Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth

Science, Vol 304, Issue 5673, 981 , 14 May 2004

Recombination of Human Mitochondrial DNA


Summary from "Science Now: Mary Beckman,May 14, 2004


"Mitochondrial Eve," the hypothetical mother of all modern humans who lived about 150,000 years ago, might be lying about her age. A key assumption in determining how long ago she lived--that molecules of mitochondrial DNA do not swap segments with one another--is false, researchers now say. Their findings call into question a multitude of findings in evolution, early human migration, and even the relations between languages.
Researchers have long counted on the stability of DNA in mitochondria--cells' energy-producing factories--to measure the time between events in the distant past. Unlike the DNA in chromosomes, which are a mix of maternal and paternal genes, mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly from mom. Moreover, mitochondrial DNA molecules were not thought to swap sequences of DNA with one another. (Chromosomes, in contrast, routinely do this, creating novel assortments of genes in each new generation.)

The only changes to mitochondrial DNA, therefore, seemed to be spontaneous mutations. And because mutations pile up at a predictable rate, the number of mitochondrial DNA differences between, say, a modern human and an ancestor can be used to calculate how long ago the two groups diverged. Or so scientists thought.

Several years ago, however, researchers made an unusual discovery: a man who had inherited some mitochondrial DNA from his father, as well as his mother. In the current study, Konstantin Khrapko of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues took advantage of the rare glitch to test the assumption that mitochondrial DNA doesn't recombine. The research team members sequenced the man's mitochondrial DNA and compared it to some from his parents. They found stretches of paternal DNA mixed in with stretches of maternal DNA.

Additional experiments showed that this recombination happened when enzymes that copy mitochondrial DNA stopped copying mom's DNA, jumped to dad's DNA, and began copying from the same site--and vice versa--the team reports in the 14 May issue of Science.

"The data are quite convincing," says molecular biologist R. Sanders Williams of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "The implications are that this is going on all the time in our cells." Mitochondrial DNA's history "is clearly not as clean as people had thought. Or people had wished," says molecular biologist Eric Shron of Columbia University in New York City. As yet, it's not known how recombination changes mitochondrial DNA, says Shron, so it's too early to say whether the molecular clock has been running fast or slow.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the laughably misleading press release put out by DI?

But, has anyone else noticed? The news media are not carrying the press releases from Discovery Institute. They're getting zero mileage from their publicity dollar.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the laughably misleading press release put out by DI?

Well, Charlie, have you considered starting your own weblog? You've got a site. The software is free (look for WordPress or pMachine, for instance). You can blather away. I'd probably even link to you now and then, if for no other reason than to criticize.

But this supports the scientists' position all along. Scientists don't deny that they subject evolutionary theories to experimental scrutiny. This news item is an evidence that evolutionary theories are not believed dogmatically, as the anti-evolutionaries claim, but they are subject to scientific inquiry by scientists themselves.

News Flash! Scientists potentialy revise their position based on new data! In a related story, bears are said to poop in the woods.

IIRC only rarely do children inherit their father's mitochondria and when they do it often leads to health problems which would seem to limit the effect this would have on the Eve estimation.

Do y'all mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why all the hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd?

On the one hand, I've read Dawkins and Gould (good books, informative, some problems, some doubts, Dawkins is a bit coarse, though)

On the other hand, I've read Dembski and Behe (good books, informative, some problems, some doubts, perhaps a few flaws, perhaps a lack of falsifiability).

But, what's the big deal? Maybe, the ID is wrong. So what? It's not the first time a theory is tested and fails.

I guess I just don't see the need for all the teeth-gnashing.

Navy Davy, Behe& Dembski's books are not informative. They put up a false front of having something to say, and use impressive sounding words to fool the layman. They are disinformation, and part of a massive disinformation campaign. You can read _Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_ by Forrest & Gross
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195157427/

for extensive documentation, and of course ask briefer questions here.

Whether ID is true or not would not be an issue if advocates of ID were scientists attempting to distribute their work through scientific channels. That is not the case. Instead, the advocates of ID are first and foremost members of the Christian religious right, and they are not seeking to convince the scientific community of the merits of their work - in fact, they're doing an end-run around that entire process and instead trying to get their ideas taught in public school classrooms before they have gained any scientific acceptance. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a political movement attempting to undermine the quality of science education in American public schools.

the advocates of ID are first and foremost members of the Christian religious right,

But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support.

