Jonathan Wells gets everything wrong, again

Posted 16 October 2009 by PZ Myers

I was just catching up on a few blogs, and noticed all this stuff I missed about Jonathan Wells' visit to Oklahoma. And then I read Wells' version of the event, and just about choked on my sweet mint tea.

The next person--apparently a professor of developmental biology--objected that the film ignored facts showing the unity of life, especially the universality of the genetic code, the remarkable similarity of about 500 housekeeping genes in all living things, the role of HOX genes in building animal body plans, and the similarity of HOX genes in all animal phyla, including sponges. 1Steve began by pointing out that the genetic code is not universal, but the questioner loudly complained that 2he was not answering her questions. I stepped up and pointed out that housekeeping genes are similar in all living things because without them life is not possible. I acknowledged that HOX gene mutations can be quite dramatic (causing a fly to sprout legs from its head in place of antennae, for example), but 3HOX genes become active midway through development, 4long after the body plan is already established. 5They are also remarkably non-specific; for example, if a fly lacks a particular HOX gene and a comparable mouse HOX gene is inserted in its place, the fly develops normal fly parts, not mouse parts. Furthermore, 6the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: 7If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse? Finally, 8the presence of HOX genes in sponges (which, everyone agrees, appeared in the pre-Cambrian) still leaves unanswered the question of how such complex specified genes evolved in the first place.
The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. 9I replied that duplicating a gene doesn't increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content. She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the moderator took the microphone to someone else.

It blows my mind, man, it blows my freakin' mind. How can this guy really be this stupid? He has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in developmental biology, and he either really doesn't understand basic ideas in the field, or he's maliciously misrepresenting them…he's lying to the audience. He's describing how he so adroitly fielded questions from the audience, including this one from a professor of developmental biology, who was no doubt agitated by the fact that Wells was feeding the audience steaming balls of rancid horsepuckey. I can't blame her. That was an awesomely dishonest/ignorant performance, and Wells is proud of himself. People should be angry at that fraud.

I've just pulled out this small, two-paragraph fragment from his longer post, because it's about all I can bear. I've flagged a few things that I'll explain — the Meyer/Wells tag team really is a pair of smug incompetents.

1The genetic code is universal, and is one of the pieces of evidence for common descent. There are a few variants in the natural world, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule: they are slightly modified versions of the original code that are derived by evolutionary processes. For instance, we can find examples of stop codons in mitochondria that have acquired an amino acid translation. You can read more about natural variation in the genetic code here.

2That's right, he wasn't answering her questions. Meyer was apparently bidding for time until the big fat liar next to him could get up a good head of steam.

3This implication that Hox gene expression is irrelevant because it is "late" was a staple of Wells' book, Icons of Evolution and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It's a sham. The phylotypic stage, when the Hox genes are exhibiting their standard patterns of expression, of humans is at 4-5 weeks (out of 40 weeks), and in zebrafish it's at 18-24 hours. These are relatively early events. The major landmarks before this period are gastrulation, when major tissue layers are established, and neurulation, when the neural tube forms. Embryos are like elongate slugs with the beginnings of a few tissues before this time.

4What? Patterned Hox gene expression is associated with the establishment of the body plan. Prior to this time, all the embryonic chordate has of a body plan is a couple of specified axes, a notochord, and a dorsal nerve tube. The pharyngula stage/phylotypic stage is the time when Hox gene expression is ordered and active, when organogenesis is ongoing, and when the hallmarks of chordate embryology, like segmental myotomes, a tailbud, and branchial arches are forming.

5Hox genes are not non-specific. They have very specific patterning roles; you can't substitute abdominal-B for labial, for instance. They can be artificially swapped between individuals of different phyla and still function, which ought, to a rational person, be regarded as evidence of common origin, but they definitely do instigate the assembly of different structures in different species, which is not at all surprising. When you put a mouse gene in a fly, you are transplanting one gene out of the many hundreds of developmental genes needed to build an eye; the eye that is assembled is built of 99% fly genes and 1% (and a very early, general 1%) mouse genes. If it did build a mouse eye in a fly, we'd have to throw out a lot of our understanding of molecular genetics and become Intelligent Design creationists.

Hox genes are initiators or selectors; they are not the embryonic structure itself. Think of it this way: the Hox genes just mark a region of the embryo and tell other genes to get to work. It's as if you are contracting out the building of a house, and you stand before your subcontractors and tell them to build a wall at some particular place. If you've got a team of carpenters, they'll build one kind of wall; masons will build a different kind.

6No, the similarity of Hox genes is not a problem. It's an indicator of common descent. It's evidence for evolution.

7Good god.

Why is a fly not a horse? Because Hox genes are not the blueprint, they are not the totality of developmental events that lead to the development of an organism. You might as well complain that the people building a tarpaper shack down by the railroad tracks are using hammers and nails, while the people building a MacMansion on the lakefront are also using hammers and nails, so shouldn't their buildings come out the same? Somebody who said that would be universally regarded as a clueless moron. Ditto for a supposed developmental biologist who thinks horses and flies should come out the same because they both have Hox genes.

8You can find homeobox-containing genes in plants. All that sequence is is a common motif that has the property of binding DNA at particular nucleotide sequences. What makes for a Hox gene, specifically, is its organization into a regulated cluster. How such genes and gene clusters could arise is simply trivial in principle, although working out the specific historical details of how it happened is more complex and interesting.

The case of sponges is enlightening, because they show us an early step in the formation of the Hox cluster. Current thinking is that sponges don't actually have a Hox cluster (the first true Hox genes evolved in cnidarians), they have a Hox-like cluster of what are called NK genes. Apparently, grouping a set of transcription factors into a complex isn't that uncommon in evolution.

9If you photocopy a paper, the paper doesn't acquire more information. But if you've got two identical twins, A who is holding one copy of the paper, and B who is holding two copies of the same paper, B has somewhat more information. Wells' analogy is a patent red herring.

The ancestral cnidarian proto-Hox cluster is thought to have contained four Hox genes. Humans have 39 Hox genes organized into four clusters. Which taxon contains more information in its Hox clusters? This is a trick question for Wells; people with normal intelligence, like most of you readers, would have no problem recognizing that 39 is a bigger number than 4. Jonathan Wells seems to have missed that day in his first grade arithmetic class.

It's appalling, but this is the Discovery Institute's style: to trot out a couple of crackpots with nice degrees, who then proceed to make crap up while pretending to be all sincere and informed and authoritative. It's an annoying trick, and I can understand entirely why a few intelligent people with actual knowledge in the audience might find the performance infuriating. I do, too.

