How many things are wrong with this?
Greg Laden's Blog
Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff
Profile
Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.
Recent Comments
- RBH on 20000 comments
- Karl Bunday on National Science Standards: We can haz!
- Matt Platte on Tramplings
- Lorax on National Science Standards: We can haz!
- Phil on Win Ben Stein's mind
- Salad Is Slaughter on What else does the Bible say, Jesus?
- becca on The 5:56 meme variant
- albi on The 5:56 meme variant
- albi on The 5:56 meme variant
- Tony P on Life is good
Search this blog
Recent Posts
- The 5:56 meme variant
- Life is good
- National Science Standards: We can haz!
- Win Ben Stein's mind
- Four Stone Hearth
- Unbelievable Species
- If I Were You: Perceptual Illusion of Body Swapping
- Tramplings
- What else does the Bible say, Jesus?
- Anti-gay mayor faces federal criminal charges
Blogroll
Archives
« This image does NOT need a caption | Main | When the big cat eats the black man »
Examining Expelled
Category: Expelled!
Posted on: August 20, 2008 9:09 PM, by Greg Laden
Find more posts in: 
Life Science
Comments
I couldn't get past "natural selection does not provide new genetic information" — barf out, gag me with a spoon.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 20, 2008 9:55 PM
Windows is a bad example. Everybody knows that even improvements in Microsoft's code causes crashes.
Posted by: Ben Zvan | August 20, 2008 10:06 PM
"oh this is very good!" says ben stein to berlinski's waffle. it's ALMOST as if he was making the whole movie looking for soundbytes and was expressing joy at having found something he thinks confirms them.
Posted by: michael | August 20, 2008 10:11 PM
The camera work! It's like The Bourne Identity on a bad trip. Harsh.
Posted by: SC | August 20, 2008 10:52 PM
The main thing wrong is the title: Truth About Genetic Mutations. Or maybe they cut it short, before they could get to anything that was actually true.
Posted by: pough | August 20, 2008 11:12 PM
the part about where ben stein opens his mouth
Posted by: Andrew | August 21, 2008 12:03 AM
I think what we see is exactly how creationism does its work - grab a seat, preferably a nice comfortable one where you can be seated for a while - and start yapping away until eventually, you satisfy the conclusion that over a hundred years worth of research, experimentation and data is flat out wrong.
Then get up, and start writing about it...
Posted by: darek | August 21, 2008 12:27 AM
Ben should have sticked to doing his visine commercials. His eyes may be clear, but his thinking needs a whole gallon of brain visine.
Posted by: Grant Duchscherer | August 21, 2008 12:39 AM
13, but its just a quick count. Some high points:
x) People have been granted patents on hardware and software found via genetic programming, ie random computer programs.
x) Professor Lenski's bacteria that evolved the ability to metabolise nitrate.
x) Genes and proteins are not computer programs. While it can be a useful analogy, thats all it is. For evolution, a closer analogy is origami. If you change a fold early in the process, you can get a wildly different shape, but if you change on later you can subtle tweaks to the shape. This allows random mutations to search the protein subspace in large jumps or with small optimizing changes.
Posted by: Marc Hernandez | August 21, 2008 4:10 AM
Expelled: "Darwin assumed the increased information comes from natural selection."
Darwin: "Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound."
And while I'm at it...
Darwin: "He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore."
P.S. Grant Duchscherer - "brain visine" = instant classic
Posted by: Karen James | August 21, 2008 6:14 AM
Wasn't it citrate?
Posted by: Dunc | August 21, 2008 8:45 AM
The very first statement is correct.
Natural selection does not, in fact, produce new genetic information. Natural selection does, in fact, reduce genetic information in a population - by culling the herd, so to speak.
Mutation, which is very much observed, does produce new genetic information. (I would like to hit this population geneticist over the head with DUPLICATIONS. Dur.)
Mutation creates new variants.
Natural selection gets rid of the harmful ones.
Oh, and the difference between a genome and a computer code? Genomes aren't so streamlined. Any single change, with few exceptions, will NOT destroy the functionality of the organism. Almost as if it wasn't designed...
Posted by: Muse142 | August 21, 2008 1:40 PM
It was indeed citrate, thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Marc Hernandez | August 21, 2008 4:56 PM
Wouldnt you say natural selection gets rid of the useless variants? Just seems to make more sense to me.
Posted by: Mr.Mom | August 21, 2008 10:10 PM