I'd like to know exactly what this benchmark the DI is quoting says, and whether the ellipses hide any significant information. And what was the intent behind the benchmark? I suspect that it was to understand examples such as the replacement of Newtonian by Einsteinian theories, rather than to encourage ID incursions into the biology curriculum.

Students will be able to explain how scientific innovations and new evidence can challenge accepted theories and models, including cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease, Big Bang theory.

Do y'all mind if I ask a stupid question? Why all the hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd?

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Instead, such hostility appears to derive from a prior philosophical or quasi-religious commitment-the religion being that of materialism.

— FL

Name one such "mechanism of evolution" Charlie for which "no empirical support" exists.

Oops. I misread the directions on the poll and voted the opposite of what I believe. The arguements against evolution are unsound and should not be taught.

ID is simply another attempt to teach a particular religion in the public schools. If they want to do that, they should include, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and the various Native American creation stories. And maybe Mithra (which the Christian church absorbed a lot of) and Zoroastrian.

Interesting comments, boys. A few observations.

Pete Dunkelberg says that Behe's book was "not informative." Au contraire. He is a biochemist. He knows the intricacies of DNA and immune system exceedingly well. He may NOT be correct with his thesis. (Immune system too complex to have randomly evolved). But, his book was certainly informative.

My man, FL. We need more scientists like you (Sadly, I ain't one -- Just a humble attorney, specializing in cancer cases.) Good references and comments, I'll check them out.

One ironic problem: Someome says, "gene mutation." I don't hear "engine of biological evolution." I hear, "metastatic tumor!"

I guess I'm a confused layman -- I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, but I ain't sure where the lines of demarcation lay.

Anyway, y'all gotta nice blog, here. Much obliged.

PZ, the first link in your post is broken.

Fixed.

Pete Dunkelberg says that Behe's book was "not informative." Au contraire. He is a biochemist. He knows the intricacies of DNA and immune system exceedingly well. He may NOT be correct with his thesis. (Immune system too complex to have randomly evolved). But, his book was certainly informative.

One ironic problem: Someome says, "gene mutation." I don't hear "engine of biological evolution." I hear, "metastatic tumor!"

Pete,

If he led you to believe that the immune system could not have evolved for whatever (scientific) reason, that's disinformation. He was similarly disinformative about other protein systems.

I have formed no such belief. I think people form conclusions about X,Y & Z far too hastily. I said Behe's book was informative -- not that I agreed with his thesis. (BTW, Dawkins's book "The Selfish Gene" was quite informative, too.)

If he led you to think that there is some level of complexity (however defined) that identifies things as not natural, that's disinformation. If he led you to believe that his 'irreducible complexity' has something to do with evolution, that's disinformation.

Right, Paley's error. We do not necessarily infer design from complexity. Fully agree. But see above -- no such belief formed.

As someone who has absolutely no stake, financial, professional, emotional or otherwise, in the debate between Evolution v. ID, may I say something that seems basic?

Theories aren't "bad." Theories are either testable or not. If not testable, then "go home" because it ain't a valid theory. If testable, then the theory is either proven true or proven false. Period.

High octane clashes between differing political theories? Not surprising.

High octane clashes between differing religious theories? Not surprising.

High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them -- without all the teeth-gnashing.

And, if ID is not testable or proven false, I would lose not a wink of sleep.

Cheers.

Theories aren't "bad." Theories are either testable or not. If not testable, then "go home" because it ain't a valid theory. If testable, then the theory is either proven true or proven false. Period.

High octane clashes between differing political theories? Not surprising. High octane clashes between differing religious theories? Not surprising. High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them --- without all the teeth-gnashing.

High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them

Now that's not to say that evolutionists aren't committed to science, mind you. But? But the "hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd" that you've correctly noticed, well, that ~ain't~ science. Instead, such hostility appears to derive from a prior philosophical or quasi-religious commitment?the religion being that of materialism.

One ironic problem: Someome says, "gene mutation." I don't hear "engine of biological evolution." I hear, "metastatic tumor!"

I do not know where to post this. Best thought it would fit here.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/22/stories/2004052201691000.htm

There's an interesting article in "The Hindu" by Meera Nanda calling for a rejection of any attempts to rationalise Hindu beliefs through the principles of modern sciences. It is a good agenda for freeing science from any need to follow the contours of faith, even if it is not a very accurate of what has happened.

