I mentioned a few days ago that Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt is about to be released [see Two Books on the Cambrian Explosion]. I'm planning to read it as soon as I can get a hold of a copy—probably sometime in August in Canada.You are all going to have to read this book because, according to Casey Luskin, it is "going to be another landmark for the ID movement" [Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt]. Luskin has read it. Here are his three reasons why the book is important and worth reading.
I know that it's a bit annoying to have to read all this hype when the book won't be available for several months. 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.
- 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, one exciting element of Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer reviews much of the peer-reviewed research that's been published by the ID research community over the last few years, and highlights how ID proponents are doing relevant research answering key questions that show Darwinian evolution isn't up to the task of generating new functional information.
- As many ENV readers already know, we now live in a "post-Darwinian" world, where more and more evolutionary biologists are realizing that neo-Darwinism is failing, so they scramble to propose new materialistic evolutionary models to replace the modern synthesis. (These models include, or have included, self-organization, evo-devo, punc eq, neo-Lamarckism, natural genetic engineering, neutral evolution, and others.) 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.
This is creationist ethics. It's not supposed to make sense.
" . . .evolutionary biologists are realizing that neo-Darwinism is failing, so they scramble to propose new materialistic evolutionary models to replace the modern synthesis.These models include, or have included, self-organization, evo-devo, punc eq, neo-Lamarckism, natural genetic engineering, neutral evolution, and others. . ."
ReplyDelete. . . others like "complexity by subtraction" as proposed by a NESCent article link
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/nesc-spa041213.php
Over on Panda's Thumb I started a thread asking people to make suggestions for topics or arguments that should be covered in Meyer's book. Given the yeoman work done by the industrious Department of Adjectives at the Discovery Institute, the least we could do for a book that is to be a landmark is to help make sure that it doesn't leave anything important out or inadvertently present a mistaken argument.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Dembski has attacked our thread in a post at ENV for criticizing a book that we hadn't read. (No one claimed to have read the book). Anyway, at least nominally, these can be taken as helpful suggestions. Perhaps it will turn out that Meyer has already dealt with all the issues we raised, and either brilliantly confirmed or brilliantly refuted our arguments.
Did you note that Dembski insinuates some wrong doing by Wes and Jeff Shallit?
DeleteQuote:
The fact is that conservation of information has since been reconceptualized and significantly expanded in its scope and power through my subsequent joint work with Baylor engineer Robert Marks. Conservation of information, in the form that Felsenstein is still dealing with, is taken from my 2002 book No Free Lunch. In 2005, Marks and I began a research program for developing the concept of conservation of information, and we have since published a number of peer-reviewed papers in the technical literature on this topic (note that Felsenstein published his critique of my work with the National Center for Science Education, essentially in a newsletter format, and that Shallit's 2003 article finally appeared in 2011 with the philosophy of science journal Synthese, essentially unchanged in all those intervening years).(emphasis mine)
Dembski is just disgusting. He is telling a lie and he surely knows the truth because Casey Luskin was caught red handed with exactly the same lie back in January 2011.
Quote:
We [W. Elseberry and J. Shallit] submitted our essay to Synthese on 2009/03/23. It was released online by 2009/04/20. It appears in print in the January 2011 issue. In general, authors can only respond to papers that are published before the date of publication.
(cross posted at ATBC)
Well good luck to it and probably it will be a addition to the very successful influence of these ID thinkers.
ReplyDeleteYet as said before its not a YEC book.
It is presuming that geology is a legitimate foundation for analysis and making conclusions about biological origins and processes.
The cambrian explosion isn't a explosion until the geology is considered to be a fact.
Before and after biology is all being connected by fossils in strata.
Without this geological presumption evolution or critics(ID) of it have no evidence for evolution.
Surely this logically means evolution is not based on biological scientific evidence but secondary sources of evidence unrelated to biology.
Methodology in science matters or it doesn't.
Who needs any YEC books? From the YEC perspective, a book can either repeat the biblical account (in which case it is superfluous) or be at odds with it (in which case it is blasphemous and deserves to be destroyed).
Delete"Without this geological presumption evolution or critics(ID) of it have no evidence for evolution."
DeleteThis simply isn't true (nor is there any reason to doubt geology), as there are multiple lines of evidence that sit inside the evolutionary framework without any reference to anything found in geology. What about comparative anatomy? What about genetics? Neither of those has anything to do with geology, but shows the relatedness (and historical contingency) of species nonetheless.
Methodology in science matters or it doesn't.
DeleteA OR (NOT A)
Alex, I'll take tautology for $1000.
ReplyDeleteSo a 'landmark' ID book is about a 'problem' with evolution (Darwinism): the Cambrian Explosion. Another landmark ID book was about another problem: junk DNA. Other landmark books were about other problems such as false icons of evolution or the inability of natural processes to produce information. And yet prominent IDers will insist that they dont want ID taught in public schools, they only want the 'problems with darwinism' taught. I can't think of a clearer example that shows that these imagined problems with evolution really are mostly what ID is about.
RodW
Larry, that's "Meyer", not Mayer, or Myers, or Mayr, or even Ghoti. I'm sure both S. J. Gould and Motoo Kimura would be fascinated to know that their ideas were desperate attempts to patch up the failure of Darwinism. And I'm glad to see that natural genetic engineering has made it into the big time. Too bad they ignored Schwabism and Senapathyism too; poor scholarship.
ReplyDeleteLarry: Mankind needs another explosion;that of "humanity" because when I look at the so called humanity, they don't fit into any of the theories of evolution. They fit into a theory inevitable destruction...
ReplyDeleteI think the explosion of humanity could be an issue. See Malthus, Essay on Population. Don't blame Darwin, blame geometric increase.
DeleteYes, I know that's not what you meant. But you are confusing 'is' and 'ought'. The nature of things is no guide to how they should be. But it helps to be aware of that nature, rather than pretending it does not (or 'ought not') exist.
On average a species will go extinct within 10 million years.
