Students vs Icons of Evolution

 
I teach in a second year course on "Scientific Misconceptions and Controversies." In my part of the course we discuss creationism and evolution. The object is to learn to think rationally about the controversy.

Students have to read Icons of Evolution and write an essay analyzing the arguments in one of the chapters (their choice). They have no problem recognizing the flaws in the logic and the outright mistruths in that book. For typical university students with a rudimentary understanding of evolution it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The Discovery Institute sees it differently but they must live on another planet.


Here's how David Klinghoffer describes Jonathan Wells in a recent posting on Evolution News & Views [Celebrating Ten Years of Icons of Evolution].

A Berkeley PhD in molecular and cell biology, Wells is among the most lucid and accessible scientist-writers devoted to the modern project of critiquing Darwin. When I say the book is sweetly reasoned, I don't only mean that it's well reasoned but that there's an appealing geniality, a sweetness, to the man's writing that stands out in contrast to the donkey-like braying of a Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne, the sinister coilings of a Richard Dawkins, the ugly "humor" of a P.Z. Myers. Yes, you can get a sense of a person's character, and perhaps too his credibility, from the words he uses.

And here's an example of "sweet geniality" from page 234 of Icons.

What about scientists who knowingly make false utterances or misleading omissions but believe the overall effect is not misleading because they are teaching "a deeper truth"? Does the commitment to a supposed deeper truth excuse conscious misrepresentations? Such an excuse probably wouldn't help a stock promoter. Under federal law, a stock promoter is not justified in mistating the facts just because he or she deeply believes that a company is destined to prosper. The stock promoter commits fraud by misrepresenting the truth, regardless of his or her underlying beliefs. Shouldn't scientists be held to the same standard?

Fraud is a dirty word, and it should not be used lightly. In the cases described in this book, dogmatic promoters of Darwinism did not see themselves as deceivers. Yet they seriously distorted the evidence—often knowingly. If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientist does it?

...

If dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution were merely distorting the truth, that would be bad enough. But they haven't stopped there. They now dominate the biological sciences in the English-speaking world, and they use their position of dominance to censor dissenting viewpoints.

---

The top ten problems with evolution according to Intelligent Design Creationists

Most of Intelligent Design Creationism consists of whining about evolution. Their main goal seems to be to discredit scientists and evolution in order to lay the ground work for a new approach to science, one that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent designer.

Most of their criticisms of evolution are ridiculous but a few of them require a response. So far, after more than 25 years of whining, the creationists have utterly failed to make a convincing case against evolution.

Are they still trying? You bet. Casey Luskin has done us the favor of listing "The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution" in a series of blog posts on Evolution News & Views (sic).

Here they are for your amusement.

1. No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup. I think he's right about this one. But then, I don't think a primordial soup plays a role in the origin of life.
2. Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code. This has nothing to do with the origin of the genetic code. It's an argument against "RNA world." Casey Luskin is correct. We don't know how the first information-containing molecules arose and how they came to be self-replicating.
3. Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity. Luskin is dead wrong about this one.
4. Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations. Casey Luskin doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory, and it shows.
5. Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution. Casey Luskin doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory, and he doesn't understand the scientific literature. What else is new?
6. Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life". Modern scientific discoveries have revealed that there may not be a universal tree of life common to all genes. Casey Luskin accepts the evidence but rejects the idea that scientific explanations can change when new data comes in.
7. Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry. This is nonsense compounded by wishful thinking.
8. Differences Between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry. Dead wrong.
9. Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of Many Specie. What?
10. Neo-Darwinism's Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA. You'll have to read that post yourself to see how many different ways Casey Luskin can go wrong and the very few ways he can go right.

---

The ENCODE publicity campaign of 2007

ENCODE¹ published the results of a pilot project in 2007 (Birney et al., 2007). They looked at 1% (30Mb) of the genome with a view to establishing their techniques and dealing with large amounts of data from many different groups. The goal was to "provide a more biologically informative representation of the human genome by using high-throughput methods to identify and catalogue the functional elements encoded."

