tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7162558923478976692..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Darwin Was Wrong?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72761222712234121282017-10-11T21:12:54.320-04:002017-10-11T21:12:54.320-04:00@lutesuite
That statement is rather commonly misr...@lutesuite<br /><br /><i>That statement is rather commonly misrepresented by dishonest creationists. Here is an explanation by a creationist who is a bit more honest</i><br /><br />Dishonest? Really? <br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Craig Venter Discusses the Tree of Life</a> <br />Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61649027318529349432017-10-11T12:17:45.693-04:002017-10-11T12:17:45.693-04:00That statement is rather commonly misrepresented b...That statement is rather commonly misrepresented by dishonest creationists. Here is an explanation by a creationist who is a bit more honest:<br /><br /><a href="http://biologos.org/blogs/kathryn-applegate-endless-forms-most-beautiful/dueling-scientists-and-the-tree-of-life-analyzing-the-id-response" rel="nofollow">Dueling Scientists and the Tree of Life: Analyzing the ID Response</a><br /><br /> Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28169384189797339092017-10-09T17:09:55.763-04:002017-10-09T17:09:55.763-04:00Wait a minute guys, there's something going on...Wait a minute guys, there's something going on here, because, look what Dr.Craig Venter said "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up…So there is not a tree of life." a this guy is no scientific know nothing!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10720925300685348427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19940005656655989372013-06-13T01:16:57.569-04:002013-06-13T01:16:57.569-04:00The tree of live is a tree of death with just a co...The tree of live is a tree of death with just a couple of dying branches on it thanks to Darwin's idiotic idea that is wrong<br />petershakespearebaxterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641424315710271119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20846279331832215912009-07-27T08:50:44.813-04:002009-07-27T08:50:44.813-04:00In the high-stakes game of preserving sage grouse,...In the high-stakes game of preserving sage grouse, biologists say they’re still figuring out how the birds will react to the influx of wind turbines rising up from the wide-open sagebrush plains where the birds evolved.Jameshttp://www.asiarooms.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90384612186606001382009-04-03T08:15:00.000-04:002009-04-03T08:15:00.000-04:00its goodits goodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62218918944668658292009-01-29T13:09:00.000-05:002009-01-29T13:09:00.000-05:00The New Scientist is probably trying to catch the ...The New Scientist is probably trying to catch the attention of creationists and have new readers. My guess is that creationists will only read the cover and fill their blogs with completely nonsenses about the tree of life. That's not the way a scientific magazine should vulgarize science. Scientific American has chosen a different approach, their cover title is: The Evolution Of Evolution - How Darwin's theory survives, thrives and reshapes the world. <BR/>I am "amazed" on how intense is the debate about evolution in the US. In Europe it's not even a subject of discussion. All my support and encouragement to all the Americans who defend science against superstitions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18236223404537060048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65773480007231274442009-01-27T11:41:00.000-05:002009-01-27T11:41:00.000-05:00Argh. Screwed up the URL of the original story. ...Argh. Screwed up the URL of the original story. It's <A HREF="http://www.freep.com/article/20090123/NEWS07/90123017/1009/Texas+school+board+votes+to+drop+evolution+%E2%80%98weaknesses++from+curriculum" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>And what's more entrancing, <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16485-creationism-defeated-in-texas.html" REL="nofollow">New Scientist reported</A> the same thing, but neglected to mention Cargill's implicit citation of Lawton's "Darwin Was Wrong" story as support for her proposal.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82895883879494449172009-01-27T11:19:00.000-05:002009-01-27T11:19:00.000-05:00John Pieret points out that the New Scientist arti...John Pieret <A HREF="http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2009/01/still-wrong.html" REL="nofollow">points out</A> that the New Scientist article has already apparently been cited by a creationist Board member in support of weakening the Texas science standards (see <A HREF="Barbara%20Cargill,%20a%20Republican%20who%20supported%20the%20weaknesses%20requirement,%20said%20there%20have%20been%20“significant%20challenges”%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20evolution%20and%20she%20cited%20a%20recent%20news%20article%20in%20which%20a%20European%20scientist%20disputed%20Darwin’s%20“tree%20of%20life”%20showing%20common%20ancestors%20for%20all%20living%20things." REL="nofollow">here</A> for the original story:<BR/><BR/><I>Barbara Cargill, a Republican who supported the weaknesses requirement, said there have been “significant challenges” to the theory of evolution and she cited a recent news article in which a European scientist disputed Darwin’s “tree of life” showing common ancestors for all living things.