DeleteOver 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct.
What makes you think homo sapiens is so special ?
Cambrian explosion???
ReplyDeleteNASA:
As we study early life, it’s looking more and more like life appears very in early in earth history at a very complete and complex level already. It seems like Athena springing from the head of Zeus fully formed. It’s really quite a mystery and it’s forced some people to think “Well maybe it didn’t develop here. It came here and landed here.” And that’s why we get this impression of incredible development and complexity so early."- Christopher McKay- NASA
Sure, because some guy at NASA and some vague summary must be all there is for knowledge about the origin of life on earth. That assuming that this is not yet another misquote from creationist misinformation channels.
DeleteI'm RELIGIOUS!! I love a man with a HAIRPIECE!! Equip me with MISSILES!!
Delete- Zippy the pinhead
NASA MAIN GUY: Chris McKay:
Delete"Something had to precede Darwinian natural selection. The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways.
First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level. (Really?)
Suzan Mazur: So you’re saying Darwinian natural selection sets in at what point?
Chris McKay: I think it must set in after life has started. After there’s a genome, genotype. That’s the one obvious place where Darwinian natural selection fails – is in the origin of life. It can’t be Darwinian all the way down.
Suzan Mazur: At what point did the gene set in?
Chris McKay: We don’t know. That’s the question. It’s got to do with whether the transition to life is abrupt or gradual.
Suzan Mazur: What is the gene?
Chris McKay: The gene in a general sense is anything that stores information in an algorithmic way. Stores instructions how to build something. It doesn’t have to be DNA, it could be RNA or it could be something else. But at some point life invented software.
I think the language of computers is very useful here. There’s a distinction between hardware and software. Darwinian selection only works when there’s software. And everything that’s prebiotic is hardware.
At some point life got onto software And that’s when Darwinian selection could begin. Darwinian selection can’t work on hardware by definition because Darwinian selection involves inheritable traits. Only a system that has software has inheritable, mutatable traits. It doesn’t have to be DNA, but it has to be software. And it has to record algorithmic information, instructions.
Suzan Mazur: You began your association with NASA in 1980 as a Planetary Biology Summer Intern at NASA Ames – which is where you are today."
Chris is the main guy in the video Larry posted a few months ago;
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/j-craig-venter
Again, some quotes from some guy at NASA, as interviewed by some writer who has some love for hyperbole, all of what, in the end, has no meaning at all. What were you trying to prove here Dominic? Interviews are not science and are bound to be quite incomplete, but even then this interview would show nothing except that some guy thinks that Darwinian-selection does not explain the origin of life. So what? What if those kinds of processes were not involved in the origin of life? What if they were? What difference would that make?
DeleteNegative Entropy
DeleteSome guy at NASA? You will never have his job, ever. You know why? Because he is the guy in charge of the mission to Mars. Are you on the team? I'm sure you are...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/mckay.html
Here is a part of his interview quoted earlier by some bonehead:
http://www.suzanmazur.com/?p=12
"Chris McKay: Something had to precede Darwinian natural selection. The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways.
First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level. [emphasis added]
Suzan Mazur: So you’re saying Darwinian natural selection sets in at what point?
Chris McKay: I think it must set in after life has started. After there’s a genome, genotype. That’s the one obvious place where Darwinian natural selection fails – is in the origin of life. It can’t be Darwinian all the way down.
Suzan Mazur: At what point did the gene set in?
Chris McKay: We don’t know. That’s the question. It’s got to do with whether the transition to life is abrupt or gradual.
Suzan Mazur: What is the gene?
Chris McKay: The gene in a general sense is anything that stores information in an algorithmic way. Stores instructions how to build something. It doesn’t have to be DNA, it could be RNA or it could be something else. But at some point life invented software.
I think the language of computers is very useful here. There’s a distinction between hardware and software. Darwinian selection only works when there’s software. And everything that’s prebiotic is hardware.
At some point life got onto software And that’s when Darwinian selection could begin. Darwinian selection can’t work on hardware by definition because Darwinian selection involves inheritable traits. Only a system that has software has inheritable, mutatable traits. It doesn’t have to be DNA, but it has to be software. And it has to record algorithmic information, instructions.
Suzan Mazur: You began your association with NASA in 1980 as a Planetary Biology Summer Intern at NASA Ames – which is where you are today.
Chris McKay: Yes. Still here. Same building.
Suzan Mazur: In a different capacity though. Those Star Trek episodes about a positive future really meant something.
Chris McKay: Yep.
Suzan Mazur: We’ve gone through a dark period in recent years – could more films about a positive future actually help bring one about do you think? How close is science fiction and science reality?|
Yeah, when I wanna know about biology I ask, not a rocket scientist, but a rocket scientist's publicist.
DeleteRemember Coppedge? Creationists said he was in charge of the Cassini mission. They lied; Coppedge never explored squat. He was in charge of maintaining a computer network. Another IT egomaniac with a spool of ethernet and administrator password.
The argumentum-ad-irrelevant-appeal-to-obscure-and-probably-not-even-an-authority-on-the-subject. How refreshing Dominic.
DeleteYou're kidding, right, Dominic?
DeleteFor decades we've been telling you all that evolutionary theory does not encompass the origin of life, and now you finally accept it because some complete non-expert tells you that evolutionary theory doesn't encompass the origin of life and because his statement is breathlessly repeated by some credulous airhead.
Maybe we should groom Will Shortz to make pronouncements explaining other aspects of mainstream evolutionary biology and then have them filtered by interviews with vapid Huffington Post 'reporters' and then perhaps the creationists will finally get it. Maybe it wasn't the facts—perhaps it really was the presentation.
Dominic,
DeleteSo you could defend that guy's "credentials," tried to make me feel inferior (ha!), then reposted the very same crap you pasted before, but you could not answer my direct question? Truly, I don't understand why you guys insist on convincing people that to be a creationist you have to be blind, deaf, and stupid. But have it your way: you're blind, deaf and stupid.
