…and this is a 
A visit to Downe
Category: Personal
Posted on: October 16, 2006 3:14 AM, by PZ Myers
You want to see a few more of my travel pictures, don't you? Yesterday, we got on the Seven Oaks line leaving Victoria Station, and ended up at Bromley South, where we were met by our faithful native guide, Robin Levett. He drove us through narrow, winding country roads to the tiny town of Downe. Downe is very picturesque and old country English, but we left it (after refreshing ourselves at the pub, which seems to be a mandatory tradition here, and after meeting Louis, another gentleman who joined us on our journey) to walk a mile or so down another narrow, tree- and hedge-lined road to end up at a certain country squire's fine old home.
Here, Larry Moran and I stopped at the entrance, to pose with a picture of the prior owner.
The house is large and well-maintained, and something about the atmosphere encourages lively discussions about evolutionary biology.
When tired of arguing, the house has a little path set off a ways behind the fields, where one can walk and think. It's a marvelous idea. If I had a 15 acre farm, I'd set aside a piece of it for a sandwalk, too, I think.
We did spend a few hours at the house, but I'll spare you the endless details. The important thing is that we strolled back to town and yes, we did stop at the pub. Again.
It's a lovely old pub, and once upon a time, Darwin drank down a pint here. Now so have Larry, Louis, Robin, and PZ.
Comments
A bit off-topic, have you gotten into a fight with Dawkins about the Darwin Wars?
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 16, 2006 3:58 AM
*sighs*
*checks piggy bank to see if there's enough in there for ticket to UK*
*sighs again*
Posted by: Snail | October 16, 2006 4:02 AM
S Drwn ws jst "cntry sqr" h?
H ws n ndpndntly wlthy vctrn ltsts wh lt hs ds cm t n hs "scnc" bks lk th Dscnt f Mn....., "svg" rcs wld b lmntd, wmn wr ntllctlly nfrr, nd tht vccntn WKNS TH RC.
Th wrld wld hv bn bttr ff f h hd sht p bt lt f hs "scnc".
Posted by: Blair | October 16, 2006 4:29 AM
So, who's the Leicester Tigers supporter in the middle of rural Kent?
Posted by: Graham Douglas | October 16, 2006 4:59 AM
Coincidentally, London blogger Diamond Geezer has just featured this fantastic Darwin mural in Chislehurst, southeast London: http://www.thebattens.me.uk/market3.jpg
Posted by: Joe | October 16, 2006 5:01 AM
I've seen that sign before.. now where was it?
Even had to use the same native bearer, eh? No imagination.
Loved the pub, didn't you?
Posted by: John Wilkins | October 16, 2006 5:05 AM
Oh my gosh! That MUST be the Cosmic Spear of Divine Justice piercing the group in that last pic. It COULDN'T be a camera artifact...
Posted by: Mike | October 16, 2006 5:42 AM
Damn, PZ comes to my home town and I'm stuck at university halfway up the country!
btw Joe, that mural is actually in Bromley, a short walk up the hill from Bromley South station. It was previously a huge mural to HG Wells (another local) and he's still hanging on as a strange little painting on the left hand side of the tree.
Posted by: Rob | October 16, 2006 7:09 AM
I've been working in Bromley for years now, and to my shame I've managed to miss both the Darwin connection AND PZ's trip. Still, I'm sure both parties will get by just fine without my mouth-breathing fanboydom.
I can't really describe the mental disconnect between PZ (scion of science and regular Sage of t'IntarWebs) and Bromley, er, Athens of Kent and my place of toil. Without any disrespect to Rob's home town, it can be reasonably alleged that had Bromley been more interesting, Punk may never have happened: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4422743,00.html
Jury's still way, WAY out on whether that's a bad thing. Anyhow, glad the weather has been unseasonably good for PZ's trip.
Posted by: Bongob | October 16, 2006 7:46 AM
Graham,
I (Louis) am the Tigers supporter in rural Kent. Several reasons for this: 1) I used to live in Leicester (many moons ago) and Nottingham (until very recently, in fact STILL trying to sell my house there), 2) I've supported the Tigers for about 14 years since a guy knew as an undergrad went to play for them, 3) I have always liked their rugby especially during the Wig Garforth Cockers era of the ABC engine room.
Mind you, their performance this season has been very lacklustre. But you stick with your team through the good and bad in my book. Things will coem good again I hope.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 16, 2006 8:26 AM
This is from the secret hidden chapter that you can only read while the book is closed, right?
