Our good ol' buddy Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division has just put up
an impressively mistake-strewn story about the "Altenberg 16" meeting in Vienna. In real life, the meeting discussed the possibilities for an "Extended Synthesis" in evolutionary biology which incorporates development, evolvability, complexity theory, etc. into the old "Modern Synthesis" of population genetics. But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis. The primary person who got the crazy-train going was "journalist" Suzan Mazur, who has written a
series of stories that mis-portray almost everyone and everything involved and, no matter what her interviewees tell her, end up with the inevitable conclusion that evolution is on its last legs. No one seriously informed would pay attention to this kind of schlock, but ID/creationists will jump on anything with a vestige of credibility (in this case an allegedly serious journalist -- is she a freelancer or what?). When meeting organizer Massimo Pigluicci got wind of the misinformation being passed around about the meeting, he
wrote a great explanation of what it was actually about and why Mazur et al. were wrong.
Enter Luskin, who for some reason always takes on the unenviable job of defending and then making worse the mistakes of other people in his camp. He devoted an entire post to explaining why Mazur's second-hand, ill-informed hearsay conspiracy theorizing about the meeting should trump the opinion of Pigliucci, the very guy running it. But Luskin, in classic creationist form, is simply taking a bad source (Mazur), then piling his own mistaken assumptions on top. The result is a conspiracy story which he and all ID followers (who virtually completely lack the spine or gumption to ever double-check their sources, or correct each other even on obvious factual points) will strongly believe, despite the fact that it bears only the vaguest resemblance to what actually happened. (In passing, it is worth noting that this sort of filter-assume-extrapolate-copy-don't-correct-repeat process explains far more creationist behavior than the "they're liars!" hypothesis). (E.g., here's an
example of Paul Nelson at Uncommon Descent uncritically passing on Mazur's silliness.)
Let's begin. Luskin writes:
Last year Rob Crowther reported on the "Altenberg 16" conference that was planned for Altenberg, Austria. Sixteen leading leading evolutionary scientist – who do not support intelligent design but do have doubts about Darwinism – were to re-evaluate the core claims of neo-Darwinism.
The conference apparently did happen, as scheduled – last week. We still don't have any report on what took place, but that the topic definitely will continue to prove interesting.
Somehow Luskin, despite linking to Pigliucci's
debunking of the claims that the meeting was undermining "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism" (whatever these terms mean to creationists, which are never the same thing they means in academic discussions, even when, rarely, "Darwinism" specifically is a topic of an academic discussion as opposed to the modern theory of evolution) missed the fact that Pigliucci has posted several detailed reports over the last week of what has been going on at the conference:
1,
2,
3 (and
4 a summary of the meeting by all 16 participants which was put up today, after Luskin's post I think). Oops.
Luskin continues,
In advance of the conference, one participant, Massimo Pigliucci, tried to downplay the importance,, asserting that there is "not a sign of 'crisis'" at this conference over neo-Darwinian evolution:
Um -- Pigliucci wasn't just "one participant", he was the freakin' chair and (I think) the lead organizer of the dang thing.
Of course no one here has been claiming that any Altenberg attendees support intelligent design (ID). But while the conference participants may not have been talking about ID as an alternative to neo-Darwinism (many of them prefer models of evolution driven by "self-organization" – models that have their own problems), Pigliucci's comment sure sounds like damage control.
According to Luskin's conspiracy theory, then, Pigliucci organized and publicized a conference to undermine "Darwinism" and then...tried to hide it? What? Most conspiracy theories at least have the virtue of being self-consistent, can't we get something better than this?
In fact, according to Suzan Mazur, a journalist experienced in covering evolution who was invited to report on the conference, there is patently politically-motivated damage control taking place. As Mazur shows, the National Center for Science and Education – the Darwinist education lobby – opposed this conference for political reasons. Self-organizational models are rife with potent critiques of neo-Darwinian models of evolution, so they don't like them:
I decided to ask [Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...
...When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
Pigliucci claims there's "no crisis" here, but Kevin Padian is hanging up on people and Eugenie Scott claims people will confuse the arguments of conference-attendees with intelligent design.
See that transition occuring? Reality (what people actually said) --> Mazur --> Mazur's piece --> Luskin --> conspiracy to hide the "crisis." Since I know the people involved (although I no longer work at NCSE and have not talked to either of them about Mazur, so these are strictly my own opinions), I'm pretty sure what happened. Padian is a busy guy running a paleontology lab and has little patience for reporters who make it evident they are bound and determined to misunderstand and misreport on evolutionary topics, rather than actually try to make an effort to understand what is going on (he will make plenty of time for the latter). Padian got that Mazur was hell-bent on writing an 'evolution is a theory in crisis' story, told her that in reality there was no scientific debate over the validity of evolution, and hung up. Genie Scott, on the other hand, possesses a saint-like patience and obviously made an attempt to help Mazur understand that (a) self-organization has nothing to do with ID but (b) the IDists attempt to invoke it, falsely, as "an alternative to Darwinism", and then slip in ID as another alternative, (c) this sort of trickery is invalid in education or journalism and this is what NCSE opposes. And the idea that NCSE somehow "opposed" the Altenberg meeting, organized by one of NCSE's own best buddies (Pigliucci) and attended by numerous others, is just silly three times before breakfast.
Mazur may have manipulated the interview into some sort of statement about NCSE "not supporting" the Altenberg meeting or books on self-organization -- but there are a near-infinite number of books and meetings on all sorts of technical/academic evolution-related topics. NCSE doesn't have the money, time, or mission to "support" them all even with website commentary, let alone financially or with staff time. NCSE doesn't oppose any of these things, obviously. Based on Mazur's argument, one could make an equally silly argument that NCSE "doesn't support" statistical phylogenetics -- a major academic topic these days. It's the job of the National Science Foundation and other huge institutions to support research in diverse technical academic subjects; NCSE's job is simply to support good science education.
Luskin continues:
What is most interesting here is not just Pigliucci's attempt at damage control, but the NCSE's knee-jerk reaction against anything that isn't neo-Darwinian. It seems that the NCSE was indeed quite worried that this conference will do damage to neo-Darwinism. At the very least, this exchange exposes the NCSE's intolerant attitude towards non-Darwinian thoughts, even when the doubters don't support ID. Indeed, Mazur's reports reveal that various scientists she has interviewed at the conference have fundamental doubts about neo-Darwinism, but they are eschewed by the scientific community.
C'mon, Casey, the people at the Altenberg 16
were the friggin academic community! All of them leaders in various evolutionary specialities. And what did they officially conclude at the end of their meeting? Not that evolutionary theory was in crisis, but simply that our understanding is advancing in many areas at once.
This statement was signed by all 16:
By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
Oh, and Mazur is not "a journalist experienced in covering evolution", she has come completely out of the blue on evolution reporting, has little idea who or what she is writing about, and her "experience" appears to consist completely of her recent error-strewn stories about Altenberg and related matters.
Luskin sticks in a bit about Stanley Salthe, who had nothing to do with the meeting, and then moves to well-known crank Stuart Pivar:
According to Mazur, the same thing happened to Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar: "Stuart Pivar has been investigating self-organization in living forms but thinks natural selection is irrelevant – and has paid the price for this on the blogosphere."