Dominic,
DeleteI suspect that you don't understand that thing you pasted. I suspect that you think that this guy said something against evolution. I suspect that you thought that because it's some guy at NASA we would take it on "authority." I suspect this is why you did not try to answer my question but tried to deviate our attention by talking further about his authority, rather than explain what you did not understand anyway in the first place.
Get an education Dominic. Your comments reveal your dismal ignorance and don't help you defend your beliefs at all.
Meyer never engaged in criticism of his previous book, "Cigarette in the Cell" leaving rebuttals to the Tooters lawyers like Luskin and other flunkies. Meyer never uttered a peep to my recollection.
ReplyDeleteSame expected for this rehash of his 2002 essay repackaged in his 2004 essay and now repackaged in his 2013 essay. According to the Tooters own preview of the book, it will be a negative argument against "Darwinism" and thus an argument for "intelligent design" creationism by default. Same old thing we've seen time and time again.
I think it's totally appropriate to trash this dreck before it comes out because we know what to expect. Has Meyer done research? No. Has Meyer even trekked up to the Walcott Quarry? No. Has Meyer published papers in advance of his summary work? No. Has Meyer simply repackaged his 20-year old argument? YES!
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Completely agree.
DeleteHi Bill,
DeleteMeyer never engaged in criticism of his previous book,... Meyer never uttered a peep to my recollection.
Obviously, you either failed to note or recall his much publicized response: Signature of Controversy
I think it's totally appropriate to trash this dreck before it comes out because we know what to expect.
Really? That’s not very open-minded of you.
Has Meyer done research? No.
Really (again)? Obviously, you failed to note the 52 pages foot notes and 32 pages of bibliography corroborating Signature In The Cell—data that could only have been compiled through, ahem, research.
So, may I ask: are you aware of, or can you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article detailing experimental verification of Darwin’s “theory” that has actually produced a speciation event—that is, you know, produced an indisputably and entirely new, species?—and I’m not talking about something as silly modifying an E,Coli strain to metabolize arsenic—I mean generated a new animal (or plant) that exhibits what Darwinism claims; a major body plan modification?
Oh look, it's the openmindedness bullshit all over again. Being accused of closed-mindedness from the lying-for-doctrine brigade is about as much worth as if it came from a serial-robber.
Delete"Hey, if you let me out, this time I won't steal.. I swear guys, be a little open minded please.".
Creationism is fundamentally dishonest. It rests on volitional denial of observational reality.
http://i.imgur.com/EJ8GBTO.gif
Hi Rumraket,
DeleteOh look, it's the openmindedness bullshit all over again.
And that remark doesn’t indicate its presence with you either…
Being accused of closed-mindedness from the lying-for-doctrine brigade…
Hmmmm, that’s interesting because I was merely pointing out to Bill the fact that Dr. Meyer did personally respond to his critics, and yet you failed to acknowledge that.
Creationism is fundamentally dishonest.
First, Dr. Meyer’s book references ID, not Creationism. Second, how can the pursuit of objective truth be “dishonest?” If anyone’s being dishonest here, it’s you narcissists.
It rests on volitional denial of observational reality.
Really? Since Bill and you have failed to respond to my query, perhaps I need to ask it again: can you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article detailing experimental verification of Darwin’s “theory” that has actually produced a speciation event in the Neo-Darwinian sense? (i.e. one that produced an indisputably, and entirely new, species—not something as silly as modifying an E,Coli strain to metabolize arsenic—I mean, generated a new animal (or plant) that exhibits what Darwinism claims; a major body plan modification?
I love those kinds of loaded questions. The theory have existed for about 150 years, yet large-scale bodyplan changes takes millions of years to evolve. We know this both on grounds of genetics and from the fossil record.
DeleteIn other words, you're asking for direct demonstration of something you knew beforehand can't be directly shown to you(therefore proving that creationism is inherently dishonest), in a dishonest attempt at trying to therefore conclude that the whole thing must thus be thrown into question. ¨
Now, being mindful that you can at any point simply redefine what you mean by "major body plan modification", speciation has been observed in the lab, and selective breeding has clearly shown that quite large-scale body-plan modifications can result from simple but strong selective pressures.
It would be entirely irrational to then suddenly deny the inference that our observations from experimental evolution, coupled the knowledge of genetics and the fossil record, all lend support to the idea that large-scale body-plan modification evolved over millions of years in nature.
Oh by the way, ID = creationism, we have the transitional form. Google "cdesign proponentsists".
Also, arsenic is an element. You can't "metabolise" it.
If you fundamentalist religious doctrine is really true, why do you have to lie and construct specious arguments and loaded questions to support it? The very fact that you're forced to engage in this kind of dishonesty should tell you something about what it is you believe.
But believe what you want, it's up to you.
Oh, I'm open-minded, OK, but I'm not stupid. Although I should be stupid having followed creationist "literature" for over 30 years.
DeleteNo, Meyer hasn't done any research., well, unless you consider writing a high school term paper "research." A survey of the literature is not research, it's a review. The Tooters write that the book will be a review.
The IDiots have not published a single paper, to my knowledge, in the scientific literature. Self-publishing (Axe and Gauger) on your own in-house on-line blog for which you are the editor is hardly peer-reviewed by any definition, excluding a creationist definition.
As for new body plans I will submit myself as Exhibit A. I have evolved from a thin, angular organism into one quite large and rounded. Definitely a different species: Homo corpulentae
Rumraket:
DeleteI love those kinds of loaded questions.
And I love the usual, illogical and empty responses…
The theory have [sic] existed for about 150 years, yet large-scale bodyplan changes takes millions of years to evolve.
What does the age of the “theory” have to do with the yet to be verified assertion that it makes? And, how exactly does Darwinism account for the survivability of such a change as it’s happening over “millions of years?” Other than being a hindrance, what reproductive or survival advantage do proto-feathers (or proto-wings for that matter) offer the future bird?
And oh, you failed to cite any experimentally verified research for your above assertion as fact.