81 Comments

Ola Fincke · 16 October 2009

As the originator of the above questions to Wells during his Q&A period at the University of Oklahoma, I found it amazing to learn that he mistook me for a developmental biologist. In fact, I'm a behavioral ecologist who also happens to teach undergraduate courses on evolution. This, I think, makes his 'expertise' in developmental biology all the more questionable. My point on gene duplication, which I was unable to explain because they took the microphone from me, is that if a gene is duplicated, the 'extra copy' is then free to evolve a slightly different function, at no fitness cost to the individual (i.e. the original function is covered by the original gene). Gene duplication is as common as many point mutations, and has occurred over and over again during evolution. Despite its frequency as a source of entirely new genes (as opposed to just new alleles), the ID folks keep saying that evolution cannot explain the source of new genetic information. They choose to simply ignore the data on this point, as with most others.

Steve Taylor · 16 October 2009

(9) I thought that the Kolomogorov complexity of two photocopies WAS greater, so there is more information in two copies ?

mark · 16 October 2009

Obviously, he is not very stupid. Just very very dishonest.

PZ Myers · 16 October 2009

It tells us that a professor of behavioral ecology knows immensely more about developmental biology than Jonathan Wells, which doesn't surprise me at all. He's a hack.

Douglas L. Theobald · 16 October 2009

Re: (8) -- Homeobox genes are even found in unicellular yeast like Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The mating type locus proteins MATa and MATα are homeobox genes, and obviously provide a very primitive developmental sort of function (directing what mating type the yeast will be, α or a).

Mary · 16 October 2009

I don't know if anyone heard Micheal Medved interview Richard Dawkins last week but I thought Medved was a total A-- H---. The first caller in was none other than Jonathan Wells. IDed as Jonathan who has a biology degree from Berkley. Richard was astounded than a person with a PhD in biology would doubt evolution. Apparently he didn't spot the ringer. Medved also slipped in a few other IDers on him (Bruce Chapman?). Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?

Stanton · 16 October 2009

Mary said: Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?

They tend to hesitate at committing murder, otherwise, no.

Mike · 16 October 2009

Its interesting that they don't even try to coverup that they're just making propaganda to encourage personal incredulity in an uninformed audience. Anyone with a high school AP Bio background would come away insulted, but they've made the calculation that most people didn't take AP Bio, and/or aren't going to research the topic. Even if they are psychologically invested in their "alternate worldview" rejection of objective observation, there must still be times when they know they're lying about the hard work of many people in whatever field they're currently misrepresenting.

Wheels · 16 October 2009

Why is a fly not a horse? Because Hox genes are not the blueprint, they are not the totality of developmental events that lead to the development of an organism.

To put it another way, if your schematic for a blinky LED circuit calls for the use of a 10K resistor, and your schematic for an AC-to-DC power supply ALSO calls for the use of a 10K resistor, why is your blinky LED not an AC/DC power supply?

eric · 16 October 2009

why is a fly not a horse?

Genetically, they're more similar than any sane designer would make them.

Stanton · 16 October 2009

eric said: why is a fly not a horse? Genetically, they're more similar than any sane designer would make them.

Genetically speaking, a fly and a horse are almost identical in comparison with, say, a ginkgo tree, and a fly, a horse and ginkgo are almost genetically identical in comparison with, say, a Staphlococcus aureus bacterium.

JohnK · 16 October 2009

Mary said: ...Micheal Medved interviewed Richard Dawkins last week... The first caller in was none other than Jonathan Wells.

A "challenging question" posed to Dawkins.

Medved also slipped in a few other IDers on him (Bruce Chapman?).

Did Medved identify himself as a Discotute Fellow? It's not surprising he usher them in to carry the ball.

David Cerutti · 16 October 2009

I think I know what he's doing when he throws out these big, vapid questions. The mind has a number of defense mechanisms, things it does in order to relieve pain or shift its attention when uncomfortable realities seem to close in. This is the purpose of questions like this, the same way that a tennis player hits a lob to change the rhythm of a match when it's not going well. I suspect that Wells also poses these questions to himself, and relies on not knowing the answers to such grand questions if ever he starts to realize that ID hasn't produced anything of value.

In other words, I get a sense that Wells isn't really arguing in favor of Intelligent Design so much as he's just grasping at any straw to obfuscate the issue. This reminds me of another ID creationist I once knew--if you talked with him about any of this stuff what would come out was a lot of questions in a sort of "explain this... well then, explain THAT... well then, how?" sort of rhythm. This question of "why is a fly not a horse?" and Wells's other arguments about DNA being somehow nonessential for life all seem cut from the same cloth: even if there were no answer available, it wouldn't necessarily support the notion that anything was intelligently designed, but the questions are simple and grand enough that they can be interjected anytime to divert attention from the vacuity of ID. I suspect Wells has trained himself, whether consciously or not, to do this. The objective isn't to demonstrate positively that something was designed, just to break the flow of a sane debate that would inevitably conclude that evolutionary biology has produced a fascinating and detailed story, whereas ID has done nothing.

Wells probably has no interest in hearing answers to these questions he poses. The answers are easy enough to come by, but I think this also speaks to the charges being made here about whether Wells is knowingly misleading his audience. Wells's grandiose questions serve as a personal escape as much as they serve as rhetorical tools. Whenever Wells needs to talk about real science, he takes refuge in these big big questions, and it allows him to feel assured by putting his opponents on the defensive. But it also probably serves him whenever any voice of conscience enters his mind, because he can ask himself "Why is a fly not a horse?" or "How can it be that DNA is non-essential? What then is driving the development of life?" and be assured that the questions are so big that he can't be faulted for not sorting them out on his own. Remember his "hypothesis" that centrioles are molecular jet engines, and his assertion that this was the basis of cancer? Again, it's an escape--failing to answer a big big question is a lot more comfortable than getting an answer to a little question that disturbs his whole way of thinking. Were he to accept the available answers to these questions, he would have to face the reality that ID is unnecessary and devoid of explanatory power.

Jeremy Mohn · 16 October 2009

I just want to point out that this event took place in Oklahoma - not in Kansas - as PZ's post indicates.

</defending turf>

Richard · 16 October 2009

Creationist Newsletter:

Flash! Famous Evilutionis confuses Kansas with Oklahoma!

Details at Eleven

DS · 16 October 2009

Johnny wrote:

"If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?"

I don't know, why don't you tell us? Does this mean that God really did design flies and horses? Was this a prediction of ID? How is this in any way shape or form incompatible with evolution? How does your ignorance of basic developmental biology somehow translate into evidence for your favorite pet crapola?

We are told that the similarities between chimps and humans are due to "common design". Well, are the similarities between flies and horses due to "common design"? If yes, you have demonstrated that the "common design" hypothesis is so vague and nebulous as to be completely meaningless. If no, then you have conclusively invalidated the concept of "common design". Either way you lose. Being too dense to realize this is no excuse.