I do not entirely agree with the author (for what i think are errors of interpretation) but generally believe this is where science needs to be headed.

Science and scientists should be allowed to work without any regard for the religious sensibilities whatsoever. If a scientist is teaching me something that goes against my religious beliefs - tough luck - grin and bear it. But that is not equal to propogating the "faith of materialism" or the "a Godless creed" or any such hooey. I wish scientists wouldn't pussyfoot around trying to be nice saying "MN is not equal to PN'. My desired mid-point in rolling back the boundary of faith, is an acceptance that it is an unverified-capable of being harmless-belief. Only PN can achieve that and scientists must be doing more of it.

My proposed solution: 1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory; 2. ID be treated as the minority theory; 3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable; 4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both; 5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false; 6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;

As a mother in an ID'd state, I must say I am very angry that people do not realize the danger imposed by ID proponents:namely putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes. If we want to teach religion as science, we may as well say Thor causes lightning, and leave it at that. I will be one of those parents filing a suit against the Ohio Board of education for violating church/state lines... I am not a scientist, just a simple cashier. This is MY children's future, their ability to get a college education, that these religious persons are trying to destroy. Science is the backbone of modern American society... it gave us the world we have today. The anti-intellectual bent of today's society is so profound, our president barely speaks English. Until knowledge is put back as the goal of education, rather than indoctrination, we will always be having this argument. Let's save the brainwashing for where it belongs, in the home.

Hey Charlie,
What was the point of that little ditty way back on 19 May at 06:49? It sure wasn't an answer to Sadeyed Lady's question.

In the first place, FL, what makes you so sure that ID threatens materialism?

They (ID advocates)do hold out hope that God may intervene in the history of life in unexplainable ways, at unpredictable times, for unknowable reasons. Well, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine with me. But then don't call it science, and don't demand it be taught in public school classrooms.

As a mother in an ID'd state, I must say I am very angry that people do not realize the danger imposed by ID proponents:namely putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes.

What makes ID 'religion' is both the motivation, the failure of ID as a scientifically relevant hypothesis and the continued efforts to get ID into school curricula, often under the disguise of scientific disagreement.

The Wedge and its goals are quite well documented. That ID perse does not have to be religious may be arguably true but the efforts to insulate itself from its creator(s) also has made it meaningless.

ID's attempts to divorce its design and designer are to be expected but its failure as a scientific endeavor combined with its stated goals and recent activities indicate that for all practical purposes it IS religious. It surely is NOT scientific.

If they said "teach ID" they would have to say what, exactly, it is.

So, let's throw it back to the ID advocates: what specific tests would confirm or falsify intelligent design? As soon as they answer this question, we can begin.

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information. ("A Note to Teachers", in "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis, 2d ed, pg. 160.)

What makes ID 'religion' is both the motivation, the failure of ID as a scientifically relevant hypothesis and the continued efforts to get ID into school curricula, often under the disguise of scientific disagreement.

You try to soft-pedal his statements by claiming he?s employing ?hyperbole?, but I see no actual evidence (in terms of specific words or phrases) within either his quotation nor within his entire ?Billions? article from whence the quotation came, that he meant anything other than what he plainly, literally said in this instance.

Anything that points to origins of Earth life and/or its biodiversity OTHER THAN materialist causes, is disallowed in his view, because of what he, (not ?me?, but ?he?) plainly declared was a ~prior~ commitment to the philosophy (not science, but philosophy) of materialism.

There seems to be no way to damage-control or soft-pedal Lewontin?s specific statements. Therefore since an Intelligent Designer ~~could possibly be~~ a supernatural agent, a ?Divine Foot? (the ID hypothesis neither specifies nor rules out such an option, as your own paragraph clearly suggested), then it should be easy enough to infer that ID poses a threat to materialism.

Something else: You state that an ID-based explanation for life could be ?thoroughly materialistic? or even ?Raelian?, but then you say ?ID is, after all, ~nothing but~ the old Judeo-Christian creationism dressed up in some new jargon?. You?re not trying to have it both ways, are you? If your first claim is true, the second is not necessarily true. If your second claim is true, then ID obviously could pose a threat to materialism as per Lewontin?s statement, because of the general public perception of God as the claimed Creator/Designer of humanity.

