Saturday, April 07, 2012

National Review tosses out the racist John Derbyshire

Just announced a couple of hours ago.  Took them two days to do it, they couldn't openly admit that it was over racism, and Derbyshire's done this before, but still I'm glad they took action.

I take Derby at his word that he's been feeding his poison into his teenage sons, and that's pretty sad. May they have experiences as adults that open their minds.

IIRC, Derb was one of the relatively few NRO conservatives that would come swinging against the creationists.  I think he's not one of the worst climate denialists, although hardly a science believer.

These guys are just weird.


UPDATE:  might be worth mentioning the poisoned racist roots of National Review in the beliefs of William F. Buckley.  Buckley btw is claimed to have overtly renounced his overt racism in the 1960s - I have never found any proof of that other than secondhand statements by others, years later, and a rather half-hearted statement by Buckley himself in 2004.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

" one of the relatively few NRO conservatives that would come swinging against the creationists. I think he's not one of the worst climate denialists, although hardly a science believer."

"Relatively few" ?

More like the last one standing , and a raving materialist by Slaying The Sky Dragonard standards.

Anonymous said...

The good ole rhat wing. (Pardon mah southern accent).

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

I'd love to know where all of these creationists are that Eli complains about, I never see any posts about creationism here. Although I have a feeling that Eli equates believing in God with creationism.

Question: have you personally witnessed macro evolution taking place? Can you answer factually without a sniping comment? I very much doubt it.

J Bowers said...

Pesticide resistance in mosquitoes. Argue against that without using creationist sources.

Brian said...

J Bowers - doesn't count. He said "personally witnessed". No reliance on cameras either! You have to sit there and watch 'em.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Jaybird,
Define macroevolution and microevolution. How do you distinguish between them? We know mutations take place at a given rate, and that once there are a sufficiently large # of mismatches, two divergent animals will no longer bear fertile offspring. What stops "micro" from becoming "macro"?

Mark said...

Here's a better question: Dr. Jay, have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper in biology or biochemistry?

Anonymous said...

Back to talking about Buckley: Renouncing racism in the 60s? I remember him making an impassioned case in favor of "legacy college acceptances" in Yale rather than admitting more minorities etc. I suppose you could argue classism rather than racism -- I didn't get that feeling from it at the time.

Guys: ignore the nut bar. He'll dry up and blow away.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

I think J Bowers has a very good idea of what macro evolution is, I think he is setting me up for the snipe though.

Russell said...

We bear personally witness to macrodevolution every time the good doctor posts.

How long he may continue depends on the evolution of pawprint recognition software.

Brian said...

Anon - do you remember when Buckley argued for legacy admits? That issue is the standard comeback to arguments against affirmative action.

John said...

When William Buckley died, a number of liberals said nice things about him. But Alexander Cockburn vigorously dissented, saying


Here are some lines from Buckley’s editorial on "Why The South Must Win" in the National Review in 1957:

"The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own. National Review believes that the South’s premises are correctThe great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedomThe South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/01/the-race-card-liberals-sniffle-at-buckley-s-passing/

Mark said...

John, thanks for that excerpt. I had no idea Buckley had written something so vile. It sounds like it's right out of Pearson's "Imperialism Justified by Nature"

Martin Vermeer said...

Well I must admit to not having watched while Dr Jay devolved from whatever state he was in when he got his Ph.D to primordial slime. Must have been spectacular

Jeffrey Davis said...

Horses and mules, Cadbury. Horses and mules.

Anonymous said...

"I had no idea Buckley had written something so vile."

Are you quite sure you want to be on Cockburn's side :

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/03/left-hand-of-snarkness.html

EliRabett said...

Well a) it was an accurate quote, and b) the only ones that Cockburn lets on his side are alcolytes. Think Monckton of the left.

Mark said...

@Anonymous (2:49PM)

Or maybe I was born after Buckley wrote that and never had the interest to search through his writings. I'm certainly not on Cockburn's side, and how you can jump to that conclusion based on a 30-word post is baffling.

ligne said...

the nutbar professor is a creationist too? how cute!

