Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Debating Darwin's Doubt: the prequel

I've had a chance to read most of Debating Darwin's Doubt and, as I mentioned earlier today, it doesn't address any of my criticisms. Here's the list of my blog posts ...
I'm really jealous because the IDiots spend a lot of time on Nick Matzke's blog post and on other posts.

I can only assume that they have no rebuttal. I know they read my blog and they should have been on the look-out for my critique in September 2013 because David Klinghoffer specifically challenged me to review Darwin's Doubt.1 [On Darwin's Doubt, Still Waiting to Hear from Big Shots in the Darwin Brigade]. Here's what he said on September 4, 2013 just before I put up those posts.
Where is Jerry Coyne in this debate? Where is Dawkins? Even PZ Myers? Or Lawrence Moran, who promised "I'm planning to read [Darwin's Doubt] as soon as I can get a hold of a copy -- probably sometime in August in Canada." (I'm still puzzled by that one. The book was published in June in Canada as well.) It would seem noble for the generals to go into battle alongside the ordinary foot soldiers, putting themselves at risk as well, instead of hanging back at a safe distance.
My ego was assuaged somewhat when I discovered that one of my blog posts got mentioned. It was in Chapter 2: "Gripe-Fest Turns Surreal" by David Klinghoffer. Here's what he says in Debating Darwin's Doubt (p. 23) ...
At a certain point, the prepublcation gripe-fest by Darwinian bilogist-bloggers about "Darwin's Doubt" turned surreal.

Prophylactically, Jerry Coyne and Joe Felsenstein tried to ward off evident anxieties about Stephen Meyer's book by assuring fellow Darwinists they knew what was in it, and then attacking it on those grounds. Larry Moran, who of course also hadn't read it, endorsed Dr. Coyne's delusional summation of the book's contents ("Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!") and went after Casey Luskin for the ethical violation, no less, of writing about the book prepublication—though of course Casey had read it.
"The Intelligent Design Creationists want you to know that any criticism of what they are saying about the book is unethical unless you've read it yourself. However, it's not the least bit unethical for them to make outlandish claims about the what's in the book months before we can verify whether those claims are correct.

This is creationist ethics, It's not supposed to make sense." [Soon to Be Released: Another Landmark for the ID Movement ]
Moran took after me too for "speculat[ing] about what the book was going to say.
"Don't make outlandish claims about what's in the book until it's published and everyone can check for themselves. If you speculate about what the book is going to say then don't be surprised if others do as well." [Darwin Doubters Want to Have their Cake and Eat it too]
But I was not speculating—at that point I had read "Darwin's Doubt" too. I had the unbound galley right in front of me on my desk. Moran promised to read the book, though he complained that despite the June 18 publication date he likely wouldn't be able to get hold of a copy till August since he lives in Canada.

Canada? Not Timbuktu. It takes two months to ship a book to Toronto? That is very weird.

Anyway, let's get the Moran logic clear. It's perfectly OK to review a book you haven't read before it's published, if the book argues for intelligent design and you are attacking it in absurd terms as Coyne did. But writing about the same book before it's published, if you have read it and are favorably impressed by its argument, is an ethical breach. You see, this is really how these guys think.
That's very revealing because it is how those guys think.

This may come as a big surprise to you, dear readers, but clear logic is not one of the strong points of Intelligent Design Creationists.

I think it's ridiculous to review a book you haven't read but that's not what Jerry Coyne or Joe Felsenstein ever did. What they did was to respond to the increasing hype from the IDiots in the three months leading up to the publication of Darwin's Doubt.

Let's remind ourselves what Casey Luskin wrote on April 9, 2013—three months before publication [Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt].
Arguments for intelligent design in the Cambrian explosion have certainly been made before. But Darwin's Doubt will be by far the most in-depth and mature development of those arguments to date, addressing in detail many ideas and rebuttals and theories advanced by evolutionary scientists, and showing why the theory of intelligent design best explains the explosion of biodiversity in the Cambrian animals ....

When published, Darwin's Doubt will be the single most up-to-date rebuttal to neo-Darwinian theory from the ID-paradigm ....

In this regard, Darwin's Doubt does something that's never been done before: it surveys the landscape of these "post-neo-Darwinian evolutionary models," and shows why they too fail as explanations for the origin of animal body plans and biological complexity.
That's not a review. That's just speculation and hype.

Some of my colleagues reacted to that prepublication hype by pointing out that Stephen Meyer has a history. It was pretty obvious that he was going to say the same sorts of things that he'd said before. They were right.

It was in response to that hype ("Darwin's Doubt will be the single most up-to-date rebuttal to neo-Darwinian theory ...") that I wrote (April 12, 2013) ...
The Intelligent Design Creationists want you to know that any criticism of what they are saying about the book is unethical unless you've read it yourself. However, it's not the least bit unethical for them to make outlandish claims about what's in the book months before we can verify whether those claims are correct.
I followed up a few days later with ...
Here's how the strategy works. The IDiots are arguing the merits of Meyer's new book on the leading creationist blogs. They are generating lots of publicity and convincing their followers that the book is going to be a devastating rebuttal of "Darwinism." None of their followers have read the book but that doesn't matter. They won't have to.

How are scientists supposed to respond? None of us have read the book so we can't (yet) show that it is just more of the same old propaganda that we've seen before. What we can say is that we are very skeptical of the claims being made and we think it is disingenuous to promote those claims when we can't examine the "evidence." We can confidently speculate about what Stephen Meyer is going to say because he has a history and because he gives away some of his arguments in the publicity surrounding the book. The IDiots only sing one note and there's a very high probability that this isn't going to change.

That's exactly what Jerry Coyne said in his post: A (formerly) reputable publisher sells out to creationists. He puts it very nicely—and undoubtedly accurately— when he says, "But creationist Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has apparently wrapped up the story. He’s hit upon the real reason for the Cambrian explosion: it’s intelligent design! Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!"