We know this both on grounds of genetics and from the fossil record.
We do? Do you really have any clue as to what a major body plan modification would require at the genetic level? And could you please direct me to a documented account of an uninterrupted fossil record of any such change?—one that shows in detail just how the morphological alteration took place? All I’ve ever seen are abrupt appearances of fully-formed/functioning variants without fossil precursors that display this gradualism of which you speak.
you're asking for direct demonstration of something you knew beforehand can't be directly shown to you(therefore proving that creationism is inherently dishonest)
Uh no. I’m asking for what you and Darwinists are attempting to sell as “science.” You state as fact that “large-scale bodyplan changes takes millions of years to evolve,” then pitifully attempt to corroborate that in the next sentence with even more unsubstantiated, hackneyed, materialist pap. If you want scientific credibility, put up or shut up. You knew before you typed your answer that you couldn’t provide what I was asking for, yet you have the temerity to call me “dishonest.”
…you can at any point simply redefine what you mean by "major body plan modification"
What? I’m “redefining” what your “theory” states as fact?
speciation has been observed in the lab
Where? When? And what major body plan changes occurred?
selective breeding has clearly shown that quite large-scale body-plan modifications can result from simple but strong selective pressures.
Holy mackerel! You’re saying that “selective breeding” is tantamount to speciation? So, a Great Dane is a different species from a Chihuahua?
It would be entirely irrational to then suddenly deny the inference that our observations from experimental evolution…
Wait! Right there! You’re referring to “experimental” evolution… that’s what I want documentation of! Please show me an experiment where a brilliant Darwinist applied just the right environmental selection pressures on just the right induced mutations that caused a single-cell prokaryote to sprout a flagellum. I mean, surly someone’s done that by now, right? There are tons of organisms with lifespans measured in hours and reproduction rates measured in the millions/generation that would be ideal for such an undertaking.
ID = creationism
Sorry, but if you and your ilk get to define your terminology, then so do I and mine: ID is an inference from scientific data, not a deduction from religious authority.
arsenic is an element. You can't "metabolise" it.
My apologies. Should’ve said, “that can live in the presence of.” Either way, it was laughably touted by the Darwinists and their lackeys in the press as “irrefutable proof of Darwinism.”
If you fundamentalist religious doctrine is really true, why do you have to lie and construct specious arguments and loaded questions to support it?
I didn’t “lie” about anything here. As I’ve stated before, my objective is truth; intentionally lying would be counterproductive. And the only specious argument presented so far has (as I’ve demonstrated) been yours.
Rumraket:
DeleteThe very fact that you're forced to engage in this kind of dishonesty should tell you something about what it is you believe.
You should heed your own words there.
Rumraket:
DeleteOne last observation on you admonishing me for being “dishonest” by simply questioning the scientific viability of Neo-Darwinism. If your theory were as scientifically sound as you claim, then by definition, it must be falsifiable. Yet, by claiming that any such experimental verification would require “millions of years” effectively opts it out of that criterion. How convenient that you’ve chosen to hitch your ontological wagon to such a privileged “theory.” How can it possibly be wrong when it can never be practically tested?
And you think people who are brave enough to call an ace an ace when it comes to observing design in nature are “idiots” …
And, how exactly does Darwinism account for the survivability of such a change as it’s happening over “millions of years?” Other than being a hindrance, what reproductive or survival advantage do proto-feathers (or proto-wings for that matter) offer the future bird?
DeleteInsulation, most obviously. Very desirable for warm-blooded animals with high metabolic rates. Once present, they could be co-opted in various other ways (mating display, aerodynamic functions).
If feathers were a hindrance before flight evolved, why do we already know 30+ genera of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs (and the number is growing fast)?
For a momment I thought that jcc was honest but ignorant. After his self-righteous "answers" where he/she brings further and further and irrational classic creationist demands, I think jcc is either truly deluded by the likes of Meyer, or too stupid or closed minded to allow him/her-self to understand one bit. I shall try just out of curiosity:
Deletejcc,
1. Meyer could not have any answers to the criticism because the criticism includes such things as showing that he misquoted research, and misunderstood a big deal more. There's no answer to that other than "ups, I'm sorry, my mistake." Now. I can't read that book you linked. I'm not about to give my information to a bunch of creationist charlatans. You let me know if he does such things. I doubt it.
2. Open minded about what? Creationists disguising their true intentions (for example, to put creationism into the classroom), by relabelling their shit to make it pass for science cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. If their foundation was purposeful falsehood, why would the products be any better? So, please explain why, if Meyer has given non-answers when publicly, since his previous book was filled with inaccuracies, hyperboles, and misquoted science, when that much science appeared there, should we expect any better this time around?
3. What about you listened. OK, try and follow what I am saying: dogs show that strong selection can change morphologies quite a bit within a few years therefore showing that selection over natural variability would produce morphological changes. It does not matter if chihuahuas are still of the same species as Danes, what matters is that selection is shown to produce loads of morphological changes within a few generations. Got that now? Stop! I have not finished. Now this demonstrates one part of the equation: selection over variants can give morphological changes. You can't deny that except in full dishonesty. This experimental evolution shows the possibilities in morphology. It is much stronger than what would happen in nature in terms of time and on how strong the selection. But it is a demonstration of the power of selecting from variation.
4. You want examples of speciation? there's that too. Not just E. coli that metabolize a new substrate. there's flies that have speciated in the lab. They have some new features and can't breed with the descendants of the original population. That's speciation even if they are "still flies" (by the way, just like they are still flies, we and chimps are still great apes). There's also an example of some lizards that, at arriving into a new habitat developed new intestinal features because they evolved from a carnivorous population to a new species into an herbivore species. They are "still lizards," but they are a new species. Put that together with the extraordinary shapes attained with dogs and other bred animals and crops, and we have demonstrated several of the ingredients for evolution. That's undeniable. You might want to now see both things together, fine and good as far as I'm concerned. But I have to ask: what would be the barrier that would make it impossible for evolution to happen given what we ahve witnessed? I mean, why would speciation plus morphology never happen in the millions of years available for variation and selection (and drift, let's not forget drift) to operate over populations separating from each other, following different paths, and such? What? Why should we doubt it if we have seen so much at our much humbler timescales?