</I><BR/><BR/>Where's Graham Lawton these days?RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19749820996977488362009-01-25T03:02:00.000-05:002009-01-25T03:02:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthew Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01329839709613557955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38254040532324793732009-01-24T20:04:00.000-05:002009-01-24T20:04:00.000-05:00Just read the latest copies of National Geo and Sm...Just read the latest copies of National Geo and Smithsonian to read massive positive articles about Darwin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11253475662014158212009-01-24T16:52:00.000-05:002009-01-24T16:52:00.000-05:00"The tree of life is being politely buried."They c..."The tree of life is being politely buried."<BR/><BR/>They can't even get their metaphors right. You <I>cut down</I> trees. You don't bury them. Sheeeessssh.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34235744201037120562009-01-24T13:35:00.000-05:002009-01-24T13:35:00.000-05:00Duh!Tree of Life: Aspen Patch, Not Mighty Oak."......Duh!<BR/><BR/>Tree of Life: Aspen Patch, Not Mighty Oak.<BR/><BR/>"... an aspen's lateral roots produce ... a large network of interconnected roots that can produce new trees for over a thousand years."<BR/><BR/>There's your illustration. <BR/><BR/>Above the ground we the brief appearance; but the network _is_ the genome. <BR/><BR/>(Why does this sound familiar?)<BR/><BR/>Years ago, I gave up writing New Scientist to complain, after an honest editroid finally replied to me: "New Scientist is an entertainment magazine, not a science magazine." <BR/><BR/>NS attains the industry standard for accuracy in an entertainment magazine: <BR/><BR/>"No acute and immediate risk of death or injury from from reading, but not to be relied on."<BR/><BR/>Remember the Newsweek cover so greatly beloved of the blogomatics antiscience folks who repost it? This one. Wanta bet you're joining it with the NS cover?<BR/><BR/>http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/08/2007-08-05NewsweekGlobalWarming.jpgHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63655068127970878972009-01-23T18:15:00.000-05:002009-01-23T18:15:00.000-05:00Graham:re I'm happy to have a reasonable discussio...Graham:<BR/><BR/>re <I>I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion of the ideas in the feature, once you've all stopped flying off the handle about the cover line of the magazine (not the headline of the article, or the article itself) and what you assume I wrote. </I> <BR/><BR/>If this is what you want, could I suggest that you not paste everyone with the same brush? (You are also <I>assuming</I> that everyone has not read the article or at least got the gist of it.)<BR/><BR/>The headline used certainly can be misleading, you essentially admitted as much. In my opinion, if you are going to use a "racy" or "teasing" headline, the article is going to have to go out of its way to disclaim any misinterpretations of the headline. In this case, I am not convinced that has been done.<BR/><BR/>I don't think this style of headline is appropriate for a science magazine: it's usually used to try to create major controversy where the the reality is minor controversy or even none. The terms "media beat up" or "hype" come to mind. It has it's place in "entertainment" publications like the Sun (What, it carries real news?! Just kidding.)<BR/><BR/>There is a controversy of sorts, but it's more minor than the headline makes out and not really about if "Darwin was right" or not.<BR/><BR/>Turning to the science and the article itself, there are many points that you don't make clear enough to readers, I feel. I realise you can't cover it all one small article, but I think the focus on presenting examples of one process with little balance of the other mechanisms and issues isn't helpful. These add complexity to the story, but if you are going to raise this topic, you really can't avoid these I feel.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to toss out a few random examples to give some idea of what I mean. This aren't meant to be definitive (or even especially accurate), but rather to show considerations that might have been included that might lead to a more balanced presentation of the issue. (I've also stuck with simpler cases that might be easier to present to a general readership.)<BR/><BR/>More than just observing examples of HGT is needed to claim that these events are species-forming. This, in turn, brings up that a gene-based phylogenetic tree constructed from a limited number of genes may not necessarily be congruent with the "true" species tree. <BR/><BR/>As a hypothetical (counter-)example, if a small number of individuals acquire a gene via HGT, the population may "drift" to have this new gene present at a high frequency with no speciation event occur.