Anonymous said...

Cockburn and Buckley can be forgiven much on the strength of their prose, and National Review's scientific desuetude in large measure the doing of the neoconservatives who took over the joint following Buckley's retirement.

Think how forgettable, and nasty, the once remarkable American Mercury became after H.L. Mencken's demise.

Derbyshire's departure may less reflect his obsession with The Bell Curve- the acute excuse for his dismissal, than his slow self transformation into a Darwinian and an atheist , a move calculated to appall National Review's unholy mix of Santorumoids, Oil Patch Dominionists, and Intelligent design enthusiasts

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@ligne

when you've been bested and the doctor's got your tongue, snipe, snipe, away oh true believer.

so I can safely assume you believe your savior Obama is a creationist because he attends to church? After all, you're falsely accusing me of being one for suggesting that nobody has witnessed macro evolution taking place.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Jaybird,
I would note that you have yet to define "macroevolution" and what separates it from evolution in general. That's why you remain in the "so bad he's not even wrong" drawer.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@a_ray_true_believer

I would note that you began with a false premise that macro evolution is no different than micro evolution. The question isn't even directed at you but if you care to answer, cite for me who has witnessed macro evolution.

I'm in the "so bad he's not even wrong drawer?" Maybe that's because most commenteres here are true believers like yourself. Sadly for you, I'm not a coward and I am going to shred Eli on every idiotic double standard he perpetuates. I hereby rename Eli, Mr. Dubble.

ligne said...

"when you've been bested and the doctor's got your tongue, snipe, snipe, away oh true believer."

muh, wuh? that was my first comment in the thread, so i can't quite see how it could have been interpreted as a defensive parting shot...

i was just expressing my amusement to see such a nice example of anti-science crank magnetism in action.

"your savior Obama"

what makes you assume i'm a fan of Obama? you realise that not everyone's from the States, don't you?

"is a creationist because he attends to church?"

what has that got to do with anything? i'm a Christian, and think that creationism is unmitigated idiocy.

anyway, i thought he was meant to be a Muslim these days?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Actually, Jaybird,I made no assumption of any kind. I asked you for your definition. You still haven't given it.

You really are dumber than owlshit, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@ligne

muh wuh? Right, you were expressing amusement at the fact that nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution and apparently you hate this fact.

@a_ray_true_believer

"I would note that you have yet to define "macroevolution" and what separates it from evolution in general."

that's an assumption. The mere fact of the existence of the terms micro vs. macro evolution makes you incorrect. Resorting to the swear words because we can't answer the question? How far you have fallen, A ray. Oh Eli, I believe A_ray_true_believer has violated the comments policy. In true Mr. Dubble fashion, I expect you to take no action and instead claim I deserved it.

Anonymous said...

golly gee whillikers! they found another one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/national-review-robert-weissberg-racism_n_1417645.html

Pete Dunkelberg

ligne said...

"I would note that [a_ray] began with a false premise that macro evolution is no different than micro evolution."

a couple of days back, a_ray asked you:

"Define macroevolution and microevolution. How do you distinguish between them? We know mutations take place at a given rate, and that once there are a sufficiently large # of mismatches, two divergent animals will no longer bear fertile offspring. What stops "micro" from becoming "macro"?"

we're still patiently waiting for an answer: what exactly prevents a few aeons of small but accumulating changes from resulting in large changes?

"The question isn't even directed at you but if you care to answer, cite for me who has witnessed macro evolution."

since you've not actually defined what you mean by "macroevolution" (it's a pretty fuzzy term), i really have no idea what you consider it to mean, but these might be a good start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@ligne

The formation of a new species has never been observed and the fossil record is incomplete.

I am impatiently waiting for your non answer.

what is this?

"We know mutations take place at a given rate, and that once there are a sufficiently large # of mismatches, two divergent animals will no longer bear fertile offspring. What stops "micro" from becoming "macro"?"

