Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

[Coyoteman]

that darwinists constantly make faith claims masquerading as science

Evolutionary scientists (whom you mistakenly refer to as "darwinists") make claims based on scientific data and well-supported theory.

You appear to be making claims based on religious doctrine and belief.

[Just mythoughts]

"Yes, but how many "prentenders" are there? More than two?"

There is only one shining big daddy pretender, but he does have a number of disciples.

[RunningWolf]

Thanks for that insight into one of the front men for evo.

It does seem that the FR evos do take some talking points from Dawkins here and there.

IMO that is the point and that is the fact.., Jack

Wolf

[Right Wing Professor]

In Germany in 1986, I shared an office with a distinguished Polish professor, who later became Rector of his university, after the overthrow of communism(Catholic, of course, as was I). A refined, subtle, and educated man. One evening, in all seriousness, he told me what Jews do to Christian babies at Passover. I was in total disbelief. It was if something bizarre and ugly from the Middle Ages had just appeared on my desk.

Anyone who thinks Nazi antisemitism in the 1930s was anything other than a reflection of popular sentiment, is in denial. In school, in the 1970's, an old Christian Brother taught us how Jews, communists and freemasons were in cahoots to destroy Christianity and bring the Antichrist to Earth. Antisemitism was promoted, preached, and implemented by both Catholics and Protestants; and after WWI, when Germany was looking to blame someone for the consequences of their own actions, Jews were the obvious scapegoats. The Nazis came to power by a combination of popular vote, and the complicity of van Papen of the Catholic party. But they're in denial.

[Ichneumon]

What are the wrong answers in her book?

Well going by the review, which I'm presuming is an accurate description of her material (if anyone has an advance copy of the book, I'll be glad to dissect its material on evolution in more detail):

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

It's not a myth, it's an extremely well-established multiply cross-validated field of science. And if the intent here is to claim that it's somehow a product of liberals, as opposed to something that some of them might incorporate into their philosophy, that's wrong too.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

It's hardly "the" touchstone for liberals, but it might be considered one of many. However, there are plenty of anti-evolution liberals, too. As usual, Ann paints with a mighty broad brush, she often speaks of "liberals" as if they were a monolithic, homogenous group, and of course they aren't -- there's are as many, and as widely, varied positions among liberals as there are among conservatives. And I can think of very few liberals to whom evolution is actually anwhere close to "the" thing that "separates the enlightened from the benighted". In my experience a far more common touchstone of that sort is their notion that they are more "socially aware" (in the "I feel your pain" sense). If anything could be called "the" touchstone of liberals which they use as an alleged litmus test to "separate the enlightened from the benighted", that's it. Evolution wouldn't even be in the top ten.

But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method.

Not on *this* subject, she doesn't. Anti-evolutionism is one of the most common forms of irrationality among conservatives, unfortunately. There are, of course, and endless number of irrationalities popular on the left, and Coulter should have focused on those instead of making the mistake of personally providing a stellar example of irrationality herself on this topic.

She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Dead, flat, completely wrong. This is a common fantasy shared by anti-evolutionists, but it's deeply and fundamenetally false. Evolutionary biology is a legitimate, genuine field of science, supported by over 150 years of research findings and evidence, to an overwhelming degree, along multiple cross-confirming lines. Calling it "bogus science" is not only just plain wrong, it marks the speaker as an ignoramus on the subject.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -- Darwinism is nothing but a gap.

Again, this is just shockingly wrong. There is so much solid evidence for evolutionary biology it would take more than a lifetime for one person to work through it all. I myself have spent over thirty years diving deeply into the material, and still have only scratched the surface of the whole.

So when she vacuously claims that it is "nothing but a gap" and the "gaps are all there is", Coulter displays a staggering ignorance on a topic she has allegedly "researched" for her book.

After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims.

Again, this is just idiotically, monumentally wrong. The fossil record provides astounding confirmation of evolutionary change. For just one example, out of thousands, here's a prior post of mine on the reptile-to-mammal transition:

---

Evolutionary theory predicted that there should be transitional forms between the reptilian-style jaw joint and the mammalian-style jaw joint (the earliest mammals evolved from reptiles). For years creationists crowed about the "missing links", and made their own predictions that not only would there be no such transitional fossils found, but that any creature with a jaw that was transitional between that of reptiles and mammals would die of starvation, since such a "half and half" jaw joint was "obviously" mechanically unworkable. Nonetheless, biologists kept searching for the fossils predicted by evolution, and not only found one or two, but found a *wealth* of them which provide a *very* complete and smooth transitional sequence -- exactly as evolution predicted. Oddly enough, I never hear the creationists bring that one up...