Look, any average person can be forgiven for being this clueless. A guy claiming to have a PhD in the subject simply cannot be forgiven for this level of incompetence. He must be assumed to be completely dishonest until he presents evidence that he really is this stupid, that would be the only possible defense. Either way, why would anyone with two brain cell to rub together care what he says?

harold · 16 October 2009

Great work. There really isn't much to add.

KP · 16 October 2009

Regarding the photocopying a piece of paper analogy, I wish I had the reference on top of my head but it can be found easily because I first learned about it here at PT.

A paper in Science this past January showed how extra copies of the salivary amylase gene were present in human populations with higher carbohydrate diets. Also that more gene copies was fairly strongly correlated with higher amylase production. It's a fairly simplistic example, but it does show how gene duplication can give the extra "information" necessary to create an evolutionary adaptation within a species to a particular "environment."

Why is scientific dishonesty so prevalent among conservatives? I was just smacking down similarly ludicrous arguments in the comment thread of my local rag (er, newspaper) for an article on a recent cold snap we had. Rubes arguing that climate change had been "debunked," pointing me to all sorts of right wing websites claiming to provide access to the "truth" -- "peer reviewed" science that is being "suppressed." It makes me sad for the country.

DavidK · 16 October 2009

Stanton said:
Mary said: Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?
They tend to hesitate at committing murder, otherwise, no.

This is the basic M.O. of the general creationist. Attend a legitimate school, get a paper degree, wave it in your face, and come up with all kinds of jibberish that is "believable" to the average/lower end of the bell curve because they're speaking from "authority." You can see it wherever they flaunt their degrees on their inflated resumes and when introduced on e.g., Medved's show or at primarily church talks.

Paul Burnett · 16 October 2009

Stanton said:
Mary said: Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?
They tend to hesitate at committing murder, otherwise, no.

While they are not - yet - committing actual corporeal murder, they are committing intellectual child abuse on a geological scale, murdering the full development of the minds of innocent children by willfully teaching them ignorance instead of biological and other sciences. Yes, Mary - there are no limits to the unethical depths to which these people will stoop. And when the time comes to murder, their shock troops will be the legions of home-indoctrinated ignoramuses they have been raising the last few decades.

Ron Okimoto · 16 October 2009

Stanton said:
Mary said: Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?
They tend to hesitate at committing murder, otherwise, no.

Do they think that they are fooling anyone? What must it be like to know that you can lie to your supporters, run a bogus bait and switch scam on them and have them bend over and take the next scam from you? Do they expect their supporters to be as dishonest as they themselves are? What kind of people would do that? It really is hard to believe that they still have creationist supporters. They didn't sell ID to the science side. They sold it to the rubes stupid enough to believe them or dishonest enough to go along with the scam. When it all folded they had to run in a bogus switch scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed, and they had guys like Medved sign up after the bait and switch was going down. No one can deny that they started running the bait and switch years before they lost in court, so what did they ever have? All anyone sees is this type of nonsense. So what can their supporters be thinking? Did anyone ever get any intelligent design science to teach to school kids? Who is running the switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID/creationism ever existed, and that is just an obfuscation scam that can't even claim that ID is part of the controversy that they want to teach? I'd really like to see their explanation for their bogus behavior, but I'd settle for one of the rubes that bought into the scam and had the bait and switch run on them, just explain why they would still support the scam artists?

Pete Dunkelberg · 16 October 2009

Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? is a whole little book published by Disco for a fellow traveler. It's probably the source of this load from Wells.

Wheels · 16 October 2009

Pete Dunkelberg said: Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? is a whole little book published by Disco for a fellow traveler. It's probably the source of this load from Wells.

Not only that, it seems Wells was the editor for the English edition. Furthermore, Sermonti took over the editorship of Rivista di Biologia, which publishes papers by... Jonathan Wells.

Jeremy Mohn · 16 October 2009

Richard said: Creationist Newsletter: Flash! Famous Evilutionis confuses Kansas with Oklahoma! Details at Eleven

I just can't imagine how that could happen by chance!

DS · 17 October 2009

This book apparently implies that the differences between flies and horses are not due to genetic differences. Yea, right. and neither are the differences between humans and chimps. Great job by this italian nut case. All he has to do to defeat "darwinism" is to prove that all of genetics is a complete crock. Right. You let me know how that works out for you.

Wheels · 17 October 2009

DS said: This book apparently implies that the differences between flies and horses are not due to genetic differences. Yea, right. and neither are the differences between humans and chimps. Great job by this italian nut case. All he has to do to defeat "darwinism" is to prove that all of genetics is a complete crock. Right. You let me know how that works out for you.

It's especially ironic because Sermonti is a retired geneticist. Kind of like Behe is a "retired" biochemist, only more official.

DS · 17 October 2009

Epigenetics is a legitimate field of research. However, if you think that it means that you can grow a horse from a fly egg in the right environment, then maybe you should be politely asked to retire as a geneticist.

What? Oh, ...never mind.

DS · 17 October 2009

Evolutionary biologist: What's the capital of Oklahoma?

Creationist: O

Think about it.

Stanton · 17 October 2009

DS said: Epigenetics is a legitimate field of research. However, if you think that it means that you can grow a horse from a fly egg in the right environment, then maybe you should be politely asked to retire as a geneticist. What? Oh, ...never mind.

Q: How do you make a horsefly? A: Load the stallion onto a catapult!

Henry J · 17 October 2009

Q: How do you make a horsefly? A: Load the stallion onto a catapult!

Or alternately, keep a fly talking all night.

Stanton · 17 October 2009

Henry J said:
Q: How do you make a horsefly? A: Load the stallion onto a catapult!
Or alternately, keep a fly talking all night.

So that's what all the buzz was about.

Frank J · 18 October 2009

Mary said: I don't know if anyone heard Micheal Medved interview Richard Dawkins last week but I thought Medved was a total A-- H---. The first caller in was none other than Jonathan Wells. IDed as Jonathan who has a biology degree from Berkley. Richard was astounded than a person with a PhD in biology would doubt evolution. Apparently he didn't spot the ringer. Medved also slipped in a few other IDers on him (Bruce Chapman?). Are there no depths of unethical behavior these people won't stoop to?

I heard a clip of that yesterday! The caller dragged out the pathetic "were you there" argument. I assumed the caller was just a clueless rube but you got me wondering if it wasn't a DI hack hand-picked by Medved just to fool the rubes. What almost had me wrapping my car around a tree was Medved's "exciting news" that "Dawkins admits that there might not life anywhere else in the universe!" First, I'll bet the ranch and the dog that Dawkins did not "do a 180" as Medved pretended. Second, even if Dawkins did change his opinion on that particular claim, Medved knows darn well that it has no bearing on evolution, common descent, the age of life on earth, or whether some designer is involved.