...
...
Delete5. If that was not enough, we continue to find fossils showing intermediary features between those of other great apes and humans. Curiously they show that several hominid species lived for a while. Why should we doubt that they can show us what ancestral forms in our own lineage?
6. If that was not enough, then what about the beautiful fossils that show, almost as if in a movie, the changes from a land animal to whales? There a long series, and we can witness what the changes in arm-to-flip anatomy was like, or the movement of that nasal orifice from the front to the top of the head. Why should we doubt it?
7. As if that wasn't enough, genetic analyses confirm those suspicions. Not just for humans, but for those whales for example. They show that whales are much closer to land animals than to fish. But not to any land animals, but to mammals.
8. Unexpected genetic findings further confirm stuff. But I am getting tired.
So now, tell me. Since we see this evidence and much much more. Why should we doubt that evolution is real? I am not asking you to accept it. I am asking why *we* should doubt it. You are quite free to hide the evidence from your intellect. That's what you are trained to do. Presented with one line of evidence or the other you turn around to the part that was proven there to the part that was proven here, back again to that other part, just so that your mind can't put the whole picture together. All right if that suits you. But why should we do just that? Why should we not allow our own intellects to take the honest route and put the evidence together?
I expect some honest answers. I might be fooling myself, but I said I would try, didn't I?
Negative Entropy:
DeleteFor a momment I thought that jcc was honest but ignorant.
A glimmer of hope, but unfortunately it’s followed by:
After his self-righteous "answers" where he/she brings further and further and irrational classic creationist demands, I think jcc is either truly deluded by the likes of Meyer, or too stupid or closed minded to allow him/her-self to understand one bit.
Oh well. More typical narcissistic, humanistic froth. I give lucid, logical and propositional arguments; ask honest questions and I'm accused of being “self-righteous.”
And being called “deluded,” “too stupid” and “closed minded” is, by no means, self-righteous, particularly considering its source: a "fair-minded," teachable, and above-all, noble atheist.
And this is just too rich:
I can't read that book you linked.
Now, there’s an, ahem, “open mind.”
As much as I’d like to indulge my baser impulses, I know from experience that further engaging a personality like yours only results in a monumental waste of my time. Anyone who thinks that naked condescension like:
OK, try and follow what I am saying: dogs show…
can somehow encourage an enlightened—and polite—discourse is, for lack of a better term, deluded.
Adios.
And cue the creationist flounce. We knew that was coming.
DeleteYou can find a copy of the pdf "Signature of Controversy" just by googling the title and you don't have to give the DI your email or anything else.
As I said it was a bunch of blog postings from the usual crowd of DI flunkies: Luskin, Klinglehoffer, Nelson and even Meyer who complains bitterly about a review in the Times Literary Supplement. Yep, that's answering the critics.
If anything it's a fun read if only to see Klingleklapper call Shallit a pigmy. Class all the way.
jcc,
DeleteThe reason to say "try and follow ..." is that you would immediately jump with your excuses rather than try and follow the answers. There's plenty of examples of you doing just that above my comment, jumping before considering what the answer given is for. Anyway, I see that there's no way to get you ass-holes to listen. Thanks for confirming this to be so. So much for open mindedness. I shall remember next time you come and talk about our lack of an open mind. We have heard that so many many times, and it always ends this way, with a creationist who refuses to read and consider carefully what we present to them.
This experience is what we get every time jcc. Why should we expect any better from Meyer's new book if we know what he is truly about? Why if his audience behaves with the very same hypocrisy as yourself?
Oh well, jcc goes into the list as just one more IDiot.
Bill,
DeleteThanks. I will check Meyer's "answer." And yes, I knew how jcc would react to my comment: figuring out a way not to interact with it, not to think about it. Typical.
This part made me laugh:
ReplyDelete"...one exciting element of Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer reviews much of the peer-reviewed research that's been published by the ID research community over the last few years, and highlights how ID proponents are doing relevant research answering key questions that show Darwinian evolution isn't up to the task of generating new functional information."
Yeah, with the enormous amount of "the peer-reviewed research that's been published by the ID research community over the last few years" Meyer only had time to review "much" of it. After all, it's an ark-load of "relevant research answering key questions" that was done in just "the last few years" by the obviously vast "ID research community", and it would be unreasonable to expect a mere mortal to review all of it.
I agree with Bill too. I think it's safe to predict that it's going to be a rehash of the same old lame arguments. Notice that there's no mention in Luskin's sales pitch of any NEW scientific discoveries by Meyer or the so-called "ID research community".
Off-topic, but what's with the "Facebook thinks this site may be unsafe" message I get when I check in here along with an encouragement to mark it as Spam?
ReplyDeleteCould be a warning about the various flavours of troll that infest this blog.
DeleteDepending on the specifics of the methodology Facebook uses to identity 'unsafe' websites, it may just be a sign that lying Creationist liars have lied to Facebook about Dr. Moran's blog.
DeleteI agree with Cubist. Remember that EVERY evolutionist YouTube video maker was slammed with multiple DMCA violation charges, all of which were violations of federal law. That punk VenomFangX had to issue a grovelling apology for his felonies.
DeleteI admit that I have stopped several times surfing through the internet with your blog. This time, I will not forget to officially add it to my Feeds :D!
ReplyDeleteI am a Biochemist (Bioinformatician, specifically). For me it is a shame that there are no Spanish speaking blogs for my family and friends that do not read in English which talk about scientific topics as clear as this site. Have you heard of a good blog in Spanish to recommend them?
Cheers,
Ignacio
Hay una casa que se llama una casa para los locos cientificos que son boring like the Devos here..