Um, what? Pivar wasn't part of the Altenberg 16,
read the friggin' list of the 16 right here. And in what way does being a chemist/engineer and former vague associate of Stephen Jay Gould qualify anyone to be a serious commentator on evolution worthy of inclusion in Mazur's review? (And
read PZ Myers's review of Pivar.)
And let's break out the tiny little violins for anyone who "pay[s] the price" on the blogosphere. Boo-hoo-hoo, people disagreed Pivar and noted that his "science" was crankery. It's not the freakin' Spanish inquisition.
Mazur also reports that Altenberg 16 participant, Rutgers philosopher Jerry Fodor, "essentially argues that biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can’t be repaired." Mazur recounts that Michael Ruse condemned Fodor for even printing such thoughts in a mainstream publication – not because of the empirical data, but because of politics: In Ruse's words, "to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists." Apparently Ruse would suggest that scientists banish from their minds—and certainly from their pens—any real doubts about the sufficiency of natural selection, for purely political reasons.
Fodor is another Altenberg attendee that was completely imagined by Luskin. Can someone please inform the guys at the DI that just because one silly journalist mentions Fodor & Pivar in the same article as the Altenberg meeting, that doesn't mean they were participants?
As for Ruse's remark, he's spot on. Unlike many other academic topics, evolution has a set of groupies from an evil parallel universe, i.e. creationists, who sit around 24/7 and yank out any quote, comment, paper, news article, etc., that sounds vaguely anti-evolutionary to them (and they almost universally misunderstand everything they comment on). This could be ignored if creationism was at the ignorable level of many other pseudosciences, but creationism has substantial political clout, and political struggles over legislation, lawsuits, etc. can and will happen again. In that situation, I think, there is some extra duty for academics to make sure they know what they're talking about and to think about how it will be interpreted or easily misinterpreted by other scientists, journalists, the public, creationists, etc. It's not an overwhelming duty -- obviously an academic's primary responsibility is to say what they think -- but it deserves some consideration. And it is perfectly legitimate to criticize academics like Fodor who ought to know better when they make well-worn, long-debunked mistakes, ignore obvious and important distinctions, and fight subsidiary philosophical battles in the guise of opposing a concept as well-tested and explanatory as natural selection. I.e., "you're wrong, but not only that your wrongness is being exploited by creationists, which anyone paying attention would have seen coming."
Well, Pigliucci is certainly doing a good job of "vigorously and positively deny[ing]" all of the challenges to neo-Darwinian theory at this conference. So at least he's consistent. But in the end, one thing is clear: there are fundamental doubts about neo-Darwinism in the minds of many of the scientists and philosophers who participated at Altenberg 16, and some leading Darwinists desperately wish that those doubts did not exist.
Posted by Casey Luskin on July 16, 2008 2:46 PM
So, according to Luskin, we're supposed to think that when an (alleged) "leading Darwinist" like Pigliucci organizes and chairs a meeting to explore new areas in evolutionary theory, evolution is in crisis, because a few uninformed non-biologists have said some clueless/cranky things. Except they weren't even at the meeting, and the actual participants of the actual meeting have denied the very conclusions which Luskin draws.
That's ID/creationism for you: equal parts cluelessness, wishful thinking, copying other people's mistakes, relying on unauthoritative sources that say what the creationist wants to hear, inventing new mistakes by assumption, all pasted together with a thick glue of wishful thinking and unshakeable faith in the rectitude of one's facts & opinions.
Note to creationists: why don't you ever double-check
anything? Heck, even us partisans on the other side double-check each other. For example, I think us evolutionary scientists tend to create problems for ourselves in certain ways, e.g. research findings, meetings, science journalism, press releases, etc. far too often state or imply that whatever we are working on is "revolutionary", "overturning long-held ideas", etc. An awful lot of this is just hype and exaggeration. It is not a problem in evolution specifically, but science generally, because everyone is competing for funding, attention in the press and public, etc. The problem is probably unfixable, but we should at least be aware that it goes on and is a small but not tiny part of what keeps creationism and other forms of crankery psychologically viable. (I'm not saying this happened with the Altenberg meeting, I haven't investigated the original announcements etc.)
198 Comments
Jim Harrison · 17 July 2008
The real irony here is that there really are plenty of credible new ideas about evolution that are floating around. Thing is, they are on the other side of NeoDarwinism from I.D. For example, Stuart Kaufman's order-for-nothing bit is even more alien to traditional natural theology than the original version of natural selection ever was. The ship is leaving the shore, sailing further and further away from common sense, Plato, and Genesis into realms that are all the more mysterious for having nothing in common with the banal mysteries of religion. Meanwhile Luskin et. al. have to don floaties before they can summon up the courage to dip their feet in three inches of water.
James F · 17 July 2008
It's...the imminent demise of evolution!
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html
Hat tip to Patrick Henry (http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-imminent-demise-of-evolution/)
raven · 17 July 2008
People have been predicting the imminent demise of evolution for 150 years. A stopped clock is right twice a day but that particular error of mistaking wishes for reality hasn't been right yet.
The same group has been predicting the end of the world for 2,000 years with the same track record.
Mike Elzinga · 17 July 2008
simmi · 17 July 2008
What was that great quote from Wes Elsberry again? "If a creationist tells you the sky is blue, go outside and check." So fitting.
Blaidd Drwg · 17 July 2008
Give our buddy Casey a break, will ya? He DID get a perfect score on his APGAR test after all...
Cedric Katesby · 17 July 2008
Why?
WHY ARE PEOPLE THIS STUPID?!?!
T. Bruce McNeely · 17 July 2008
"Our good ol' buddy Casey Luskin" reminds me of "Little Buddy" Gilligan.
But then, Casey Luskin himself reminds me of Gilligan...
Flint · 17 July 2008
Henry J · 17 July 2008
waldteufel · 17 July 2008
Casey Luskin has shown over and over again that he is a pimp. Nothing more. He has nothing to offer science. His purpose in life is to lie for his masters, who are dominionist christians who would love to have the police at your door on Sunday morning asking why you aren't in church. Their church, by the way.
I used to think that Luskin was just like Gilligan, but he's not stupid like Gilligan. He knows his audience. He knows how to quote mine, lie, misrepresent, and purposefully mangle.
It's important to show over and over again how the DI's lackeys, like our little buddy Luskin, are working to undermine science education, and therefore science and reason, in our society.
Give your support to the NCSE, Nick Matzke, and all who work so tirelessly to beat back the dark ages that Luskin and his masters want to foist on us.
Ptaylor · 17 July 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 17 July 2008
I am reminded of the dilemma faced by small airplane companies like Cesna a number of years ago. Liability lawyers were able to construe any improvement made to the planes as an admission that there was something wrong with any previous plane that had crashed, and file the obligatory lawsuit. It almost brought innovation to a complete halt, as company lawyers had to review any proposed improvements.
Reed · 18 July 2008
Stephen · 18 July 2008
On a minor tangential point, which I wouldn't bother with had I not seen it three times on blogs this week: you might like to try writing posts with a programme that doesn't do things like turning a c within brackets into a copyright symbol.
Nick (Matzke)) · 18 July 2008
Yeah that copyright symbol thing is really annoying, it seems to be a feature of many programs e.g. Movable Type, Word, etc. It must be popular with business customers or something, in more academic writing it is just annoying.