DS · 18 October 2009

Johnny (PhD) wrote:

"I replied that duplicating a gene doesn't increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content. She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the moderator took the microphone to someone else."

Well, whether duplicating a gene increases information or not, it is a major mechanism of evolution. We have know that ever since Ohno. If anyone is interested in some real research concerning the role of gene duplication in evolution, here are some references:

Lynch and Conery (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicated genes. Science 290(5494):1151-1155.

Kapfer et al. (2005) Metabolic functions of duplicated genes in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Research 15:1421-30.

Roth et. al. (2006) Evolution after gene duplication: models, mechanisms, sequences, systems and organisms. J. Exp. Zoo. (B): Mol. Dev. Evo. 308B(1):58-73.

This is a very active field of research with literally thousands of papers. It must be a lot of work ignoring all of this, but I guess it pays well. Maybe this guy is also paid for not growing corn. You can't take the microphone away from everyone.

DS · 18 October 2009

Johnny (PhD) wrote:

Gene duplication is a major mechanism of evolution, no matter how much you try to argue it away. We have known that ever since Ohno. If anyone is interested in some real research concerning the role of gene duplication in evolution, here are some references:

Lynch and Conery (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicated genes. Science 290(5494):1151-1155.

Kapfer et al. (2005) Metabolic functions of duplicated genes in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Research 15:1421-30.

Roth et. al. (2006) Evolution after gene duplication: models, mechanisms, sequences, systems and organisms. J. Exp. Zoo. (B): Mol. Dev. Evo. 308B(1):58-73.

Weaver · 18 October 2009

RE: the photocopied paper straw-man.

I have a solution to this argument, but need help refining it to a short paragraph or less.

Photocopiers aren't perfect - very often the copy contains bits of data missing or added, seen as extra dots or lines on the copied paper. This is, in terms of the analogy, added information - exactly what Wells et. al. deny is possible. Since the original paper is unchanged (left to perform it's original function) the organism is free to exploit the changes in the copy; natural selection will refine beneficial changes over time.

KP · 18 October 2009

Can't the copy acquire different mutations than the original some time after the copying event?

Weaver said: RE: the photocopied paper straw-man. I have a solution to this argument, but need help refining it to a short paragraph or less. Photocopiers aren't perfect - very often the copy contains bits of data missing or added, seen as extra dots or lines on the copied paper. This is, in terms of the analogy, added information - exactly what Wells et. al. deny is possible. Since the original paper is unchanged (left to perform it's original function) the organism is free to exploit the changes in the copy; natural selection will refine beneficial changes over time.

CS Shelton · 18 October 2009

Stanton and Henry J, you made my day.
Or alternately, Bzz bzz bzz, Bzz bzz bzz.

Stanton · 18 October 2009

KP said: Can't the copy acquire different mutations than the original some time after the copying event?

Certainly! Different copies of an original gene can acquire different mutations at any time well after the first duplication event, exactly like the way different people will write different notes in their own copies of a document, or copies of a copy of said document.

DS · 18 October 2009

KP wrote:

"Can’t the copy acquire different mutations than the original some time after the copying event?"

Absolutely, that's the whole point. The references I cited show that most duplicate copies are quickly lost, presumably due to selection for reduced genome size. However, some are retained and those are free from selective constraint. They are therefore free to explore the selective topography. perhaps even becoming nonfunctinal before taking on a new function.

The capital of Oklahoma may indeed be O, but that misses the entire point of the question. In fact, you have to misinterpret the question is a very specific way in order to provide such a nonsensical answer. To me the answer Wells gave stinks of dishonesty rather than mere ignorance. What a charlatan. If he really knows this little about evolutionary biology he should keep his mouth shut. If he doesn't know that he is so ignorant, he should try to keep his mouth shut even tighter.

fnxtr · 18 October 2009

Wheels said:
To put it another way, if your schematic for a blinky LED circuit calls for the use of a 10K resistor, and your schematic for an AC-to-DC power supply ALSO calls for the use of a 10K resistor, why is your blinky LED not an AC/DC power supply?
Um... no filter caps?.

fnxtr · 19 October 2009

You can parse that misaligned blockquote correctly, yeah?

Ichneumon · 19 October 2009

KP said: Why is scientific dishonesty so prevalent among conservatives? I was just smacking down similarly ludicrous arguments in the comment thread of my local rag (er, newspaper) for an article on a recent cold snap we had. Rubes arguing that climate change had been "debunked," pointing me to all sorts of right wing websites claiming to provide access to the "truth" -- "peer reviewed" science that is being "suppressed." It makes me sad for the country.

Hey now, don't single out "conservatives" for "scientific dishonesty". First, in my long experience most of the "climate change has been debunked" crowd are sincere but misled; they've made the mistake of trusting the propaganda from the few who *are* knowingly dishonest. The same goes for a lot of other promulgators of scientific quackery. Second, I haven't seen a greater tendency of it on the right than on the left. Each side has its quacks, its propaganda mills, its parrots, just usually on different pet topics. For every example of the "scientific dishonesty" you can find among conservatives, I'll show you a liberal counterpart, especially in, but not limited to, the realms of "alternative medicine", the "paranormal", eco-kookery, food fadism, astrology, all kinds of "new age" weirdness, etc. Liberals can be useful idiots or lie for their "greater good" just as often as conservatives. For examples (or to discover the non-mythical status of rational, honest conservatives), drop on over to http://forum.DarwinCentral.org

Sylvilagus · 19 October 2009

Ichneumon said: Hey now, don't single out "conservatives" for "scientific dishonesty". Second, I haven't seen a greater tendency of it on the right than on the left. Each side has its quacks, its propaganda mills, its parrots, just usually on different pet topics. For every example of the "scientific dishonesty" you can find among conservatives, I'll show you a liberal counterpart, especially in, but not limited to, the realms of "alternative medicine", the "paranormal", eco-kookery, food fadism, astrology, all kinds of "new age" weirdness, etc.

You may be correct that quackery is equal on both ends of the political spectrum, but many of the leaders and mainstream activists on the right promulgate the climate nonsense and even creatonism. Witness the number of Republican politicians on the national level who assert creationism. The "liberal" quackry you mention just isn't pushed at the national political level the same way. Plus, many "new agers" (I've known a lot) are actually closet republicans... the ones pushing the stuff are usually small business people, and they don't like taxes. I think part of teh difference is that professional conservatives represent big business, tobacco, energy, pharma, all of which have vested interest in controlling public views of scientific matters and the power to hire the lobbiests to do so. I'm not sure which liberal constituencies are guilty of the same widespread scientific disinformation or what their purpose would be in doing so. maybe some fringe environmental groups. But I'd like to see some evidence of large national mainstream liberal organizations shilling the same way the right does... ??