DeleteHay otra casa que se llama la casa para los pendejos como "Quest" que cree que porque cambia de nombre no sabemos que es el mismo imbécil que necesita seis personas para poder enviar un solo e-mail.
DeleteHay un pendejo mas grande que los otros; se llama negative shit-stroppy; piensa que conoce todas la idiotismos del mondo. Muy bien. Hay gilipollas mas grandes que este hijo de puta--mierda nagativa lol
DeleteNow, what other language you wanna try? How about Polish? or Russian? Whanna test me? I'm sure GÄ…siorpustki can be a referee...? How about that?
Referee for what? Your imbecility remains imbecility no matter how many languages you would be able to try. Your incompetence needing six persons to handle a single e-mail remains the same. That you managed to sound feeble, to misspell words, and to make grammatical mistakes, within a few lines in Spanish, does not change any of that. It rather shows that you're much more of an ass-hole than I thought.
DeleteOk. Prove my mistakes. Let's see. I'm sure you are not going to back out now lol Don't make me beg you lol
Delete现在走开，ä½ è¿™ä¸ªç–¯ç‹‚çš„äºº
DeleteAnonymous: Hay un pendejo mas grande que los otros; se llama negative shit-stroppy; piensa que conoce todas la idiotismos del mondo.
DeleteOuch. Your Spanish is like a movie where a boorish American goes to Mayhico and yells at the natives.
I would recommend La Ciencia por Gusto ( http://lacienciaporgusto.blogspot.com/ ) . As good as the best English language blogs, in my opinion.
DeleteKel.
ReplyDeleteI would insist geology is most of the evidence behind the biological claimed evidence for evolution.
Without the geology very little evidence would be , or is , presented to the public.
Ita all fossils, strata, transitions, and so on.
Now i would also say there is NO genetic evidence for evolution and comparative anatomy adds nothing to process or descent conclusions.
If evolutionary biology ideas were false then there couldn't possibly be evidence for them as true.
Further there couldn't be scientific evidence, being a higher standard of evidence gathering, for evolution.
If not then what is presented, under better analysis, is not biological scientific evidence.
I read/watched carefully what they present and can confidently say they have nothing.
As predicted.
ID folks also fail in these matters.
Takes YEC Canadians.
"Now i would also say there is NO genetic evidence for evolution"
DeleteSince you so willingly dismiss any and all genetic evidence for evolution out of pocket, even evidence you aren't even aware of, why should anyone take you seriously on this thread?
Not out of pocket but out of observation.
Deletethey strive to draw relationships based on genetics but in fact NEVER demonstrate genetic evidence for relationship.
Its just like the ape/man connections.
they find like DNA and PRESUME this means like origin.
Yet its just a line of reasoning even if it was true.
It has NO genetic scientific evidence for it.
its not much more then a hunch a eight year old kid would make.
Yet then they say its genetic evidence.
Somebody is wrong here about methodology legitimacy.
Luskin: As many ENV readers already know, we now live in a "post-Darwinian" world, where more and more evolutionary biologists are realizing that neo-Darwinism is failing
ReplyDeleteDid Luskin really just say "more and more evolutionary biologists are realizing that neo-Darwinism is failing"!?
I just wrote a long blog post about how creationists have been saying for 50 years about how "more and more" scientists are turning to creationism, and I compiled a lot of quotes from creationists like Henry Morris saying "more and more scientists..." and variants thereof for decade after decade until they died. The blog post is actually titled, "More and More Scientists are Abandoning Evolution."
Again I repeat: creationist Henry Morris said "more and more scientists are abandoning evolution" and "a growing number of scientists are turning to creationism" for decade after decade UNTIL HE DIED.
Maybe in his younger days, it might have been chalked up to the optimism of youth, but when you're in your 70's and you've been repeating the same shit for 50 years and have lost every single battle, at that point you are lying.
Luskin has turned into Henry Morris. Casey Luskin is not a young man anymore. He is now middle-aged. I've lost my patience with him. His dishonesty cannot be chalked up to the optimism of fresh-faced youths. He has slid into the calculating, deliberate cynicism of a bitter, middle-aged man. Another Henry Morris and his career will be just as successful.
Endosymbiosis uproots the famous tree of life by Doolittle, Larry agrees with this too...lol
ReplyDelete"Lateral gene transfer would explain
how eukaryotes that supposedly evolved
from an archaeal cell obtained so many
bacterial genes important to metabolism:
the eukaryotes picked up the genes from
bacteria and kept those that proved useful.
It would likewise explain how various
archaea came to possess genes usually
found in bacteria.
Some molecular phylogenetic theorists—
among them, Mitchell L. Sogin of
the Marine Biological Laboratory in
Woods Hole, Mass., and Russell F.
Doolittle (my very distant relative) of the
University of California at San Diego—
have also invoked lateral gene transfer to
explain a long-standing mystery. Many
eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike
those of any known archaea or bacteria;
they seem to have come from nowhere."
(Really? Well they must have evolved somehow..How about form cosmic drift or tornado?)
Notable in this regard are the genes for
the components of two defining eukaryotic
features, the cytoskeleton and the
system of internal membranes. Sogin
and Doolittle suppose that some fourth
domain of organisms, now extinct,
slipped those surprising genes into the
eukaryotic nuclear genome horizontally.
In truth, microbiologists have long
known that bacteria exchange genes
horizontally. Gene swapping is clearly
how some disease-causing bacteria give
the gift of antibiotic resistance to other
species of infectious bacteria. But few
researchers suspected that genes essential
to the very survival of cells traded
hands frequently or that lateral transfer
exerted great influence on the early history
of microbial life. Apparently, we
were mistaken.
Can the Tree?
Well it didn't but it didn't not stop many believers from believing that it did lol I love science! It is so simple for meeeeeeee lol
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf
Page pipe of sex lol
BTW: I'm sure that after publishing this shit Doolitle was called by some either an evo-lunatic, rocket scientists, bad biologist or a quack.