Reed A. Cartwright · 18 July 2008
It's easy to write (c) instead of (c) just use "
(c)" or "(c)".snaxalotl · 18 July 2008
if the problem originates in Word, the easiest solution is to remove the autocorrection rule
Flip van Tiel · 18 July 2008
It's easier to get rid of the copyright symbol shuffle, by eliminating it from the auto-correction dialog box under "Tools" in your Word program (or something similar in other programs, no doubt). When still needed occasionally, it can be inserted simply through the Symbol... facility.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 July 2008
(1)"st for 1st instead of 1st? I think the point is that the raw text is what is usually intended. And furthermore markup is intended to be optional instead of enforced. It is an example of where doing less is more IMO.Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 July 2008
Frank J · 18 July 2008
Frank J · 18 July 2008
FastEddie · 18 July 2008
This was my favorite quotation from the link James F provided:
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past." -- 1904
Anthony · 18 July 2008
It is not important to check your sources and do some research before writing a news article. It would be assumed that this is what journalism is all about. It is quite interesting that Casey Luskin is suppose to be reporting on the misinformation found in the news about the theory of evolution.
I had read Suzan Mazur's article earlier, and it seem that she clearly did not understand the topic that she was writing about. It is hard to understand why someone would use such an unreliable sources, unless the have an agenda.
Flint · 18 July 2008
fnxtr · 18 July 2008
What did you expect? Luskin is a lawyer. Lawyers aren't paid to find an accurate description of reality, they're paid to win. Reality is irrelevant.
iml8 · 18 July 2008
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
David hudson · 18 July 2008
Does "Darwinism" have any meaning at all? Were it truly an "ism", the devotees of that "ism" should not be working in molecular biolgy, analyzing DNA, or dig for dinosaurs, tilobites, and multituberculates; rather, they should be perusing the basic texts of the master, deciphering his "hidden meanings" when he discusses pigeon breeding, etc.
Mike · 18 July 2008
Ok, so the folks actually down in the trenches know this is all about politics. Let's talk politics. Is accusing the opposition lobbyists of lying detrimental to your own side's reputation, image, reliability, whatever (what's the word?). With politicians, maybe. It will make you appear partisan, unreliable. For most other people though, my own impression is that it is appreciated when it is pointed out that there is a simple to understand reason why a campaign can't be trusted. Is pro-science education primarily concerned with politicians? I don't think so. Most politicians want to run from the room when evolution is mentioned. Is Luskin lying? Let's see ... information on the meeting clearly shows who's attending. It's highly likely that Luskin saw this. Luskin falsely reports that a crank attended. Yup, he's lying. If he were to correct himself, then we'd know that I'm wrong, at least about this instance, but he won't, will he?
Yes, there's a PR danger in accusing some group of being Nazis, but I don't think the same psychology applies to pointing out lies.
iml8 · 18 July 2008
Paul Burnett · 18 July 2008
iml8 · 18 July 2008
Frank J · 18 July 2008
Eric · 18 July 2008
Romartus · 18 July 2008
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
Hi im18,
No, I don't think Coyne ever has had this thought:
I suspect Coyne was thinking: "At times like this, I wish
I really did look like Herman Munster!"
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html
He told me privately that what Dembski did to him was a rather "low blow". Moreover, he came across as far more humble and substantially less self-serving than either Susan Mazur or Stuart Pivar, both of whom I spoke to briefly during the symposium.
Regards,
John
(aka "Jekyll and Hyde of Paleobiology" courtesy of Uncommon Dissent IDiot Borg drone DaveScot Springer)
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
iml8 · 18 July 2008
Frank J · 18 July 2008
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
This is slightly off topic, but I just realized that today is WAD's birthday, so I just sent him this congratulatory e-mail:
Dear Bill -
Welcome to middle age. May yours be a delightful birthday, and I do mean this with utmost sincerity. You and I were both born in the same year, though thankfully I DO NOT SHARE your birth date.
Alas you have missed your true calling in life. I think you are still quite capable of writing the definitive textbook on Klingon Cosmology.
Respectfully yours,
John
iml8 · 18 July 2008
tguy · 18 July 2008
Let me get this straight. Evolutionary theory has been so successful that in the mid-20th century it was expanded into the Modern Synthesis to incorporate the findings of genetics and population biology. Now it's undergoing another expansion to accommodate ideas like "evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection," among other new concepts that sound exciting and a bit of a challenge for me to understand. So, to the ID/Creo/Conspiracy crowd this is seen as failure? Out here in the business world, expansion is generally taken as a sign of success. If this is evolution in crisis, let me just say, a lot of us hope for such trouble.
John Kwok · 18 July 2008
iml8 · 18 July 2008
iml8 · 18 July 2008
Stanton · 18 July 2008
iml8 · 19 July 2008
Frank J · 19 July 2008
Frank J · 19 July 2008
Speaking of cool names, the "Altenberg 16" must be more than twice as "bad" as the Chicago 7. ;-)
iml8 · 19 July 2008
Suzan · 19 July 2008
Mazur: Altenberg 16, AAAS & The Dorak Affair
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00185.htm
iml8 · 19 July 2008
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
WallyK · 19 July 2008
Media types are always trying to spin an exciting story, even if it's a boring scientific conference, if they can find the right angle. It then becomes a public relations battle. I think a few interviews with the scientists involved could burst the bubble of conspiracy nonsense.
Only time will tell how evolutionary theory will develope. I doubt that many of the ideas floating around will prove to be that useful. I'm mostly interested in the mechanism of evolution, what allows it to happen, what allows macroevolutionary trends. That's going to be answered by understanding more about the organization of the genome. Developmental biology is important because it shows how the genes are organized to produce form.
bigbang · 19 July 2008
Massimo, in his blog, says: “But scientific theories never stay the same for long, because scientists discover new facts about the natural world, and they consequently update their theories.”
.
Bingo.
IOW, the Darwinian view that evolution by RM+NS (and various other triflings such as drift) can explain the complexity of life----beyond various trivial examples of microevolution; e.g. the development of drug resistance by microorganisms, biological antifreeze in Antarctic fish, human sickle cell trait providing resistance to malaria, nylon eating bacteria, etc.----is undoubtedly an incomplete theory.
Common descent, the 4 billion years old earth, that life evolves, is accepted by most rational people, so the only question is what are the limits, what is the edge, of evolution by RM+NS; and what other (as yet undiscovered and/or undeveloped) mechanisms must be invoked to explain the complexity of life that remains unexplained by the incomplete theory of Darwinian directionless and ultimately purposeless evolution by RM+NS.
Ultimately and unavoidably everyone has a world view that boils down to either a purposeful universe and life resulting from an intelligent first cause, or to a purposeless universe and life resulting from a random, meaningless event, a product of some sort of infinite, eternal multiverse. That the vast majority of neo-Darwinians hold the latter view, and that the implications of that view infect their Darwinism, is undoubtedly a major source of this incessant soap opera regarding the limitations of RM+NS. Bottom line: beyond any reasonable doubt, evolution by RM+NS is an incomplete theory.
Jackelope King · 19 July 2008
Ignoring bigbang's trolling for a minute...
What is the usual output for the public of these sorts of conferences? Would I be able to read a publication put out by the conference, or reviews of what was discussed by the attendees? Evolvability has seemed like a very interesting topic for quite a long time, and I'd like to hear what these folks have to say about it.