Gee, I don't know, maybe that's why I asked the question in the first place? You know, because again, nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution.

here is the example I'm looking for:

who has seen a dog that has wings and can fly? Before you start the sniping, remember there is basically no evidence demonstrating the evolution of reptiles to birds. Archaeopteryx is not very special at all, save for maybe, maybe the fact it has a wishbone. The claim that no birds have teeth is false, several species of Geese and other birds have teeth.

J Bowers said...

"remember there is basically no evidence demonstrating the evolution of reptiles to birds."

Ooh look, dinosaurs were reptiles. Sure, they walked with their feet below their hips and were warm blooded, many even had feathers, but don't let such minor details get in the way of a good bag of bollocks.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ooh! Jaybird wants to see a crocoduck! Jaybird, do you even know what evolution is? Dammit, dude, even I didn't think you were this dumb.

Okay, Punkin, what sort of environment would favor a dog that had wings and could fly?

Now, Jay, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem you would preclude convicting a man of murder unless someone saw him pull the trigger, was able to follow the bullet from the gun to the victim and then measured the blood that flowed out of the wound. Does that about have it, you little turd fondler, you?

J Bowers said...

"Okay, Punkin, what sort of environment would favor a dog that had wings and could fly?"

Disney.

J Bowers said...

You could knock me over with a feather.

Anonymous said...

Why accuse Cadbury of emerging from the primordial slime when there is not a speck of the stuff on his crocoduck hide wingtip shoes?

J Bowers said...

You know what, I'm apologising to Jay who simply may not have known about microraptors and their true flight feathers; albeit on both arms and legs, so it was a four winged predator.

Here's one reconstruction. There's a documentary out there following a team of paleontologists reconstructing it as a model and putting it through test flights which demonstrated that it could actually fly. And here's a reconstruction of another feathered dinosaur. Thus far, no matter how hard scientists have tried to tear down the link between dinos and birds, they fail every time. It would only take one fossil bird from the Triassic to put the theory into serious doubt, but the only potential examples have been torn down in peer review.

Martin Vermeer said...

Of course the nutbar doctor, phd, is a creationist: he clearly has a deep faith in macroevolution. Why else would he keep referring to it over and over and over again. Just like climate denialists believe passionately in "catastrophic" AGW.

John said...

Or, to put it another way, demonstrable "macro"evolution would prove creationism, thus, the explanation why it is has not been observed.

Demonstrable evolution: misuse of antibiotics selecting for antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.

John Puma

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

I keep referring to it because many of you seem to be denying that the fossil record is incomplete, which Darwin himself admitted. So I'm an idiot for pointing out the fact that there is very little evidence of transitional fossils?


Additionally, Walter Cunningham equates true believers with people who deny evolution, so it goes both ways Mr. Bowers.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

No, Jaybird. You are an idiot for not realizing there are TONs--literally--of transitional fossils. In fact, we are finding transitional fossils on a continual basis. You, however, every time a transistional fossil fits into a gap, say, "Oh, look, now there are two gaps." That is what makes you a moron.

Anonymous said...

"Creationists have been crying, “But where are the intermediate species?” They have been busy ignoring the mother of all intermediate species for 151 years. The first remains of Archaeopteryx were discovered in 1861; just two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Archaeopteryx is half way between a reptile and a bird. They further ignore the logical problem, that when you find a “missing link” as creationists call them, you create two new gaps to be filled, giving the creationists even more ammunition in their eyes. If you have ever buried a pet, you know that usually the remains disappear in a decade or two without leaving a trace. It takes rare fluke conditions to preserve a corpse for hundreds of millions of years. We are lucky to have as complete a fossil record as we do."

Roedy

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@a_ray_true_believer

okay please list them since you're so smart. Also again, nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, that's a hard fact. I also put the chances at 90% that you're an atheist, probably from a broken home whose dad ran out when you were about 2.