I must have missed something, because your post reads like a rant from irrelevancy. Well, at least you managed to demonstrate that you have no understanding of the subject.
DeleteAgreed. It's almost as if you can tell a creationist from the incoherency of their discourse - even leaving aside their actual arguments. Its not just certain unclear words or phrases, I often cannot decipher the meaning of entire sentences.
Delete"Can the Tree?" is a truncation of Doolittle's section title "Can the Tree Survive?" Quest the Imbecile can't even do a tidy copy-and-paste job.
DeleteID folks also fail in these matters.
ReplyDeleteYEC Canadians also fail in these matters.
As predicted.
You say you "read/watched carefully", but did not and do not understand.
@All believers in science fiction!
ReplyDeleteI seem to have found a solution to the problem of kangaroo migration to Australia that may please all; we certainly need to build bridges between science-even if it is bad or science-fiction-and religion or faith.
Let us review the facts we are familiar with so far:
1. The origin of life is a big unknown, not to mention the origin of the universe, but our friends don’t seem to care about that, as they believe these have no impact on evolution they are so convinced of.
2. Endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells looks like another stumbling block for our friends even though the best in the business say some genes in eukaryotic cells appear as if they came from nowhere: "...Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike
those of any known archaea or bacteria;they seem to have come from nowhere...". Furthermore, endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells was never observed or repeated in the lab-for obvious reasons ;)
3. Solution: Since our friends don’t believe in any explanation of the possible migration of kangaroos to Australia even though evidence points toward low ocean levels, different terrains, ridges and the possibility of existence of some lands on the way to Australia after the flood and kangaroos could not have evolved because a few foundations of evolution are missing, I propose this solution-direct panspermia; UFO must have sent the kangaroos the Australia including other animals that could not have evolved.
What do you think? Is that an acceptable concept?
Furthermore, endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells was never observed or repeated in the lab-for obvious reasons
DeleteIf only you knew anything, you might become convinced of your own ignorance.
You don't know that both facultative and obligate bacterial endosymbionts are observable right now, in real time? Let me guess, you also don't know anything about the evidence for past endosymbiotic events either, do you? Its remarkable that you feel qualified to comment on anything at all.
Furthermore, endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells was never observed or repeated in the lab-for obvious reasons
DeleteReally?
Nakabatchi A, et al. (2006) The 160-Kilobase Genome of the Bacterial Endosymbiont Carsonella. Science 314: 267.
SRM and Null,
DeleteBoth of you are being too compassionate with this "Quest" ass-hole. He does not know what endosymbiosis means. He has no idea what he is talking about. Please don't translate what he says into something that does make sense. Quest is here to troll. Therefore the proper thing to do is mock him for his mistaken questions, not translate them into meaningful questions that he did not ask.
@Quest.
DeleteOf course not, we don't believe in UFO's, there's no evidence for them.
Instead, it makes much more sense to postulate that a supernatural and immaterial mind(with human and animalistic emotions and desires, like anger and love, who cares about who we have sex with and how much foreskin we have) that can exist for an eternity in the absense of a physical brain, with magical wizard powers flew around in an incomprehensible void before time existed, and then it simply wished entire universes into existence.
Then it let the whole cosmos develop for about 9.5 billion years (seemingly by itself according to laws it also just wished into existence), then it poofed life into existence *BANG* there it was, fully formed. Then it got around to doing intermittent genome-tweaking for the next 4 billion years, again in an incomprehensible way by magic, simply by wishing things into place. Happens all the time, makes perfect sense to believe that.
Fuck if we believe a demonstrable and observable natural process of evolution can do these things. Fuck all the evidence that it did. No, the magic undetectable brain-absent mind outside of time and space did it. No evidence that this thing exists, or that such a thing is even possible. But fuck that, it did everything we don't yet know in complete detail how happened. That's what it does, all the things we don't yet know.
Makes perfect sense!
NE said:
DeleteBoth of you are being too compassionate with this "Quest" ass-hole. He does not know what endosymbiosis means.
I know. But there are many topics that I cannot comment on due to lack of knowledge, so when I see something I know a little bit about, I can't help myself... ;-)
I have it on impeccable authority that the UFOs were actually flying unicorns carrying all of the Australian animals on their backs. Plants, fungi, and bacteria were ferried to Australia in specially designed gopher-wood cargo containers strapped onto a fleet of super-sized mosasaurs that survived the flood by vacationing in the ocean beneath the methane lakes of Titan. After the mosasaurs finished their task they were teleported back to Titan until they're needed on some other post-flood planet. The flying unicorns are of course now living with their god Fifi in the upper branches of old growth hemlock trees in Olympic National Park.
ReplyDeleteStill no evidence for endosymbiosis? Well, how do you justify your faith in evolution that rests on it? It beats me...I mean... I'm speechless...
ReplyDeleteYou're not speechless, you're too much of an ass-hole to understand what you are talking about.
DeleteDo you want an example of it from today, or the 800 page textbook of evidence supporting the theory for eukaryotic organelles?
DeleteOne example that is out there today of a bacterial endosymbiant within an bacterial endosymbiant of an insect.
Molecular and Histological Characterization of Primary (Betaproteobacteria) and Secondary (Gammaproteobacteria) Endosymbionts of Three Mealybug Species
Gatehouse et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012 78(4):1187.