Reptile -> Mammal evolutionary transition:

Example 2: reptile-mammals

Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates—mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).

Early in the 20^th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:

"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)

Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals. The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.

Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaff numerous times since he wrote these words. However, Gish's statements nicely delineate the morphological conundrum at hand. Let's review the required evolutionary conclusion. During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary (see Figure 1.4.1).

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

The above is from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which compiles several hundred transitional fossils, which is itself just a *SMALL* sampling of the ENORMOUS numbers of fine transitional sequences found in the fossil record and well known to anyone who has bothered to CRACK OPEN A BOOK -- or even do a websearch -- in the past 25 years or so... So what's the anti-evolutionists' excuse for remaining abysmally ignorant of such things, and repeatedly making the false claim that there are "no" transitional fossils, etc.?

Here's another look:

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic.

TAXONOMY	LATERAL TEMPORAL FENESTRA	LOWER JAW DENTARY	TEETH	LOWER JAW: POST- DENTARY BONES	MIDDLE EAR & JAW ARTICULATION
M: Early Placental mammals Asioryctes Upper Cretaceous	Merged with eye socket; cheek arch bowed out laterally	100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process in contact with squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	No post-dentary bones	3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint
L: "Pantothere" mammals Amphitherium Middle/Upper Jurassic	X	100% of jaw length is the den-  tary; condylar process contacts squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	Post-dentary bones migrated to middle ear	Probably 3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint
K: Morganucodontid mammals Morganucodon  Upper Triassic & Lower Jurassic	Merged with eye socket; cheeck arch bowed out laterally	100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process expanded posteriorly to make contact with squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	20% of jaw length; reflected lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; both quadrate-articular and squamosal-dentary jaw joints
J: Chiniquodontid cynodonts Probainognathus Middle Triassic	Much larger than eye socket; 40- 45% of skull length; expanded posterioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	95% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded posteriorly; condylar process expanded posteriorly	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced	20% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of main part of angular decreased; reflec - ted lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; quadrate-articular joint
I:Galesaurid cynodonts Thrinaxodon Lower Triassic	Much larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	85% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded to top of eye socket and pos- teriorly; jaw muscles attached to most of coronoid process	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced	25% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflec- ted lamina decreased; width of main part of angular decreased	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
H: Procynosuchid cynodonts Procynosuchus upper Upper Permian	Much larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; coronoid process expanded to near top of eye socket and posteriorly; jaw muscles  attached to dorsal part of coronoid process	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped	30% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflected lamina decreased	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
G: Early Therocephalians Pristerognathus lower Upper Permian	Larger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially; 30% of skull length	75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary expanded posteriorly and dorsally into narrow blade-like coronoid process; rises to middle of eye socket	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	35% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
F: Early Gorgonopsians Eoarctops lower Upper Permian	Slightly larger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially (minimal); 20-25% of skull length	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary slightly expanded posteriorly and dorsally as incipient coronoid process	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
E: Eotitanosuchians Sphenacodon Lower Permian	Small; slightly smaller than eye socket; slightly expanded posteriorly and medially	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate;  quadrate- articular jaw joint
D: Late sphenacodonts Sphenacodon Upper Pennsylvanian	Small; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	65% of jaw length is the dentary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above the tooth row	Enlarged incipient canines; other teeth simple cones	60% of jaw length; venntral edge of angular notched ("angular notch") offsetting a short pro- tusion (reflected lamina)	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate large and plate-like; quadrate- articular jaw joint
C: Early spenacodonts Haptodus Upper Pennsylvanian	Tiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular with shallow indentation	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
B: Early ophiacodonts Archaothyris upper Middle Pennsylvanian	Tiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	x	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	x	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
A: Protorothyrids Hylonomus lower Middle Pennsylvanian	Absent	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular continuous	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint

Table 1: Morphology of synapsid reptiles and mammals (Note that Hylonomus is a protothyrid, not a synapsid). Data from references cited in text.

Modern reptiles and mammals are very distinctive, easily diagnosable, and do not intergrade. Reptiles are covered by scales, mammals by hair; reptiles are cold-blooded, mammals warm-blooded; reptiles do not suckle their young, mammals have mammary glands; reptiles have sprawling posture, mammals have upright posture. Most of these features are soft part anatomy or physiology that very rarely fossilize (although dinosaur skin impressions are known from Cretaceous sediments, and imprints of mammal hair are known from Eocene bats from Germany; Franzen, 1990). In the fossil record, we must look to skeletal features.