Sammy · 19 October 2009

Does he not have sort of a legitimate point in that that body plans of the various phyla don't really match the cladograms that they've created based on the genetic findings? For example, a starfish and a horse have a more recent common ancestor than a fly and a horse, yet at least superficially, a fly has a body plan that is more similiar to that of a horse then to that of a starfish. It would seem to imply that both horses and flies are descended from some worm-like organism that had eyes or eyespots and that the genes that turn on development of eyes in horses and flies are homologous, but apparently eyes and those related genes were lost as the worm-like ancestor evolved into starfish. I have read about "The Hox Paradox", a phrase that seems to imply that some of this is at least somewhat problematic. Also, the "body plan" that Wells speaks of, may in fact be different before the Hox genes are turned on in that whatever has been formed at that point differs among the various metazoan phyla.

harold · 19 October 2009

Ichneumon -

Second, I haven’t seen a greater tendency of it on the right than on the left.

That's simply not true in the current US. A number of highly articulate science supporters on this blog have Republican leanings (John Kwok and several others), but the association between major science denial and the Republican Party/political right is overwhelming and obvious. I'm not saying that all conservatives deny science. Of course not. However, almost all people who deny evolution or human contribution to climate change, or distort facts about contraception, are conservative. And apart from a few honorable exceptions who post here, I find that almost all conservatives deny science on at least one of the issues I mentioned. Part of the problem for moderate or independent-thinking conservatives is that the Republican party and the term "conservative" have been hijacked by a rigid ideology that demands purity and loyalty. A particular problem I note with your post is that you are implicitly trying to paint a straw man picture of "liberals", apparently drawing on an exaggerated stereotype of 1960's "hippies" which has little relevance in 2009. This tactic is somewhat common in the right wing media, and I wonder if you have been biased by uncritical exposure to that.

Each side has its quacks, its propaganda mills, its parrots, just usually on different pet topics. For every example of the “scientific dishonesty” you can find among conservatives, I’ll show you a liberal counterpart,

Then why didn't you? 1) Not one of your examples is remotely lock step associated with the Democratic party or "liberal" ideology the way evolution denial, climate change denial, and distortions about contraception are associated with the political right. 2) Not one of them is an official ideological position of the Democratic party or any other "liberal" or "left" party I am aware of, while human contribution to climate change denial implicitly is for the Republicans. I believe the Republican platform may contain some creationist weasel words as well. I may be wrong on that. Others can feel free to check. 3) Not one of your examples is an outright denial of a strong scientific theory of decades of consistent research data, either. It's bad enough to accept the theory of evolution, climate change, basic physics, etc, but also believe in astrology, which is unsupported by science but does not directly deny science. It is far worse to deny major theories or findings.

especially in, but not limited to, the realms of “alternative medicine”,

Not strongly associated with a political party and ideology the way evolution denial, climate change denial, and lies about contraception are.

the “paranormal”,

Are you seriously suggesting that there are not numerous conservatives who believe in some such thing?

eco-kookery,

If we include denial of valid environmental science in this category, it is far more characteristic on the right.

food fadism,

Veganism and vegetarianism, which are not fads but personal choices and have nothing to do with denying science, seem to be more common among liberals. So what? "South Beach diet" type fads are clearly not associated with on political view. I'll note that denial of the health impact of smoking has been associated with Republicans and conservatives for decades, and that in my personal observation, denial of the environmental or health impact of current food habits seems to be associated with them as well.

astrology,

Famously associated with Ronald Reagan.

all kinds of “new age” weirdness, etc.

Can you be a bit more specific? Sorry. You may be a conservative who accepts science - although I'm not entirely sure - but the simple fact is that at this point in time, the science denial associated with the Republican party and the "conservative movement" is far greater than the level of science denial associated with other mainstream political forces.

harold · 19 October 2009

Sammy -

Does he not have sort of a legitimate point in that that body plans of the various phyla don’t really match the cladograms that they’ve created based on the genetic findings?

If you are referring to Wells, you are distorting his words (actually, by putting more intelligent words into his mouth, but it is still a distortion). He did not make this specific point. Please see the next article, where a precise transcript of his comments is provided and rebutted. What you are talking about is quite interesting, but I can't just stand by and let you say that Wells had a point :).

For example, a starfish and a horse have a more recent common ancestor than a fly and a horse, yet at least superficially, a fly has a body plan that is more similiar to that of a horse then to that of a starfish.

I believe that the key word here is "superficially".

genes that turn on development of eyes in horses and flies are homologous,

If by "genes that turn on..." you mean hox genes.

but apparently eyes and those related genes were lost as the worm-like ancestor evolved into starfish

Photosensitivity can be found even in unicellular organisms. It's probable that it emerged only once. (That claim is found in the Wikipedia article on "eyes", but a citation is lacking.) However, insect eyes are very different from vertebrate eyes. Although common elements related to common ancestry are present, there has also been a great deal of parallel evolution of function, and emphasis on different functional aspects. A horsefly has eyes that are very different than those of a horse.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

harold said: However, almost all people who deny evolution or human contribution to climate change, or distort facts about contraception, are conservative.

Urrr ... not that I take sides in the smear match between the Right and Left, but vaccine denialism and resistance to GM foods are broadly seen as causes of the Left. I suppose it might be argued which side is more ENTHUSIASTIC about crankery -- I think I know which way I would vote on that one -- but neither has a copyright on it.

eric · 19 October 2009

DS said: KP wrote: "Can’t the copy acquire different mutations than the original some time after the copying event?" Absolutely, that's the whole point.

Well, its part of the point. Copying does provide a bigger canvas on which mutations can work. But the original point bears repeating: there are many observed cases where the number of copies of sequence X controls the dosage of chemical Y, therefore even perfect duplicates provide developmental "information." A copy does not need to be different to add information to the genome. The paper example is misleading because genes aren't merely a list of factoids that some reader absorbs, but instructions that the body acts on. Two copies of the sentence "one foot equals twelve inches" may not, intuitively, seem like more information than one. But every pirate knows that the map instructions "turn left, go one mile, dig for treasure" are different from "turn left, go one mile, go one mile, go one mile, dig for treasure." Arrrr!

DS · 19 October 2009

Sammy wrote:

"Does he not have sort of a legitimate point in that that body plans of the various phyla don’t really match the cladograms that they’ve created based on the genetic findings?"

Perhaps, but what would that point be? Maybe the point is that the easy answer isn't always the correct answer. Maybe the point is that superficial resemblances aren't always the best indicators of phylogenetic relationships. Maybe the point is that people who know nothing about cladistics should become educated before they try to criticize the findings of experts.

The echinoderms are the proper sister group to the chordates. This can be seen in the genetic similarities and the early developmental stages. The fact that they have such divergent adult morphologies is due to the differnce in selective pressures in the different environments. That is not the sort of character that should be used for phylogenetic reconstruction.