Does anyone with an IQ over 50 think Coyne's prediction is wrong?
I think that's pretty clear. David Klinghoffer may disagree with me about the ethics, and hypocrisy, of his friends at the Discovery Institute but who would have thought that he could fail to understand the clear logic?

I take this opportunity to remind you what the debate is all about. See the little red circle? (left) That's the Cambrian Explosion.

Now let's address the issue of when I got the books, and how. David Klinghoffer may find this hard to believe but I don't order books on Amazon.com—the American website. I order them on Amazon.ca—the Canadian website—where I pay in Canadian dollars and shipping charges are cheaper.

He may also find it hard to believe that I didn't really care if I got it in June or August. In fact, I received the book on Aug. 1, 2013 but didn't get around to commenting on it until Sept. 5, 2013 [Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis]. David, Casey, Stephen, and the other IDiots must have been shocked that I didn't put aside everything that I was doing to address yet another IDiot book.

Oh, I almost forgot. Don't bother reading Debating Darwin's Doubt. It's mostly just blog posts from Evolution News & Views (sic), which Klinghoffer runs. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

It's pretty clear what the IDiots are up to as I pointed out last month [Debating Darwin's Doubt].
The book was necessary because there has been so much criticism of the original Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. David Klinghoffer has an interesting way of turning this defeat into a victory because he declares,
"... the new book is important because it puts to rest a Darwinian myth, an icon of the evolution debate, namely...that there is no debate, about evolution or intelligent design!"
The idea is to snatch victory from defeat. If they can't explain away all the criticism of Darwins'Doubt from the experts, then at lest they can claim that they got their attention and there's a real debate going on.

Psychics, homeopaths, and astologers make the same argument. With the same effect.

I made a prediction ...
It won't take long for us to demolish all the arguments in "Debating Darwin's Doubt." That means we can expect another book in 2017. It will be called: "Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt." The one after that (in 2019) will be "Defending Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt."


1. It would be gauche to criticize Klinghoffer for misspelling my first name but, for the record, it's Laurence. Call me Larry.

128 comments :

  1. I've had a chance to read most of Debating Darwin's Doubt and, as I mentioned earlier today, it doesn't address any of my criticisms.

    Why don't you read the whole thing instead of MOST OF IT? How do you know that what you left out doesn't address your issues?

    Side point Larry; If I were your student and made an answer like yours above, what mark would I get for reading most of your material?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I scanned the entire book ... every page. I read most of it but skipped over the boring parts. Actually it was all pretty boring but some parts were worse than others.

      I've decided that none of your comments are worth keeping on my blog so every one of them will be deleted (except this one). You clearly have no intention of reading for comprehension and you clearly are not capable of understanding anything that's said to you.

      Delete
  2. You quote Klinghoffer as writing that:

    "Prophylactically, Jerry Coyne and Joe Felsenstein tried to ward off evident anxieties about Stephen Meyer's book by assuring fellow Darwinists they knew what was in it, and then attacking it on those grounds."

    You correctly saw that this was precisely what I did not do, that I did not argue that I knew what would be in the book. Rather I argued that if DD was to be a good summary of the state of ID arguments, it should make clear that William Dembski's argument from Complex Specified Information had collapsed. I very explicitly said in that post at Panda's Thumb that neither I nor anyone commenting there had read the book, and that perhaps it would brilliantly make, or brilliantly refute, the points that critics of Dembski's work had made.

    I hesitate to accuse Klinghoffer of deliberate misrepresentation of my statements, so I will suppose that he is incompetent instead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The entire point of this is to get recognized... in any way possible... by legitimate scientists.

    I had a guy on my blog argue with me that all of the people arguing against ID means that there must be something to the notion of ID. He's clearly an idiot.

    But I think that's the point. They don't care about no names, like me, eviscerating their book. They only want the big dogs. So they can point and say "See?!?! We matter!!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The entire point of this is to get recognized... in any way possible... by legitimate scientists.

      Perhaps they should try streaking at conferences. Given their past record, it might actually lend intellectual tone to their movement.

      Delete
  4. Any publicity is good as long as your name is spelled correctly.

    Oops.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the point LACK OF FOSSILS TRUMPS GENES.
    Meyer is not saying that. He is saying the lack of fossil evidence is good fossil evidence of his claims of a degree of complexity in biology creatures without ancesters as evolution demands.
    thats why the explosion is embraced by ID thinkers.
    A sudden complexity and diversity without any evidence or likely chance for evolving lineages.
    To this YEC its funny for another reason.
    A well done and pretty famous recent criticism of evolution uses the same presumptions of evolution. that biological evidence for origins is rightly claimed from fossilized creatures when they died. So its all really about deposition of the fossils and so geology is the real evidence for the biology claims.
    There is no biology evidence for or against a explosion of life or evolution of life WHEN studying fossils.
    Its a grand humbug of investigation into bio origins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Byers,

      To this evolutionist it's funny that you think that the 'sudden' appearance of complex fossils in Cambrian strata is somehow helpful to YEC. The YEC and Meyer interpretation of the strata are in complete opposition to each other.

      You think the entire geologic column (up to, for eccentric personal reasons, the K/T) was laid down in a global flood. There is no warrant for regarding the organisms at the base as representing 'sudden' appearance. These would just be the organisms that settled out first, saying nothing of their history. Meyer is not saying what you think he is saying.

      Delete
    2. Of course, Meyer lies in his book by ignoring most of the relevant research that shows that the fossils he and you say don't exist actually do exist.

      But please don't let a little thing like truth stop your whining.

      Delete
    3. Robert, Meyers is ignoring the fact that there are fossils of animals before the Cambrian explosion, going back to more than 600 million years ago. (The Cambrian "explosion" began about 540 years ago and lasted maybe 70 million years.)