@roedy

you're arguing from the standpoint of a lack of evidence, which is foolish. And evidently you missed my reasoning for why Archaeopteryx is a poor example. Nice opinion though. Also, fossils last for billions of years, where are all the transitional fossils?

ding dong!

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

ho ho ho, the true believer claims I'm an idiot for restating Darwin's claim that the fossil record is incomplete.

@roedy

that we have a very complete fossil record is yet another opinion by you.

ligne said...

"the fossil record is incomplete"

of course: every time a new fossil is found, *two* gaps in the fossil record appear! evidence that evolution is becoming shakier with every day that passes!

"which Darwin himself admitted."

although Darwin died 130 years ago, our understanding of genetics and palaeontology has not progressed one jot since.

"I'm an idiot for pointing out the fact that there is very little evidence of transitional fossils?"

seem to be plenty to me: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

given the current extent of the fossil record, how many transitional forms would *you* expect?

Anonymous said...

@ligne

no once again those are assumptions and

In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[7]

and of course Gould say in 1994:

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.[9]"

Sadly an "intermediary form is not a transitonal fossil."

Seems you've been owned once more.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

hmm, let's also check out the punctuated equilibrium theory

"The theory of punctuated equilibrium according to the American Museum of Natural History "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".[1] The punctuated equilibrium theory was developed by the paleontologists Stephen Gould, Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley due to the fossil record not being able to support an evolutionary paradigm which adhered to strict phyletic gradualism. "

Oh ho ho, owned owned owned.

ligne said...

"evidently you missed my reasoning for why Archaeopteryx is a poor example."

reasoning? where? all i can see is a single unevidenced assertion that Archaeopteryx isn't special.

(which in a strange way is sort of correct: in the century and a half since, we've discovered a number of species that are much clearer examples of the descent of birds from dinosaurs.)

"nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, that's a hard fact."

since you've not actually explained what you mean by "macroevolution" (development of distinct new features? full speciation? development of a whole new clade? "whatever is one step bigger than the largest example of evolution that's been observed to date, so i can keep up the pretence that there's a magic barrier that stops evolution drifting too far while God's not looking"?), it's a bit hard to know what evidence you might be looking for.

the first two have been observed numerous times, both in the wild and in the lab. we don't expect to directly observe larger-scale changes, simply because they take a really long time to become apparent (and as was noted upthread, seeing rabetts hatching fully formed from goose eggs would be pretty convincing evidence for a creator...)

"I also put the chances at 90% that you're an atheist, probably from a broken home whose dad ran out when you were about 2."

you are Andy Schlafly, AICMFP!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Schlafly_Statistics#A_three-fer.21

Anonymous said...

There's no point in feeding the troll, but I can point some people in the right direction when it comes to responding to more honest ignorance and misinformation. So when someone says that macroevolution hasn't been observed, point them at documented cases of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7348.full
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
Etc.
Speciation is a macroevolutionary event. Macroevolution itself only deals with studying evolution beyond the population level, which means studying the process at the scale of species and up. It is not a different event from the underlying process of microevolution, it merely refers to the scope of what is being studied.

When someone says there are "few" transitional fossils, ask them how many they'd need since any transitional fossils, by definition, demonstrate that transitions do happen, even between higher taxa like "fish" and "amphibians." You can do this in addition to providing lists and links like ligne.
Fossils aren't the only key, though. Based on finds like archeaopteryx and comparative anatomy they already had at the time, we've long known that birds are linked to reptiles. Specifically, they're classified as Archosaurs, a group which included non-bird dinosaurs as well as pterodactyls and crocodiles, but not turtles, lizards, or the reptiles that gave rise to mammals. This was evident for a long time purely from the fossils, but genetically birds are most closely related to modern crocodilians, not lizards or turtles or mammals. Why should it be that birds share the most of their DNA with crocodiles, rather than humpty-back camels or snakes or sharks? It doesn't work out from a Special Creation (or Intelligent Design) perspective. Evolution is the only explanation that makes sense.
Some things to consider bringing up the next time an honest rube throws around misinformation about evolution. As for Cadbury, at this point I have no idea why his trolling is even allowed. It stopped being funny to me a long time ago.