If Wells did make such an argument, he still probably wouldn't be smart enough to figure out that he was still dead wrong once again.

DS · 19 October 2009

Eric,

Of course your are right. I was just trying to point out that duplicated genes are very important for evolution for more reasons than that. Certainly duplicated genes can have an immediate effect, but whether or not they immediately increase information or not is irrelevant. They can affect function immediately or in the future and this can often be a very important evolutionary mechanism. This is especially true for Hox gene evolution which was the context of the original question. By focussing attention on just one small aspect of the problem (which he was wrong about anyway) he has tried to deflect attention from the significance of this type of genetic change.

Even if the capital Oklahoma really is O, no one cares.

Sammy · 19 October 2009

harold said:
but apparently eyes and those related genes were lost as the worm-like ancestor evolved into starfish
Photosensitivity can be found even in unicellular organisms. It's probable that it emerged only once. (That claim is found in the Wikipedia article on "eyes", but a citation is lacking.) However, insect eyes are very different from vertebrate eyes. Although common elements related to common ancestry are present, there has also been a great deal of parallel evolution of function, and emphasis on different functional aspects. A horsefly has eyes that are very different than those of a horse.

Harold: Apparently the gene that turns on eye development in both mice and flies (and presumably horses) is called the "eyeless" gene, although I don't know if it's classified as a Hox gene. It seems there are at least two possibilities. The first is that the gene didn't originally play a role in the development of eyes or eyespots and it was converted to that role at least twice: once in vertebrates or craniates and once in arthropods. This would presumably be an example of convergent evolution. Another possibility is that "eyes" in vertebrates and arthropods are homologous, but this seems more problematic in that it would seem to imply that echinoderms lost their eyes throughout the course of evolution which seems unlikely because the ability to process visual information likely provides a large evolutionary advantage.

harold · 19 October 2009

Wile Coyote -

Urrr … not that I take sides in the smear match between the Right and Left,

Let me make this crystal clear - I am talking about facts here, not advocating for one or the other party. The primary fact I am insisting on is that two major forms of science denial - evolution denial and human contribution to climate change denial - are strongly associated with, and widely overtly endorsed by, the current Republican party and the "conservative" movement. There are anti-scientific beliefs and activities that are associated with non-conservatives, and I'll discuss one in this post, but they cannot compare with what is going on with the Republicans. I can assure you that if the Democrats actually were associated with serious science denial, I would acknowledge that. I even bothered to try to explain why the Republican party is so associated with science denial. The Republican party has emphasized unity of message and loyalty for years now, and purged out members who don't go along. For example http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/16/the-great-rino-hunt-in-upstate. Obviously, I went out of my way to point out that some conservatives actually don't deny science, and obviously, I did not claim that all liberals are entirely rational and scientifically literate.

but vaccine denialism

First of all, I don't believe that it's associated with one particular political view. Do you have evidence from polls that Republicans are more likely to make proper use of vaccines? Even if you did have evidence of some statistical trend, do Democrats or "leftists" introduce legislation to discourage the use of vaccines? Do they get on school boards with the secret mission of introducing vaccine denialism into high school science curricula? It's incredibly important to differentiate between what someone may claim to believe, and what the politicians they elect actually DO.

and resistance to GM foods

Much of the "opposition" to GM foods consists of advocacy for greater regulation. I am not personally opposed to GM foods even at the current level of regulation. Nevertheless, those who oppose GM foods at any level are actually not denying science (in fact, if they denied the science, they wouldn't believe that genetic modification is possible). You may disagree with their views on regulation, but that is not the same thing.

are broadly seen as causes of the Left.

However, vaccine denial is not explicitly or implicitly supported by the Democratic party, nor even, to my knowledge, the Greens or any other party, so it is not a serious "cause of the left" (*I hate describing the Democrats as part of "the left" but will continue that convention here for brevity*). Whereas implicit and explicit climate change denial is officially part of the Republican platform, and Republicans at numerous levels have introduced efforts to get ID/creationism into schools. Opposition to GM foods is not associated with the Democratic party overall, to say the least. It may be associated with the Greens. It is a debate about level of regulatory oversight, in which neither side denies outright basic scientific reality.

I suppose it might be argued which side is more ENTHUSIASTIC about crankery – I think I know which way I would vote on that one –

I would say that it cannot possibly be argued. One party is strongly associated with denying human contribution to climate change, distorting science on contraception, and is the home of virtually 100% of those who actively use politics to jam ID/creationism into science curricula. These are virtually the ONLY efforts to legislate in direct denial of science. In "rebuttal" of my point, people have listed a variety of activities which are not associated with the Republican platform, but which are also NOT associated with the Democratic platform either. Of course a lot of people of all political persuasions believe a lot of silly things. Here's an example of science denial that makes my blood boil - false claims about the usefulness of animal research. Not "ethical opposition" to it, which is a subjective values decision, but lying about it - claiming the cell culture research or computer models can answer all the same questions, for example. That particular type of science denial annoys me a great deal, and it is clearly associated with non-conservatives for the most part. However, again, this position, in addition to being very rare, is not associated with the Democratic party. The facts are the facts. There are lots of loony people on both sides of the spectrum, but there is currently ONE major party that has made outright science denial a part of its platform and legislative efforts.

Wheels · 19 October 2009

Another big motivator of science denial besides A) ideological opposition to "big government" or regulation, and B) religious ideology, is C) industry money. Republicans tend to be the go-to party for industry advocates and lobbies who try to weaken legitimate science and the scientific process in order to get in their wedge of FUD, postponing or defeating attempts at regulating things like pollution, responsible treatment of endangered species, insurance and banking industries, tobacco companies (we all remember that one, right?), and now especially climate change.
I'm not saying Democrats don't fall prey to industry money, I'm saying that the Republican party has a ready-made ideology to support industry practices and business models that would suffer under tighter government regulation.

Ritchie Annand · 19 October 2009

If I recall correctly, eyes themselves have evolved multiple times - probably due to the fact that certain types of eyes useless below a certain size - but that light sensitivity and signalling are, respectively, from rhodopsins and G-proteins, which are ancient indeed.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

harold said: Obviously, I went out of my way to point out that some conservatives actually don't deny science, and obviously, I did not claim that all liberals are entirely rational and scientifically literate.

Ah, well that was my point exactly, so I guess we are in agreement. I don't trust the Looney Left any more than I trust the Troglodyte Right.

Ritchie Annand · 19 October 2009

In terms of Left vs Right in denialism, one common thread seems to be distrust of all scientists except favored mavericks.

For the Right, scientists are untrustworthy due to atheism or Satan... or maybe money if we're in persecution mode.

For the Left, scientists are untrustworthy due to money or Big Brother.

At least, that seems to be the tone of the respective threads I encounter :)

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

Ritchie Annand said: For the Right, scientists are untrustworthy due to atheism or Satan... or maybe money if we're in persecution mode.