You also said, They (ID advocates)do hold out hope that God may intervene in the history of life in unexplainable ways, at unpredictable times, for unknowable reasons. Well, if that?s what you want to believe, that?s fine with me. But then don?t call it science, and don?t demand it be taught in public school classrooms. You?ll have to show me, Adam, where ID advocates are claiming that the above stated beliefs are ?science?

and also please show me where they are demanding that such beliefs as you stated, be taught in public school classrooms.

Now you may disagree with said hypothesis, Adam, in fact that is to be expected. But I?d appreciate it if you would specifically show me how this 3-point ID hypothesis constitutes ?religion?.

Would you please show me, Tricia, how ID advocates are putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes? (Oh, and btw, merely offering quotes from Dembski?s personal faith or personal theological views won?t be sufficient. We don?t say, for example, that teaching evolution in public school is necessarily equivalent to teaching atheism in public school, merely because evolutionists R. Dawkins and S. Weinberg openly posit evolution as justification for their personal atheism.)

May I offer the following from philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer and educational psychologist Mark Hartwig as a starting point? I think it?s relevant especially to the issue of ID as an explanatory scientific hypothesis for the origin of life: "The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information."

To digress for a second, evolutionists should never have waited for non-evolutionists to blow the whistle on less-than-accurate pro-evolution biology textbooks. But, too late now! Oh well!

FL: First, influential evolutionist philosopher Michael Ruse specifically stated at the 1981 McClean vs Arkansas creationism trial, that the motivation of those proposing a particular hypothesis has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis is scientific

And if you have read my response it would be obvious that I am not saying that motivation is a sufficient reason to reject something as scientific. What I am saying is that religious motivation may help understand why people are still promoting ID as an (alternative) scientific explanation when ID has failed miserably as a science.

FL: If you want to show that ID is "religion" instead of "science", you'll have to offer something OTHER THAN the personal motivations or religious beliefs of the ID advocates. Or else you must show specifically ~why~ evolutionist Michael Ruse is wrong.

Which is why I offered the fact that ID is scientifically irrelevant, meaningless and has been shown to be based on fallacious assumptions and arguments.

FL: Second, in the specific arena of origin-of-life, intelligent design has NOT been shown to have been a "failure as a scientifically relevant hypothesis" vis-a-vis competing hypotheses already considered scientifically relevant enough to publish in college level evolution texts.

Since ID is not about scientific competing hypotheses this statement seems self evident. But since ID fails to provide for relevant competing hypotheses it should be rejected as a scientific argument.

There is just no (3 point) ID hypothesis that is scientifically relevant.

FL: digress for a second, evolutionists should never have waited for non-evolutionists to blow the whistle on less-than-accurate pro-evolution biology textbooks. But, too late now! Oh well!)

Your claims that 1) non-evolutionists blew the whistle 2) pro-evolution text books are less than accurate 3) evolutionists did not point out these problems would require some supporting evidence. Wells' book 'Icons' is just poor science. Haeckel was pointed out by Richardson and others much earlier than Wells. The peppered moth is a myth created by IDers who seem to not understand what was and was not done.

FL: Okay, that covers the three issues you mentioned there. In none of the three cases, has the ID hypothesis been shown to be a "religion."

Motivation is clearly exposed as religious, insistance on teaching ID as an alternative is clearly religious. Combine this with ID's failure to be scientifically relevant and one may understand why despite it's failures to be scientifically relevant ID is still being promoted.

According to Pete, If they said "teach ID" they would have to say what, exactly, it is.

Which they already 'exactly' have done, of course. To repeat: 1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity. (William Dembski, "Intelligent Design", c1999 Intervarsity Press, p. 247).

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information. ("A Note to Teachers", in "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis, 2d ed, pg. 160.)

The debate is absolutely crucial for the future of Western Civilization -- indeed, of world civilization. It will determine whether Western Civ. heads more deeply back into paganism, or whether the Biblical worldview, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will recapture Western Civ. and the rest of the world. Creation ex nihilo and some form of evolution are the only two choices we have for explaining the nature of things in the cosmos.

Some of us are involved in the evolution debate by virtue of assisting the recovery of persons battered and broken by a world built on a Darwinian worldview. Evil was around long before Darwinianism, but his supposed scientific undergirding of what is essentially the world of the Fall (independence from God) has unleashed unbelievable tragedy among us. There is no way on earth I will ever be "neutral" about evolution as an explanation of origins. But, I can (and will) be objective.

You cannot evaluate the supernatural because by definition it avoids experimental scrutiny. 

The "hostility" towards "intelligent design" is not based in religion; it is based on the fact that the scientific community does not like pseudo-science and crackpottery messing with education.  