The most striking result of this preliminary study was the confirmation of pervasive transcription. Here's what the ENCODE Consortium leaders said in the abstract,

Together, our results advance the collective knowledge about human genome function in several major areas. First, our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome is pervasively transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found in primary transcripts, including non-protein-coding transcripts, and those that extensively overlap with one another.

ENCODE concluded that 93% of the genome is transcribed in one tissue or another. There are two possible explanations that account for pervasive transcription.

IDiots at Evolution News & Views Defend Ann Gauger's Video

I few days ago I posted a video by Ann Gauger where she criticizes population genetics. Sandwalk readers recognized right away that she doesn't understand population genetics, or phylogenetics. Read the comments on: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics.

I've been waiting for a response from Ann Gauger or any of the other IDiots. I've been waiting to see how they twist the meaning of "population genetics" to fit what she says in the video. I've been waiting to see how they defend her words on tree-making given the criticism on Sandwalk and elsewhere.

Incidentally, it turns out that the "laboratory" in the background of the video is a stock photo from Shutterstock and not an actual lab where Ann Gauger works. Here's the video so you can see what I'm talking about.

David Klinghoffer has finally responded to the criticism in a post on Evolution News & Views: Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen. As you can see from the title, he is most upset about the use of a fake lab ... or rather he's upset about being discovered and exposed by Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb and Casey Johnston at Ars Technica.

But what about the scientific criticism of what Ann Gauger is actually saying in the video?

Klinghoffer has an answer ....

It's hard to believe that Miss Johnson, who writes for Ars Technica ("a trusted source for technology news, tech policy analysis, breakdowns of the latest scientific advancements"), is unaware of these things. So too Richard Hoppe. The most likely explanation for their posing at the game of "Gotcha!" is that they can't answer Dr. Gauger's arguments, which are given in full in a recent brief book co-authored by Gauger, Doug Axe and Casey Luskin, Science and Human Origins. We would be happy to send a review copy to Ars Technica.

Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would.

David Klinghoffer reads Sandwalk so he knows how real scientists deal with the nonsense being spouted by Ann Gauger. I suspect he would rather focus on the "red herring" than defend the bad science in the video.

---

James Shapiro Claims Credit for Predicting That Junk DNA Is Actually Part of a "highly sophisticated information storage organelle"

Do you remember James Shaprio? He's the University of Chicago scientist who claims to have discovered a new theory of evolution in his book evolution: A View from the 21st Century [see my review in NCSE Reports]. The book criticizes the old hardened version of the Modern Synthesis and never mentions things like random genetic drift or Nearly-Neutral Theory. It's difficult to imagine how someone could criticize evolutionary theory without understanding population genetics but he managed to pull it off.

You might also recall that he's the scientist who criticized the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology when he clearly didn't understand it [Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century]. I was shocked to learn that he had published a paper with the title "Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century" without ever bothering to read the literature to find out how Francis Crick actually defined the Central Dogma. (In fact, Shapiro misrepresented Crick's view.) It goes to show you how silly you look when you criticize something you don't understand.

Three Senior Fellows of the Discovery Institute Will Discuss Criticisms of Dawin's Doubt on a Radio Show on October 23

Evolution News & Views (sic) will bring together David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer to discuss Darwin's Doubt on the Michael Medved show [The Closing of the Scientific Mind: Join Us on October 23 in the Medved Studio for a Special Edition of the Science & Culture Update]. The topic is the "closing of the scientific mind," surely an appropriate topic for three men who are not scientists.

Does science open minds, or close them? A "scientific view" is frequently taken as being basically synonymous with skepticism, questioning, and independent thinking. All good and wonderful things! Yet very often, self-proclaimed paladins of "science" are impatient with genuine skeptics, flee from debate, or find a variety of other creative ways to avoid having to confront challenges to their beliefs.