There are many skeletal features which allow us to distinguish the reptiles from the mammals (Carroll, 1988; Table 1, rows A, M). The single most important defining characteristic is the nature of the articulation of the lower jaw to the skull (Simpson, 1959). In reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988). In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988).

From comparative anatomy studies, it is certain that most of the bones of the reptiles and mammals are homologous (Crompton & Parker, 1978; Carroll, 1988). Of greatest importance, the middle ear bones of mammals (stapes, incus, malleus, and tympanic) are homologous with several of the skull and jaw bones of reptiles (stapes, quadrate, articular, and angular, respectively; Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopso n, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988). One group of reptiles, the synapsids (Subclass Synapsida), share with the mammals an additional homologous structure: the lateral temporal fenestra, which is an opening in the skull behind the eye socket at the triple junction between the squamosal, jugal , and post orbital bones (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). A band of bone composed of the jugal and the squamosal is adjacent to the lateral temporal fenestra (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). This is the cheek arch so characteristic of mammal skulls (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Therefore, synapsids are commonly named the “mammal-like reptiles.”

The presence of diagnosable morphologic differences between reptiles (including the oldest reptiles and the oldest synapsids) and mammals distinguishes them as distinct taxa. This allows us to test evolution by looking for transitional forms between the two. Because many of the bones are homologous, we should find evidence illustrating how these bones were modified over time to become the new bones. Furthermore, these morphologic changes should happen in parallel and in geochronologic succession.

Synapsid reptiles inhabited Pangea from the Middle Pennsylvanian through the Early Jurassic (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1969, 1987, 1994; Hopson & Crompton, 1969; Hotton, et al., 1986; Crompton & Jenkins, 1973; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Romer & Price, 1940; Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Tchudinov, 1983; Olson, 1944; Tatarinov, 1974; Vyushkov, 1955; Efremov, 1954). From the Early Permian through the Early Triassic, they were the largest and most abundant land animals (Sloan, 1983; Colbert, 1965). Though much less well known to the general public than dinosaurs, one of the “cereal box dinosaurs,” Dimetrodon (the sail-backed reptile), is a synapsid, not a dinosaur (Romer & Price, 1940; Carroll, 1988). The oldest mammals are Late Triassic (Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Below is a discussion of the geochronologic succession linking synapsids and mammals. The oldest reptiles (named protorothyrids; Carroll, 1964, 1988, p. 192-199) are from the lower Middle Pennsylvanian, and the oldest synapsids (Reisz, 1972) are from the upper Middle Pennsylvanian, both of Nova Scotia. Upper Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian forms are known primarily from the midcontinent and Permian Basin region of the United States (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The basal Upper Permian forms are known from Russia (Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997). Most of the Upper Permian and Lower Triassic succession is known from southern Africa, especially the Great Karoo of South Africa (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Hopson & Kitching, 1972; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The Middle Triassic forms are from South America (Romer, 1969a, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Romer & Lewis, 1973; Bonaparte & Barbarena, 1975), and the Upper Triassic and Lower Jurassic mammals are known from Eurasia (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1982). Subsequent Mesozoic mammals are known from all over the world (Simpson, 1928; Lillegraven et al., 1979).

When placed in proper geochronologic succession, the synapsids naturally form a succession of taxa (genera and families) that progressively become more mammal-like and less reptile-like (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Morphologic changes, summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1, affect the entire skeletal anatomy of these animals, but are most clearly displayed in their skulls.

The lateral temporal fenestra increased in size from a tiny opening smaller than the eye socket to a giant opening occupying nearly half the length of the skull. Ultimately, it merged with the eye socket, thus producing the full development of the cheek arch so characteristic of mammals (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988).

Successively, the relative proportion of the lower jaw comprised of the dentary bone (teeth-bearing bone) gradually increased until the entire lower jaw consisted of the dentary (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In Pennsylvanian and Lower and basal Upper Permian synapsids, the postero-dorsal edge of the lower jaw rose broadly but only slightly above the level of the tooth row (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In succeeding forms, the posterior part of the dentary expanded dorsally and posteriorly as a blade-like process, and progressively became larger (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Sigogneau, 1970; Brink, 1963; Kemp, 1979; Hopson, 1987, 1994), forming the coronoid process (Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Hopson, 1987, 1994) to which the mammalian-type jaw musculature is attached (Barghusen, 1968; Bramble, 1978; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Concomitantly, the post-dentary bones progressively reduced in size (Allin, 1975; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994).