Draconiz · 19 July 2008
bigbang, bigbang. Read the daily summary of the Altenburg 16 before spewing your intellectual vomit all over the place again, will you? What they discussed about has nothing to do with purpose or non-purpose nonsense you just said
Oh, welcome back!! It has been a short year!
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
iml8 · 19 July 2008
Frank J · 19 July 2008
Since BigBang is unusual among anti-evolutionist regulars, whether trolls or seeming to honestly believe what they say, I'll bite. Once at least:
BigBang: What then do you think of the ideas of self-organization (note: "self" is a figure of speech; I'd prefer "molecular organization"), "evo-devo" etc. Do you think any are promising, or do you agree with Behe, Dembski et al that any attempt to "connect the dots" is a waste of time?
Lew · 19 July 2008
bigbang said, "Ultimately and unavoidably everyone has a world view that boils down to either a purposeful universe and life resulting from an intelligent first cause, or to a purposeless universe and life resulting from a random, meaningless event, a product of some sort of infinite, eternal multiverse. That the vast majority of neo-Darwinians hold the latter view..." Not correct. Most neo-Darwinians prefer to allow the universe to tell us its purpose by observation and analysis. Creationists, on the other hand, adhere to the belief that they already know the facts and the purposes of the universe, and that it is totally encapsulated in their personal interpretation of a single book. The conceit of the creationists is that they dictate the powers and limitations of God. Rather than observing the diversity and size of the universe, they prefer to ignore the evidence of God's actions in favor of their own infantile notions.
Frank B · 19 July 2008
The number of Trolls who accept an old Earth and evolution is amazing. People like BigBang must also be trolling over at Uncommon Descent bashing YECs and OECs. So many people to bash and so little time. Isn't it amazing that ID can attract people who can disagree so much on such relevant topics?
Elf Eye · 19 July 2008
bigbang: “Ultimately and unavoidably everyone has a world view that boils down to either a purposeful universe and life resulting from an intelligent first cause, or to a purposeless universe and life resulting from a random, meaningless event, a product of some sort of infinite, eternal multiverse...."
Either-or fallacy. The laws of physics and biology may not give meaning to the universe, but that does not mean that one's life must be purposeless. The earth as it revolves is indifferent to me, and the rain does not fall for my benefit. I, however, am not indifferent to myself or to others; nor are others indifferent to me. Since I am an empathetic being and am surrounded by empathetic beings, I have had no difficulty in constructing a life full of meaning.
Frank J · 19 July 2008
scoop · 19 July 2008
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW/UNDERNEWS -- ALTENBERG
"Swampoodle Report: When Science, Politics, Religion & Journalism Meet"
http://prorev.com/2008/07/swampoodle-report-when-science-politics.html
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
iml8 · 19 July 2008
"A recent international conference on frontiers in aerospace
covered a wide range of topics -- blended-wing-body airframes,
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control systems, UAV application
in search and rescue, conformal airborne radar arrays, pulse
detonation engines, variable bypass turbofans, scramjet propulsion, and buoyancy-assisted airships."
"The astute observer at this conference would be hard-pressed
to discover any mention of the legacy of the Wright Brothers,
who aerospace engineers insist were the founders of their
field of research. Indeed, in considering the confused and
confusing clutter of topics discussed at the conference, one
wonders if aerospace isn't in a state of complete chaos.
When questioned about a topic of discussion, the consistent
answers from researchers only reveal just how thin their
knowledge actually is -- few have actually any real hardware
to show and they usually admit that they need to conduct
much more investigation, a fact they try to obscure by
describing their work as 'leading edge' in order to keep the
funding pipeline alive."
"The only conclusion possible by an unbiased observer is that
the sole reason the Wright Brothers continue to enjoy their
high status in aerospace history is the determination of
the aerospace engineering community to maintain the status quo. The effort to shore up the tottering legacy of the Wrights is clearly bankrupt and, ultimately, doomed to failure."
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE: THE WINDMILLS ARE WEAKENING.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html
stevaroni · 19 July 2008
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
Stanton · 19 July 2008
No offense, John, but, wishing other people, no matter how reviling he/she/it may be, to commit suicide is in extremely poor taste, if not downright vulgar. We're supposed to be better than the Intelligent Design proponents, after all.
If you really want those schmucks at the Discovery Institute to destroy themselves, why not challenge them in asking what exactly do they spend 3 to 4 million dollars every year on for the last 15 to 20 years, if they have yet to put out so much as a single research proposal? Or, why not ask them if the magnum opus of the Discovery Institute is a poorly made, and incompetently fact-checked video mocking Judge Jones with fart noises dubbed in? Or, why not ask one of them if the magnum opus of Intelligent Design is a tacky, and incompetently fact-checked speech made by Ferris Bueller's nemesis on how "Darwinism" (sic) turns people into baby-eating communazis, and that science is murder?
Better yet, if you really want them to destroy themselves, ask them to explain and demonstrate exactly how Intelligent Design "theory" is superior to the Theory of Evolution, preferably on live television.
Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2008
John Kwok · 19 July 2008
Marion Delgado · 19 July 2008
That Luskin (as opposed to Mazur) did indeed invent Fodor as a participant, as Nick Matzke said above, is expanded on here.
He's likely over a line where if you emailed Mazur what he wrote, she'd correct him, and publicly.
Ichthyic · 19 July 2008
Suzan Mazur, who apparently has some peculiar agenda of her own
hmm, I never thought it was so hidden or peculiar.
It looks to me like she saw how much money Coulter made lying about science and evolution, and figured it would be easy to sell off a bit of her credibility for some quick cash.
expect a publisher to novelize her "book" within the next year.
Stanton · 19 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 20 July 2008
Bigbang, all theories are incomplete. Such is the nature of theories. Such (if you haven't noticed) is the nature of science. Unfortunately for you, "incomplete" doesn't mean "wrong". And since there is ZERO evidence for intelligent design in the origin of species, you're in the peculiar position of criticizing without facts.
Get over it.
Freelurker · 20 July 2008
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Rolf · 20 July 2008
Suzan Mazur, Ralph Nader of the Evolution Industry.
iml8 · 20 July 2008
bornagain77 · 20 July 2008
Cool podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podOmatic.com/entry/2008-07-18T16_59_21-07_00
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Make that "not yet possible."
stevaroni · 20 July 2008
Stanton · 20 July 2008
jkc · 20 July 2008
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Stanton · 20 July 2008
John Kwok · 20 July 2008
Paul Burnett · 20 July 2008
John Kwok · 20 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2008
bigbang · 20 July 2008
Frank J says: “Since BigBang is unusual among anti-evolutionist regulars….”
.
Thanks Frank. Unfortunately I’m unable return the compliment since you don’t seem to be unusual among Darwinians, resorting to the typical Darwinian knee-jerk nonsense, claiming I’m “anti-evolutionist”----although I note that rational people accept the evidence for common descent, the 4 billion year old earth, that life has evolved, and the various examples of microevolution by RM+NS----apparently b/c I don’t unquestioningly accept and espouse the pan-selectionist conviction that all of life is the result of a Darwinian directionless and ultimately purposeless evolution by RM+NS.
However, the reality is, as Massimo noted in his blog: “scientific theories never stay the same for long, because scientists discover new facts about the natural world, and they consequently update their theories.” And as paleontologist D. Erwin (no ID fan) wrote in his review of Kirschner’s/Gerhart’s “Plausibility of Life: resolving Darwin’s dilemma”: "Is there reason to think that our view of evolution needs to change? The answer is almost certainly yes.”