In the special October 23 edition of the Science & Culture Update on the Michael Medved Show, you'll have a chance to talk about science and skepticism, closed minds and open ones, live in the KTTH radio studio, with Mr. Medved, Darwin's Doubt author Dr. Stephen Meyer, and Evolution News & Views editor David Klinghoffer. All three are Discovery Institute senior fellows.

For the discussion, they'll take as a case in point the critical reception of Dr. Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, which has sparked furious debate -- and also a great deal of artful dodging of the relevant scientific issues by opponents of the theory of intelligent design. Why are critics of ID so determined to flee from a fair fight?

I think I'm going to try and listen in. I can't wait to hear how Medved, Meyer, and Klinghoffer respond to my scientific critique of Chapter 5: "The Genes Tell the Story?"

• Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
• The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
• Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
• Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution

---

Do Some IDiots Actually Question the Existence of Natural Selection?

Paul Nelson has been challenging the pervasiveness of adaptationism by pointing out that many evolutionary biologists promte nonadaptive evolution. See the discussion and comments on Jerry Coyne's blog website: A Marshall McLuhan moment with creationist Paul Nelson. Nelson has been accused, falsely, of claiming that some evolutionary biologists deny that natural selection is an important mechanism in evolution.

Paul Nelson doesn't deny that natural selection is a real phenomenon. He may be an IDiot (and a YEC) but he's not THAT stupid. On the other hand, one didn't have to wait too long before getting confirmation that some other IDiots really are THAT stupid.

And guess what? They are allowed to post on the main Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & Views (sic)!!! You have to read How "Real" Is Natural Selection? by Tom Bethell ... otherwise you'd never believe me.

Here's what Tom Bethell says about natural selection.

Is Creationism Anti-Science?

 

It's very hard to define science—it's the demarcation problem and, in spite of what you've been told, philosophers don't agree on how to define science.

A lot of the activities of Intelligent Design Creationists qualify as science, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I spend so much time arguing against their attacks on evolution. Many of the IDiots accept common descent. Their attacks on other aspects of evolution aren't much different than similar attacks from legitimate, non-theistic scientists (e.g. objecting to junk DNA, questioning the Cambrian explosion, challenging strict Darwinism). It counts as "science" but it's very bad science and it's wrong.

All IDiots are anti-evolution but some go farther than others. If you are a Young Earth Creationist who believes that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, then you are not just anti-evolution, you are anti-physics, anti-chemistry, anti-geology, anti-astronomy, and anti-biology. I think it's fair to say that Young Earth Creationists are anti-science. This includes most (all?) of the Republican Presidential candidates in the United States and more than half the citizens of that country.

The only way YECs can possibly justify their strange beliefs is to assume that all the experts in all those fields are completely wrong about the fundamental concepts in their discipline. How could they possibly trust anything else those scientists have to say about their areas of expertise?

Let me introduce you to a "new voice" in the Intelligent Design Creationist world. Here's what Evolution News & Views says about him [A New Voice in the Debate Over Evolution and Intelligent Design].

There is literally a new voice in the debate over evolution and intelligent design. If you're a regular listener to the Center for Science & Culture's very popular and thrice weekly podcast, ID The Future, you have probably come to recognize familiar personalities, like ENV's Casey Luskin. (If you're not yet a listener, then you should be.) Now you will be hearing more often from radio broadcaster David Boze of Seattle's KTTH.

I assume David Boze is a heavy-weight and it's okay to criticize him.

Listen to the Discovery Institute podcast where Boze defends Young Earth Creationism against the charge that it's anti-science ["Anti-Science": Unpacking a Vague & Distorted Label]. (You can click on the embedded copy below.) Note the sleight of hand where he lumps together the Young Earth Creationists with all other IDiots. His point is that just because you're opposed to "atheistic Darwinian evolution" does not mean you're anti-science.