Well, Global Warming is the Big Liberal Conspiracy. Some go farther than that. I recall my astonishment at a comment on Wikipedia that called the Cretaceous Impact Extinction theory a "Liberal Conspiracy". Huh? What? "OK, you're crazy." Maybe the combined gas law is a Liberal Conspiracy, too.

For the Left, scientists are untrustworthy due to money or Big Brother.

It's always Evil Corporate Interests. Switch to Noam Chomsky rant mode ... the only worse ranter was Ayn Rand. I used to work for a big corporation and so I don't trust them either. But they're more inept and clumsy than honestly malevolent.

eric · 19 October 2009

DS said: I was just trying to point out that duplicated genes are very important for evolution for more reasons than that...They can affect function immediately or in the future and this can often be a very important evolutionary mechanism.

Yes, absolutely. In fact the two mechanisms work in parallel. Some mutant has a perfect duplication which increases the amount of chemical X at some point in development. If this is not fatal, then offspring of the mutant might themselves mutate in different ways; one offspring might find an adaptive use for the higher concentration while another finds an adaptive use for the original concentration + a mutated duplicate.

sylvilagus · 19 October 2009

wile coyote said: It's always Evil Corporate Interests. Switch to Noam Chomsky rant mode ... the only worse ranter was Ayn Rand. I used to work for a big corporation and so I don't trust them either. But they're more inept and clumsy than honestly malevolent.

I don't think Chomsky's argument, or others on the left, is simply that corporations are "honestly malevolent." The argument is more that the corporate capitalist system encourages, indeed requires, that corporations act out of (class) self-interest which in turn leads (averaged out) to actions which serve narrow class interests rather than broad social interests. Arguable of course, but what you're describing is more like a kind of conspiracy theory which serious thinkers, including Chomsky, on the left don't argue.

sylvilagus · 19 October 2009

wile coyote said:
harold said: However, almost all people who deny evolution or human contribution to climate change, or distort facts about contraception, are conservative.
Urrr ... not that I take sides in the smear match between the Right and Left, but vaccine denialism and resistance to GM foods are broadly seen as causes of the Left. I suppose it might be argued which side is more ENTHUSIASTIC about crankery -- I think I know which way I would vote on that one -- but neither has a copyright on it.

What is your evidence that vaccine denialism is associated with the Left. I'm a leftist and I've never heard anyone of my political ilk or affiliation make such an argument. As for GM food, how is that science denial? Sure, it reflects a suspicion of the limits of scientific understanding (and corporate motivations)but that is not the same as outright denial of science facts. It's more an issue of the degree of consumer choice and govt regulation.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

sylvilagus said: I don't think Chomsky's argument, or others on the left, is simply that corporations are "honestly malevolent."

Maybe so, but in other times and places I heard the "evil corporations" tape played so many times it is, shall we say, overly familiar.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

sylvilagus said: As for GM food, how is that science denial? Sure, it reflects a suspicion of the limits of scientific understanding (and corporate motivations)but that is not the same as outright denial of science facts. It's more an issue of the degree of consumer choice and govt regulation.

Hmm, sort of like fluoridation of water supplies, right?

Mike Elzinga · 19 October 2009

When it comes to these types of tactics, I sometimes have to wonder who is borrowing from whom.

I think Lee Atwater and his protégé, Karl Rove, borrowed from the tactics of fundamentalist preachers.

However, when we watch Rush Limbaugh, Fox Noise, and the Limbaugh “Mini-Me”, Glen Beck, as well as the Birthers, the Tea Baggers, and the rest of the Right Wing nut-jobs, one gets the impression that the standard operating procedure these days is to lie so brazenly that people will doubt that anyone would dare to do such a thing; thus, there must be something to the ludicrous claims. The tactic seems to be primarily political; anyone, including fundamentalists, can drink from the same cesspool.

I’ve generally had the impression that these tactics have been learned from the charlatans who have developed them and have taken over fundamentalist religion. Here the lying is so blatant and brazen that the sectarian followers who immerse themselves in this type of chicanery no longer have any reliable reference points to judge honesty and truth; so they simply turn off their brains and go with the avuncular and jocular scripture-quoters, fearing that any other source will condemn them to hell.

Wells and the rest of the clowns at DI seem to be consciously employing these tactics. I even had the impression that Duane Gish and Henry Morris consciously employed these tactics back in the 1970s. Such tactics seemed at the time to be mostly confined to these sectarian groups. Nowadays, almost all Right-Wing political fanaticism seems like fundamentalism run amok. Not even the rantings of the far left have this particular stench.

harold · 19 October 2009

Wile Coyote -

I think we are in almost complete agreement indeed, but I will point out that the "loony left", which I agree could be said to exist (although may not always be "left" in terms of serious economic issues), does not control a major political party.

Neither the Democratic party, nor for that matter, in the most recent election, the Green party, nor independent candidate Ralph Nader, had a platform that opposed vaccination or fluridation of water, or that endorsed belief in the paranormal, astrology, healing crystals, or any such thing.

The Natural Law Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party was only mildly loony, and not really on the "left" in many ways.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

sylvilagus said: What is your evidence that vaccine denialism is associated with the Left.

Not strong, it's just that I associate it with Robert Kennedy, one of the biggest US antivaxer, and THE HUFFINGTON POST. Kennedy's influential ROLLING STONE article tended to reinforce that notion. DEMOCRATIC.UNDERGROUND.COM also has its anti-vaxer component posting scare stories about thimerosol. To be sure, they are definitely the Looney Left, and other posters energetically beat them over the head with big Nerf hammers. Also to be sure, chiropractors have been pushing anti-vax for a long time -- but the recent "VACCINES == AUTISM" wave is something new. I have not been able to find much, if anything, on the Right that demonstrates any similar interest in the subject. They're too busy worrying about gun control and (Obama == Stalin) and stuff like that.

harold · 19 October 2009

Wile Coyote -

This is my final post on this issue, but I think your replies to Sylvilagus were somewhat unfair.

He (she?) and I both made these points - 1) vaccine denial is not associated with the political left, and 2) controversy over GM foods is not, whichever side you take, grounded in science denial. It is controversy over level of regulatory oversight. Both sides accept the same science.

As for flouridation of water, the anti-flouridation crazies I am actually old enough to remember were not left wing.

I strongly agree with you that one not infrequently hears simplistic "corporations are bad" slogans, typically from those who don't understand what a corporation actually is. I don't agree that Chomsky makes such simplistic analyses. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but he isn't a conspiracy theorist, nut, or idiot.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

harold said: I think we are in almost complete agreement indeed, but I will point out that the "loony left", which I agree could be said to exist (although may not always be "left" in terms of serious economic issues), does not control a major political party.