At the risk of blaspheming Darwinian dogma, I’ll say it again: the reality is that evolution by RM+NS is an incomplete theory.
BTW, I doubt Behe believes or has suggested, that, as you say, “connecting the dots,” is a “waste of time,” unless you’re referring to some sort of out of context quote. OTOH, Behe does seem to suggest that the Darwinian belief that RM+NS can explain all of evolution is shortsighted. Also, keep in mind that most of the greatest scientists and virtually all of the great mathematicians have had some sort of belief in design (God), and they obviously never felt that “connecting the dots” was a waste of time. If anything, their belief in a designed, rational world spurred them on to discover how it works.
Regarding whether anything is truly random, think of it this way: probabilities are little more than an attempt to quantify our ignorance.
olegt · 20 July 2008
iml8 · 20 July 2008
jkc · 20 July 2008
John Kwok · 20 July 2008
For a typical example as to what one ought to expect from a "journalist" of Suzan Mazur's caliber, I offer you this:
"ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY EVOLUTION SYMPOSIUM
A two-day "Evolution" symposium in May inside Rockefeller University's Buckminster Fuller dome drew a varied crowd of enthusiasts. Athough the event was gene-centered – there were some fascinating speakers, such as Roger Buick on the earliest known life on Earth (in a rock in Australia) and Ulrich Technau, a University of Vienna colleague of Gerd Mueller, on the Cnidaria and emergence of body features.
As I walked in, I noticed Eugenie Scott in the corner. She’s the director of the non-profit National Center for Science Education headquartered in California. Scott was busy typing on her laptop.
I decided to ask her some questions since I’d interviewed her colleague Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he’d hung up on me. Padian was a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design.
Scott’s NCSE advises schools on what science textbooks are appropriate. And NCSE works with science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and others in putting together conference speakers.
Scott told me she was at the Rockefeller symposium because she was coordinating the lecture that night by University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, who she billed as "the recipient of an Award of Excellence and Meritorious Service from the Illinois Public Defender Association and a John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, among other honors".
Coyne’s talk was titled: "Feeding and Gloating for More: The Challenge of the New Creationism".
Coyne investigates origin of species from a genetics perspective. He’s a pal of Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins. Prior to the symposium, Coyne had asked me not to contact him for future quotes because I told him I didn’t need his comment on the Newman & Bhat self-organization paper.
When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
I then asked her why she had as an NCSE board director someone from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints-funded Brigham Young University, and suggested that maybe NCSE should reorganize the board.
Scott objected to the comment and returned to her laptop.
At that point I noticed Rockefeller University President, Sir Paul Nurse tip-toe into the dome. I’d been wanting to speak with him as well. I’d emailed some of my evolution stories to him, but received no response.
I finally got the opportunity to chat following lunch, when the elevator in the cafeteria went up to the 8th floor by mistake and Paul Nurse appeared as the door opened. He said he’d never received the stories – although his secretary told me she’d printed out my email and put it on his desk – and that I should try sending them again, which I did by snail mail.
We had another conversation later that day just before the Coyne lecture during which he agreed that a public television roundtable on evolution was a good idea but that Pfizer had sponsored his Charlie Rose science series and he no longer had Pfizer as a sponsor.
Several days later, Paul Nurse’s assistant called me to confirm they’d received my articles in hard copy and she was sure I’d get a call from Nurse after his return on May 16th. When I did not hear from him, I followed up with a phone call requesting an interview but as yet I’ve not received a call back.
Since the Rockefeller conference did not include speakers on self-organization, I took the opportunity to quizz Harvard’s Andrew Knoll from the floor following his talk. I asked him if he was aware of Stuart Newman’s hypothesis that all 35 animal phyla self-organized at the time of the Cambrian explosion a half billion years ago without a genetic recipe, with natural selection following as a stabilizer. There was a bit of a rustle in the audience.
Knoll had just finished covering life on the Precambrian Earth and had taken the opposite, that is, natural selection perspective. He said he was not familiar with Newman’s paper and insisted: "No, it’s natural selection every step of the way." Knoll avoided eye contact with me for the rest of the event.
Washington University Earth scientist Roger Buick told me during the cocktail hour that I’d upset the argument Knoll had just carefully delivered.
But not everyone was upset. I got a tap on the back from Gerry Peretz, the brother of New Republic’s Marty Peretz who said he was a former student in Stuart Newman’s lab. He asked me if I’d like to have lunch.
So we talked. He was careful not to disclose any lab secrets, said he liked Newman and thought he was a superb scientist, although he found his politics a bit too progressive – that Newman had been the darling of Rolling Stone at one point.
It may have been a 2004 Mother Jones article Peretz was referring to about Newman’s attempt to patent a part human, part animal chimera to highlight the dangers of the commercialization and industrialization of organisms, which he fears will ultimately include humans.
The Jerry Coyne address left many speechless – but for the wrong reasons. Why was Coyne preaching about Creationism to a highly educated, largely non-religious audience of scientists on Manhattan’s Upper East Side? Didn’t Coyne know New York Magazine ran a "God is Dead" cover decades ago and that churches in Manhattan have turned around in real estate deals for more than 30 years?
Coyne, dressed down in jeans for the talk, and anticipating confrontation, did not to take many questions from the floor. So people moved to the stage to engage him before he could exit.
He was not happy to see me. His mouth was white and parched from speaking and he looked like he needed a beer. Nevertheless, he was cordial.
When I questioned his comment in the speech about natural selection (he said he was aware of 300 examples but didn’t have time to describe them), and reminded him that even his pal Richard Dawkins said we need a theory of form – Coyne defended his friend, suggesting that Dawkins did not have self-organization in mind. . ."
Mazur's recollection of the symposium doesn't quite jive with either mine or Eugenie Scott's, since we were both present on both days (I believe Mazur may have been AWOL during most of the second day, which included what I regarded as the most accessible talks (for someone trained in organismal biology, like yours truly). As for Coyne's reluctance to speak, he had an excellent reason: earlier that day I had introduced myself to him and found out that he was suffering from a cold (Thanks to Bill Dembski's bizarre "tribute" to him at Uncommon Dissent, I recognized Coyne immediately.). It's really a shame that Mazur's treatment of the symposium missed most of the interesting talks that were presented (While she was waiting to speak to Coyne after his talk Thursday night, she introduced me to Stuart Pivar, who happens to be a mutual friend of a friend of mine working at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Pivar struck me as the most conceited alumnus from Brooklyn Tech that I've met, though maybe his "conceit" was in jest, after he learned the identity of my high school alma mater.).
Regards,
John (aka "Jekyll and Hyde of Paleobiology" courtesy of Uncommon Dissent IDiot Borg drone DaveScot Springer)
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2008
DaveH · 20 July 2008
iml8 · 20 July 2008
Richard Simons · 20 July 2008
John Kwok · 20 July 2008
Lew · 20 July 2008
Eric Finn · 20 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 July 2008
iml8 · 20 July 2008
Stanton · 20 July 2008
Stanton · 20 July 2008
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Frank J · 20 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 July 2008
Stacy S. · 20 July 2008
Saddlebred · 20 July 2008
hey all u Darwinian tards!!!11!!! didn't u know that scientific theory can easily be overthrown by feel-good soundbites? omg duhhhh!!! have u never read how science really works? we vote on it, if u didn't know that!!!11!!!!one!!!!omfgBBQone!!!!11!!! thats how science works....I guess those fancy things u call doctorates mean only what u think they mean!!! I will pray for you!