-WheelsOC

J Bowers said...

Apology retracted, until Jay gives the notion of Lilith as much of a doubtful cast as he does with evolution.

ligne said...

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/national-review-tosses-out-racist-john.html?showComment=1334259802210#c4399971848070662550

woah, did you just cuntpaste that verbatim from Conservapedia?

oh, wait. yes. yes you did: http://www.conservapedia.com/Transitional_form#Claims_of_a_lack_of_transitional_forms

oh dear.

of course, that would be the same Patterson who wrote the following, in that very same book:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

(thanks to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html for the antidecontextualisation. from that same page: "When quoting scientists like Patterson or Gould as saying 'there are no transitional forms' they neglect to mention that they are only referring to transitional forms at the species level. They know full well that Gould has stated that transitional forms between orders and families are in fact abundant, and even a cursory read of Dr. Patterson's book will yield numerous examples of transitional forms.")

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Jaybird,
Well, you got the atheist part right--mainly because of the disgusting behavior I see in liars for Jebus like you. However, my folks still live (together) in the same house I grew up in.

How 'bout you, Jaybird? Did your parent's even know each other's first names?

Oh, and Jaybird, punctuated equilibrium is not inconsistent with evolution. It is an extension of it. That's how scientific theories work.

Russell said...

How can you expect paleontologists to find time to fill all the gaps when the world is only 6,016 years old?

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-many-eons-till-election-day.html

Anonymous said...

Wheels OC and ligne have somewhat stole my thunder up thread, since I wrote the following yesterday. Anyhoo, seems a waste not to add my grist to the mill, so...

One doesn't expect 100% correct statements all of the time, from anybody, but it continues to beggar belief (and annoy, which is no doubt part of their raison d'être) that Intertube trolls cannot be bothered to do the minimum of checking before committing their digits to their missives and hitting the Send button.

The chocolate teapot might have liked to take Biology 100/101, Lecture 24: Macroevolution: Introduction to Speciation, where, after studying the material, he would be able "Distinguish between macroevolution and microevolution".

Sadly, some of the links are no longer operational on that page. Perhaps there is an updated site.

However, from the TalkOrigins Archive we have Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. Both links are replete with primary peer-reviwed citations. Have a read.

Will he? WHF!

Oh, and there are no extant birds with "true" teeth, not even the occasional goose member. (I think birds have long lost the ability to synthesise enamel.) Even egg teeth are but bony projections that either drop off or are resorbed soon after hatching.

Cymraeg llygoden

Russell said...

Jay Gould's daddy raised him to be a Marxist.

What's Jay Cadbury's excuse?

Anonymous said...

What's Jay Cadbury's excuse?

[Wispa, Wispa]: I do hear tell Mum was a Fudge and Dad was a Whole Nut. They were hoping the result would be one of these. Unfortunately, they only got the version with nothing up top!

Cymraeg llygoden

PS. Prof. Rabett, word wrap seems to have been "disabled" in preview (viewed in FF11).

owlbrudder said...

Not that I can see what species and evolution have to do with the OP, but (as the thread has been hijacked already) I feel compelled to add my $0.02.

Someone may have pointed this out already in one of the links (I have not followed them all), but I recall a TV documentary describing a species of gull that has been observed from the UK and spreading westward, around the Arctic circle. At each sample point, populations of the species occupying adjoining territories are mutually fertile and bear fertile offspring, until the westward circle returns to the UK, whereupon the ultimate sub-species can no longer produce fertile offspring with the original sub-species.

Clearly, these two populations are now different species, like horses and donkeys, yet a complete chain of fertility can be followed through all the sub-species of this gull as we travel westward from the UK. At what point can we decide that the sub-species have diverged enough to become distinct species?

I'm not sure if this is an example of macroevolution as requested by the Chocolate Blockhead, but it works for me.

ligne said...

yeah, those are called "ring species".