      Meyers can't have done what research he did without learning about the earlier fossils. Therefore, Meyers is lying by omission in his emphasis on the Cambrian explosion.

      If you, as a Young Earth Creationist, want to consistent, you ought to reject Meyers' argument as much as you reject evolution. However, I suppose this is an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

      Delete
    4. Allan Miller
      I did mention this. It is a point for YEC tom stress that all this contention on the Cambrian explosion is based on geological ideas of deposition of the biology fossilized.
      It works great for yEC in showing how evolution fails to explain complexity/diversity by its own timelines.
      No there wss no dudden appearance. Just a segregated area encased in sediment suddenly during the flood year about 4500 years ago.
      ID unravels evolution error by evolutionisms own presumptions. We are full investers in their attack.

      Delete
    5. bwilson 295
      meyers is right in his point of how sudden complexity/diversity by evolution is defeated by the fossil record evolutionism stands on so much. its a good point and yEC should support. WE don't support the geological paradigms behind all this and so its all wrong. yet the iD criticsm works in showing a classic point against evolution. it can't produce complexity/ and quickly.

      Its called the cambrian explosion because it was a explosion of biology in the timelines accepted by both ID and evolutionists.
      ID didn't coin the word.
      Saying there were fossils before , or rather a fuse is seen, before the explosion is missing the point.
      Its not abundance of creatures but thier complexity and diversity all of a sudden there. With no or likely previous stages in their evolution.
      Meyer is not deceitful but dismissing any chump change grasped at to show there wasn't a explosion.
      He is making a case.
      however all these things are not based on bio sci evidence. Without the geology there is no point/counter point. On just biology there is no evidence for any evolution of failure of it. just data points of dead biology fossilized.
      Rocks say nothing about biological processes but only about biological moments in time.
      The process is not fossilized and so no bio sci evidence.

      Delete
    6. WE don't support the geological paradigms behind all this and so its all wrong

      How cute. So YECs define truth as "whatever we support".
      But of course a scientist going with "whatever the evidence supports" is doing sci fi.
      Oh the irony

      Delete
    7. It works great for yEC in showing how evolution fails to explain complexity/diversity by its own timelines.

      The Cambrian 'explosion' covers at least 10 million years. How long should fossilisable complexity and diversity take, from a cryptic or standing start, o wise one?

      Delete
    8. And, indeed, note the Ediacara. They were both complex and diverse. They lie below the Cambrian.

      Delete
    9. IIRC, Robert Byers believes that, for example, modern anteaters, aardvarks, pangolins and numbats (and/or echidnas, perhaps) have all "developed" postdiluvially from one pair of ancestral anteaters, saved by Noah a few thousand years ago, in response to the local conditions of different continents. It's amazing how much Byersian evolution can achieve in just a few thousand years!

      Delete
    10. I wonder why it took 1 billion years after the earth formed to start kicking up simple cell life (procaryotes).. Then another .2 billion years after that for the simple cell cyanobacteria to show up and give off their waste gas oxygen that oxygenated the planet. Then another 1.4 billion years must elapse (2 billion years ago) to kick up eukaryotes, Then another billion years must elapse for multicellular life to get going (1 billion years ago). Then 625 million years ago we get to the ediacaran period. .Exactly what you'd expect under darwin, a bunch of soft gooey organisms like sponges and leafy looking things. Later in the ediacaran we start seeing the first signs of hard substances coming from worms( cloudina) and early mollusks like kimberella and worm burrowing tracks .. Cloudina has a bunch of distinct attack marks on the shells( http://tinyurl.com/ocwq6br ). Even if we cannot find the fossils that were attacking cloudina we have the evidence that it was under attack suggesting strongly of an evolutionary arms race from an unknown fossil which is evidence we have not found all “that existed” before the cambrian. Kimberella from the ediacaran calls into doubt the time period for how quick the cambrian explosion really was. Fossils like Parvancorina and spriggina show plausibly were such things as the trilobites came from. This idea that puff the magic dragon came in and instantly created new phyla’s out of nothing is a joke. The Cambrian looks like the radiation of soft body primitive organisms mixed with a couple 1/2 way there hard substance bodies ( cloudina is evidence that hard body parts was now coming into being at the ediacaran.) Everything here looks exactly like what darwin would predict.. From goo to hard body parts over billions of years. Darwin had no idea about the ediacaran layers.. He thought complex life started at the Cambrian. The ediacaran was discovered in 1946 .. Long after darwins book .. Also most importantly creationists tend to ignore this very fact that I am about too mention. Never has a fossil been showed in the wrong order. For example.. You do not find birds before dinosaurs. You do not find rabbits in the Cambrian. You do not find mammals before amphibians. Its remarkable the amount of explanatory power evolution has but Idiot creations just keep on trucking. Scream as loud as you can to fellow creationists, because the scientists are having none of it.

      Delete
    11. Allan Miller. Well the explosion means a explosion relative to a quiet previous state. this is a presumption in these matters.its new biology out of the blue and glorious. No claims are made these others you mention were ancesters.
      anyways the operastive word is explosion and not coined by ID.

      Delete
    12. Piotr
      I don't think thats my list. Not those creatures but your right I do insist same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite minor modification.
      Yes the critters of australia are just the same as elsewhere on the planet in the beginning. just migrating to new areas brought biologicl change across the board. Its always about lumping traits. in fact evolution is based on comparative anatomy greatly because they don't have biological evidence.
      Its just presumption that like looks equals like parents on minor things. THEN they break this rule and invoke convergent evolution. HOW would one EVER know whats convergent and whats descendent.
      just trait grouping and guessing.