Stanton · 20 July 2008
Henry J · 20 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2008
Saddlebred · 20 July 2008
Stanton · 20 July 2008
PvM · 21 July 2008
Stanton · 21 July 2008
bigbangBigot are totally obsessed with mocking those people who do not adhere to their own flavor of stupidity, and can not be concerned with pathetic little details like that. It's a condition that is typical of all those who are supportive of Intelligent Design "theory."Ravilyn Sanders · 21 July 2008
iml8 · 21 July 2008
John Kwok · 21 July 2008
Helen M nanney · 21 July 2008
* “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
* “Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977.
* “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?” Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.
* “If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark.” Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist.
Helen M nanney · 21 July 2008
What if You are Wrong? What then?
Blasting Christians is not going to give you your answers on life and your place in it.
Evolution and Science
If evolution is science then it has to have a principle. If it has a principle then scientists should be able to work out the solution. It is a law of cause and effect. There is no chance in principle. It is exact law the same rule applies to the laws of numbers, and music. They are an exact science and when the rules are applied, there is a solution. There is no theory in principle.
The universe is a perfect organization of celestial bodies all working together to support each others existence. They have an exact order to their place in the universe. There hasto be a Principle to support the design of all things or else they would cease to exist. Now after saying that, believe
what you want, till the day you return to your source, which I assume you believe is dust. Since dust has no intelligence, what then?
Has any source of evolution ever spoken to your thought?
Have you ever had answered prayer and received concrete
answers from any object of evolution? If critics think millions of Christians are so stupid as to believe in something they have no viable reason to think exists they are way out in left field and the game has been over a long time.
There are millions of reclaimed lives, biblical prophicies have already nearly all of them come to pass. I never had any concrete evidence there was a God for many years. I kept searching and searching, and searching for answers. As I began to understand the nature of God, He was able to reach my thought so loud as if talking face to face. So loud, I could not ignore His call to write my book about His identity. He is so far more then the man image so many talk about. He is not our dust, darkness, nor is He in our disruptive way of life.
God is divine principle, all science. Assuming He has created all,then there is nothing in His creation out side of His science,or divine principle. I say divine, for it is eternal Life, eternal Love. He is not outside of His creation. His creation is inside of His eternal, all encompassing knowledge.
Helen M nanney · 21 July 2008
I would be honored to have a link on your site.
key words: ID vs Darwin. Bible research,
www.journey-book.com
Henry J · 21 July 2008
SWT · 21 July 2008
@ Helen M nanney:
You seem to be buying in to a false dichotomy.
Check out Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, and Theodosius Dohzhansky. They are (or were ... Dobzhanky is no longer alive) all Christians, all biologists, and all accept (or accepted) evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the observed diversity of life on earth.
Stanton · 21 July 2008
Ms Nanney,
To abandon sound science such as Evolutionary Biology simply because one is afraid it may or may not insult God simply because reality does not mesh with a literal interpretation of the Bible is the nadir of stupidity.
Furthermore, evolutionary biologists do not worship "evolution" in order to find answers. THEY STUDY EVIDENCE.
Please explain and demonstrate, in detail, exactly how prayer is necessary for scientific research.
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2008
It appears that Helen M. Nanney will have to contact Philip Bruce Heywood and battle out their “scientific” differences.
Heywood thinks that “superconduction” plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system communicates information to atoms. Ms. Nanney seems to think water communicates her god to all the cells of the body.
A “Dialogue Concerning These Two New Systems” might be quite interesting.
bigbang · 21 July 2008
Finn says: “This is indeed a strong and fundamental result of quantum mechanics [that things are truly random].”
.
It’s only when we attempt a “measurement” in QM that this annoying randomness (ignorance) seems to surface. (The wave function itself is deterministic.)
Consider that while Brownian motion may look random, it’s merely chaotic; and unpredictable only b/c you don’t know the initial conditions.
Or think of it this way: You may not know which of Monty Hall’s three doors the prize is behind, but Monty knows. Randomness is typically (I’m persuaded always) an illusion; ignorance, OTOH, abounds.
Nothing wrong with ignorance, except that so many refuse to acknowledge and/or honestly and rigorously quantify their own----e.g. when Stein asks uber-Darwinian Dawkins in Expelled how he knows that the probability that there’s no God is 99.9% rather than say maybe 49%. (Of course Dawkins knows there's no God b/c Darwinism tells him so, as it does most genuine, hardcore Darwinians.)
iml8 · 21 July 2008
Larry Boy · 21 July 2008
Frank J · 21 July 2008
stevaroni · 21 July 2008
iml8 · 21 July 2008
iml8 · 21 July 2008
Freelurker · 21 July 2008
Eric Finn · 21 July 2008
Dan · 21 July 2008
Henry J · 21 July 2008
Dale Husband · 22 July 2008
Bjoern · 22 July 2008
John Kwok · 22 July 2008
Hi all,
In the hope of trying to get back more on topic, I am still waiting to hear from Suzan Mazur. I believe she owes us all an explanation as to why she thinks evolution doesn't have a credible theory yet; an odd accusation for someone who admits that she is an "evolution lover" and claims to be a credible scientific "journalist" (Aside from her rather absurd comments at SCOOP, I think another sign of her lack of "credibility" with respect to evolutionary biology, is the sad fact that she finds someone like Stuart Pivar to be far more "credible" than, for example, either Jerry Coyne or PZ Myers.).
Suzan, I presume you are still reading this thread. Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
John
fnxtr · 22 July 2008
So bigbang, does this mean Powerball is rigged by God, and She is picking the winners? How would we ever know?
iml8 · 22 July 2008
hoary puccoon · 22 July 2008
Helen M nanney---
It's true, as you claim, that Richard Leakey said,“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark.”
But Leakey made that statement on a Walter Cronkite TV special that was recorded live in 1981!
Science doesn't work like biblical studies, Helen. Working scientists don't put much stock in quotations from famous people. A 27-year-old, off-the-cuff comment from Richard Leakey means nothing. Even if what he said was true at the time, there have been many, many discoveries in the last 27 years that have whittled down that question mark considerably. And not a single one of those discoveries has cast an iota of fundamental doubt on the theory of evolution.
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2008
Frank J · 22 July 2008
bigbang · 22 July 2008
Regarding hidden-variables, non-local hidden-variable theories simply are not ruled out. Hello? Disappointing, but not surprising, that so many of you didn’t know that.
Google it and educate yourselves . . . on second thought, don’t bother----I’m guessing most of you could provide all kinds of data showing that Brownian motion is indeed random.
Be that as it may, the reality is that randomness isn’t provable, whereas deterministic things, OTOH….
Again, my Darwinian friends, ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing, except that so many of you seem unable to acknowledge and/or honestly quantify your own. Or stated another way, if atheists honestly assessed their ignorance, they’d be agnostics.
Larry Boy · 22 July 2008
Larry Boy · 22 July 2008
In other news, is the fact that BB made a point that was technically correct, and very nearly relevant to his point, (which was of course originally irrelevant to this discussion and everything else under the sun anyway) a result of my ignorant of physics, a random occurrence, or has BB actually learned something?