Beginning with the Upper Pennsylvanian sphenacodonts, a notch developed in the angular bone that offsets a projection, the reflected lamina (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The reflected lamina first became a large blade-like flange (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Broom, 1932; Sigogneau, 1970; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971), and then was progressively reduced to a delicate horseshoe-shaped bone (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Brink, 1963; Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1979, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).

Simultaneously, the quadrate progressively decreased in size (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The articular did not decrease in size much, being small initially, but developed a downward-pointing prong (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). In the synapsids, the lower jaw was hinged to the skull by the articular and quadrate bones (Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Thus they are classified as reptiles (Simpson, 1959; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). As the quadrate and articular became smaller, they were relieved of their solid suture to the dentary and skull (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). A projection of the dentary extended posteriorly and made contact with the squamosal. Morganucodon possessed the mammalian dentary-squamosal jaw joint adjacent to the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). It is classified as the first mammal, but it is a perfect intermediate. Now that a new jaw joint was established, the quadrate and articular were subsequently relieved of that function (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Ultimately, in Middle and Upper Jurassic mammals, the tiny quadrate, articular, and ring-like angular migrated as a unit to the middle ear where they joined the stapes and became the incus, malleus, and tympanic bones (Allin, 197 5, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).

Progressively, the teeth became differentiated. The large canines developed first, followed by the development of multicusped cheek teeth, reduced tooth replacement (Osborn & Crompton, 1973; Crompton & Parker, 1978), and finally full y differentiated incisors, canines, premolars, and molars with one tooth replacement during life (Kemp, 1982; Hopson, 1994).

Many other morphologic changes are documented in the fossil record. These demonstrate the morphologic and geochronologic succession from sprawling limb posture to upright limb posture of mammals (Jenkins, 1971; Romer & Lewis, 197 3; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). As Jenkins (1971, p. 210) stated, “In details of morphology and function, the cynodont post-cranial skeleton should be regarded as neither ‘reptilian’ nor ‘mammalian’ but as transitional between the two classes .” Other changes have been adequately summarized elsewhere (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). Obviously, fundamental physiologic changes must have taken place as well, many of which are not directly preserved in the fossil record, though some can be inferred from the skeletal anatomy (Findlay, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983, Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994).

This is well documented in the fossil record by a massive volume of incontrovertible data that cannot be explained away. Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

(The above is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation", which is yet ANOTHER source the anti-evolutionists are obviously completely ignorant of -- not that that stops them from spouting off falsehoods about the subject anyway...

---

...and that's just the *fossil* record of the reptile-to-mammal transition -- the DNA evidence for it is overwhelming, and provide independent cross-confirmation of the fossil evidence. How many thousand more would you like to see? You can start here, but again this is just the tip of a stunningly gigantic iceberg:

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...

Phylum Level Evolution

Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life

Cuffey: Transitional Fossils

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

More Evidence for Transitional Fossils

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Transitional Forms of Whales

Fossil Horses FAQs

PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth

Mammaliformes: Docodonta

Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird

Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

For a quick overview of the evolutionary history of whale evolution (from land-based ancestors), and how the DNA evidence and the fossil evidence and biochemical evidence cross-each other, see for example:

The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Links on whale evolution

SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales

Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls

Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade

A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales

Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1

The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss

Eocene evolution of whale hearing

Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised

Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals

Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes

New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Cetacean Systematics

LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF THE TIME OF ORIGIN OF CETACEA AND THE TIME OF DIVERGENCE OF CETACEA AND ARTIODACTYLA

Phylogenetic Relationships of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans as Deduced from the Comparison of Cytochrome b and 12s rRNA Mitochondrial Sequences

Molecular evolution of mammalian ribonucleases

Now compare that with Coulter's grossly ignorant assertion that the fossil record has "failed utterly" to support evolution... The size of her "error" is just jaw-dropping. It's like a liberal claiming that capitalism never created any wealth -- anyone with even the remotest familiarity with the subject is going to ask the obvious question, "just how stupid *is* this person?"

And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes.

Piltdown, yes, but that's *one* hoax in over 150 years of evolutionary research, which took place NINETY-FOUR YEARS ago, and to this day it's still unclear who exactly promulgated it and why. Would you like to hear about the huge number of hoaxes that have been performed in the name of religion? Does that invalidate all of religion? Of course not. And neither does Piltdown invalidate the vast amounts of real evidence and research results underlying evolutionary biology. Nor do any of the other items on the very, very short list of fabrications in the past 150 years (a small enough number to count on your fingers). Anti-evolutionists love to concentrate on the very small number of embarassments, in a dishonest attempt to distract people from the gigantic amount of genuine successes in evolutionary biology. It's like how liberals harp on "Bush lied" instead of dealing honestly with the real issues.