      Delete
    13. John Locklin
      the fossils are not in a evolution order, YEC would say they are in a deposition order. So those below the k-t line, for many YEC, are fossils of creatures killed in the global flood. those fossils above the line are post flood events. So its easy to see a fauna/flora change due to the flood on earth/seas. It would be a prediction especially because of the ratio of clean/unclean creatures on the ark.
      The fossil sequences work fine for YEC.
      Evolutionism imagines things evolving based on how fossils are found in the strata. Wiithout the geology paragigm fossils are worthless in proving evolution and so this is also evidence fossils are not biological evidence for evolution. Just bio data points and evolution is presumed.
      Not good science eh!

      Delete
    14. the fossils are not in a evolution order, YEC would say they are in a deposition order.

      Which explains why blue whales predate foraminifera in the fossil record. Oops.

      Delete
    15. I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. If by "k-t line", you mean the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, that means that you think the entirety of cetacean evolution is post-flood, and occurred within the last 4,000 years. That's even more awesome.

      So instead of "blue whales", substitute Mosasaurus or Liopleurodon.

      Delete
    16. Nullifigian
      Yes your right. I see marine mammals as post flood land creatures that quickly adapted to the sea. not by evolution by mutation however.

      Delete
    17. But you missed the more important point that small, single-celled organisms with buoyant shells are found vastly farther down in the fossil record than large marine organisms, regardless of whether it's a Mosasaurus or a Basilosaurus. What about that suggests a "deposition order" to you?

      Delete
    18. Does anyone want to see more of byers' departure from reality? If so, take a look at this thread:

      http://ncse.com/blog/2014/09/horse-is-horse-course-course-as-long-as-you-know-what-horse-0015875

      In it he says:

      "So we are renting a body type. The best one. Penthouse body."

      And this:

      "There are no mammals or reptiles. Just kinds with like traits as needed.
      So the classification system is crazy for not just its error but why they classify it as such and the strangeness of the conclusions."

      And more.

      Delete
  6. They did a "controversy" book before, as a follow up to Meyer's previous book Signature in the Cell. It was called Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell and edited by Klinghoffer, no surprise there. It's only 143 pages (see Amazon) so I guess there wasn't that much controversy really.
    Amazon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DDD left out Larry's critiques and it is about 350 pages. I wonder how many critiques got left out of SigOfControversy to make it only 143 pages.

      Delete
  7. See dear readers, watch how Larry Moran circles a tiny area of the chart to make it appear that the Cambrian explosion is much ado about nothing as it appears to be such a small blimp on the screen.

    See how Moran makes a tiny red circle in the lower right corner?. Now THAT is the most flagrant evidence of the un-importance of the Cambrian explosion. Larry can just dismiss any discussion of it as inconsequential. Just look at how little it explain.

    Voila!! Game over (not)!

    Larry wants to steer the conversation away from the Cambrian to the rest, where there are scant fossils. Then he can pull out the Plausibility Defense.

    But that is precisely why he and Coyne detest Darwin's Doubt. It hits the Plausibility Defense head on.

    Its so effective, that Moran feels the need to send an inordinate about of time trying to defend the plausibility of evolution.

    Intelligent design does in fact have the upper hand since its explanation is closer to people's real life experience than the goallessness and purposelessness of the evolution myth.

    Moreso, no software engineer will be fooled that evolution can lead us to AI. Ironically, only ID can.

    So it could very well be a Pyrrhic victory for ID. Because when we start to think like the designer, we will speed up the pace of our understanding of biology to the point where we could actually mimic life. Evolution will get science nowhere in that regard.

    So everyone be careful what you wish for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again. Meyer ignored most (and misrepresented the rest) of the research regarding the fossils of the preCambrian.

      But please don't let facts stand in the way of your beliefs.

      Delete
    2. no software engineer will be fooled that evolution can lead us to AI

      So you are saying that a natural process can't produce artificial intelligence? Calling you IDiots is such an understatement

      Delete
    3. So it could very well be a Pyrrhic victory for ID. Because when we start to think like the designer, we will speed up the pace of our understanding of biology to the point where we could actually mimic life. Evolution will get science nowhere in that regard.

      Please inform us when ID research comes up with any discovery at all.

      Delete
    4. "Because when we start to think like the designer, we will speed up the pace of our understanding of biology to the point where we could actually mimic life."

      Yes, I would expect religious fundamentalists will be advancing on DI with the pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers by that time. How dare mere humans understand how the designer/ god thinks, and how dare they create life as if they are the designer.
      But I'll tell you a secret Steve: don't hold your breath.

      Delete
    5. Steve: Intelligent design does in fact have the upper hand since its explanation is closer to people's real life experience

      Huh? "Vertebrate 'fish' lacking jaws or fins were created instantly and supernaturally, Poof! by an invisible spook" is "closer to people's real life experience"!? Whose "real life experience"!? A sorceror's? A necromancer"s? A witch doctor's? A vampre hunter's?

      The "real life experience" argument kills IDcreationism. We've seen evolution create novelties and increase information. We've never seen invisible spooks mutate even one base pair, much less create 32 animal phyla from a magic puff of smoke, as ID theorists have repeatedly said.

      Delete
    6. I'm afraid Steve's right:
      "Intelligent design does in fact have the upper hand since its explanation is closer to people's real life experience"

      Every day millions of people are threatend, maimed, raped or killed by supporters of *a* designer. Mainly because said designer has a holy book which says it's ok to threaten, maim, rape and kill non-believers and believers in other (obviously) fake designers.

      In RL people expect violence from *a* designer followers, and lo and behold, they get what they expect.

      Delete
    7. Its so effective, that Moran feels the need to send an inordinate about of time trying to defend the plausibility of evolution.

      Steve..Do you believe that evolution never happened?

      Delete
    8. Diogenes, what test can you site the shows endosymbiosis occurred? A test or observation I have heard is mitochondria having its own DNA so thier hypothesis is that this was merging of multiple prokaryotic(or other) cell types. Any other significant evidence?