Of course, the usually arrogance, vitriol, OT-nes and trolling caveats all apply to his post.
Kevin B · 22 July 2008
John Kwok · 22 July 2008
Registered User · 22 July 2008
Someone up above nailed it: Luskin is a liar and pimp for his Jesus fellatin' masters.
A sad case, and a typical one. Instead of wasting time writing lengthy rebuttals to Luskin, why not simply cut Luskin off at the knees? Anyone who thinks it would be difficult to find a legal or ethical hook to pull him off the public stage (at least to the extent he relies on his ill-gotten credentials) is terribly naive.
Eric Finn · 22 July 2008
olegt · 22 July 2008
Theories with nonlocal hidden variables have a rather unpleasant property: they involve (you guessed it) action at a distance. That means there are things in them that can travel faster than light. Coupled with relativity that means a violation of causality. Such objects are unphysical in the sense that they can't be observed in principle (or else physics as we know it crumbles). Hidden-variable theories can get away with that because hidden variables are not supposed to be observed anyway.
One can compare a theory with nonlocal hidden variables to the YEC viewpoint that God created the world 6000 years ago and then added a perfect illusion of an old world complete with fake starlight streaming from nonexistent galaxies. Such theories are completely useless. David Bohm's quantum mechanics was constructed to give exactly the same predictions as the standard version of QM (Copenhagen version). It doesn't predict anything new, just makes things deterministic—at the expense of introducing unobservable and unphysical quantum potential. One might as well blame gremlins.
Standard quantum mechanics is a much more elegant theory. It dispenses completely with the unobservable hidden variables and boldly goes where no theory has gone before: true randomness. Bold steps are what distinguishes great theories from mediocre ones. Likewise, the aether was an integral part of Lorentz's relativity: the absolute frame was needed for calculations, but the theory was contrived so that the aether would not be detectable. Einstein took the bold step of throwing out the aether and making the time and distances changeable. Lorentz's theory makes the same predictions as Einstein's special relativity, but no one uses the former, only the latter. Why? Partly Occam's razor: the aether is unobservable, so it shouldn't figure in the equations. But there's another good reason to prefer Einstein's special relativity to Lorentz's: by dispensing with the absoluteness of time and space it prepared the ground for general relativity. I doubt that GR could ever come out of Lorentz's relativity. It was too conventional, a crutch rather than a wing.
So yes, one can stick with hidden variables, but that's a dead end.
tguy · 22 July 2008
RE: ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY EVOLUTION SYMPOSIUM
After reading that I'd have to say Mazur is the Perez Hilton of evolutionary biology. (Not its Nader, then again "nadir" would be the right general direction.)
tguy · 22 July 2008
tguy · 22 July 2008
John Kwok · 22 July 2008
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 July 2008
bigbang · 23 July 2008
Although non-locality might appear to be incompatible with relativity, it nevertheless emerges in entanglement and has been demonstrated experimentally. Look it up in Wiki. Again, regarding hidden-variables, non-local hidden-variable theories simply are not ruled out.
Be that as it may, this discussion started with Frank J’s wondering if anything is truly random, and the relevant point remains: randomness isn’t provable and probabilities are little more than an attempt to quantify our ignorance. If you believe that something is indeed truly “random,” it’s not based on anything that’s provable; it’s based only on your belief.
Invoking QM to argue whatever it was some of you thought you were arguing regarding your Darwinism obviously hasn’t been terribly helpful to your cause, although it has at least exposed still more of your ignorance, which is a good thing if you learn from and acknowledge it.
To those of you suggesting that the evolution of life isn’t random, purposeless, directionless, I’d probably not argue with you.
bigbang · 23 July 2008
Regarding whet "‘randomness’ means in the context of evolutionary theory," it means, essentially, ignorance, or possibly that it’s all a cosmic crapshoot, taking place within the confines of whatever environmental selection pressures happen to exist; those selection pressures being mere products resulting from whatever accidental environments/niches that happen to exist. Ultimately no purpose, no direction; only randomness and meaninglessness.
SWT · 23 July 2008
Of course the evolution of life isn't random, since selection is not random.
Dan · 23 July 2008
Bjoern · 23 July 2008
Bjoern · 23 July 2008
Bjoern · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
John Kwok · 23 July 2008
I just sent this e-mail to Suzan Mazur:
Dear Suzan,
I have the utmost admiration and appreciation for fellow Brunonian Cornelia Dean, a New York Times science editor, and Carl Zimmer, who, inspite of their mutual lack of scientific training while in college, have written authoratively and elegantly about everything from beach erosion to evolutionary biology and viruses. I share that same kind of admiration and appreciation that I have for their work for yours with regards to classical archaeology. So I am rather surprised, and frankly, quite disappointed, that you have yet to display similar qualities in your writings on evolutionary biology.
Yesterday I posted this at Panda's Thumb:
"Hi all,
In the hope of trying to get back more on topic, I am still waiting to hear from Suzan Mazur. I believe she owes us all an explanation as to why she thinks evolution doesn’t have a credible theory yet; an odd accusation for someone who admits that she is an “evolution lover” and claims to be a credible scientific “journalist” (Aside from her rather absurd comments at SCOOP, I think another sign of her lack of “credibility” with respect to evolutionary biology, is the sad fact that she finds someone like Stuart Pivar to be far more “credible” than, for example, either Jerry Coyne or PZ Myers.).
Suzan, I presume you are still reading this thread. Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
John"
I am not the only Panda's Thumb poster who is looking forward to your answer. Maybe if you could defend yourself, then it would put in a better context, your rather odd remarks regarding the recent Altenberg, Austria evolutionary biology conference. However, in the future, I hope you shall strive for the same kind of scientific and literary excellence which both Ms. Dean and Mr. Zimmer have demonstrated repeatedly in their scientific journalism, especially with regards to evolutionary biology.
Last, but not least, I am both perplexed and disturbed by your apparent hostility towards an eminent scientist who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I should note that I know of several members of this church who have made notable contributions to allometry and biogeography within the past two decades; moreover, as professional evolutionary biologists, their understanding and appreciation of current evolutionary biology is comparable to what I have read from the likes of such eminent scientists as Jerry Coyne and Niles Eldredge, for example, not from a self-proclaimed "expert" who lacks any training in evolutionary biology, period, like Stuart Pivar.
Again, I look forward to hearing from you, either in private, or in a public online forum, preferably at Panda's Thumb.
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Bjoern · 23 July 2008
iml8 · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
bigbang · 23 July 2008
Yes Bjoern, deterministic processes/forces are provable (at least in theory, and often to many decimal places), whereas randomness obviously isn’t, in theory or otherwise. It’s not “evidence [that] points to QM processes indeed being random,” it’s merely belief and/or ignorance.
And yes Bjoern, non-locality is essentially incompatible with relativity, regardless of whatever your preconceived notions are on the issue. I referenced Wiki only for those like you, obviously having a rather shallow understanding of the subject, but apparently Wiki hasn’t helped you much. Oh well.