I say they are Christian fundamentalists because all their evidence against science comes from the Bible. All the "evidence" against evolution comes from ONE fundamentalist organization... given that the most overtly religious websites were stricken from the standards, the sources for the "acceptable" websites, still list the extreme ones... Thus they get their brainwashing in anyway. They are fundamentalist Christian, because they ARE fundamentalist Christian.

Faced with the undeniable fossil evidence that evolution is not a graduated process but that species emerge intact and virtually instantly (Stephen Gould et al) all a darwinian feels obliged to do to explain what is going on is provide a new name for the observation. "Punctuated equilibriium", "hopeful monsters", "quantum speciation".

Reed, tell me what causes punk eek, etc and then we will have a theory.

Jack: Faced with the undeniable fossil evidence that evolution is not a graduated process but that species emerge intact and virtually instantly (Stephen Gould et al) all a darwinian feels obliged to do to explain what is going on is provide a new name for the observation. "Punctuated equilibriium", "hopeful monsters", "quantum speciation".

Seems that Jack is unfamiliar with the actual evidence which shows both gradual changes as well as rapid changes. Punctuated equilibrium is a Darwinian explanation to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

If you reject Darwinism as a belief system how come that you seem to be quite unfamiliar with its claims and the evidence?

Examples of gradual series

[irl=http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html]A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina, a foram

A Pliocene Snail

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Eocoelia, a "lamp shell"

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

A Smooth Fossil Transition: single celled Radiolarian

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera

And for educational sakes, some links on PunkEek, especially dealing with the common confusions

Punctuated Equilibria

Well Jack?

this site explains nothing. This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy. I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people bitching about politics and other bureaucratic BS. Don't advertise that you have information if you don't. It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes.
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

this site explains nothing. This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy. I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people bitching about politics and other bureaucratic BS. Don't advertise that you have information if you don't. It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes.
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

this site explains nothing. This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy. I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS. Don't advertise that you have information if you don't. It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes.
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

this site explains nothing. This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy. I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS. Don't advertise that you have information if you don't. It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes. And your comments are censored, what a joke.
Erik- HS dual enrollment student.

this site explains nothing. This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy. I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS. Don't advertise that you have information if you don't. It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes. And your comments are censored, what a joke.
Erik- HS dual enrollment student.

A conspiracy? Don't be silly. This is a site where we discuss miscellaneous aspects of current issues in creation/evolution. If you want general information on the overall topic of evolution, I recommend the talk.origins archive.

evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS

Pete Dunkelberg,

Sorry for not responding sooner. I got lost on another thread. BTW, you're a fair-minded fellow.

You ask:

Davy, is this beginning to sink in? To recap, the scientific jury on ID is in, and ID is guilty of scientific vacuity and theological intent as charged.

Before I answer, a few minor points:

1. The great Albert Einstein once said, "The most important thing is to never stop asking questions."

There is no exemption. Per Einstein, I'm gonna ask questions about both ID and evolution.

2. One of my favorite books is "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by T. Kuhn.

Kuhn says scientific theories are based on paradigms. Facts that don't quite fit the paradigm are often ignored. Theories that challenge the paradigm are often quashed by the majority. Scientists who challenge the paradigm are often derided and/or ostracized.

Then, suddenly, abruptly, the paradigm shifts, like some big ice-berg in the arctic ocean-- what was once the ascendant, dominant theory is discarded into the dustbin of medical history.

Kuhn says that the tragedy of Galileo is repeated over and over and over and over again --by seemingly intelligent scientists, even some of the world's best.

To avoid this problem, I have a simple 2-part rule: No theory is discarded or ignored, No theory is accepted willy-nilly. Both must be scrutinized, tested, and hammered intensively, before any conclusion is reached. That keeps me safe, that keeps me sane, that keeps me fresh.

So, to answer your question, Yes, it's starting to sink in that: (a) Most scientists believe in Evolution, (b) Few scientists believe in ID, and (c) there is great rancor between groups (a) & (b).

Myself, though, I would like the best of both groups to engage and debate, rather than talk over each other. Hence, my proposal:

1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;

Even if this has been done before, there's no harm in doing it again.

And, if ID is not a testable theory, then it really should just melt away.

Good post, though, Pete.