      Delete
    9. Evo d,

      You don't have to go that far. Before endosymbiosis could have occurred, Diongenes would have to find some missing genes that are nowhere to be found among prokaryotes and are only exclusive to eukraryotes.

      That is way the liars for devil have come up with an idea that eukaryotes evolved from eukaryotes or that eukaryotes evolved before prokarytes or any other ridicules idea they have come up with.

      Delete
    10. Evo d,

      Several lines of evidence exist for the endosymbiosis theory. A brief summary can be found at:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_04
      and:
      http://endosymbionts.blogspot.com/2006/12/evidence-for-endosymbiosis.html

      On the experimental evidence of the plausibility of endosymbiosis, please see:
      http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEndosymbiotOrigins.html
      It is a good read and well referenced to the primary literature if you would like to explore further.

      Delete
    11. lies for de debbil,

      Before endosymbiosis could have occurred, Diongenes would have to find some missing genes that are nowhere to be found among prokaryotes and are only exclusive to eukraryotes.

      So you agree that sequence homology, where it does exist, is a reliable indicator of common descent?

      Delete
    12. Thank you Chris.
      liesforthedevil; The missing genes you are referencing. What is their function? These genes are unique to Eukaryotic cells?

      Delete
    13. Chris B,
      I went to the websitehttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEndosymbiotOrigins.html
      very interesting experiments... thanks.

      Delete
  8. you don't even have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes

    I have to admire the breathtaking aplomb with which creationists make sweeping "no mechanism" statements. Surely you have heard of "endosymbiosis?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G: Not only that the claim [endosymbiosis] cannot be tested- we can't see endosymbiosis leading to those organelles

      Jesus, what a moron. Start with Wikipedia if you've never had a biology education (which Joe hasn't) before you humiliate yourself like that, saying tested stuff can't be tested.

      Delete
    2. Then there is the number issue, as in the number of mitochondria per cell. But I am sure that is over your head too.

      Certainly over yours. Mitochondria replicate (being as how they are derived from bacteria and all).

      Delete
    3. "And don't forget the scientists who claim that prokaryotes arose from eukaryotes- the organelles lived on and proks arose from that."

      I never heard that before!

      Delete
    4. "If they were derived from bacteria it was a designing intelligent agency that made the proper modifications and put them into the newly intelligently designed eukaryotes."

      Unfalsifiable in principle. Yes, perhaps there's a god who hides himself effectively and caused everything to poof into existence in patterns that strongly, strongly suggests they evolved. If he's putting that much effort into creating the illusion of evolution (in every cell, in the Earth's geology, in the nature of light, etc.) then I think he'd be disappointed if I didn't go along with the appearance of evolution. I wouldn't want to have him feel he'd gone to all that trouble for nothing!

      Delete
    5. JoeG: Too bad Larry is going to delete all of my posts...

      It's like saying, "Too bad the waste collectors will haul these stinky bin bags away!"

      Delete
    6. It's like saying, "Too bad the waste collectors will haul these stinky bin bags away"
      What in the hell are you talking about? Can you do it in English next time so that someone but you and your sock puppets can understand?

      Delete
    7. Personally, I didn't find it difficult to translate Dr. Gasiorowski's British English into American English, but since you did, I'll help out. He writes, "It's like saying, 'Too bad the garbage collectors will haul these stinky garbage bags away.'" :-)

      Delete
    8. Thanks for translating that, bwilson, I was really struggling with Piotr's English there. I felt like a bloke stuck on a lift with the power out and no torch!

      Delete
    9. 'Too bad the garbage collectors will haul these stinky garbage bags away.'" :-)

      Personally, I think that sounds rather Canadian. If you were going for American English, maybe you could have said "Too bad the trash collectors will haul these stinky trash bags away."

      As for you sceptical, show us your Remedial Communication Skills for Creationists diploma before you seek to "trash" talk. Not that it would help you if you take on Piotr in the area of language skills.

      Delete
    10. SRM,

      (selectively)Sceptical(sic)Mind has nothing but trash talk. He has never once ever defended his IDcreationist alternative.

      Delete
    11. I should have said "dustmen", really, but I anticipated some trans-Atlantic communication problems.

      Delete
    12. Piotr, I had no problem with understanding what you said. Assuming that "dustmen" would replace "waste collectors", in that case I may have wondered what "dustmen" are.

      You probably already know this but another name for garbage/waste collectors is 'sanitation engineers'.

      Delete
    13. It's 'binmen'.

      I think 'dustmen' tends to be used more in the softie South, as in the song 'My Old Man's a Dustman'. We don't all go round dressed as Pearly Kings and Queens with our thumbs hooked in our lapels, you know. Just Southerners.

      Delete
    14. Anyway, whether it's trash, garbage, waste, refuse, rubbish, litter, midden or whatever else Roget's Thesaurus might record, creationism is all these things, so JoeG and Sceptical Mind can pick the one that best describes their views.

      Delete
    15. "whether it's trash, garbage, waste, refuse, rubbish, litter, midden or whatever..."

      Don't let Sydney Brenner hear you say that... (sorry but wow - a junk-DNA joke - had to take the opportunity). ;-)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776723

      Delete
    16. Note that I did not list "junk" anong the synonyms. It was a deliberate omission. Describing it as junk would mean that creationism, although useless, is harmless as well. But no: as Brenner puts it, the stuff that takes up too much space and begins to smell should be thrown away.

      Delete
  9. JoeG: "Too bad Larry is going to delete all of my posts..."

    Too bad your parents didn't think about birth control more seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So Meyer is one of the leading brains behind ID. No qualifications or background in the relevant fields but he's to be taken seriously? Why would anyone but a creationist read this stuff (other than to mock it)?

