Creationists like Luskin do precisely the same thing. I’ve seen it time after time. If the bones don’t connect, it’s not a “real wrist.” If the bones had connected, we’d still be missing the transitional form. There is no consistent effort to view evidence and interpret it in the most plausible light–which in the case of Tiktaalik is obvious. There is just a knee-jerk denial of anything than does not fit their set notions.

I hate anything that makes me regret some initial sense of respect I might have had. I don’t care to see my cynicism fostered. But Luskin and the DI have the sort of toxins that make me repent of ever having ascribed anything as noble as curiousity or questioning to their motives.

Affective language is a tool of argument (Pathos), but his entire post could be summed up neatly with ‘Argumentum ad Verecundiam’ (Appeal to Unqualified Authority), which is especially funny given that he’s appealing to himself.

If you google the user name though, you find that it’s probably a bot (or an author with far too much time on his hands) because there are posts such as this one all over the internet. Dude’s spammin’.

Well done answering the wackos, Mr. Zimmer. This retired science teacher (old bio major) wishes he paid more attention in writing class. I always enjoy reading your blog. By the way, I recommend Shubin’s book to all the young science teachers I know.

Mr. S.

C. David Parsons makes several key logical fallacies in his post:

He begins with an appeal to authority
“God has withheld the very wisdom”
God says that this is wrong, therefore it is wrong.

His second paragraph is simply an Ad Hominem attack.
Darwin may have been an unsavory person in C. David Parsons or even your eyes, but that does not mean that the tenants of his theory are incorrect.

In an unrelated note some of Darwin’s assumptions in his original treatise are incorrect, but the fundamental idea of natural selection and descendence with modification are sound. Thus you can say Darwinism is incorrect, fine, but the modern developed idea of evolution is an entirely different thing.

C. David Parsons second paragraph is an appeal to the Achilles’ Heel.
If one part of scientific knowledge is incorrect, then the whole must be incorrect. It is interesting to point out that not only is Mr. Parsons concept of the model of the atom outdated and incorrect, there is no relation between the quantum mechanics and evolution. This also constitutes a Red Herring fallacy.

To put Mr. Parsons straight on the model of the atom I suggest that you look at the quantum mechanical model of the atom. Spend some time reviewing these sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/atomstructcon.html#c1

I’d also like to point out that one of the reasons that these electrons don’t collide is called electric charge. This is the same force that makes your hair stand up during an electric storm. At the very small distances in an atom, the repulsive forces between electrons will keep them from colliding, in addition to the above quantum mechanics.

The fifth paragraph is more of the same: Red Herrings and Achilles’ Heels. These are completely unrelated theories and phenomenons (sp?).

The last paragraph is simply a promotion for Mr. Parsons’ website/book compounded with emotionally-charged Weasel Word (which unfortunately isn’t a fallacy on the above site, but should be).

Good night,
Duncan Townsend