Hitchens : Luskin :: Lion : Mouse

Posted 28 July 2008 by PZ Myers

Christopher Hitchens was impressed by the existence of blind cave organisms, and wrote that they argue against a linear progression in evolution. He's quite right; creationism doesn't explain why their god tossed in to salamanders and fish a collection of complex developmental mechanisms that the animals simply throw away and do not use. Evolution does — descent from a sighted ancestor explains how blind cave animals can still possess the machinery for a lost organ.

Do you think the Discovery Institute would let this challenge pass by? Of course not. They put their top man on the job, so Casey Luskin wrote a rebuttal. After a long weekend and before a busy day of work, it always makes me happy to find a new Luskin screed — they're so dang easy to shred. Here's his devastating critique:

Hitchens, Dawkins and Carroll can have all the evidence they want that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can mess things up, turn genes off, and cause "loss-of-function." No one on any side of this debate doubts that random mutations are quite good at destroying complex features. Us folks on the ID side suspect that random mutation and natural selection aren’t good at doing very much more than that. And the constant citations by Darwinists of "loss of function" examples as alleged refutations of ID only strengthens our argument.

The claim that evolution can't create new features is one of the oldest and most tired fables in the creationist playbook — note that that link cites the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and Henry Morris. It's false. In this case, their superficial knowledge also trips them up. The loss of eyes seems like a clear-cut case of degeneration…but when you look deeper, it's not.

The best studied case is the comparison of blind and sighted forms of Astyanax, a fish that has species that live in surface waters and have eyes, and others that live in caves and have lost them.

The Jeffery lab has worked out the molecular details of eye loss, and it isn't as simple as messing things up, turning genes off, and causing loss-of-function mutations. To the contrary, all the genes for eyes are there and functional in the blind species. Simply transplanting small bits of organizing tissue from species with eyes to embryos of the blind forms can recruit host tissue to build a complete functional eye — that tells you the genes are still there. A comparison of gene expression patterns between the two also reveals that the blind species actually upregulates a majority of its developmental genes. Contrary to what Luskin claims, this is a positive change in development, not a loss, but an active suppression of eye expression.

What's actually going on is that there is an increased expression of a gene called Sonic hedgehog, which causes an expansion of jaw tissue, including both the bones of the jaw and the array of sensory structures on the ventral surface — this is an adaptation that produces stronger jaws and more sensitive skin, what the fish finds useful when rooting about in the dark at the bottom of underground rivers to find food. The expansion of Shh has a side effect of inhibiting expression of another gene, Pax-6, which is the master regulator of eye development. Loss of eyes is a harmless (if you're living in the dark) consequence of selection for better tactile reception.

Pathetic, isn't it, how abysmally wrong Luskin can be? His conclusion is even sillier.

Meanwhile, ID proponents seek to explain a far more interesting aspect of biological history: the origin of new complex biological features. Despite his quotation of Michael Shermer on the evolution of the eye, Hitchens has yet to do that.

Actually, despite claiming that ID proponents are trying to explain the origin of biological features, Luskin hasn't used this opportunity to even try. He can't; "Designer did it" is not an explanation.

69 Comments

Draconiz · 28 July 2008

Thank you PZ ^_^

David Stanton · 28 July 2008

Even if Luskin were correct and this did represent nothing more that a degradation, it would still be indisputable evidence for common descent. The only way he can deal with that is to move the goal posts and demand that it be evidence for the origin of the vertebrate eye. Of course it never was that, but who cares about logic when there are people to fool?

Once again, the might Casey has struck out.

iml8 · 28 July 2008

Oh dear, picking on Casey Luskin, sigh, how tiresome. The only
way he's ever surprised me is from the fact that I've never
been able to underestimate him: No matter how dull I expect
his arguments to be, they are always duller than that. At
least Bill "The Joker" Dembski comes up with something
surprising every now and then -- if never in a good sort of
way.

Oh yes, Mr. Luskin, ID has the explanation for the origin of the
eye: "There is no explanation, give up trying to find one,
it just magically happened in some unexplained and unexplainable way." It's dull to even bother to complain
about this.

Casey Luskin: the Jethro Bodine of Darwin-Bashers.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Eric · 28 July 2008

With both the Hitchens' article and now with this new one I'm surprised no one has brought up Darwin's original observation about blind cave species. Paraphrasing; if species were designed then you'd expect that cave-dwelling species would be the same/related all over the world, because caves are similar environments and so demand similar designs. But cave-dwelling species on different continents aren't similar. On each continent you find species similar to the local species on the surface and unrelated to cave-dwelling species on other continents. This is exactly what you would expect from common descent - where species migrate locally into the caves - but makes no sense whatsoever under a model of intelligent, separate creation.

Frank B · 28 July 2008

Luskin Said: ID proponents seek to explain....

I am continually amazed at how often ID fellows will say the evidence is coming, or the research is coming, the explanation, the new ideas, the revolution. But once again they sit in their arm chairs and think up arguments against science. Luskin probably makes more than I do, so he has got a sweet deal fooling the rubes. I couldn't make a living lying to people, pathetic aren't I?

Samuel Huckins · 28 July 2008

What an amazing case! I had not seen the details of the development of these fish, and am all the more amazed. I too would have imagined it a mere "loss". Fortunately, there are intelligent people who go beyond such assumptions to find interesting scientific facts. If only individuals like Luskin also had productive research to point to, someone might pay them some attention.

watercat · 28 July 2008

Every time. They sneer down at some 'messed-ed up', 'defective', organism of 'mere biology', and when I look up how it works, I'm filled with a sense of awe and reverence that I never got in their churches.