As for the peppered moths accusation, it's false. It wasn't a hoax. Subsequent studies have reaffirmed the validity of the original findings. Anti-evolutionists like to *lie* about it and say it's a hoax, because they're too dense to understand that there's no "fraud" involved in posing insects for an educational photograph, and the research findings were not based on such photographs anyway. There are a vast number of false assertions made about the peppered moth studies by anti-evolutionists, but that says a hell of a lot more about the honesty of anti-evolutionists than it does about evolutionary biology.

See for example:

Icon of Obfuscation - Peppered Moths

The story of the peppered moth

FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM

Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution

LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading

Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics

No, they understandably treat those who make the usual false and fallacious attacks on evolution as the uneducated dunderheads that they are. Unfortunately, Coulter's book will just promulgate more of the usual anti-evolution fallacies, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and lies, if this review is any indication. And as a result yet more conservatives, who make the mistake of trusting Coulter on this issue, will make more fools of themselves by repeating this nonsense, and give yet more people the impression that conservatives are uneducated dolts who have their heads full of false nonsense. And on this topic, about the readers who maket he mistake of believing Coulter, they'll be right, sad to say.

and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism.

Wrong again. I'm a huge fan of "real science" myself, and I'm not aware of *any* "real science" which "contradicts Darwinism", period, much less has been "prohibited" from schools.

If Ann is talking about "ID", she's making yet another huge error by mistaking it for "real science". It isn't, and I'll be glad to demonstrate that any time she wants to look into it. "ID" tries to *present* itself as an actual science in an attempt to dishonestly shoe-horn itself into science classrooms. But it has failed to meet any of the requirements that something has to meet in order to actually *be* a "real science". "ID" is a Trojan horse for creationism and misguided attacks on evolutionary biology, not an actual science.

And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Yes, and at least they're consistent about it.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have unfortunately been caught way too often using falsehoods and disinformation in order to try to circumvent such limitations. Consider the recent Dover trial, for example, where the conservative defendents were caught several times blatantly perjuring themselves. This sort of crap does conservatism no favors whatsoever. Nor does promulgating false propaganda, either knowingly or unwittingly, as Ann's upcoming book is going to do. It only reinforces the anti-conservative impressions of not only liberals, but of folks in the middle who might otherwise look favorably upon conservatism or consider it for themselves -- if only they didn't keep seeing conservatives behaving like liars and buffoons on this issue or others...

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.

Wrong again! While I care little to debate whether it's true that liberals have any "absolute devotion to Darwinism" or not, or what their motives might be, Coulter is dead wrong when she tries to say that evolution in any way entails any "refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force". Again, the amount of ignorance in this false assertion, and the depth of its wrongheadedness, is just mind-boggling. Evolutionary biology (or "Darwinism" if you prefer) IN NO WAY makes any statement about the existence of, or the involvement of, God. Period. Nor does science in general. This is just basic Science 101 -- was Coulter sleeping through high school?

They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

No matter how many times the evolution-haters say this and stamp their feet, it still fails to be true. Evolution is not a religion, "official" or otherwise.

I dread to think how many other blatantly, stupdendously wrong falsehoods Coulter promulgates in the rest of her chapter(s) on evolution. It's going to be like watching Michael Moore's attempts to try to "explain" foreign policy or capitalism, and for exactly the same reasons: Overzealous partisanship, ignorance of the subject matter, over-reliance on biased sources, a lack of desire to research the subject objectively, and the hubris which causes one to hold forth as an "expert" on a topic despite the foregoing list of handicaps.

It has often been said that "the media seems accurate and objective until you finally see them report on a subject you actually know a lot about". Well, I have previously enjoyed Ann Coulter's earlier works, but now that she has gotten around to writing on a subject I know very well, I'm utterly appalled at what a hugely incompetent job she has done, and how there is absolutely no excuse for it. There are *plenty* of easily available and accessible resources for learning accurate information about evolutionary biology. And if Ann had wanted to go after the liberals' *misuse* of biology, or anything else, that would have been entertaining and effective -- she had no good reason at all to mount incredibly ignorant and wrong-headed and just plain false attacks on the science itself, and end up shooting herself in the foot with a howitzer in a way that any science-literate reader will be able to spot in an instant. This was an incredibly bone-headed and unnecessary screwup on her part, and it's going to have lasting negative repercussions for the conservative movement.

[Sam Hill]

You, in your infinite wisdom on all subjects posted:

"Here's Hitler in his own words. He constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian. Therefore, it's really odd to say he was anti-Christian."

I pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about. The following quotes are from one book, Table Talk, which are Hitler's own remarks as have made them over meals circa 1941.

And these quotes are only from the first half of that book, and only where he specifically mentioned Christianity. (Rather than the church or Catholics or Priests, etc.)

Behold how he felt about Christianity:

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours.

In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. 

On a question from C.S. [his secretary Christa Schroeder], whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued. No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to...

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the di­rection of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.

++++

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

++++

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has be­come widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this re­spect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

++++

A movement like ours mustn’t let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It’s not the Party’s function to be a counterfeit for religion.

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

++++

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These lat­ter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the mainte­nance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I’ve no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

++++

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.  Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome to-day allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having; destroyed the Christian churches! As if Christianity hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples.

++++

Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it’s in the name of Bolshevism.

Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai.

Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx.

By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

 ++++

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Greco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil. “If thou desirest to live, thou shalt not expose thyself unto temptation.” Bolshevism sets about its task in the same way as Christianity, so that the faithful may not know what is happening in the rest of the world. The object is to persuade them that the system they enjoy is unique in the world in point of technical and social organisation.

++++

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. ‘What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity’s most precious spiritual treasures. ‘Who can know what was there? ... I don’t believe at all in the truth of certain mental pictures that many people have of the Roman emperors. I’m sure that Nero didn’t set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.

++++

I have numerous accounts to settle, about which I cannot think to-day. But that doesn’t mean I forget them. I write them down. The time will come to bring out the big book! ... Methods of persuasion of a moral order are not an effective weapon against those who despise the truth—when we have to do with priests, for example, of a Church who know that everything about it is based on lies, and who live by it. They think me a spoil-sport when I rise up in their midst; indeed, I am going to spoil their little games. ...

What gave the power of the Church such a handle was the fact that the civil power didn’t want to interfere in these matters at any price. Things have changed a great deal since then. Nowadays great numbers of priests are forsaking the Church. Obviously, there’s a hard core, and I shall never get them all. You don’t imagine I can convert the Holy Father. One does not persuade a man who’s at the head of such a gigantic con­cern to give it up. It’s his livelihood!

++++

What a happy inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the Party! On the 21st March 1933, at Potsdam, the question was raised: with the Church, or without the Church? I conquered the State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds. On that day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at that period I’d made a pact with the Churches, I’d to-day be sharing the lot of the Duce. By nature the Duce is a free-thinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.” But the result would have been, they’d have been outside! When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

++++

Kern, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.

I think I could have come to an understanding with the Popes of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger on the practi­cal level—and, on the propaganda level, it continued to be a lie. But a Pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the Protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.  Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

++++

But for the coming of Christianity, who knows how the history of Europe would have developed? Rome would have conquered all Europe, and the onrush of the Huns would have been broken on the legions. It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome—not the Germans or the Huns.

What Bolshevism is achieving to-day on the materialist and technical level, Christianity had achieved on the metaphysical level.

++++

The sensational event of the ancient world was the mobilisation of the underworld against the established order. This enterprise of Christianity had no more to do with religion than Marxist socialism has to do with the solution of the social problem. The notions represented by Jewish Christianity were strictly unthinkable to Roman brains. ...

It was necessary for the Jew to appear on the scene and introduce that mad conception of a life that continues into an alleged Beyond! It en­ables one to regard life as a thing that is negligible here below—since it will flourish later, when it no longer exists. Under cover of a religion, the Jew has introduced intolerance in a sphere in which tolerance formerly prevailed. Amongst the Romans, the cult of the sovereign intelligence was associated with the modesty of a humanity that knew its limits, to the point of consecrating altars to the unknown god. 

The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world—in order to ruin it—re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question. It’s the same sleight. of hand as before. Just as Saul was changed into St. Paul, Mardochai became Karl Marx.

++++

Man seizes hold, here and there, of a few scraps of truth, but he couldn’t rule nature. He must know that, on the contrary, he is dependent on Creation. And this attitude leads further than the superstitions maintained by the Church. Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries. The only thing that would be still worse would be victory for the Jew through Bolshevism. If Bolshevism triumphed, mankind would lose the gift of laughter and joy. It would become merely a shapeless mass, doomed to greyness and despair.

The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a re­igion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.

 ++++

It’s only in the realm of music that I can find no satisfaction. The same thing is happening to music as is happening to beauty in a world dominated by the shavelings—the Christian religion is an enemy to beauty. The Jew has brought off the same trick upon music. He has created a new inversion of values and replaced the loveliness of music by noises. Surely the Athenian, when he entered the Parthenon to contemplate the image of Zeus, must have had another impression than the Christian who must resign himself to contemplating the grimacing face of a man crucified.