Microscopic localization of endosymbiotic bacteria in three species of mealybug (Pseudococcus longispinus, the long-tailed mealybug; Pseudococcus calceolariae, the citrophilus mealybug; and Pseudococcus viburni, the obscure mealybug) showed these organisms were confined to bacteriocyte cells within a bacteriome centrally located within the hemocoel. Two species of bacteria were present, with the secondary endosymbiont, in all cases, living within the primary endosymbiont. DNA from the dissected bacteriomes of all three species of mealybug was extracted for analysis. Sequence data from selected 16S rRNA genes confirmed identification of the primary endosymbiont as “Candidatus Tremblaya princeps,” a betaproteobacterium, and the secondary endosymbionts as gammaproteobacteria closely related to Sodalis glossinidius. A single 16S rRNA sequence of the primary endo-symbiont was found in all individuals of each mealybug species. In contrast, the presence of multiple divergent strains of secondary endosymbionts in each individual mealybug suggests different evolutionary and transmission histories of the two endosymbionts. Mealybugs are known vectors of the plant pathogen Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 . To examine the possible role of either endosymbiont in virus transmission, an extension of the model for interaction of proteins with bacterial chaperonins, i.e., GroEL protein homologs, based on mobile-loop amino acid sequences of their GroES omologs, was developed and used for analyses of viral coat protein interactions. The data from this model are consistent with a role for the primary endosymbiont in mealybug transmission of Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3.
@TheOtherJim
DeleteI've been talking about endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells you uneducated moron! Read the thread!
@Quest, (aka John Witton?)
DeleteThe paper above shows a gamma-proteobacteria (a prokaryotic cell) living in an endosymbiotic relationship within a beta-proteobacteria (another prokaryotic cell). Therefore this shows "endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells"
If you mean that there needed to be an endosymbiotic event to explain the appearance of prokaryotic cells, you are mistaken. That is only necessary to explain mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells.
Witton used to make the same mistake all of the time.
Jim,
DeleteThe problem with Witton (aka Quest), is that he is a troll. A stupid one. I truly think we should just mock his questions until he explained carefully and correctly what he is talking about. Otherwise we just have this ass-hole not knowing what he is asking for, while the people who understand the science are being too compassionate and translate the nonsense into some sensical question only to get the idiotic answers that Witton gives. His lack of understanding is the problem in the first place. If the question is nonsense, then any answer will be easily dismissed. He claims that evolution rests in what he calls endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells. Well, for one, though I have heard of events of endosymbiosis in prokaryotes, and about endosymbiosis as the origin of eukaryotic organelles, neither of these is what Witton is talking about. The first is not important for evolutionary theory (actually neither), the latter is just part of the evolutionary history of eukaryotes, so the only reasonable conclusion is that Witton does not know what he is talking about. Therefore he deserves mockery, not translations to his nonsense followed by evidence of things he will dismiss because he is "not talking about that."
I agree with you. This guy makes these kinds of mistakes all the time. I just make fun of him. That's what he deserves. Remember this guy was proud to announce that he needed six persons to send a single e-mail. How could you expect him to be asking sensical questions? We should wait until he has the time to have a meeting with some good number of people to make sure that his questions make sense. Not sure if his questions would make any more sense, but maybe.
Wow, "Quest" is stupid! He doesn't know what "prokaryotic" means. We pile scientific references on him and he idiotically writes, "Still no evidence?"
DeleteOn the topic of how kangaroos got to Australia after Noah's Flood: at 2pm tomorrow, April 16 Answers in Genesis is having a live chat about AIG's marvelous Super-fast Ice-Age Timeline and Map (which has the Ice Age lasting from about ~2220 to ~2115 BC, and all recorded human civilization post-2100 BC). I predict that any pointed questions they receive will be deleted quickly and permanently, so if you want some entertainment you will have to monitor it live. You may want to copy and archive any choice questions they receive before they're deleted.
Quest/Witton: Since our friends don’t believe in any explanation of the possible migration of kangaroos to Australia even though evidence points toward low ocean levels, different terrains
You stupid asshole, you presented no evidence that ocean levels were ever LOW ENOUGH to connect Australia and Asia. It is not that I don't believe in it, it's that you presented no evidence-- and now you lie and PRETEND you did! On the previous thread, I asked you for a hyper-link or citation, and you ran away without a word!
Do you think you can re-write very recent history and now pretend you presented evidence, and do you fantasize that we won't remember that you never presented evidence when asked directly to do so?
Everyone knows the ocean levels were lower, and everyone knows they were NEVER LOW ENOUGH to connect Australia and Asia. The Lombok Strait is 250 m deep; the Timor Trough is 3,300 m deep. Sea levels during the Ice Age were at most 140 m lower.
...even though evidence points toward... the possibility of existence of some lands on the way to Australia after the flood
You stupid asshole, you presented no evidence of "some lands on the way to Australia after the flood". On the previous thread, I asked you for a hyper-link or citation, and you ran away without a word!
Look Quest/Witton, present evidence on how much lower, precisely how much lower, Sea Levels were after your magic Flood. Present the evidence that you insist exists and that you say you already presented!
@Negative Entropy,
DeleteI agree, but some times I just can't leave these false claims unanswered. There is no hope of a discussion with Quest, but someone scrolling through the comments may learn that the claims are just stupid.
And I think that his April 15, 2013 5:28:00 AM reply was very effective self-mockery. ;-)
but someone scrolling through the comments may learn that the claims are just stupid.
DeleteAgreed!
And I think that his April 15, 2013 5:28:00 AM reply was very effective self-mockery
DeleteAnd agreed!
“Same expected for this rehash of his 2002 essay repackaged in his 2004 essay and now repackaged in his 2013 essay. According to the Tooters own preview of the book, it will be a negative argument against "Darwinism" and thus an argument for "intelligent design" creationism by default. Same old thing we've seen time and time again.”
DeleteWhile I would disagree that all advocates of ID offer is a negative argument against Darwinism, I will say that before we can get people headed in the right direction, we have to stop them from running headlong the wrong way.
I think it was comedian Bob Murphy who once included a discussion of various types of dogs in one of his humorous inspirational lectures (“types” vis a vis behavior, not breed). There's a name, which I've forgotten, that fox hunters use to describe a dog that gets the rest of the pack running in the wrong direction for a while. The other dogs will eventually pick up the scent, but not until they've wasted precious time following the boneheaded barking beast.
Darwin, vis a vis his larger claims, is like that boneheaded canine, and until the rest of the pack (mainstream science) stops chasing the most remarkable phantom in history heretofore, they're not going to discover the real mechanism(s) of macro-evolutionary change.