John Kwok · 28 July 2008

Dear Eric, This is an excellent observation:

Eric said: With both the Hitchens' article and now with this new one I'm surprised no one has brought up Darwin's original observation about blind cave species. Paraphrasing; if species were designed then you'd expect that cave-dwelling species would be the same/related all over the world, because caves are similar environments and so demand similar designs. But cave-dwelling species on different continents aren't similar. On each continent you find species similar to the local species on the surface and unrelated to cave-dwelling species on other continents. This is exactly what you would expect from common descent - where species migrate locally into the caves - but makes no sense whatsoever under a model of intelligent, separate creation.

What Luskin and the rest of his pathetic band of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers forget is the importance of common descent (well, maybe Behe does acknowledge it in his own peculiar way), not "design" as the key factor that's relevant to the evolution of blind cave-dwelling species. Appreciatively yours, John

Rob · 28 July 2008

Vancomycin is an antibiotic that interferes with bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to a D-alanine/D-alanine sequence that must react to cross-link the peptidoglycan of the cell wall, thereby strengthening the cell wall. In the case of vancomycin resistance, the bacteria have a mutated gene that controls non-ribosomal peptide synthesis, and instead of inserting a D-alanine in its cell wall, the NEW gene (not a broken gene) now inserts a lactate in its place. The lactate can no longer form a key hydrogen bond with vancomycin because of the D-alanine to lactate change, and the bacteria becomes resistant to the drug. This is a perfect example of a gene mutating to introduce NEW INFORMATION into the genome of an organism, information that allows survival in the presence of vancomycin.

SteveF · 28 July 2008

PZ,

Funnily enough, Hopi Hoekstra and Jerry Coyne actually make a similar argument to Luskin. From the conclusion of their critique of evo-devo:

And, in contrast to the evidence for structural change, all three of the most widely cited cases have not yet produced definitive evidence that cis-regulation is involved. Moreover, these three cases focus on losses of traits rather than the origin of new traits, and in only one of the three (loss of pelvic structures in stickleback fish) is there a clear adaptive explanation for the trait loss.

http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/Hoekstra%20&%20Coyne%202007.pdf

Kevinv · 28 July 2008

"a gene called Sonic hedgehog"

Is that really the name of the gene, that's hilarious? Was it named for the Sonic the Hedgehog game, or was the game named for the gene?

skyotter · 28 July 2008

the gene was named for the video game character

Mike · 28 July 2008

There was actually a related gene named hedgehog due to something with the appearance of the fly, so the student had to name this one sonic hedgehog. Early 90's.

Frank J · 28 July 2008

What Luskin and the rest of his pathetic band of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers forget is the importance of common descent (well, maybe Behe does acknowledge it in his own peculiar way)…
— John Kwok

I know I’m in the minority on this, but I think that all the major DI folk, including the “token YEC” Paul Nelson, privately know that common descent is a “done deal.” IOW, even if some of them believe otherwise “on faith” (Omphalos creationists), they all know darn well that the evidence overwhelmingly supports CD, and a 3-4 billion year history of life. I think that Behe admitted common descent years ago because (1) he is (or was) less politically savvy than most other DI spin artists, and/or (2) as a biochemist he knew that to pretend otherwise is as absurd as defending a flat-earth. But the DI needs the support of rank and file YECs and OECs, so they either play dumb about CD or vaguely doubt it (or pretend to). Even Behe, much later, added the pathetic disclaimer that there are DI folk who apparently doubt CD but are more familiar with the relevant science than he is. Of course he mentioned no names. More importantly, when DI folk do vaguely argue against common descent, it’s always as a false dichotomy with design. And worse, they mine the literature for discussions of evolution for which a hasty read seems to agree with the false dichotomy. In reality, whether a designer is ultimately responsible or not has no bearing on whether the changes occurred in-vivo or required new origin-of-life events. There’s a strategic reason to play the bait-and-switch, though. That’s because there is a testable explanation – one that keeps passing the tests – for the in-vivo process, but none for an “in-vitro” alternative, though brave souls like Schwabe and Senapathy tried. And because most people do not understand that testable explanations are always incomplete (every confirmation adds another “gap”), whereas the increasingly vague non-explanations of ID are “complete” in the sense that they free the reader to infer whatever alternative he wants, oblivious to its “complete” lack of supporting evidence.

Ian · 28 July 2008

Whatever happened to Billy "The Kidder" Dembski? I used to see snippets about him all over science blogs and here at PT, but now we never hear of him.

Has he gone underground, died of embarrassment, or finally become as irrelevant as he was always threatening to do?

Wheels · 28 July 2008

iml8 said:Oh yes, Mr. Luskin, ID has the explanation for the origin of the eye: "There is no explanation, give up trying to find one, it just magically happened in some unexplained and unexplainable way." It's dull to even bother to complain about this.

Actually I think this is a much rarer form of anti-evolution criticism: a specific claim about an observed natural feature where it is said (by the anti-evolutionist) that it -IS- due to mutation, but that the mutation only caused a loss rather than creating a new feature, thus they're right and "evolutionists" are wrong. I'm assuming that the specific "blind cave fish" PZ's referring to is A. jordani rather than the blind form of the species A. mexicanus? If so, can this be considered another example of speciation in action?

iml8 · 28 July 2008

Wheels said: Actually I think this is a much rarer form of anti-evolution criticism ...