Cheers, Navy Davy

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

2. One of my favorite books is "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by T. Kuhn.

So, to answer your question, Yes, it's starting to sink in that: (a) Most scientists believe in Evolution, (b) Few scientists believe in ID, and (c) there is great rancor between groups (a) & (b).

"To illustrate how poorly we grasp this central point of time's immensity, the reporter for _Science_ magazine called me when my 'Cerion' article, coauthored with Glen Goodfriend, appeared. He wanted to write an accompanying news story about how I had found an exception to my own theory of punctuated equilibrium - an insensibly gradual change over 10,000 to 20,000 years. I told him that, although exceptions abound, this case does not lie among them but actually represents a strong confirmation of punctuated equilibrium. We had all 20,000 years' worth of snails on a single mudflat - that is, on what would become a single bedding plane in the geological record. Our entire transition occurred in a geological moment and represented a punctuation, not a gradual sequence, of fossils. We were able to 'dissect' the punctuation in this unusual case - hence the value of our publication - because we could determine ages for the individual shells. The reporter, to his credit, completely revised his originally intended theme and published an excellent account."

Model making is extremely important in science as it exists today, although not the only thing. But model making tends to get people carried away as applied without sound research, gives rise to poorly founded but attractive, cute and simplistic matrices, yin-yangs, dichotomies and that overused, clichetic, abused and rundown word - PARADIGM. Yes revolutions do happen in societies. In the sciences? The way science is done today is so different with so many layers of verification and so many devices and systems for quality control that only radical observations like the Cambrian Rabbit can "overthrow" "Paradigms". for all the money and impressive lists ID/Creationism can throw at science little happens as the former still doesn't get it. It is not fighting a few scientists here and there (despite trotting out their quotes now and then). It is trying to run down a highly evolved method of inquiry that has over the last 100 years gone beyond the limitations imposed by belief and politics. Scientists of today have little use for William Bragg's exhortation to interpret differently rather than seek new facts (as can be found in the Prologue to the latest Pandas and People) as they would do so anyway whether they know him or not. Thomas Kuhn's time has come and gone - more interesting things are happening today. The IDists unfortunately subscribe to a very narrow version of their faith and are unaware (and unwilling to examine) of how their own beliefs came to be established - not by revolution but thru gradual processes.

If Navy Davy thinks Thomas Kuhn is going to pull ID out of the hole it has sunk into - good luck.

Ed Darrell,

Then you know what Kuhn says about evolution being the revolutionary new, workable theory, and creationism/design being the old, on-the-way-out idea, right?

Certainly sounds like Kuhn. Though, I'm not sure about your lumping together "creationism" and "design" together. Wasn't Kuhn dead, before ID came around? But, if not, would love to see what Kuhn says/said about ID.

Do you accept Kuhn's view on evolution, or are you just dropping names?

I'm only dropping names:) Have you heard of this fellow, Pasteur? French fellow who came up with the idea that Heat (of all things) actually kills bacteria. Wow, what a Kuhnian revolution! I once hired him as an expert in a class-action against the National Dairy Association..........

Cheers,

Navy Davy

And, if ID is not a testable theory, then it really should just melt away.

This doesn't explain anything. It just reformulates the question. "Differential success" is just another way of saying "rapid, inexplicable emergence".

What produces the "differential success" in such a short span of time? It could be either propulsive intelligent forces inherent, immanent in matter or it could be random mutations combined with natural selection. The simpler, more elegant solution is the former and would seem to be supported by the pattern similarities which are present in all living systems. Nature as blossoming, not as accident.

Adam Marczyk,

I agree with you wholeheartedly that ID should be put to the test, and if it doesn't rise to the challenge, it should be discarded.

Well, that's what I'm fixin' to do -- on a micro scale. A simple, civil, orderly debate between someone from the ID crowd and someone from the evolution crowd.

They seem to have no interest in subjecting their proposals to scientific test.

Well, let's change that! Let's get the best, most credentialed advocate of ID to go up against the best, most credentialed advocate of evolution. I'm thinking JDB v. AM.

I think it would be fair to say that the view of most posters on this weblog is that ID will be treated like science when it starts to act like science.

Well, I hope your right! Let's get the ID crowd to start acting like scientists. I fully agree. However, there needs to be some self-policing by the evolutionary crowd. I've noticed a lotta scientific clock-punchin' on this side, too.

Is there anything wrong with asking tough questions about evolution theory? Hell, Dawkins and Gould had differences, and they're on the same side!

But its defenders are the ones who have to take the first step towards that.