++++

The world is passing at this moment through one of the most important revolutions in human history. We are witnessing the final somersaults of Christianity. It began with the Lutheran revolu­tion. The revolutionary nature of that rebellion lies in the fact that until then there had been only one authority, on both the spiritual and the temporal level, that of the Pope—for it was he who delegated tem­poral power. Dogma cannot resist the ceaselessly renewed attacks of the spirit of free enquiry. One cannot teach at ten o’clock in the morning truths which one destroys in the eleven o’clock lesson.

++++

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realise that man, in his im­perfection, can commit innumerable errors—but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. In acting as I do, I’m very far from the wish to scandalise. But I rebel when I see the very idea of 1 Providence flouted in this fashion.

It’s a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world. But I shall feel I’m in my proper place if, after my death, I find myself, together with people like me, on some sort of Olympus. I shall be in the company of the most enlightened spirits of all times.

I adopted a definite attitude on the 21st March 1933 when I refused to take part in the religious services, organised at Potsdam by the two Churches, for the inauguration of the new Reichstag.

I’ve never concerned myself, in the Party, with learning to which Church the men around me belonged, or did not belong. But if I were to die to-day, it would shock me to know that there’s a single “sky-pilot” within a radius of ten kilometres around me. The idea that one of these fellows could bring me the slightest help would by itself make me despair of Providence.

As far as I’m concerned, I act according to my convictions. I don’t prevent anyone from praying silently, but I rebel against all blasphemy. So let nobody waste prayers on me that I shall not have asked for.

If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that trafficks in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on othersbodies and tyranny upon otherssouls.

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him. What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.

++++

Again, I am pausing here, less than halfway through Table Talk.

Your preposterous claim that "constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian" is a flat out lie.

And your scurrilous attacks against me for pointing that out speak volumes to your claims of being a defender of science or anything else truth related.

You are a major league asshole.

[microgood]

In Germany in 1986, I shared an office with a distinguished Polish professor, who later became Rector of his university, after the overthrow of communism(Catholic, of course, as was I). A refined, subtle, and educated man. One evening, in all seriousness, he told me what Jews do to Christian babies at Passover. I was in total disbelief. It was if something bizarre and ugly from the Middle Ages had just appeared on my desk.

Anyone who thinks Nazi antisemitism in the 1930s was anything other than a reflection of popular sentiment, is in denial. In school, in the 1970's, an old Christian Brother taught us how Jews, communists and freemasons were in cahoots to destroy Christianity and bring the Antichrist to Earth. Antisemitism was promoted, preached, and implemented by both Catholics and Protestants; and after WWI, when Germany was looking to blame someone for the consequences of their own actions, Jews were the obvious scapegoats. The Nazis came to power by a combination of popular vote, and the complicity of van Papen of the Catholic party. But they're in denial.

RIGHT WING PROFESSOR STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD PLACEMARKER

[Dimensio]

Do you have an actual rebuttal to the "long, long post", or did you merely feel a need to comment on its length?

[Dimensio]

I have looked over some of it. After the introduction, it opens with some marvelling at the fundamental properties of the universe without actually explaining how this is evidence of anything, and then expresses astonishment that life happens to exist upon a planet that happens to be able to support it, bringing forth a spotlight fallacy and an argument from incredulity in essentially the same point.

[Dimensio]

After reading a bit further, I see an attempt to retrofit a reading of Genesis I with current astronomy and astrophysics, followed by an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution first by calling it an "unproven theory" -- even though all theories are unproven by definition, and never can be proven -- and then falsely claiming that it makes claims regarding the origin of life. That they inaccurately link the origin of life with the theory of evolution strongly suggests that they have not studied biology sufficiently to comment on the subject. There is also a bit of information on the fossil record, completely ignoring the existence of other lines of evidence for evolution (such as genetic evidence across species).

I will look over the document more thorougly tomorrow and comment on the more glaring and obvious errors.

[Sam Hill]

"You are a real pig. I am reporting you for abuse, you asshole."

Certainly qualifies for one of the most ironic posts of the year.

+++++

Perhaps you don't know who David Irving is.

The "professor" just called me a Neo-Nazi.

Which should qualify as one of the most ironic posts of the year.

[Sam Hill]

"Currently reading: American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips"

Oh, my sides!

LOL

[Sam Hill]

"Here's Hitler in his own words. He constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian. Therefore, it's really odd to say he was anti-Christian."