Glad to see that iMl8 explained the obvious to Bjoern, that Darwinian evolution is indeed undirected.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 July 2008
olegt · 23 July 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2008
shitignoramus who is just baiting people to argue with him. I’m sitting here enjoying all his misconceptions. I don’t give a crap what he claims about his beliefs; it appears he gets most of his ideas, misconceptions, and tactics from the ID/Creationists.iml8 · 24 July 2008
John Kwok · 24 July 2008
Hi Everyone,
I see Suzan Mazur hasn't replied yet to my e-mail. It's a pity for someone who claims to be as "credible" a scientific journalist as she contends. If I was her, then I'd be more than a bit concerned that Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Casey Luskin and Canadian mendacious intellectual pornographer Denyse O'Leary have taken great - and favorable - interest in her coverage of the recent evolutionary biology conference at Altenberg, Austria.
If, as Mazur contends, that evolutionary biology doesn't have a viable scientific theory yet, then how does she account for this elegant evo-devo study which provides rather robust genetic support for homology with respect to the vertebral column:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/snake-segmentat.html#comments
Assuming that she is still reading comments here, I strongly encourage her to try emulating more her "colleagues" Cornelia Dean and Carl Zimmer by doing her "homework" - which both Dean and Zimmer do - with respect to evolutionary biology, instead of writing additional questionable journalism that runs the risk of being exploited by the likes of Luskin, O'Leary and others of their rather pathetic, quite noxious, ilk.
Otherwise, if Mazur isn't careful, she could become the Discovery Institute's latest "Tokyo Rose".
Regards,
John
(aka "Jekyll and Hyde of Paleobiology" courtesy of Uncommon Dissent IDiot Borg drone DaveScot Springer)
Rolf · 24 July 2008
tguy · 24 July 2008
The fault is entirely mine. I should have commended your turn of phrase before adding my own twist on it. I do find her unusually gossipy and focused on wardrobe for a reporter covering science.
tguy · 24 July 2008
hoary puccoon · 25 July 2008
Is anyone else getting the idea that Susan Mazur has decided scamming Sunday school children out of their dimes and quarters pays a lot better than free-lance science journalism? I expect to hear that she's been appointed a Discovery Institute fellow any day, now.
The irony is that evolutionary theory is going through an especially exciting time right now, as the theory is worked out at the molecular level. (As John Kwok pointed out, PZ Myer's current post is one good example.)
What kind of journalist instincts must Mazur have, to ignore what promises to be one of the greatest science stories of the 21st century and to focus instead on a venal fraud about a crisis that doesn't exist?
(Yes, I do recognize this is flaming Mazur. But it's pretty obvious at this point that she's got it coming.)
John Kwok · 25 July 2008
Gregorio · 3 October 2008
Can anyone name one 'success' of evolutionary theory? The theory is not deductive, but is instead based upon categorization and taxonomy. It does not propose a deductively-arrived-at test, but instead the arrangement of data. Mazur's point was not that it is in crisis so much as there seems to be an increasing number of biological phenomena it cannot explain, as understood so far - that it needs to be supplemented.
The genetic synthesis, with its Central Dogma of Biology, is on all fours with scientology in that both require narrow understanding of catechetical arguments lacking in predictive value. Darwin doesn't stop with molecular biology, but must be extended to include the role of energy and metabolism in evolution. Progress in this area is stifled by widely accepted but scientifically unsound ideas of biological energy as involving more than redox coupling, as including some strange animal called chemiosmosis that depends upon the naive confabulation of 'ion currents' and 'proton motive forces'. In the world of physics there are no such things. Their existence is posited only in the life sciences, and the theoretical justification for this bit of insularity dates to the 1902 hypothesis of Julius Bernstein invoking the 1888 Nernst equation to account for membrane voltages - voltages not detectable for almost another 40 years. In a gross violation of logic, the detection of those voltages was taken as corroboration of the hypothesized reason for them, an ion concentration gradient.
At Harvard's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (DOEB) we find the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, headed by Martin Nowak. Nowak published a book, Evolutionary Dynamics, in 2006, on the subject - an attempt to put evolution in mathematical form. The book does not have a single equation dealing with metabolism. It is all about the RNA/DNA world. Yet in the DOEB we find Lloyd Demetrius, a mathematical biologist who tinered with Kleiber's Law so that it would relate metabolic rate to availability of energy sources. His equation is elegant, and models how evolution, and the origins of life, is primarily about energy, and only secondarily about genetics. Furthermore, the equation models the forces and pressures behind biological organization, from small to large. The equation is essentially about the recharge rate of organic biomass's covalent bonds through redox coupling. The equation explains aging, and the metabolic role of 'junk' DNA. The equation relates reproduction to food availability, and answers the question of those in the origins of life field as to which came first, metabolism or replication. The equation shows that the two are inseparable, with replication occurring as alteration in size of biomass from perturbations in metabolic rate contingent upon changes in redox coupling efficiency. The idea biology is just too complex for physics is on a par with the belief that humans could not have evolved from monkeys.
Surely this is not a crisis for evolutionary theory. But it makes the modern synthesis appear naive in its stress on genetics. What it defines is the energetic parameters within which all genetic change must be limited if the organism is to survive and reproduce and grow and develop. What Mazur has done is turn over a stone and reveal to any who would introduce this take on the origins and evolution of life, what kind of snobs and mouth-breathing booger-eaters to expect, people who would resist any changes to doctrines which so far, have not really had a single success in the sense of a severe, deductive prediction about novel, undiscovered facts that can be tested for in a laboratory. The mathematical, physico-chemical approach provides for this. In doing so it demonstrates that the electrochemical forces and thermodynamic pressures necessary for life's origins are still calling the tune in life's functioning, with genetics playing second fiddle.
Stanton · 3 October 2008
Gregorio · 5 October 2008
I think I was pretty clear in specifying how the two are similar. How is this an incredibly fatal detail? How is it fatal? How is it incredible? Did you understand what I said?
You say scientology never was a science, and you imply that evolution is. You don't specify what qualifies a system of beliefs as a science. Ernst Mayr, in his 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought, specifies what he thinks a science is, and what the goals of science are. He has the effrontery to claim that Darwin, Mendel, Bernard and Freud did more to change our world view than any physicist. He cites hypothetico-deductivism as the method of science, even though this is not, as I specify above, the method of biology, and, in fact, with regard to key issues life scientists have repeatedly violated the laws of hypothetico-deductive logic. One of these involves the flight-fight model of nervous function, the idea, proven wrong in 1926 at the Mayo Clinic but believed still, is that the nerves can trigger vasoconstriction.
Mayr writes, "A fundamental difference between religion and science, then, is that religion usually consists of a set of dogmas, often 'revealed'dogmas, to which there is no alternative nor much leeway in interpretation. In science by contrast, there is virtually a premium on alternative explanations and a readiness to replace one theory by another." He says nothing about Crick's Central Dogma of Biology, or the resistance put up by the people at this cite not to the idea, but to the messenger, that the modern synthesis has been found to be increasingly incomplete with the discovery of new biological phenomena. Q.E.D., the theory's most ardent defenders fit into Mayr's category of religion. I have seen the claim made again and again by people like yourself that biology is too complex for physics, and Mayr even makes this claim, saying it should not be held to the standards of a philosophy of science based upon what he calls the 'hard' sciences, i.e., the ones based upon hypothetico-deductive logic.
Dean Elzinga · 25 March 2009
Beauty Age · 5 March 2010
I couldn't resist myself commenting to this one. I am shocked.From where you people get so much info and knowledge. It's just truly worth the read.