Well, I'm not a defender, but I agree that they have to take the first step. Myself, I have no dog in this fight. But I would like to see direct engagement -- not carping from the sidelines.

(To that end, Adam, would you e-mail me -- for some reason I can't get thru (mechanically, not philosophically) to you.)

As always, I enjoy your insightful, cogent comments, Marczyk.

Cheers, Navy Davy

Let's get the best, most credentialed advocate of ID to go up against the best, most credentialed advocate of evolution.

Whistle Blower,

I believe that a thread not having your gnat-like comments, would be even better.

I believe that a thread not having your gnat-like comments, would be even better.

Navy Davy, do you believe that a non-scientist or scientist would be a better moderator for a scientific debate, and why?

I have no dog in this fight.

Pete,

Unscrutinized, your arguments sound good. But, I'm surprised you and others don't want to test those arguments against a qualified IDist in a civilized, open debate. It doesn't reflect too well on your side.

I found Behe's book informative. Maybe, I'll re-read it (its been a few years) to refresh my recollection of some of the points he makes.

Whistle Blower,

Call me when you get a job that pays $30,000 or a girlfriend -- whichever comes first:) How's that for clarity?

Cheers, y'all,

Navy Davy

Call me when you get a job that pays $30,000 or a girlfriend --- whichever comes first:) How's that for clarity?

Unscrutinized, your arguments sound good. But, I'm surprised you and others don't want to test those arguments against a qualified IDist in a civilized, open debate. It doesn't reflect too well on your side.

Davy, I have to agree with RBH on this. You may not know that there have been public fora for this debate for years, and the very few qualified intelligent design advocates have always refused to debate in such a forum. If they would, plenty of people would take them up on it, as they know. If you want to be surprised at someone not following your suggestion for an open debate, be surprised at them.

Why don't you encourage a debate here between Behe and Musgrave for example?
Behe has never responded to ICDMYST.
He is welcome to make his comments here, and not just post and run, but keep up his side.
The leaders of that pack carefully avoid this sort of public exposure. They have to protect their mystique.

Oh, and don't think my arguments are "unscrutinized". The IDologists are doing that. If they have no reply, that's not the reason.

And as RBH also indicates, going around in circles with people who just keep repeating the same thing regardless of scientific reality has also been going on. It is not as if there were any lack of ID followers 'debating' by repetition. It's been done, believe me.

Pete

RBH,

You wrote:

You clearly don't know how science works.

1. Form a theory
2. Test it
3. Analyze the data
4. Draw a conclusion
5. Make prediction

Repeat often.

You folks talk a good game. But not much else.

Cheers, Navy Davy

I agree with Pete on this: the main ID "theorists" (Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson) avoid the kind of dialogs which would force htem to deal with specific points raised by their most knowledgeable opponents. For instance, Dembski has his own site, ISCID, but with few exceptions all he does there is post a paper and then go away. In fact, he has made it clear that he does this in order to find out what his critics have to say so he can make his papers better when he finally publishes them in one of his compendia of articles.

If the ID movement were really tring to do science (as evidenced by its advocates acting like scientists,) they would be willingly engaging in these types of discussions. However, they are actually involved in a PR campaign, and so they look for places where they can have an impact with potential supporters without exposing their work to a genuine scientific critique.

Good reply, Navy.

I'm well aware that all sides need to be careful with their rhetoric (especially in the heat of battle), but I think evolutionists in particular could score an extra couple PR points with the voting public, if some of them could just learn to stop talking down to people.

FL

Differential reproductive success is another way of saying natural selection (as can be seen from the quote I cited, Gould in particular argued that natural selection operated on the species level as well as on the level of individual organisms;

Seems that Jack is unfamiliar with the actual evidence which shows both gradual changes as well as rapid changes. Punctuated equilibrium is a Darwinian explanation to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

Can science investigate the supernatural? Or Who's afraid of Devine feet? The fact is that science follows the evidence. Science has investigated whether prayer 'works', that is can you ask God for a favor and get it? Wasn't there a song about that? What you can't do scientifically is jump to the conclusion that the Designer or the Devil did it. If you pour one colorless solution into another and the result is a red solution, you can't just say "The Devil did it" and publish a scientific paper. In ID on the other hand, if the cause of something is unknown, you can then prove it is 'improbable' by saying the the probability is one out of all the possible combinations of the particles involved, make up a 'specification', and say the Designer did it.