Yes, yes, but it led to a curious declaration at the end:

Meanwhile, ID proponents seek to explain a far more interesting aspect of biological history: the origin of new complex biological features. Despite his quotation of Michael Shermer on the evolution of the eye, Hitchens has yet to do that.

"Sha-ZAM! Gosh I'm holdin' my breath waitin' for the revelation." The really appalling thing about Luskin is not his total cluelessness. Such folk are not so rare. What is appalling is that the DI would even consider using him as even an informal spokesman, instead of disclaiming any connection with him. I was poking around on references to Larry Fafarman this weekend. Astounding as it seems, he makes Luskin look good, and the DI still doesn't try to distance themselves from him. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 28 July 2008

Re Bill "The Joker" Dembski:

Ian said: Has he gone underground, died of embarrassment, or finally become as irrelevant as he was always threatening to do?

They probably caught him and locked him up in Arkham Asylum again. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

william e emba · 28 July 2008

Off-topic breaking news:

Peter Enns is yet another theologian getting expelled. The Westminster Theological Seminary has accepted his resignation ahead of the 4-day ~~heresy trial~~ hearing they had scheduled. Google on the good professor's name, and try not to laugh too hard.

thisisfunny · 28 July 2008

But PZ, "the-designer(s)-did-it" is the right answer. Or did you think those eyes "poof" disappeared overnight. These little designers we call cells constantly design an redesign themselves by harnessing random variation and selection. You can say what you want, but the intelligence within cells outstrips even our best attempts at AI. :)

Yep, these little "designers-did-it"... But but but, who designed the designers?

Anyway, the histone code and riboswitches are bound to play an overwhelming role in transformations like these. Random variation and selection are going to take back seats as explanations imo. Just my 2c.

Henry J · 28 July 2008

But but but, who designed the designers?

Well, following your metaphor, that would be their ancestors. ;)

thisisfunny · 28 July 2008

Gee... no way, you must be kidding...

Those little ancestor designers also designed an redesign themselves by harnessing random variation and selection.

But but but who designed their ancestor "designers"...

Henry J · 28 July 2008

No no, they "designed" their descendants, not themselves.

Of course, that's really only the same sense in which people "design" their descendants - i.e., not really.

Probably a better way to put it would be to say that the genome designs its successor, since obviously the individual critters don't design anything.

Henry

steve s · 28 July 2008

Ian said: Whatever happened to Billy "The Kidder" Dembski? I used to see snippets about him all over science blogs and here at PT, but now we never hear of him. Has he gone underground, died of embarrassment, or finally become as irrelevant as he was always threatening to do?

He just sits around whining on his blog, Uncommon Descent, with his undereducated followers. He doesn't actually accomplish anything scientific, of course. We watch the dumb things they say and laugh about it here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=488e24ad570f3a01;act=SF;f=14

thisisfunny · 28 July 2008

Sorry, something must have been lost in translation here.

Should have said:
Those little ancestor designers also designed and redesigned, themselves through random variation (meaning copies of themselves), or ie. designed themselves with little variations by making copies of themselves by harnessing random variation and selection. Intelligence within cells outstrips even our best attempts at AI. :) Not so difficult really.

Still...who designed their ancestor “designers”…

Henry J · 28 July 2008

Oh. Well, that would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM for short).

thisisfunny · 28 July 2008

Now that is just silly IDiocy...
The "TARD4FSM"

Just in case it gets lost in translation AGAIN...
TARD4FSM = The Argument Regarding Design for the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Eric · 28 July 2008

The Pasta One is unnecessary (though delicious). If thisisfunny's definition of 'design' doesn't require intelligence/purpose, then nonliving matter can do it too, and no ancestral designer is required. Of course, we could then call the orbits of the planets designed (i.e. by natural forces), too, which may or may not be a good thing.

thisisfunny said: Sorry, something must have been lost in translation here. Should have said: Those little ancestor designers also designed and redesigned, themselves through random variation (meaning copies of themselves), or ie. designed themselves with little variations by making copies of themselves by harnessing random variation and selection. Intelligence within cells outstrips even our best attempts at AI. :) Not so difficult really. Still...who designed their ancestor “designers”…

Henry J said: Oh. Well, that would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM for short).

Stanton · 28 July 2008

Wheels said: I'm assuming that the specific "blind cave fish" PZ's referring to is A. jordani rather than the blind form of the species A. mexicanus? If so, can this be considered another example of speciation in action?

Anoplichthys jordani is considered to be a synonym of Astyanax mexicanus, that is, the Blind Cave Tetra is considered to be a blind race of the Mexican Tetra. They were originally thought to be two distinct species, but, the discovery of beady-eyed Mexican tetras near the mouths of the caves of the Cave tetras made researchers and aquarium hobbyists realize that there was a gradient from sighted, pigmented Mexican tetras to the pigmentless, blind Cave tetras. That, and they both readily interbreed with each other. In fact, didn't Prof. Myers write a blog about how it's possible to breed functioning eyes back into the Cave tetras by repeatedly crossing them with Mexican tetras?