    Donald Prothero's assessment of Stephen Meyer's previous effort.
    "Stephen Meyer’s first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell, which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer’s Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he’s just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am reminded of the guy on Amazon reviews who ignored all of Prothero's talk on fossils and instead blasted him for not explaining epigenetics and developmental biology.

      That clown still comments on my blog too.

      Delete
  11. Moran, still waisting your time with blogomumble?

    Why don't your start writing your book?

    PT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet you go out of your way to come here and comment.

      Why are you wasting your time with this? Why don't you be the first creationist to do a scientific experiment testing a hypothesis emanating from your theory?

      Delete
    2. Ironic comment, Peer, given that the subject of this post is a creationist "book" that consists largely of blog posts.

      Delete
    3. Peer just like me is eager to review Larry's new and only book. Since we both know what there going and not going to be in the book, we naturally can't wait to expose the many lies for the devil there, aren't we Peer? ;-)

      I have already written some stuff as I was pretty bored on my last vacations.

      Delete
    4. Peer just like me is eager to review Larry's new and only book

      You are more than welcome to review either of my published books: Principles of Biochemistry 5th ed. or Biochemistry. I'd be happy to post your reviews on Sandwalk.

      Delete
    5. Larry,

      Without an offence, the book you are referring to is a text book written by many authors; not just you. So, it wouldn't be possible for me and Peer to review your personal beliefs based just on it.

      I think what Peer and I, and quite possibly the rest of the people you have been calling idiots all those years, are waiting eagerly to have some retribution. I know I do.

      BTW: I actually can't wait for A. Gauge, D. Axe and especially M. Behe to to review your book. That is going to be a show.

      Delete
    6. I actually can't wait for A. Gauge, D. Axe and especially M. Behe to to review your book. That is going to be a show

      A comical show, for sure, featuring the creatard classics:

      "Impossiblah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah"
      "Improbablah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah"
      "SuperspecificComplexialidocious"
      "Where you there??!???!??!?!??!??!???!, huh? , huh?, where you? no?"
      "Where's your step by step mutational path for the big bang?"

      Coming soon

      Delete
    7. Thanks Dazz,

      I know you are blowing some steam but this is your chance to help out Larry and your beliefs to become scientific. It is now or never ;-)

      Delete
    8. BTW: I actually can't wait for A. Gauge, D. Axe and especially M. Behe to to review your book. That is going to be a show

      I wasn't aware of the fact that Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, or Michael Behe actually read books about evolution by real scientists. Can you point me to any reviews they have published?

      Delete
    9. If Behe didn't read any books about evolution by real scientists, as you claim, why would you call him a real scientist?

      BTW: Which are the books by real scientists that you have in mind this time? The ones that agree with you or the ones you think they agree with you?

      Delete
    10. I actually can't wait for A. Gauge, D. Axe and especially M. Behe to to review your book. That is going to be a show.

      You need to be more specific. What kind of show would it be? A horror show? A freak show?

      Delete
    11. liesforthedevil drooled:

      "I think what Peer and I, and quite possibly the rest of the people you have been calling idiots all those years, are waiting eagerly to have some retribution. I know I do."

      Try praying to your imaginary sky daddy for help. If it exists and rewards prayers, like the bible says it does, you should be able to get it to inflict plagues, floods, millstones, armies of bloodthirsty 'christian soldiers', boulders falling from the sky, and other horrible things on anyone who doesn't kiss your butt. Retribution is just a prayer away, get on your knees and get busy praying!

      Delete
    12. Jesus, we could write Axe's and Gauger's review today. They have 3 arguments. Repeat, repeat.

      Delete
    13. Lies wrote:
      "So, it wouldn't be possible for me and Peer to review your personal beliefs based just on it."

      Ah yes, you're projecting the inability of creationists to agree with each other on a theory how life evolved on this planet, onto science. I would be really interested if you and Peer could discuss how YEC and 'front loading ID' are compatible with each other.

      Anyway, I could've gone into a lecture about the scientific method and the review by tens of thousands of people of Larry's books, but hey, it's all one big conspiracy to overthrow god, so I won't waste my breath.

      Delete
    14. liesforthehelluvit: Peer and I, and quite possibly the rest of the people you have been calling idiots all those years...

      Remember that Peer is the only real IDiot in the village. All the others are undercover provocateurs working for Darwin -- especially Behe!

      Peer should definitely review something, if only to give a new meaning to the expression "Peer-reviewed".

      Delete
    15. Hahahaha...that's a good one, Piotr.

      But seriously, I am eager to read the thoughts and ideas of prof Moran on the origin of novel information, genetic networks, gene programs, discordance trees of miRNA genes and mRNA genes, etc.

      I really cannot wait.

      Is he the Einstein of evology?

      Delete
    16. Łotr Gibberishorowski,

      Who cares what you think even if you make a real idiot of yourself trying to pretend you are something that you are definitely not?

      Delete
    17. Peer,

      Get ready to review Larry's niche subjects, such as junk DNA, genetic drift and possibly metabolism first in the OOL.

      Nothing on your wishlist is going to be even mentioned I can bet.

      Delete
    18. Is the "discordance trees of miRNA genes" about the argument that sequences of DNA should paint a consistent tree with whole genome sequences? Like the "Humans have sections of DNA more similar to Orangutans than to chimps, hence common descent is wrong" nonsense?

      Delete
    19. No, the miRNA genes simply demonstrate the exact opposite gene trees as mRNAs do.

      http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885


      I am always wondering whether the Darwinians have subscriptions to science journals. .

      Delete
    20. And then they call their opponents IDiots...

      Delete
    21. Borger, we call you idiots for good reasons.
      If Peterson is right, what do we have now? Still a tree maybe?
      Are you going to discuss the merits of Peterson's techniques?
      You deny there's a tree at all, how does any of that support your idiotic claim?

      Delete
    22. ...and no, I don't have a subscription to nature, but I can google stuff.

