fact, I find it hard to accept Myers claim that Wells omits the word (or really concept tied to) “gastrula”, when Wells uses “gastrulation” 3 times.
By the way, I am appreciative of your visits here. I welcome your criticisms of whatever I write.
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!!
I think PZ did a nice misdirection in his response to this thread. It fooled a lot of people, imho. He framed the issue as one thing, with lots of page scans and ranting, when in fact the real issue was his claim:
I haven’t seen him address the real issue.
🙂
In the interest of fair reporting, I would like to quote PZ himself from the title of his response to me:
I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of PZ’s title. I merely report what he said.
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.
@ #46 …in the end it seems to me that PZ committed a classic Straw Man. Some sleight of hand on his part.
Sal:
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?
PZ still hasn’t answered my question on his website, and I posed it there.
How can he claim Wells is pretending the quote by Ballard is about the pharyngula stage when the Wells used the word gastrulation. PZ has ignored the question already once.
I remind the readers and PZ what PZ accuses Wells of doing. What Wells did according to PZ was to:
So my question again to PZ. How can someone use the word gastrulation 3 times and still be accused of omitting the word gastrula and pretend it is “pharyngula”?
🙂
For the readers benefit, Myers has posted the relevant pages on his website including parts of 30-31, with the hourglass picture.
The issue remains, how can he accuse Wells of omitting the word “gastrula” (or the concept thereof) when Wells uses the word “gastrulation” 3 times and not pharyngula????
Allan McNeil,
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.”
From the paper I just linked (emphasis mine):
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?
I’m having a hard time finding where Myers explains this. He’s an honest guy after all, so it must be that I just missed his honest explanation. Will someone please help me exonerate Myers from suspicion, please. I want him to be upheld for the good upstanding citizen that he is, and it pains me that there is this cloud hanging over him. So help me out.
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
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,
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.
Jehu thank you.
It is a apparent Myers fails to connect with what Wells wrote 4 pages earlier on pages 30 and 31 where Wells was more elaborate in saying the discussion was of the gastrula stage.
The fact that reference to “gastrula” was not repeated was used by Myers to accuse Wells of omission, when in fact, Wells was simply being non-redundant since he had already used the word “gastrulation” 3 times on pages 30-31 in connection with the Ballard’s work.
Myers is misguided then to think Wells was talking of the Pharyngula stage since it is clear Wells was talking about the Gastrula stage.
Thus I think, Myers misinterprets the situation. Myer’s is not dishonest after all, just had a moment of clouded distorted sloppy biased thinking.
Hey, PZ, Wells was talking gastrula stage not pharyngula. Wells has described with material accuracy what Ballard was saying. Wells did afterall use the word “gastrulation” 3 times, not pharyngula.
What PZ pointed out was Ballard’s full quote:
Within “a single taxonomic class” they are more alike. The suggestion is beyond the same single taxonomic class they are not in general alike. I think Wells has accurately portrayed what Ballard wrote. Myers has not accurately portrayed what Wells wrote.
Another PZ Myers lie?
To add to what Sal just posted. Here is what PZ says on his blog, discussing Wells’ book:
Really? Ballard does not support Sedgwicks statement? Well, from the quote of Ballard’s paper that Todd posted, this is what Ballard says,
Notice how PZ doesn’t actually quote from the Ballard article, he just rambles on about the pharyngula stage.
To assit the reader in seeing what’s going on here are the stages, for example, here are zebra fish development stagesZebrafish development. [I believe “h” stands for the number of hours]
Cleavage Period (0.7- 2.2 h)
Blastula Period (2 1/4 – 5 1/4 h)
Gastrula Period (5 1/4 – 10 h)
Segmentation Period (10-24 h)
Pharyngula Period (24-48 h)
Hatching Period (48-72 h)
Early Larval Period
PZ wrote in his PIG response:
Well the gastrula stage is before the pharyngula stage. So let’s revist Well’s rendering of Ballard:
Wells gives a plain English way of remembering the more technical rendering by Ballard
So, PZ admists “before the pharyngula stage” = “early”
Wells uses the phrase the early embryo stages. What’s the problem? PZ mischaracterizes what Wells said. Obfuscation and distortion.
Ironically, Myers writes in the original post at PT that is the source of this brouhaha, just after he accuses Wells of deliberate deception:
Methinks he dost protest too much!
My mistake, PZ does quote from Ballard, but it is so short that if you blink you miss it.
Well, here is another quote about the pharyngula stage from Ballard’s Comparative Anatomy and Embryology (1964, p. 69)
So the question remains regarding Myers claim:
How in the heck did Wells pretend that what was being discussed was the pharyngula stage? He used the phrase “early embryo stage” and on pages 30-31 we know Wells was referring to the gastrula stage as one of the early stages. Myers is not accurately representing Wells.
Myers then takes this misrepresentation and uses it to claim Wells lied.
Myers could of course clear things up and explain how it is that Wells is pretending Ballard’s comments about diversity apply to the pharyngula stage.
Here is the entire ballard paper
Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4
Here is the entire ballard paper
Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4
You have to remove the UD URL to get to the images.
That would be the following string: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/
s89651507.onlinehome.us/Ballard1.gif
s89651507.onlinehome.us/Ballard2.gif
s89651507.onlinehome.us/Ballard3.gif
s89651507.onlinehome.us/Ballard4.gif
And what about the pharyngula stage?
Are embryos really that similar at that stage?
Is there a highly conserved developmental stage across the subphyla?
Whether there is or isn’t Wells doesn’t worry about it because he knows it is not material, he shows the same hourglass figure in his book that PZ uses on PT. But Wells may giving too much credit to this hourglass idea. As PZ himself points out:
So for all the yelling about the pharyngula stage, it is all smoke and mirrors.
Todd,
Thank you so much for you help in linking to the papers for our scholarly study.
Hey, what did you think of PZ weblog. Aren’t they the most congenial people in the world (note the sarcasm)?
Sal
in the interest of fair reporting, Tim McGrew had this to say:
Sooooo….how about it PZ, are you going to apologize to Dr. Wells or will you maintain the following misrepresentation where you Claim what Wells did to Ballard statement was to:
I see little to no evidence to support that claim, in fact, quite the opposite since Wells used the word “gastrulation” 3 times on pages 30-31. Given you used that misrepresentation to call Wells a liar, I think a retraction on your part with an apology is in order.
Sal, thanks for your support. Is it true you have a blender just for puppies? The howlers over at PZ’s place said so…
Speaking of “howlers”, Nick Matzke, the Minister of Disinformation over at the National Coaliation for the Saving of Evolution, has weighed in at “The Panda’s Thumb” with this version of today’s events:
There you have it, folks, PZ has “convincingly” dealt with all of us silly “creationists” once again.
Geesh! What a joke. This is even beneath Matzke’s usual standards of misinformation!!