Crudely Wrott · 28 July 2008

Heh. The other day I was walking through an empty apartment with a double handful of tools and stuff and paying more attention to balancing the unstable load then to where I was going and I gave the dining room chandelier a header that sent it swinging and I reeling. Now I know how to describe such a thing:

It was a luskin moment.
I pulled a luskin.
I got luskinned.
I gave it some luskin, or, put some luskin on it.
Luskinized!

Had the fixture actually fallen, or had I lost my load (neither happened), that would have been a double luskin.

Hand the fixture fallen and caused a unforeseen but inevitable (due to a previous, unfortunate modification by an unknown agent) short circuit damaging the wiring system of the entire apartment, that would be a triple luskin.

Anyone who reads this far and hasn't at least chuckled has just luskinned, or had some ludkin put on them, and probably does not know it.

stevaroni · 28 July 2008

“TARD4FSM”

Dude I so want that license plate! (Then again, I live in Texas, that might be a sure-fire way of getting my car destroyed)

Henry J · 28 July 2008

If thisisfunny’s definition of ‘design’ doesn’t require intelligence/purpose, then nonliving matter can do it too, and no ancestral designer is required. Of course, we could then call the orbits of the planets designed (i.e. by natural forces), too, which may or may not be a good thing.

I suppose that would depend on what definition of "design" one is using at the moment. Well, not planetary orbits - I can't see stretching the meaning of "design" that far. But an evolving genome does have (1) a capacity for experimenting (mutation), and (2) an ability to remember what worked in the past (memory) - two attributes that we normally associate with intelligence. OTOH, an evolving genome lacks foresight (ability to predict results of different courses of action), and it lacks the ability to remember past mistakes as having been mistakes, and a more strict definition of "intelligent" would require those attributes as well. Henry

caerbannog · 29 July 2008

iml8 | July 28, 2008 10:10 AM
Oh dear, picking on Casey Luskin, sigh, how tiresome. Tell me, PZ.... do you also enjoy tripping up runners at the Special Olympics? Taking apart Luskin pieces isn't much more sporting than that.

Rough Guide to Evolution · 29 July 2008

PZ didn't provide citations: here is a link to Jeffery's research output:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=jeffery+WR%5BAuthor%5D
The (somewhat out of date) Jeffery lab web site is here:
http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/jeffery/
complete with movies on lens transplants!

thisisfunny · 29 July 2008

@ Eric

If thisisfunny’s definition of ‘design’ doesn’t require intelligence/purpose, then nonliving matter can do it too, and no ancestral designer is required. Of course, we could then call the orbits of the planets designed (i.e. by natural forces), too, which may or may not be a good thing.

Gee, I donno, do cells design without intelligence and purpose? Let's see: Problem solving?... Why yes. Quantum computing. The process is analogous to Grover’s algorithm in quantum computing built into the photosynthetic algorithm of Chlorobium tepidum. Who knows what other kinds of quantum computing we will discover in organisms? Perhaps a clever quantum "trick" together with coulombic interactions in the bifurcated electron transfer of bc1-like complexes through the Q-cycle? Microtubles, centrioles etc.? Planning and learning?...Why yes. Anticipatory transcriptional reprogramming of E. coli as a result of an “associative learning” paradigm. Aren't these bacteria the cutest: Predictive Behavior Within Microbial Genetic Networks. You know, harnessing random variation and selection that allow for predictive transcriptional reprogramming in response to environmental change that gives the illusion of foresight. Quite an intelligent system these little designers have dawntyathink? Wouldn't you just love to create AI just like that...? Perception, communication and information processing?...? This should be obvious. You know, perception via surface receptors receiving information from the environment and relaying the information via various intricate signal transduction pathways to affect protein activity and gene expression activity. Communication... quorum sensing in bacteria, autocrine, paracrine, endocrine etc in multicellular organisms. Information processing via the multiples codes, e.g. histone code, ribosomal code and the standard genetic code. Then there is motion and manipulation... Hardly Brownian motion at the mercy of deterministic laws. Flagella an cilia manipulates the surrounding environment. Controlled? You bet ya, or do you think problem solving, planning, learning, perception, communication and information processing have nothing to do with the movement of the organelles? A clutch in the flagella just for fun? So you see, these little designers we call cells design their descendants with a degree of intelligence for the purpose of survival. Quite an intelligent system if you can harness random variability and selection for the purpose of survival dawntyathink ;) But but but who designed these designers...?

iml8 · 29 July 2008

caerbannog said: Tell me, PZ.... do you also enjoy tripping up runners at the Special Olympics? Taking apart Luskin pieces isn't much more sporting than that.

Yeah, Myers, pick on somebody close to your own size, ya BULLY! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 29 July 2008

caerbannog said: iml8 | July 28, 2008 10:10 AM
Oh dear, picking on Casey Luskin, sigh, how tiresome. Tell me, PZ.... do you also enjoy tripping up runners at the Special Olympics? Taking apart Luskin pieces isn't much more sporting than that.

Well, if you don't like watching Prof. Myers metaphorically tear Mr Luskin apart, then you should ask Mr Luskin to keep his big, fat, stupid mouth shut if he isn't ever going to learn anything about Biology or Paleontology.

iml8 · 29 July 2008

Stanton said: Well, if you don't like watching Prof. Myers metaphorically tear Mr Luskin apart, then you should ask Mr Luskin to keep his big, fat, stupid mouth shut if he isn't ever going to learn anything about Biology or Paleontology.

