I hope she gets in trouble for this.

[...] InANNities, Part I (complete with picture of starfish) [...]

Love this site and the coments.
Thanks for giving me a cheerup.

{But I nominate the ‘eyes on the feet’ quote as the best piece of sheer stupidity in the book}

It’s right up there, er, I mean down there. But I say it’s impossible to choose. There are just too many insanely unaccountable assertions to choose from: Things that make you go, “What The ….?!?”

For example, how (in the …) did Ann conclude — from a single article in the New York Times, that as I recall never mentioned anything evolutionary — that evilutionists are obsessed with the topic of “Girl Crushes”?

Thankfully Darwin Central’s minions have apparently been successful in excising all evidence of “Girl Crush” research from the major scientific indexes. Mwauhahahaha!

Okay, now all you genuises gotta do is prove that starfish are our ancestors.

Otherwise, your whines are emtpy.

it seems simpler just to point out that all sorts of body plans exist on earth, Coulter’s ignorance notwithstanding

You mean “its irrelevance notwithstanding”, don’t you? Given that the context of Ann’s discussion is our ancestors, body plans of non-ancestors coudn’t be more irrelevant.

That looks just like one of my Paisley ties.

It appears that Coulter’s sarcasm is simply going over your head. She’s obviously making fun of this whole “half an eye is better than no eye at all” statement that Darwinians often fall back on when confronted with the question of eye evolution.

Oh, I see - so it’s not a serious criticism of the theory of evolution at all. It’s just a joke. Well, hell - why don’t we stick this kind of inanity in the “humor” section of the bookstore, where you obviously think it belongs?

Speaking of “fall back positions”, I love this thing that the Coulterbators have going, where we’re supposed to take her seriously, and look upon her work as serious commentary. But then, when you do so, and it falls apart under close scrutiny - and this book is no exception; see David Horowitz’s review of “Treason” for equally disturbing stupidities - then it’s a joke. It’s just sarcasm. It’s not serious.

Well, hey, thanks for playing, sea-bass - when you want to discuss an author whose major ambition is something more than court jester, drop us a line.

You seem unable to figure out that one can use humor as a way to criticize.

That works as long as the criticism makes sense. But of course, the whole objection is just stupid on its face. There’s no reason we should expect to see ancestors with eyes on their limbs in the fossil record, and of course Coulter provides no reason. Nevermind, it’s just sarcasm. Okay, let’s not take it seriously, since it’s not a serious objection. Oh, but it is a serious objection. Which brings us back to the first point - no, it’s not a serious objection, it’s a heap of shit.

I’ve no doubt you find such rationalizations satisfying, but you’ll have to forgive those of us who take such silliness rather less seriously. Coulter is fundamentally incapable of attacking anything other than her own strawman inventions, and the eyes-on-the-palms-of-their-hands thing is merely one small example of that. If you want to believe she’s serious when it’s convenient for your argument, and sarcastic when it’s not, go right ahead - at $27.95 list, I really doubt she’ll bother to disagree with you much.

Just like the Darwinian Dogma it’s making fun of.

Uh, huh. I think your problem is that you’ve confused “doesn’t make sense to me” with “doesn’t make sense at all”. On the theory that you’re merely ignorant of the state of neo-Darwinian theory WRT the evolution of the eye, you can start here:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html

I have no interest in any of Coulter’s books, personally, but I do find it entertaining that people who insists that they don’t take her seriously spend so much virtual ink arguing against her statements.

You misunderstand, of course. Her objections to the theory of evolution are not serious - they are a collection of strawmen, half-truths, and in some cases, outright falsehoods. They do not present a serious challenge to the theory, in that respect. However, the fact that far too many people take Coulter’s inane cartoon version of evolution seriously…well, that’s a cause for concern. I’ve no doubt you’re quite comfortable with the idea of conservatism and cretardism being synonymous. We are not.

It always comes down to “yer just too stoopid to get it”, when, in truth, Darwinian evolution is a dying fairy tale.

Hey, I just figured you weren’t aware of the evidence, but if that’s not the case, and you actually believe that there’s no fossil evidence of eye evolution…well, if the shoe fits, eh?

Anyway, the reality is that there’s lots of fossil evidence supporting the evolution of eyes from primitive to complex, which is additionally supported by molecular biology. Unfortunately for you, scientific theories are not overturned by the willful blindness of armchair critics. Fortunately for you, the theory of eye evolution is easy enough to overturn - get on out there and find a complex, mammalian-style eye in a Cambrian- or pre-Cambrian-era creature. Find that, and you’ll blow a great big hole in the current theory.

Whoops, I forgot - creationists don’t do research. They just heckle from the sidelines. Well, there you go - back to the benches for ya.

Then kindly point it out. Most of the “evidence” I have seen has been in the form of imaginative “just so” stories.

I’m afraid that blog comments are not a suitable format for remedying the deficiencies in your understanding of modern science. Ask yourself for a moment why it is that you seem to have the inside track on this whole bogus-theory thing, why you’re seeing something that virtually every legitimate evolutionary theorist, biologist, and biochemist has apparently somehow missed. Ask yourself why it is that you’re the only one, versus tens of thousands of trained specialists in the field who disagree with you.

As for whether you find the theory of evolution plausible or implausible, I hate to deal your ego a blow, but I sincerely doubt if people who work with the theory of evolution are overly concerned that some random internet guy is skeptical of the best available explanation. It’s not like you’re unique in that. There are dozens of random internet guys, pretty much just like you, who are skeptical of the al Qaeda-theory of 9/11, the NASA-used-a-big-rocket-to-actually-go-there theory of the moon landings, or the fluoridated-water-is-not-a-commie-plot theory of public health. In the end, good science carries on, despite your personal disapproval. Sorry.

Oh, and I find it rather amusing, this repeated attempt at equating Darwinism with “modern science”. Always good for a chuckle.

Well, there is a growing number of experts who reject Darwinism, in spite of the entrenched dogma, and because that’s where the evidence actually leads. That’s the point.

And, for the record, I don’t reject “evolution”, per se, because “evolution” obviously happens, given that “evolution” can mean something as vague as “change over time”. However, “Darwinism” and “evolution” are not necessarily synonymous, and I reject “Darwinism” specifically, not “evolution” in general.

I predict that Darwinism will go the way of Marxism and Freudian thought, which is to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time.