Perhaps not. But if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible then you are definitely anti-science. You are a genuine idiot. Does David Boze do a good job of defending Republican Presidential candidates against the charge of being anti-science? Will a YEC President harm the reputation of the United States? You be the judge.

Personally, I don't think the new kid on the block is much of a threat. Is this the best they can do?

---

Intelligent Design Creationism and the fine-tuning argument

Michael Denton and the Discovery Institute are promoting his new book, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. I haven't yet read the book. I ordered from Amazon.ca and I won't get it until March.

Denton tries to explain the connection between the fine-tuning argument and structuralism in a recent post on Evolution News & Views: Natural Life: Cosmological Fine-Tuning as an Argument for Structuralism. I've dealt with structuralism already [What is "structuralism"?] so let's think about fine tuning.

The essence of the fine-tuning argument is that the basic laws of physics and chemistry are so precise that even slight changes would result in a universe where life is impossible. The focus is usually on the fundamental constants such as the speed of light and the charge on an electron. I don't know enough about physics to evaluate the argument that these are fine-tuned so I have to rely on physicists to inform me.

The moral argument for the existence of gods

It's Sunday. I assume that most of you are at church but here's something for the rest of you. It's a sermon by William Lane Craig on The Moral Argument for the Existence of Gods. I found the link on Evolution News & Views (sic) a blog that's devoted to the "science" of Intelligent Design Creationism [Watch: Three from William Lane Craig]. I'm not sure what this has to do with evolution except that the word is mentioned a few times in the videos.

I'm also not sure what this has to do with intelligent design since, as we all know, the "science" of intelligent design has nothing to do with gods.

Kirk Durston appears on Evolution News & Views to announce that "Darwinian Theory" has been falsified

Kirk Durston is a Canadian biophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Guelph (Guelph, Ontario, Canada). He's been attacking evolution for more than a decade using all the old tricks and sophistry that we've come to expect from creationists.

I thought you might be interested in his latest attempt to discredit evolution. His post is at: An Essential Prediction of Darwinian Theory Is Falsified by Information Degradation.

He begins by claiming that "Darwinian Theory" (what ever that is) makes an essential prediction. It predicts that information must increase over time.

In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.

An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.

Targets, arrows, and the lottery fallacy

Sandwalk readers have been discussing the way Intelligent Design Creationists have been calculating probabilities [see Intelligent Design Creationists are very confused about epigenetics and Waiting for multiple mutations: Michael Lynch v. Michael Behe].

We've known for a long time that the most common mistake is assuming that there's only one solution to a problem. They see an end result, like a bacterial flagellum, or resistance to malaria, or the binding of two proteins, and assume that a few very specific mutations had to occur in a specific sequence in order to produce that result.

judmarc calls this the "lottery fallacy" and I think it's a good term [see lottery fallacy],

This is of course what I like to call the "lottery fallacy." It's used by virtually every ID proponent to produce erroneously inflated probabilities against evolution.

Lottery fallacy: The odds against any *particular individual* winning the PowerBall lottery are ~175 million to 1. But there were three winners just last night. That's because *someone* winning the PowerBall is not an especially rare occurrence. It happens every few weeks throughout the year.

In exactly the same way, Axe, Gauger, Behe, and the rest of the ID folks always base their math on the chances that a *particular* neutral or beneficial mutation will occur, and just as with the lottery, the chances of a *particular* outcome are utterly minuscule. The occurrence of *some* neutral or beneficial mutation, however, is, as with the lottery, so relatively common as to be completely unremarkable.

To summarize: ID proponents misuse probability math to make the common appear impossible.

As it turns out, someone on Evolution News & Views (sic) just posted an excellent example of this fallacy [Intelligent Design on Target]. Here's what he/she/it says,

In his second major treatise on design theory, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, William Dembski discusses searches and targets. One of his main points is that the ability to reach a target in a vast space of possibilities is an indicator of design. A sufficiently complex target that satisfies an independent specification, he argues, creates a pattern that, when observed, satisfies the Design Filter. There are rigorous mathematical and logical proofs of this concept in the book, but at one point, he uses an illustration even a child can understand.