"You know you're a redneck when you think that an 'irony' is something you use to press your clothes." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Frank J · 29 July 2008

“You know you’re a redneck when you think that an ‘irony’ is something you use to press your clothes.”

Naw. Y'all use a arn t'press yer close. BTW, wasn't the ARN site strictly for technical articles way back when? Now I see mostly political rants.

Joel · 29 July 2008

Re: origin of the gene name hedgehog:

"The cuticle from hedgehog mutant larva has a continuous pattern of denticles along the anterior-posterior axis instead of alternating patterns of a band of denticles and then a band of naked cuticle. The lawn of denticles over the larval cuticle is reminiscent of the spines of a hedgehog."

From Flynome. http://www.flynome.org/

jasonmitchell · 29 July 2008

I wonder if Luskin even realizes how much he hurts ID's case?

allegedly ID isn't about religion - but the 1st thing luskin does is point out that Hitchens is an atheist (as if that is relevant)

allegedly ID is a BETTER explanation for biological diversity - but Luskin acknowledges that "Darwinian processes", and "random mutation and natural selection" are the BEST explanation for blind cave fish (the subject of the article re was criticizing is blind salamanders)

so let's take a look at how weak ID is now

ID "accepts" (or some ID proponents accept):
1) the earth is OLD
2) common descent
3) random mutation can change traits
4) mutations are heritable
5) natural selection (at least sometimes)

yet other proponents of ID actively lobby against 1-5 being part of public school curriculum - how dumb

iml8 · 29 July 2008

jasonmitchell said: I wonder if Luskin even realizes how much he hurts ID's case?

"Now what kind of a SILLY question is that?" Y'know, given that Luskin is a spokesman of sorts for the DI, there's no way his comments can be ignored, and he certainly deserves all the abuse he gets. But it STILL feels a bit unsporting. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Bill Gascoyne · 29 July 2008

caerbannog said: iml8 | July 28, 2008 10:10 AM
Oh dear, picking on Casey Luskin, sigh, how tiresome. Tell me, PZ.... do you also enjoy tripping up runners at the Special Olympics? Taking apart Luskin pieces isn't much more sporting than that.

"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P.J. O'Rourke (1947- )

Frank J · 29 July 2008

Some replies to jasonmitchell:

I wonder if Luskin even realizes how much he hurts ID’s case?

I’ll be the first to say that he’s far from the brightest star at the DI, but he knows that ID’s case is solid with the ~25% of the public that won’t accept evolution under any circumstances, and not that bad with another ~40-50% that is more suspicious of mainstream science than of “underdogs.” IOW he doesn’t hurt the case to many who don’t already consider ID dead as a doornail.

allegedly ID isn’t about religion - but the 1st thing luskin does is point out that Hitchens is an atheist (as if that is relevant)

That self-contradiction is very common among ID promoters since “Expelled.” Yet I have not heard it pointed out by anyone other than long-time critics of ID/creationism. Translation: we’re still not reaching the 40-50%. I’m begging to be proven wrong, though.

so let’s take a look at how weak ID is now ID “accepts” (or some ID proponents accept): 1) the earth is OLD 2) common descent 3)…

Most publicly admit 1, and a few publicly admit 2, but more importantly, none of them unequivocally and specifically deny either. More importantly they discourage any internal debate on those and the other 3 points that detracts from their united front against mainstream science.

yet other proponents of ID actively lobby against 1-5 being part of public school curriculum - how dumb

That would be the classic creationists who still “haven’t read the memo.” Real ID promoters want to downplay the chronology and common descent, but would not dare “lobby against” teaching them, or lobby for teaching alternative timelines and specific alternatives to common descent. Rather they encourage teaching evolution, as long as it is accompanied by the standard misrepresentations that they have the chutzpah to call “critical analysis.” Unfortunately the classic creationist fans of ID can afford to be that dumb.

jkc · 29 July 2008

Bill Gascoyne (quoting P.J. O'Rourke) said: "Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."

I am assuming that you posted this quote because it expresses a similar sentiment to that expressed by iml8 and caerbannog, not because there is an inherent connection between ID and born-again Christianity. Luskin does not speak for all born-again Christians.

iml8 · 29 July 2008

jkc said: Luskin does not speak for all born-again Christians.

I am not a BAC but yes, I would consider even an oblique comparison to Luskin to be one of the more offensive things I could say about someone. Hmm, I suppose we could call that ploy "reductio ad Luskinum". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 July 2008

thisisfunny said: Gee, I donno, do cells design without intelligence and purpose? Let's see:

The following list of characteristics is interesting. But on the one hand no one claims that functions whether elaborated or emergent doesn't admit algorithmic descriptions, on the other hand it isn't a comprehensive definition of "design". One needs to be careful as evolution as a process is algorithmic and therefore both "design" and "designer" and the same goes for its products such as cellular processes.

thisisfunny said: Problem solving?... Why yes. Quantum computing. The process is analogous to Grover’s algorithm in quantum computing built into the photosynthetic algorithm of Chlorobium tepidum.

There isn't much references here, but this paper may describe the alluded to claim. My spontaneous reaction is that the problem solving was on the part of evolution, not in the emergent cellular system. That is true whether the proposed mechanism is confirmed at room temperature (which is doubtful; this is really hard for scientists in much more controlled systems) or not. If this weren't the case we could call any function, say feedback systems, problem solving. And that is begging the question. Of course such research is prematurely picked, and cherry-picked, by creationists. It's been a year, presumably without room-temperature confirmation, so I guess they luskined out (as usual).