The wingnut Michael Moore Left has been marginalized more than the wingnut Ann Coulter Right. But I have a fear that polarization is continuing and that we may have national politics that look more and more like the legislature of the state of California.

harold · 19 October 2009

Wile Coyote -

Oh, man, one more post...

Thank you for reminding of the Kennedy-vaccine connection; that is a case of an individual Democrat making anti-scientific statements. It doesn't change my arguments, but it is good to be complete.

I don't like either Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, but Ann Coulter is far more hateful, dangerous, and destructive.

I'm optimistic that the polarization we are seeing right now is frenzied wingnut versus the mainstream. Note that much of what wingnuts describe as the "far left" is already working successfully in Canada and Australia, let alone Europe and Japan.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

harold said: (1) vaccine denial is not associated with the political left

Oh, it's not a strong association in my mind, I suppose the Robert Kennedy association planted that.

As for flouridation of water, the anti-flouridation crazies I am actually old enough to remember were not left wing.

No, General Jack D. Ripper was not a liberal. But the Left has found a similar cause.

I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but he isn't a ... nut ...

I can't say any more. I just bit my tongue out of my head.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

harold said: Thank you for reminding of the Kennedy-vaccine connection; that is a case of an individual Democrat making anti-scientific statements.

Exactly. I never claimed that most Democrats were crazies. I simply said that there was was a lunatic fringe there, and if the Right wingnuts seem more menacing now, I haven't fogotten the Left wingnuts in the shadows. It's a personal sort of thing, really. When I was living in Oregon, most of the crazies I knew personally were on the Left. Down here in Colorado, they're mostly on the Right. Which frightens me more? Take your pick.

Dave Luckett · 19 October 2009

Americans appear to associate a tax-funded basic universal health and medical scheme with actual socialism. Speaking as an Australian, there's something about being the most constant ally of the US and being seen as wearing a Che Guevara beret with red star (while actually being from the conservative wing of the middle class here) that tickles my fancy.

wile coyote · 19 October 2009

Dave Luckett said: Americans appear to associate a tax-funded basic universal health and medical scheme with actual socialism.

Only the hard right. I would be perfectly happy with a government-based universal health insurance scheme. It is very HARD to believe it would be worse than matters as they exist. But it won't happen, politically it's can't. The private insurers will do the job, with the government providing some sort of overall framework. HOWEVER ... once the insurers are on the Federal leash, they may find it getting tighter over time. I understand, if not in much detail, that Switzerland has a scheme along such lines and that it works pretty well. In the USA, the "Looney Left" are the folks who would, say, claim the US government pulled off 911 to justify the war in Iraq. Now I'm not saying the government's conduct relative to Iraq was, shall we say, praiseworthy, but this is definitely an extreme view on matters.

Wheels · 19 October 2009

Basically the issue is that the "Loony Left" hasn't taken over a major share of the Left-er of the two major parties, whereas radical "conservatives" have managed to do that with the Republicans in several ways.

As to Switzerland, their scheme works for several reasons that the Republicans would oppose. Among other things, the insurance industry is very tightly regulated compared to ours, citizens are mandated to get a health plan, and if they really can't get one themselves the government will help out. Republicans are generally against all of those ideas these days, since the party has shifted so far to the radical end of the right. If I remember correctly, John McCain's plan would have been somewhat similar except for the crucial part of more government oversight of the insurance industry, and that's really central to making such a system work.

harold · 19 October 2009

Wile Coyote -

Noam Chomsky has never overtly advocated violence against people who disagree with him.

He also isn't a creationist, and in particular, he didn't hire a couple of DI shills to feed him talking points and then use them to fill a couple of chapters of a hack book. (A hack book subsequently bought in bulk by right wing "think" "tanks", no doubt to be stored in vast quantities in basement storerooms, I might add. Possibly the boxes are stacked on top of boxes of Dembski and Behe books.)

He also has a real job.

I believe that for those reasons alone, it is somewhat unfair to suggest equivalence between Noam Chomsky and Ann Coulter.

Also, based on my time in New Mexico, during which I met many people from Colorado, I find it hard to believe that you aren't encountering any left wing nuts there. Are you living in Colorado Springs? Also, you must have been in western Oregon.

Wheels · 19 October 2009

Is it just me, or do most think-tanks in the US lean to the right?

Sylvilagus · 20 October 2009

wile coyote said: In the USA, the "Looney Left" are the folks who would, say, claim the US government pulled off 911 to justify the war in Iraq. Now I'm not saying the government's conduct relative to Iraq was, shall we say, praiseworthy, but this is definitely an extreme view on matters.

Actually, there are a large number of Right-Wingers who make exactly that claim. Right-wing Anti-semites, holocaust deniers, etc. are all part of the 911 "Truth Movement." Many others are Libertarian conservatives. Why call this the Looney "Left"?

Sylvilagus · 20 October 2009

wile coyote said: In the USA, the "Looney Left" are the folks who would, say, claim the US government pulled off 911 to justify the war in Iraq. Now I'm not saying the government's conduct relative to Iraq was, shall we say, praiseworthy, but this is definitely an extreme view on matters.

Sylvilagus · 20 October 2009

wile coyote said: In the USA, the "Looney Left" are the folks who would, say, claim the US government pulled off 911 to justify the war in Iraq. Now I'm not saying the government's conduct relative to Iraq was, shall we say, praiseworthy, but this is definitely an extreme view on matters.

truthspeaker · 22 October 2009

Regarding corporations, I don't know what Chomsky's argument is, but corporations are amoral by design. Their stated purpose is to increase value for shareholders. If delivering ice cream and puppies at reasonable prices with little impact on the environemnt increases sharehold value, then that's what they'll do. But if bribing governments to let them exploit workers for little pay increases shareholder value, they'll do that too. They make no secret of this and I can't understand why it would be contraversial to state it as such.

Jack · 26 October 2009

"How such genes and gene clusters could arise is simply trivial in principle, although working out the specific historical details of how it happened is more complex and interesting."
How come asking where those gene clusters evolved is a trivial question in principle if they were actually evolved. It is the foundational question! Your being faithful to evolution does not mean other people raising doubts against it got it wrong or stupid. How complex were the “historical details”? Is it so complex that it “appears to be designed” as Dawkins put it?
The “in principle” behind you is that those gene clusters were evolved not matter we have the evidence or not, not matter it was actually evolved or not? Therefore, every doubt against your evolution paradigm is wrong?

fnxtr · 26 October 2009

Oh, dear. Here we go again.

Reading comprehension: 0/10.

Persecuted minority schtick: 10/10

Jack, you got any evidence for your theory? Anything at all? Do you even have a working model? Besides GODDIDIT, I mean.

Seriously, man. You have doubts, go ahead, do some science. We're waiting. So's the Nobel prize.

Have at 'er.