Consider the case of an archer. Suppose an archer stands fifty meters from a large wall with a bow and arrow in hand. The wall, let us say, is sufficiently large that the archer cannot help but hit it. Now suppose each time the archer shoots an arrow at the wall, the archer paints a target around the arrow so that the arrow sits squarely in the bull's-eye. What can be concluded from this scenario? Absolutely nothing about the archer's ability as an archer. Yes, a pattern is being matched; but it is a pattern fixed only after the arrow has been shot. The pattern is thus purely ad hoc. [No Free Lunch, pp. 9-10, emphasis added.]

Most people have experience with target shooting of some kind, whether with bows and arrows, guns (including squirt guns), snowballs, darts, or most sports like baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, and football. Children laugh when they picture an archer who "couldn't even hit the broadside of a barn" and rushes up to the arrow and paints a bull's-eye around it. Grown-ups might compare that to a biologist looking at an irreducibly complex biological system and simply stating, "It evolved." In each of these cases, Dembski would say that since the pattern was not independently specified, therefore it is ad hoc.

The unknown author included the image shown above in order to illustrate the point (Image: © Kagenmi / Dollar Photo Club).

Do you see the fallacy? Just because we observe a complex adaptation or structure does NOT mean that it was specified or pre-ordained. There are certainly many different structures that could have evolved—most of them we never see because they didn't happen. And when a particular result is observed it doesn't mean that there was only one pathway (target) to producing that structure.

To continue the analogy—at the risk of abusing it—there may be hundreds of targets in the woods and most of them have very large bullseyes. Imagine you're out for a walk in the woods and you see that almost every tree has a big target with a large bullseye. You find an arrow stuck at the edge of one of the bullseyes and lots of arrows stuck in the trees, the ground, and parts of most of the targets outside of the central bullseyes. Would you write a book about how good the archer must have been?

---

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 ...

• Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis
• Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
• The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
• Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
• Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution

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.

The Core Genome

Hundreds of genomes have been sequenced. It should be relatively easy to search all these genomes to identify those genes that are found in every single species. This small class of genes should represent the core genome—the genes that were probably present in the first living cell.

Turns out it's not that easy. For one thing, you have to remove parasitic bacteria from your set of genomes because these species could easily be getting by without some essential genes that are supplied by their hosts. Next you have to make sure you have a huge variety of different species that cover all possible forms of life. In practice, this means that you need about 300 different genomes, mostly bacteria.

I'm reading The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, by Eugene Koonin. This is just one of many books that are critical of the most popular views of evolution. Most of these books are written by kooks or religious nutters but some of them are valid scientific critiques of modern evolutionary theory. Koonin's book is one of those and I agree with most of what he has to say. One of his topics is genome evolution.

As Koonin describes it, the first genome comparisons looked at Haemophilus influenzae and Mycoplasma genitalium, two species of bacteria that aren't distantly related. There were about 240 orthologous genes found in both species.¹ The first surprise was that this core set was missing some very important members that should have been there.

Some essential metabolic reactions must have been catalyzed by enzymes in the very first cells but the Haemophilus enzyme isn't present in Mycoplasma and vice versa. It took a bit of digging but eventually the problem was solved with the discovery of different enzymes that carried out the same reaction. The genes for these enzymes are completely unrelated.

As more and and more genomes were sequenced, the size of the core genome set shrunk until today it comprises fewer than 100 genes. Most of these genes are genes for the three ribosomal RNAs, about 30 tRNAs, and a few other essential RNA molecules. There are only about 33 protein-encoding genes in the universal core set. They include genes for the three large RNA polymerase subunits and 30 proteins required for translation (mostly ribosomal proteins).