John Kwok · 29 July 2008

Hi Frank J, An interesting bit of analysis here, but it's not entirely correct:

Frank J said:
What Luskin and the rest of his pathetic band of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers forget is the importance of common descent (well, maybe Behe does acknowledge it in his own peculiar way)…
— John Kwok
I know I’m in the minority on this, but I think that all the major DI folk, including the “token YEC” Paul Nelson, privately know that common descent is a “done deal.” IOW, even if some of them believe otherwise “on faith” (Omphalos creationists), they all know darn well that the evidence overwhelmingly supports CD, and a 3-4 billion year history of life. I think that Behe admitted common descent years ago because (1) he is (or was) less politically savvy than most other DI spin artists, and/or (2) as a biochemist he knew that to pretend otherwise is as absurd as defending a flat-earth. But the DI needs the support of rank and file YECs and OECs, so they either play dumb about CD or vaguely doubt it (or pretend to). Even Behe, much later, added the pathetic disclaimer that there are DI folk who apparently doubt CD but are more familiar with the relevant science than he is. Of course he mentioned no names. More importantly, when DI folk do vaguely argue against common descent, it’s always as a false dichotomy with design. And worse, they mine the literature for discussions of evolution for which a hasty read seems to agree with the false dichotomy. In reality, whether a designer is ultimately responsible or not has no bearing on whether the changes occurred in-vivo or required new origin-of-life events. There’s a strategic reason to play the bait-and-switch, though. That’s because there is a testable explanation – one that keeps passing the tests – for the in-vivo process, but none for an “in-vitro” alternative, though brave souls like Schwabe and Senapathy tried. And because most people do not understand that testable explanations are always incomplete (every confirmation adds another “gap”), whereas the increasingly vague non-explanations of ID are “complete” in the sense that they free the reader to infer whatever alternative he wants, oblivious to its “complete” lack of supporting evidence.

You should read Genie Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism" or Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross' "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" to realize that the DI staff is comprised of different types of creationists. While Dembski may also accept common descent along with Behe, there are others, like Paul Nelson, for example, who are really Young Earth Creationists in disguse (Nelson actually came from the Young Earth Creationist movement.). Hope this helps. Regards, John

Science Avenger · 29 July 2008

jkc said:
Bill Gascoyne (quoting P.J. O'Rourke) said: "Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."

I am assuming that you posted this quote because it expresses a similar sentiment to that expressed by iml8 and caerbannog, not because there is an inherent connection between ID and born-again Christianity.

Of course there is. A bunch of born again Christians got together and created ID in an attempt to sneak anti-evolution quackery past the courts in the wake of Edwards vs Aguillar. See John Kwok's reading list above for documentation. Make no mistake: ID is not, and never has been, about science. It is about Christian fundamentalist politics.

Frank J · 29 July 2008

John,

Thanks, those books are still on my to-read list.

Nevertheless I have read countless books and articles about the "common ancestry" of ID and classic creationism, and have read many times about who "is" a "creationist" or a "YEC." While it's futile to speculate what they privately believe (Behe could be a closet flat-earther for all we know), these people, unlike those who remained at YEC and OEC organizations, are abandoning the only claims that could make their alternative scientific. Namely starting with a basic "what happened when" (Scott's phrase). Classic creationists do it, so why not just do it without reference to the Bible or "creation"? One possibility is that they’re just not confident that the evidence will support any of those positions, all of which have been thoroughly discredited on the basis of their failed and mutually contradictory claims. Independent of their status as religious approaches. Ronald Bailey suggested that in even stronger terms. And ID has gotten even more evasive since then.

As for Nelson possibly being an Omphalos creationist (if not a closet OEC or even TE), someone speculated on that as a possibility while he was posting here a few months ago. I asked him if it were true. He ignored my question while answering others, then went away. He had nothing to lose by saying “no.” Besides, Glenn Morton also came from the YEC movement.

John Kwok · 29 July 2008

Frank, Thanks for these excellent observations of yours:

Frank J said: John, Thanks, those books are still on my to-read list. Nevertheless I have read countless books and articles about the "common ancestry" of ID and classic creationism, and have read many times about who "is" a "creationist" or a "YEC." While it's futile to speculate what they privately believe (Behe could be a closet flat-earther for all we know), these people, unlike those who remained at YEC and OEC organizations, are abandoning the only claims that could make their alternative scientific. Namely starting with a basic "what happened when" (Scott's phrase). Classic creationists do it, so why not just do it without reference to the Bible or "creation"? One possibility is that they’re just not confident that the evidence will support any of those positions, all of which have been thoroughly discredited on the basis of their failed and mutually contradictory claims. Independent of their status as religious approaches. Ronald Bailey suggested that in even stronger terms. And ID has gotten even more evasive since then. As for Nelson possibly being an Omphalos creationist (if not a closet OEC or even TE), someone speculated on that as a possibility while he was posting here a few months ago. I asked him if it were true. He ignored my question while answering others, then went away. He had nothing to lose by saying “no.” Besides, Glenn Morton also came from the YEC movement.