      Did your subscription run out?

      http://www.nature.com/news/flaws-emerge-in-rna-method-to-build-tree-of-life-1.15625

      Delete
    23. Yes, because those IDiots pick the data that suit them and ignore the data that don't. And they jump to conclusions whenever they see something that might be a problem for the orthodox classification.

      For Peterson to be right (for example about Glires being paraphyletic with regard to all other placental mammals), microRNA evidence would have to be strong enough to outweigh the consilience of all other evidence. Instead, it seems his analyses were seriously flawed:

      http://www.nature.com/news/flaws-emerge-in-rna-method-to-build-tree-of-life-1.15625

      That's why we call you IDiots.

      Delete
    24. "If Peterson is right, what do we have now? Still a tree maybe?"

      No, we would then have two mutually exclusive trees.

      Delete
    25. we would then have two mutually exclusive trees

      Oh, interesting. So yeah, still trees, but if we had conflicting data, what would we do then? Through it all away and pray forgiveness to baby jeebus?

      I see you conveniently ignored the link to that other nature article titled

      Flaws emerge in RNA method to build tree of life

      Peterson could not be reached by Nature for comment, but Erik Sperling, a palaeobiologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, who was Peterson's co-author on some of the microRNA analyses2, 5, agrees with Thomson's conclusion that microRNAs cannot alone unveil species relationships. "MicroRNAs are not the panacea we perhaps originally hoped,” he says.

      Do you need a donation to renew your subscription Pete?

      Delete
  12. So whats the book by Larry going to be about? Any idea of a due date?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's a safe bet it's going to be about junk DNA considering how many stupid books regarding that subject have come out lately.

      Delete
  13. Robert Byers said:

    "Yes the critters of australia are just the same as elsewhere on the planet in the beginning. just migrating to new areas brought biologicl change across the board. Its always about lumping traits."

    Really? Then how come the native Australian rodents are not also "marsupials"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Then how come the native Australian rodents are not also "marsupials"?"

      A 'roo took some along in it's pouch whilst hopping to down undah?

      Delete
    2. Nor the local bats, for that matter, especially the endemic genera. Bats have lived in Australia since the Eocene, which I suppose means they flew in just after the flood. And how come that neither the Native Australians not the European colonisers have turned marsupial?

      Delete
    3. Nor the local bats, for that matter, especially the endemic genera. Bats have lived in Australia since the Eocene, which I suppose means they flew in just after the flood. And how come that neither the Native Australians not the European colonisers have turned marsupial?

      Delete
    4. Duh --- the bats. Of course! I never remember them because they're not in my faunal counts.

      Delete
    5. Its about the need on the ground. The tribes or the Australians have no need.
      However by evolution rules there could be a convergent marsupial primate that lived/or could of evolved and SO a marsupial primate with brains like us.
      Your side which has the strange results.

      Delete
    6. If humans have no need of pouches, why have the Scots invented the sporran?

      Delete
  14. Christian
    Its about need. The creatures were triggered to have needed changes for the new areas. Rodents came later and birds/bats didn't need to change probably because they live in the air and not on the ground.
    This happened everywhere on the earth by the way. A common thing but the "marsupials' are the only non extinct order other then our present orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So *that's* what all this "trigger warning" stuff is about. It's to stop us from evolving into marsupials too quickly. Rodents came along after the signage was in place, I gather?

      Delete
    2. A common thing but the "marsupials' are the only non extinct order other then our present orders.

      Hang me I understand what you mean.

      Delete
    3. "Its about need. The creatures were triggered to have needed changes for the new areas. "

      So why have marsupials and placentals coexisted in South America for pretty much the entire Cenozoic.

      BTW possums (i.e., phlangerids) are very much like primates.

      Delete
    4. 30% of modern marsupial species still live in South America.

      Delete
    5. Marsupials are the only non-extinct order apart from the rest ...

      Delete
    6. Is it just me or is Robert getting perilously close to admitting evolution?

      Robert, how do these "needed changes" come about? Do they require changes to the DNA, or can these fixed morphological changes come about without changes to DNA? If your answer admits to changes in DNA, how do these changes occur and by what "line of reasoning" do you place limits on the numbers of changes that can occur and limits on the morphological consequence of the changes? Is it not possible that humans arose from a substantially different looking ancestor and that the bible, which describes all of creation in about 4 pages, merely glossed over these details with allegories that could be understood by pre-science herders of goats?

      Delete
    7. Christine
      Yes South america was full of marsupials once. Mostly extinct now.
      Those creatures that needed to increase reproduction etc did so there and later came other creatures into the area. probably other creatures were too like horses and velephants but no reason for them to change.
      Its about the needs back then. I think marsupialism was simply to increaee reproduction so creatures would rapidlt fill the earth because of timelines after the flood.

      Delete
    8. SRM.
      yes biological change must come from mechanisms. Peoples looks prove that.
      there is no reason not to expect within the ability of dNA to have stored memories of quick adaptation.
      its speculative what and how but its so and why not.
      biology can be more complicated and complex then mere mutationism being selected on.
      Everyone must agree there is a need for bio mechanisms to change biology WITHIN kinds.
      anyways the proof for marsupials is how they are perfect in body shape etc with placentals. Impossible from convergent evolution.
      it works.

      Delete
    9. "Yes South america was full of marsupials once. Mostly extinct now."

      Not the huge diversity of didelphoids and caenolestids. Mostly the borhyaenids.

      " I think marsupialism was simply to increaee reproduction so creatures would rapidlt fill the earth because of timelines after the flood. "

      Marsupials have a lower reproductive rate than placentals of equivalent size.

      "anyways the proof for marsupials is how they are perfect in body shape etc with placentals"

      Have you ever seen any of them? Or just pictures in a book? The thylacine has a a skeleton more like a generalized cat than a wolf, and its skull is much less robust --- biomechanical testing shows that it had a much weaker bite than a wolf.