<BR/><BR/>You need to make clearer to readers that in biology exceptions to the rule are expected (I usually like to cite Jacob François' famous line "evolution is a tinkerer" for this). Finding a group of organisms exhibiting high levels of HGT or specific examples won't count for a lot in terms of over-throwing a larger generalisation.<BR/><BR/>With that in mind, you don't present the frequency of speciation events due to HGT against speciation events not needing HGT, and for what lines of life in a way that I think a naïve reader might get a feel for the balance of the two. At worst, presenting a list examples where HGT has a role without balancing it with cases where it does not might lead a naïve reader to believe that HGT is the only mechanism for speciation for all forms of life!<BR/><BR/>On that note, your extrapolating from the examples you give for eukaryotes stretches your argument too far, in my opinion. Among other things, you make no mention that for "higher" eukaryotes, new genes must be incorporated into and passed on via the germ line, an issue not faced by single-celled life, which puts considerable limitations on acquiring new genes via HGT compared with single-cellular life.<BR/><BR/>Another thing you might have explored is if the mechanisms seen in eukaryotes are used in forming most species, or predominantly in higher-order groups.<BR/><BR/>In the case of bacteria in particular, you can even turn your argument completely on it's head and ask if it is the definition of "species" that needs revising, rather than the trees, a point you don't raise. That is, you could have considered if the traditional "species" notion is appropriate for single-celled life and viruses (nods to ERV ;-) ).<BR/><BR/>There are other science points, but that's me done for now :-) You have presented it as an argument for "knocking over" "the" tree of life, rather than elaborating it. This strikes me as a journalistic construct, "creating a conflict". Wording like "the battle over the tree", is pure journalism, of course, as are some other passages which read as hyperbole to me, e.g. "But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." This isn't at all how it is perceived, at least to this scientist. In my experience scientists are more likely to say "Hmm. That's interesting".<BR/><BR/>Just a personal note to close this overly long ramble. A little while I ago I remarked to a friend that if I buy a magazine, it'd usually be NewScentist. She replied to the effect that she thought it to be sensationalist. I realised since then that I haven't actually bought a copy for some years (budgets and all that). Since then I have reconsidered my opinion of NewScientist. If I were to judge by the current headlines and hype, I probably wouldn't look at a lot of the issues. Just food for thought. You might want to consider that you are alienating some of your potential readership with headlines like that, and articles on "big" topics playing only or largely one side of an argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89309437556269148202009-01-23T16:15:00.000-05:002009-01-23T16:15:00.000-05:00Thanks Graham - I can feel the disillusionment enl...Thanks Graham - I can feel the disillusionment enlightening my mind now…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Why's Graham so glum?: http://ecographica.blogspot.com/2009/01/whys-graham-so-glum-lawton-critiqued.htmlJohnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04947292290232739954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44464750776290712752009-01-23T14:59:00.000-05:002009-01-23T14:59:00.000-05:00Anon:My point was that creationists would not even...Anon:<BR/><BR/>My point was that creationists would not even read the article, but just delight in the headline. I have little doubt that the article itself is based more or less on sound science that would refute creationist claims.<BR/><BR/>The comment that you cite means very little to those who actually bother to read the article, and is hidden away from those who don't. In other words, it has no effect on those who don't.<BR/><BR/>A responsible cover would have included an excoriation of creationists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53287560033191652322009-01-23T13:21:00.000-05:002009-01-23T13:21:00.000-05:00Bueller_007 said: Notice that your work is now pop...Bueller_007 said: Notice that your work is now popping up across the IDiot blogosphere.<BR/><BR/>If you had even a semblance of a clue, you'd have known this was going to happen,... <BR/><BR/>I notice in New Scientist's editorial on this article it says: "None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not." <BR/>It seems those idiots at New Scientsit do have a semblance of a clue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6339755086397708042009-01-23T11:17:00.000-05:002009-01-23T11:17:00.000-05:00Graham,My hair is on. I dunno why you'd think oth...Graham,<BR/><BR/>My hair is on. I dunno why you'd think otherwise. To me, responsible journalism is reporting people's opinions and then providing (where appropriate) necessary balance. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.