You have to realize that the devil is in the details. After all, since the Xians have God on their side, then it is well within their rights to try to confuse us. But it's hard for me to distinguish between Paul Nelson the Intelligent Design advocate and Paul Nelson the Young Earth Creationist; so, for simplicity's sake I simply regard him as a Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer. Regards, John

James F · 29 July 2008

Frank J said: I know I’m in the minority on this, but I think that all the major DI folk, including the “token YEC” Paul Nelson, privately know that common descent is a “done deal.” IOW, even if some of them believe otherwise “on faith” (Omphalos creationists), they all know darn well that the evidence overwhelmingly supports CD, and a 3-4 billion year history of life.

To digress slightly, "Don Exodus" asked the original signers of the DI's "Dissent from Darwin" list if they accepted common descent - of the respondents (including Ralph Seelke and Michael Behe), only two biologists (David DeWitt and Clarence Fouche) rejected it. The video is well worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Frank J · 29 July 2008

James F:

Yes!!! That's even better than I expected!

About 3 years ago I read (or imagined reading, if you ask some others) a PT comment whereby someone contacted 6 signatories and 5 admitted having been misled. No one has ever been able to find it, so about a year ago I just gave up and left it as a mystery. This video at least restores my confidence that I was not imagining it (maybe not at PT?). I only know of one signatory who had his name removed so far, but unless this guy is pulling is own scam, it looks like there will be more.

I'm not at all surprised that 14 of 16 biologists admitted common descent (CD). After all, these were mostly people approached by the scam artists, although the list was "padded" with quite a few DI activists (isn't that a conflict of interest, BTW?). In contrast, the ~20 who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Court had a record of anti-evolution activism. In that group, most were old-earthers, but only a minority conceded CD. More importantly they were mostly very evasive, including answering the wrong question in several cases. The "unaswerable" question is: which of these 2 groups has more of a vested interest in not saying what they really think?

The only thing that bugs me is that this guy only used a list of 101 names. AIUI, it's at ~800 by now. I saw some emails dated 2007 and 2008, so he either began his survey much earlier, or didn't think that the added names changed anything significantly. I also have some quibbles with his statistics, but it doesn't detract from his point.

Here’s another list that I like to refer to when the “Dissent” list is discussed. These were not scientists who volunteered to sign a “dissent” statement, but were quote mined from their research as “challenging” “Darwinism.” To no one’s surprise, “None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) agreed that their cited work provided any support for "intelligent design"; many were indignant at the suggestion.”

Wheels · 29 July 2008

Anoplichthys jordani is considered to be a synonym of Astyanax mexicanus, that is, the Blind Cave Tetra is considered to be a blind race of the Mexican Tetra. They were originally thought to be two distinct species, but, the discovery of beady-eyed Mexican tetras near the mouths of the caves of the Cave tetras made researchers and aquarium hobbyists realize that there was a gradient from sighted, pigmented Mexican tetras to the pigmentless, blind Cave tetras. That, and they both readily interbreed with each other. In fact, didn't Prof. Myers write a blog about how it's possible to breed functioning eyes back into the Cave tetras by repeatedly crossing them with Mexican tetras?

Ah, well there you go then. It's been too long since I've looked at anything aquarium-related. Not since the tragic my-snail-ate-all-my-fancy-plants incident...

Henry J · 31 July 2008

Not since the tragic my-snail-ate-all-my-fancy-plants incident…

Maybe if you prop a French cookbook near the aquarium where the snail can see it... :p

Wheels · 31 July 2008

Apparently the little giant thing was capable of taking off and slipping away into the night. That's how it escaped my revengeance.

fnxtr · 1 August 2008

Still wondering if there's a Spiny Norman gene.

James F · 1 August 2008

fnxtr said: Still wondering if there's a Spiny Norman gene.

Apparently, there's a spiny gene in pineapples. Normally, Spiny Norman was wont to be about twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be anything up to eight hundred yards long.

Eric · 4 August 2008

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, was on vacation...

In answer to both Henry J and thisisfunny, my point was that most creos use a narrow teleological definition of "design" that implies sentience and purpose. (And don't ask me to define sentience, I'm trying to represent the creo perspective to clarify my post - not defend to their perspective.)

Broaden this narrow definition and many other things could count as design/designed. This could be useful for science. Broaden the definition too much, however, and the word becomes useless. That's what I meant by 'may or may not be a good thing.' Torbjorn also alluded to the problem of an overbroad definition of design when he mentioned that calling any function "problem solving" begs the question.

Eric

Henry J · 4 August 2008

Broaden this narrow definition and many other things could count as design/designed.

Yep. The trouble is that sometimes it's convenient to use "design" to mean simply the way in which the parts interact with each other in the organism - a meaning that has nothing to do with how those parts got that way. Henry

Wheels · 5 August 2008

And we see that, of course, cdesign proponentsists are more than happy to exploit convenient semantics. It means I have to try and find less ambiguous (or at least less exploitable) ways to describe everything from natural processes to "Creationists."
Unfortunately it's just an example of the fact that it's harder to appear successful arguing against a dishonest opponent than one who strives for accuracy, which is why it's usually counter-productive to engage in a live debate with anti-evolutionists. At least the internet allows me the utility of hyperlinks and a limitless timeframe.

Dolly Sheriff · 5 August 2008

For goodness sakes guys, Casey (and ID) agree that Darwinian Evolution is capable of this kind of micro-evolution. Without this ability living organisms would not survive long in a changing environment. All this does is confirm how wonderful God's design really is. It doesn't explain how species and new body plans developed. Even the ALTENBERG 16 do not think that the current evolutionary synthesis begins to explain it. All the huffing and puffing and insults thrown around on this site just convince me that you don't have real answers.