Well, while I've got the book open and the scanner going, here are a few more quotes for you, Professor:

The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on tile contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds. It’s obvious that, in the realm of belief, terrorist teachings have no other object but to distract men from their natural optimism and to develop in them the instinct of cowardice. 

As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. It’s therefore in England and America that one can nowadays observe the effects of such an education upon a people’s conduct. Our measures against decadent art have enabled us to get rid of the smears of the Jews. But these daubs, which we’ve banned, are at present fetching the highest prices in England and America. And nobody amongst the bourgeois over yonder dares to protest. One may well exclaim: “Cowardice, thy name is bourgeoisie!” Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries, with the rope already round their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly.

++++

It is very curious that devout Christians like the British and the Americans should, despite their constant and fervent prayers, receive such a series of hidings from the pagan Japanese! It rather looks as if the real God takes no notice of the prayers offered day and night by the British and the Americans, but reserves His mercies for the heroes of Japan. It is not surprising that this should be so, for the religion of the Japanese is above all a cult of heroism, and its heroes are those who do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the glory and safety of their country. The Christians, on the other hand, prefer to honour the Saints, that is to say, a man who succeeds in standing on one leg for years at a time, or one who prefers to lie on a bed of thorns rather than to respond to the smiles of inviting maidens. There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.

Another peculiarity of the Christian faith, as it is taught by the Catholic Church, is that it is a school of pessimism rather than of opti­mism. The Japanese religion, on the contrary, rouses men to enthu­siasm by the promise it holds of the rewards in the Hereafter, while the unfortunate Christian has no prospect before him but the torments of Hell.

Such pessimism has a marked effect. Even a child of three can be made to acquire a terror of mind which will remain with him for the whole of his life. We all know many grown-up people who are nervous in the dark, simply because they had been told in their childhood that a bogey-man, a robber or the like lurked in the shadows.

It is no less difficult to eradicate these childish inhibitions than it is to free the human soul of that haunting terror of Hell which the Catholic Church impresses on it with such vigour during its most tender years.

++++

When one examines the Catholic religion closely, one cannot fail to realise that it is an almost incredibly cunning mixture of hypocrisy and business acumen, which trades with consummate skill on the deeply engrained affection of mankind for the beliefs and superstitions he holds. It is inconceivable that an educated priest should really believe all the nonsense that the Church pours out; a proof there, to my mind, is the fact that the priests themselves always try to confuse the issue on the subject of the swindle of dispensations, and avoid whenever possible any discussion of the subject. 

++++

The preservation of our racial purity can be assured only by an awareness of the racial issues involved; our laws, therefore, must be framed with the sole object of protecting our people not only against Jewish, but also against any and every racial infection.

We must do all we can to foster this racial awareness until it attains the same standard as obtained in Rome in the days of her glory. In those days the Roman protected himself subconsciously against any racial adulteration. The same thing occurred in Greece at the height of her power; according to reports handed down to us, the very market­place itself in Athens shook with laughter when St. Paul spoke there in favour of the Jews. If nowadays we do not find the same splendid pride of race which distinguished the Grecian and Roman eras, it is because in the fourth century these Jewish-Christians systematically destroyed all the monuments of these ancient civilisations. It was they, too, who destroyed the library at Alexandria.

++++

The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out of hand, the rest he flung out, and St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!

++++

Here, too, we see a fundamental truth: The parasites, in their avarice, do not realise that they are destroying the very ground which is their foundation. The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity.

++++

Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the latter, the standard of civilisation attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of the purest chivalry. Then, with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. The chivalry of the Castilians has been inherited from the Arabs. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have. been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism, and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

And the very last two sentences in Table Talk:

The Fuehrer concluded, Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.

[Sam Hill]

"Well, I have previously enjoyed Ann Coulter's earlier works, but now that she has gotten around to writing on a subject I know very well, I'm utterly appalled at what a hugely incompetent job she has done, and how there is absolutely no excuse for it."

Hahahaha.

It hasn't even come out yet.

[shuckmaster]

I've enjoyed her polemics in the past, but if now she's supporting anti-science or pseudo-science,

I'm agreeing with you here. Ann's writing and TV appearances while quite often a bit over the top, have always been quite an inspiration to me. Seeing as how she's deliberately insulting the educated portion of her audience by playing the "conservative equals ignorant" card, I'm now inclined to view her as a disappointing P T Barnum book seller merely huckstering her audience. Hopefully she'll use a portion of her latest book sales to purchase something to eat.

[shuckmaster]

After all, the Bible is the inspired word of God

Actually it's a varied assortment of dubious translations from a scattered collection of tattered scrolls handed down from various tribes of sandal wearing bronze age goat herders but, don't let that stop you...