DNA polymerase isn't in the core set because some species of bacteria have unusual DNA polymerases that replicate DNA just fine but are unrelated to the enzymes found in most cells. There are multiple, unrelated, versions of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases—the enzyme that attaches an amino acid to its cognate tRNA. Some species have one version and other species have the second version. Some species have both. In any case, no single synthetase gene is found in every species so it's not part of the core set.

Koonin refers to this observation as non-orthologous gene displacement (NOGD). He envisages a scenario where a cell with gene X takes up a copy of a non-orthologous gene (gene Y) that catalzyes the same reaction. Over time the newly acquired gene displaces the original version. In this way a non-orthologous version (e.g. gene Y) could have arisen after the formation of the first cell and spread to a variety of different species by horizontal gene transfer. The scenario doesn't rule out the possibility that the two non-orthologous versions could have arisen independently in two separate origins of life but this seems less likely.

Let's look at a couple of examples. Biochemistry textbook writers have known for decades that there are different versions of some common metabolic genes ² The aldolase enzyme in gluconeogenesis & glucolysis is a classic. Some species have the class I enzyme/gene while others have the class II enzyme/gene. Some species have both.

This is an example of convergent evolution. The enzymes have different mechanisms and, as you can see from the figure, completely different structures. It doesn't seem to matter if a species has a class I enzyme or a class II enzyme since both enzymes are very good at catalyzing the fusion of two three-carbon molecules into a six-carbon fructose molecule or cleaving the six-carbon molecule in the reverse reaction.

The pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) is a huge enzyme that catalyzes an important metabolic reaction making acetyl-CoA—the substrate for the citric acid cycle. It seemed likely that every single species would have the genes for all of the PDC subunits but many species of bacteria were missing the entire complex. They have a different enzyme, pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreducatase that catalyzes a similar reaction. The enzymes have completely different mechanisms and are unrelated.

In this case, we have reason to believe that the enzyme requiring ferredoxin is more primitive and the more common pyruvate dehydrogenase complex evolved later. The PDC genes displaced the gene for pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase in many, but not all, species. That's why the genes for neither enzyme are part of the core set.

We don't know whether the existing core set of 100 genes truly represents genes that were present in the first living cell or whether they completely displaced the original versions. The fact that many of these genes are part of large operons might have made it easier for them to be transferred by horizontal gene transfer. (The selfish operon model.)

The bottom line is that attempts to reconstruct the genome of the first cell have failed because of NOGD and we now have to incorporate that concept into our way of thinking about early evolution. The good news is that the evolution of completely new genes seems to be much easier than we first imagined. We even have examples of three or four completely different enzymes carrying out the same reaction.³

---

1. Koonin refers to conserved genes as Clusters of Orthologous Genes or COGs. It actually counts conserved domains rather than entire genes but the differences aren't great so I'll just refer to them as genes.

2. That is, those textbook writers that emphasize comparative biochemistry or an evolutionary approach to biochemistry. Some textbooks just cover human (mammalian) biochemistry so they won't even mention whether bacteria do biochemistry.

3. I'm not sure how the Intelligent Design Creationists explain these observations. Maybe there were several different designers who each came up with their ideal solution to the problem? Maybe there was only one designer who just got a kick out of making different versions of the same enzyme activity but got bored at only two or three?

Hypocrisy

Chris DiCarlo talked about fallacies in our class today. We're trying to teach students how to recognize the most important logical fallacies that they are likely to encounter in debates and discussions. He also talked about the importance of consistency and how being caught out as a hypocrite can be devastating to your cause.

Speaking of hypocrisy, the Popular Science website has just banned comments. Apparently they were getting overwhelmed with crackpots and kooks [Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments].

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

There are plenty of other ways to talk back to us, and to each other: through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, livechats, email, and more.