<BR/><BR/>Bapteste is talking in blanket absurdities. Now that doesn't reflect well on him. But ultimately the article is your responsbility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50574684004933589612009-01-23T11:01:00.000-05:002009-01-23T11:01:00.000-05:00Lawton:People here are ABSOLUTELY justified in jud...Lawton:<BR/><BR/>People here are ABSOLUTELY justified in judging this by the cover alone; that's EXACTLY what the creationists are doing, and that's why we're reacting. Notice that your work is now popping up across the IDiot blogosphere.<BR/><BR/>If you had even a semblance of a clue, you'd have known this was going to happen, and that the sensationalist headline would be acting against your magazine's ostensible purpose of informing people about science.<BR/><BR/>You and your magazine are INCREDIBLY irresponsible. PERIOD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37176927595172098072009-01-23T10:52:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:52:00.000-05:00Steve F:Blimey, mate, keep your hair on. Quoting s...Steve F:<BR/>Blimey, mate, keep your hair on. <BR/><BR/>Quoting somebody isn't tantamount to endorsing their views. It's about reporting what experts are thinking and getting their views on record. It shows that you're not just making stuff up, but reporting something that is really going on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89931522691570447952009-01-23T09:39:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:39:00.000-05:00UPDATE: In a surprising development, the IDiots at...<I>UPDATE: In a surprising development, the IDiots at Uncommon Descent have picked up on these recent (sic) developments in evolutionary theory. Paul Nelson, a Young Earth Creationist philosopher, writes: “The tree of life is being politely buried”.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, speak of the devil. That's exactly the Usual Suspect <A HREF="http://thinkingforfree.blogspot.com/2007/07/paul-nelson-lies-but-jerry-coyne-nails.html" REL="nofollow">I was referring to</A>....Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47605437808468969902009-01-23T09:34:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:34:00.000-05:00"We knew we were courting controversy but the feel..."We knew we were courting controversy but the feeling was that the story was solid enough to allow us to be provocative and, in any case, the statement is true... as always I'm acutely aware that it is 50% journalism, 50% sales pitch."<BR/><BR/><BR/>In other words, "We did it for the lulz".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10089827050416903782009-01-23T09:21:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:21:00.000-05:00"A gentle plea: please read the article before sho..."A gentle plea: please read the article before shooting off about it."<BR/><BR/><BR/>We don't need to read the article to criticize the cover page. We've long known that Darwin was wrong about a great many things. Turning it into front page news 150 years after the fact makes it seem like he was wrong about the *one* thing that really matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64044168562798140642009-01-23T08:50:00.000-05:002009-01-23T08:50:00.000-05:00Hi Graham,Do you endorse nonesense statements like...Hi Graham,<BR/><BR/>Do you endorse nonesense statements like this one from Bapteste?<BR/><BR/>"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality"<BR/><BR/>Do you think reporting this absurd blanket statement as fact is responsible journalism? Your article goes on to provide some degree of qualification (e.g. "While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe."). However, were I writing the piece, I'd be immediately pulling up Bapteste on his idiotic and thoroughly unhelpful hyperbole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66099288406555134192009-01-23T08:27:00.000-05:002009-01-23T08:27:00.000-05:00Hi Jud,Happy to.The way we work here is that the w...Hi Jud,<BR/>Happy to.<BR/><BR/>The way we work here is that the writer of the piece generally has almost no say over the headline, standfirst and other bits of "page furniture". These are the resonsibility of the copy editor and the sub-editors. The online version often has its own headline, which again is out of the control of the writer (in this case the magazine headline is "Uprooting Darwin's Tree").<BR/><BR/>Coverlines, similarly, are written not by the writer but by senior editors with the express purpose of selling the magazine (the line between marketing and journalism blurs a little here). <BR/><BR/>As I'm a senior editor too, however, I can't and won't claim that the coverline was entirely beyond my control. Not my ultimate decision, but I was in on the discussions. We knew we were courting controversy but the feeling was that the story was solid enough to allow us to be provocative and, in any case, the statement is true.<BR/><BR/>So I feel very strong ownership of the article itself, particularly the print version (and I totally stand by the story, which is the product of weeks of hard work, extensive interviews with scientists, a stack of journal papers and much thought, despite what some bloggers are saying). I feel some ownership of the front cover "sell", though as always I'm acutely aware that it is 50% journalism, 50% sales pitch. <BR/><BR/>Hope that answers your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com