Henry J · 5 August 2008

Both sides have huffing and puffing.

So far as I've seen only one side has produced descriptions of evidence that actually supports the principles of their model.

Mike Elzinga · 5 August 2008

Dolly Sheriff said: For goodness sakes guys, Casey (and ID) agree that Darwinian Evolution is capable of this kind of micro-evolution. Without this ability living organisms would not survive long in a changing environment. All this does is confirm how wonderful God's design really is. It doesn't explain how species and new body plans developed. Even the ALTENBERG 16 do not think that the current evolutionary synthesis begins to explain it. All the huffing and puffing and insults thrown around on this site just convince me that you don't have real answers.

The cdesign proponentsists always misrepresent what science already knows and is currently doing. These so-called “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” terms are distinctions which are totally arbitrary and are exploited ruthlessly by the cdesign proponentsists. They have no particular meaning and little usefulness in science. There no rules or laws forbidding evolution from continuing right on up from simple systems to extremely complex systems. And it is a well-known fact that cdesign proponentsists always dodge any explanation of just what such rules or laws they have in mind. In fact, there is considerable tantalizing evidence that points to many possibilities for the evolution of living organisms from non-living systems. The fact that living systems are so complicated and so sensitive to billions of contingences is what makes the search difficult and time consuming. Technology itself is still evolving; we are just gaining capabilities that weren’t available only a few years ago. So it is not surprising that there is considerable excitement and lots of new ideas to be explored. Just because cdesign proponentsists have short attention spans, lack the stamina and imagination required for research, and can’t tolerate the lack of instant gratification doesn’t justify their projecting their own shortcomings onto the science community.

stevaroni · 5 August 2008

OK Dolly, we have established that ID agrees, at least to some extent, on at least some evolutionary concepts.

We all agree on that some form of evolution exists, apparently, and we all agree that it manifests itself (eventually) in genetic mutation (that's how changes are passed to the next generation).

We seem to agree that while most mutations are neutral or detrimental, at least some mutations lead to a survival advantage, and that is important.

We seem to agree that mutations are additive, that is, you can have an organism that has one mutation, and then add a second one. There is no apparent mechanism that limits an organism to one mutation.

So here's the million dollar question, which you, like all ID advocates, avoid like the plague; what limits the mechanism to "micro evolution"? Why can it only take 5 steps and then has to stop?

You've established that it can walk, why can't it go for a long, long stroll?

It's a really simple question, Dolly. Why is it that the ID crowd advocating the micro-evolution shibboleth can't ever seem to answer it?

Dolly Sheriff · 6 August 2008

stevaroni said: So here's the million dollar question, which you, like all ID advocates, avoid like the plague; what limits the mechanism to "micro evolution"? Why can it only take 5 steps and then has to stop? You've established that it can walk, why can't it go for a long, long stroll? It's a really simple question, Dolly. Why is it that the ID crowd advocating the micro-evolution shibboleth can't ever seem to answer it?

You are absolutely wrong in saying ID ignores this question. In fact it is the most important question in ID today and Mike Behe devoted an entire book to answering this question : "The Edge of evolution".

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

You are absolutely wrong in saying ID ignores this question. In fact it is the most important question in ID today and Mike Behe devoted an entire book to answering this question : “The Edge of evolution”.

Well, you have put your finger on one of the most serious problems with the ID activists; they write books and constantly kibitz from the sidelines, but never ever learn how to do any research or make any effort to understand what real researchers have discovered.

Henry J · 6 August 2008

Plus their arguments don't address the questions that an actual alternative hypothesis would have to address, i.e., why would nature show the patterns expected by the current theory, if something basic were actually wrong with it.

Henry

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

You are absolutely wrong in saying ID ignores this question. In fact it is the most important question in ID today and Mike Behe devoted an entire book to answering this question : “The Edge of evolution”.

Again, no answer. "Go look in this book." Not "OK, here's two good links to real research papers that actually demonstrate a mechanism", which would constitute what we, in the real world, would call an answer. And for the record, "The Edge of Evolution" boils down - in a nuthell - to a giant argument based on probabilities. It has been dissected ad nauseum here by people who actually understand statistical math, and found to be significantly flawed. Michael Behe is not exactly what you might call good with statistics. Back in '06, Behe found himself on the witness stand in Dover, where he got to describe his theories under oath. During cross examination his statistical calculations were absolutely demolished by lawyers who had actually taken the time to do the math. At one point Behe had to defend his assertion that a certain mutation was so improbable it was unlikely to ever happen. The lawyers forced him to go through his own math, step by step with real numbers, revealing that the mutation Behe had just testified was too improbable to ever happen was actually occurring somewhere within the courtroom every 90 minutes or so. But Michael Behe is best known for his immortal testimony "These are heavy", his insightful comment on the 60 or so published works entered into evidence to refute his sworn assertion that a certain aspect of the immune system development had never been documented. Behe is, in a nutshell, such a discredited biologist that the biology department at Lehigh University at one point put a disclaimer on their website, signed by the rest of the professors, saying that Behe does not speak for the rest of them, and please, please, please don't judge the quality of our school by the uttering of this one fool. So, anyway, back to the proximate question at hand. Behe's all you've got, isn't it? You don't really have any mechanism to limit evolution to micro-evolution, do you?