That's not hypocritical. The hypocrisy comes from Uncommon Descent where someone names "nullasalus" blogged about the Popular Science decisions [Popular Science shuts down comments, citing the presence of dissent from the scientific consensus]. Here's what he/she/it said

Science is not what’s being championed at Popsci.com, nor is ‘bedrock scientific doctrine’ challenged by dissent. Consensus is. Orthodoxy is. Likewise, being ‘politically motivated’ with regards to science is not a problem – it is having political, social and even religious views that PopSci has decided are unacceptable. Dialogue and discussion is welcomed by the self-appointed champions of science – if and only if it results in an outcome they favor. If they suspect it doesn’t, then the dialogue and discussion is over.

Why, it’s almost as if science was never really the concern to begin with.

I was going to make a comment but I can't because I've been banned. Apparently the people at Uncommon Descent have decided that my views are unacceptable. I also can't make any comments over on Evolution News & Views because they don't allow comments.

That's what hypocrisy looks like.

---

Conspiracy Theories

 

There are kooks everywhere. Some people believe they have been abducted by UFOs and others believe that the moon landings never happened. There are many who believe that the 9/11 tragedy was a conspiracy of the United states government.

One thing that all kooks have in common is their ability to completely detach themselves from reality. Wanna see a good example?

David Klinghoffer posts on the Intelligent Design Creationist website Evolution News & Views. His latest display of kookdom is to try and link evolutionary biology with 9/11 truthers [Darwinism and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The Parallels].

I hope the Discovery Institute has a full-time psychologist on their staff.

With the approaching 9/11 anniversary, Slate has been running a series tracing the rise and ongoing evolution of 9/11 Truth theories that try to show how the attacks 10 years ago were really an inside job. According to this thinking, 9/11 was no attack by Islamic terrorists. Rather, the towers were detonated by an expertly covered-up collusion among Zionists and U.S. government operatives. You might have expected these notions would, if entertained at all, be dispelled by the exhaustive debunking job that Popular Mechanics did with its 5,500-word article on the subject back in 2005. Not so, as those who take an interest in conspiracy culture know well.

What I found striking about the first installment in the Slate series, by Jeremy Stahl, is the parallels with what we know about the thought and writings of Evolution Truth activists: our ever-loving friends in the Darwin Lobby. You may recall the news of a few months back that Glenn Branch, deputy director of the Darwin-lobbying National Center for Science Education, had collaborated with 9/11 Truth conspiracist James H. Fetzer in editing a special number of the journal Synthese on "Evolution and Its Rivals." That issue of the journal became so notorious for the incivility of its contributions that a whole fracas broke out and made the pages of the New York Times.

It may have seemed just a delicious coincidence at the time to find Branch and Fetzer teaming up so comfortably. Yet consider the features of 9/11-style paranoid thinking and some similarities to its evolutionary counterpart ...

---

Berlinski Quotes

 
In the comments section of Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!, glennd points us to An Interview with David Berlinski on an Intelligent Design Creationist website. (Incidentally, the commenters on that thread do a good job of proving that Berlinski isn't a mathematician.

Here's are some of the eye-popping views of this "famous" mathematician "philosopher" ...

The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background – computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs, with even the names – Sir Toejam, The Reverend Lenny Flank – suggesting nothing so much as a group of guys spending a great deal of time hanging around their basements running video games, eating pizzas, and jeering at various leggy but inaccessible young women.

Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.

And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It’s not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.

But Dawkins …

DB: An interesting case, very louche – fascinating and repellant. Fascinating because like Noam Chomsky he has the strange power effortlessly to command attention. Just possibly both men are descended from a line of simian carnival barkers, great apes who adventitiously found employment at a circus. I really should look at this more closely. Repellent because Dawkins is that depressingly familiar figure – the intellectual fanatic. What is it that he has said? “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”. Substitute ‘Allah’ for ‘evolution,’ and these words might have been uttered by some fanatical Mullah just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping. If he ever gets tired of Oxford, Dawkins could probably find a home at Finsbury Park.