      Or how about the numbat, the marsupial anteater. Always shown next to a giant anteater ---- nothing like it at all and only one tenth of the size. But there is a placental it could be well compared with. Do you know what it is?

      Also, do you know what the only really "almost identical" convergence is between marsupials and placentals? (Clue, it's not in the textbooks.)

      Delete
  15. This was planned as a comment on the posts where Peer Bork and liesforthedevil make ineffectual efforts to throw mud and Piotr (no doubt get there feet and clothes very dirty in the process), but the Reply button doesn't work on this computer. Anyway, if either of them or anyone else wonder what Piotr does when he is not saying valuable things here, they can find an interesting article at http://langevo.blogspot.com.es/ (my computer stuck the .es on the end because I'm in Spain, but it can probably be omitted).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh dear. I can spell better than that: "… ineffectual efforts to throw mud at Piotr (no doubt get their feet ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Or better still: "… ineffectual efforts to throw mud at Piotr (no doubt getting their feet …"

    ReplyDelete
  18. Poor "peer" -

    From 2014:
    "Peterson could not be reached by Nature for comment, but Erik Sperling, a palaeobiologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, who was Peterson's co-author on some of the microRNA analyses2, 5, agrees with Thomson's conclusion that microRNAs cannot alone unveil species relationships. "MicroRNAs are not the panacea we perhaps originally hoped,” he says."

    "Peer" still seems to think any and every minor discrepancy in phylotgenetics automatically renders evolution false and the farcical nonsense of YECism true. On the EvC forum years ago, he insisted that a phylogeney built from a single exon of one gene that was discordant with phylogenies using far larger data sets "proved' that his nonsensical "GUToB" was correct. Why are so many YEC cultists not only rather naive and shallow in their understanding of fields outside of their own, but also such megalomaniacs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Asher has shown that Peterson's "revolutionary" mammal tree is simply the result of a rooting problem. Change the root of the tree and the relationships are the same as in the regular molecular tree.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-asher/evolution-and-the-tree-of-life-how-hyperbole-poisons-everything_b_1633390.html

      Delete
    2. Wait: Peterson roots the tree within rodents? On what basis? Is he doing some kind of Dollo optimization, or what?

      Delete
    3. Change the root of the tree and the relationships are the same as in the regular molecular tree.

      Exactly. It's only one misplaced elephant, not "the exact opposite gene trees", as Peer put it.

      Delete
    4. In these conference abstracts Peterson and his team claim that large phylogenomic datasets (as reanalysed by them) don't unambiguously favour any particular rooting, so why shouldn't murines be paraphyletic wrt the rest of Eutheria, as their miRNA data allegedly suggest?

      Dublin
      Plymouth

      It's a little embarrassing that they so consistently misspell xenarthrans and Atlantogenata.

      Delete
    5. Somebody contact Dan Graur: Peterson has shown that guinea pigs aren't rodents.

      Delete
    6. Au contraire. He has shown all eutherians are rodents. Guinea pigs just happen to be more closely related to elephants, humans, non-guinea pigs etc. than to mice and rats.

      The Mouse Problem

      Delete
    7. Ha! That depends on how "rodent" is defined. If we go with rat ~ rabbit, then rodents are myomorphs only and can remain, but guinea pigs aren't rodents.

      Delete
    8. Isn't it Simplicidentata (stem-based) vs. Rodentia (node-based)?

      Delete
    9. Could be. I'm not a mammalogist and have not seen any phylogenetic definitions. In that case the question depends on the chosen reference taxa, which I also have not seen, and whether you think hystricomorphs are monophyletic.

      Delete
    10. I've done some checking, out of curiosity. Wyss and Meng (1996) propose a "stem-modified node-based" definition of (crown group) Rodentia:

      Thus, we choose to define the name "Rodentia" as the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of Mus and all Recent mammals more closely related to Mus than to Lagomorpha or members of any other eutherian "order," sensu Simpson (1945).

      They hoped their definition would promote stable usage of the
      name "Rodentia"
      . Ha ha, little did they know! If Peterson were right, guinea pigs (and God knows what other non-murid rodents) would not be members of Rodentia any longer under this definition.

      Delete
    11. Isn't that better than making Rodentia a junior synonym of Eutheria?

      Delete
    12. "and whether you think hystricomorphs are monophyletic."

      Hystrocognathus rodents (Caviomorphs + African porcupines, cane, mole and dassie rats etc.) are definitely monophyletic, but the hystricomorphus condition is achieved convergently among other unrelated rodents (Peditidae + Anomaluridae and some Gliriidae)

      Delete
    13. Christine: You may think so, but what do the unpublished miRNA presence/absence data say? Anyway, doesn't matter, as the definition is branch-based, and the sole internal reference taxon is Mus.

      Delete
  19. Say what you will about DARWIN'S DOUBT. I just know that when I want 100% Science and nothing but the Science, I always look to the HarperOne imprint of Harper Collins Publishing!

    [Just in case: Anyone familiar with HarperOne will recognize the sarcasm. Did someone force Stephen Meyer at gunpoint to choose a publisher that would guarantee the book's placement in the "Religion & Spirituality" section of the bookstore? That tells me that even Meyer knows that his book isn't really about science. It's less-than-mediocre philosophy masquerading as science but marketed as woo-woo for science-illiterate readers who think Deepak Chopra is cutting-edge scientific research.]

    In fact, I'm surprised that evangelical fans of DARWIN'S DOUBT haven't more often questioned why the book wasn't published under a Zondervan or Thomas Nelson imprint, where it would at least make a passing nod to Christian philosophy and apologetics. (Oh yes: That would give up the ruse that "ID theory" is not about promoting theism and creationism.)

    ReplyDelete