It is a matter of attitude and sentiment, Look, for thousands of intellectuals, becoming a Marxist was an experience of disturbing intensity. The decision having been made, the world became simpler, brighter, cleaner, clearer. A number of contemporary intellectuals react in the same way when it comes to the Old Boy – Darwin, I mean. Having renounced Freud and all his wiles, the literary critic Frederick Crews – a man of some taste and sophistication – has recently reported seeing in random variations and natural selection the same light he once saw in castration anxiety or penis envy. He has accordingly immersed himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm. Every now and then he contributes an essay to The New York Review of Books revealing that his ignorance of any conceivable scientific issue has not been an impediment to his satisfaction.

Another example – I’ve got hundreds. Daniel Dennett has in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea written about natural selection as the single greatest idea in human intellectual history. Anyone reading Dennett understands, of course, that his acquaintance with great ideas has been remarkably fastidious. Mais, je divague …

In the case of both Crews and Dennett, it’s that God-awful eagerness to explain everything that is the give-away. The eagerness is entirely academic or even literary. But, you know, what sociologists call prole-drift is present even in a world without proles. Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say. Were smart scientists to say that a form of yeast is intermediate between the great apes and human beings, Hitchens would, no doubt, conceive an increased respect for yeast. But that’s a journalist for you: all zeal and no content. No, no, not you, of course. You’re not like the others.

The problem with Berlinski is that he's a fuzzy-headed idiot on some things but on others he hits a little too close to the mark for my comfort level. He's the Christopher Hitchens of the Intellligent Design movement.

---

[Photo Credit: Turkey's First ID Conference, March 2007]

Are All IDiots Irony Deficient?

As I'm sure you can imagine, the Intelligent Design Creationists are delighted with the ENCODE publicity. This is a case where some expert scientists support one of their pet beliefs; namely, that there's no such thing as junk DNA. The IDiots tend not to talk about other expert evolutionary biologists who disagree with them—those experts are biased Darwinists or are part of a vast conspiracy to mislead the public.

You might think that distinguishing between these two types of expert scientists would be a real challenge and you would be right. Let's watch how David Klinghoffer manoeuvres through this logical minefield at: ENCODE Results Separate Science Advocates from Propagandists. He begins with ....

"I must say," observes an email correspondent of ours, who is also a biologist, "I'm getting a kick out of watching evolutionary biologists attack molecular biologists for 'hyping' the ENCODE results."

True, and equally enjoyable -- in the sense of confirming something you strongly suspected already -- is seeing the way the ENCODE news has drawn a bright line between voices in the science world that care about science and those that are more focussed on the politics of science, even as they profess otherwise.

The quality of the modern scientific literature leaves much to be desired

Lately I've been reading a lot of papers on genomes and I've discovered some really exceptional papers that discuss the existing scientific literature and put their studies in proper context. Unfortunately, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

I've discovered many more authors who seem to be ignorant of the scientific literature and far too willing to rely of the opinions of others instead of investigating for themselves. Many of these authors seem to be completely unaware of controversy and debate in the fields they are writing about. They act, and write, as if there was only one point of view worth considering, theirs.

How does this happen? It seems to me that it can only happen if they find themselves in an environment where skepticism and critical thinking are suppressed. Otherwise, how do you explain the way they write their papers? Are there no colleagues, post-docs, or graduate students who looked at the manuscript and pointed out the problems? Are there no referees who raised questions?

Why Do the IDiots Have So Much Trouble Understanding Introns?

Most eukaryotic genes have introns. Introns make up about 18% of the DNA sequences in our genome. Most of these sequences are junk but introns are functional and up to 80bp of each intron is required for proper splicing. The essential sequences contain the 5′ splice site (~10 bp); the 3′ splice site (~30 bp): the branch site (~10 bp); and enough additional RNA to form a loop (~30 bp). The branch site and the splice sites are where specific proteins bind to the mRNA precursor [Junk in Your Genome: Protein-Encoding Genes]. It turns out that within introns about 0.37% of the genome is essential and about 17% is junk.