Posted by: wintermute | October 16, 2006 8:51 AM
Blair wrote:
"So Darwin was just a "country squire" eh? He was an independently wealthy victorian elitists who let his ideas come out in his "science" books like the Descent of Man...i.e., "savage" races would be eliminated, women were intellectually inferior, and that vaccination WEAKENS THE RACE. The world would have been better off if he had shut up about a lot of his "science"."
BULLSHIT!!! Creationists stop throwing shit at Darwin!!! One of the greatest scientists ever!
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 16, 2006 9:03 AM
PZ,
Dude, did you just bring one change of clothes?
Posted by: Mr. Person | October 16, 2006 9:23 AM
Hi Louis - thanks for the reply. My interest was two-fold, really - 1) I'm a Sale supporter and I wanted an excuse to say "45-20" :-) (and, yes, I know what happened first game this season :-( ), 2) I'm actually a Man of Kent myself, although exiled some 30 years ago to Manchester (and, no, I wouldn't go back). I would have loved the chance to meet up with PZ - I've been reading this blog avidly for about 18 months, although I don't comment much. It would have been fun, I think, to converse with someone who shares many of my views and interests (biology, but not necessarily with the emphasis on squishy things with lots of arms). Unfortunately, even on such a small island as this, planning a trip from Manchester to London on short notice presents many difficulties.
Posted by: Graham Douglas | October 16, 2006 9:27 AM
yeah, and how come you neber smile in these pics? Lighten up dude...some of us are stuck here grading exams.
Posted by: CCP | October 16, 2006 9:29 AM
Blair wrote: 'The world would have been better off if he had shut up about a lot of his "science" '.
The Blair (anti-science) Bitch Project.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 16, 2006 9:49 AM
Blair: you seem ignorant of the fact that everyone who lived during Darwin's time believed those things. HG Wells shared more or less the same beliefs as Hitler when it came to races, Lincoln insisted that blacks were inferior to whites even as he freed them from slavery, etc. I would be willing to say that at least 95% the Victorian population was racist and sexist by today's standards. We consider Ben Franklin ahead of his time because he was willing to accept just two races (whites and Native Americans) as roughly equal. Also, Darwin did not say that "savage races" were inferior. He stated that any savage behavior was mainly a result of a harsh enviroment.
Posted by: Baratos | October 16, 2006 10:33 AM
Blair's comments are kind of pointless when made in front of a bunch of people who have actually read "The Descent of Man."
Hey, Blair, the text of the book is on line. You can read it and you should. You don't want to accidentally sound like a moron. That's something you should always do on purpose.
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | October 16, 2006 10:57 AM
As an unashamed car geek, I must know: What is the vehicle barely glimpsed in the first photo? It seems vaguely VW-ish, but I really can't tell.
Posted by: rrt | October 16, 2006 11:10 AM
"I want to walk where Darwin walked" I said, justifying to my friend a very expensive trip to the Galapagos.
She replied," It would be a whole lot cheaper to go to Down House."
I went to the Galapagos anyway.
Posted by: Lectric Lady | October 16, 2006 11:16 AM
Hank Fox wrote: "The Blair (anti-science) Bitch Project."
Priceless, Hank!!! Thanks for my laugh of the day.
Posted by: Donna Harris | October 16, 2006 11:50 AM
OK, PZ, I knew you were mad at me for hiking to the Burgess Shale without you, but Dawkins, Lalla and Down House in one trip is rubbing it in a bit, don't you think?
Posted by: Doc Bill | October 16, 2006 12:13 PM
[Darwin was] one of the greatest scientists ever!
Preach it, bro. Think about all that we owe to Darwin, and realize that his memory, which should be celebrated throughout the world, is more persecuted and trashed than Jesus supposedly was. It's interesting when you think of how the "crucifixion" story is just an allegorical tale about how the mob turns against its best and brightest. Has there been any scientist more unjustly reviled than Charles Darwin?
but Dawkins, Lalla and Down House in one trip is rubbing it in a bit, don't you think?
Down, tiger. How would you have felt if PZ hadn't done all of them on this trip? (Or had and didn't blog about it?)
Posted by: Kristine | October 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Regarding Blair's vomitous -
A measure of Darwin's influence and the greatness of his science is that evolutionary biology has provided us with reasons to reject racist superstition.
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | October 16, 2006 1:11 PM
Wow! Just wow! I verdigris with envy.
Hmmm. But, the Burgess Shale is at least within striking distance... Thanks for the consolation, Doc Bill!
Posted by: Steviepinhead | October 16, 2006 1:28 PM
Steviepinhead, sadly, the Burgess Shales are off limits to tourists, as the Canadian government doesn't want people poaching the Cambrian beasties dwelling within.
Posted by: Stanton | October 16, 2006 1:51 PM
I used to live near Downe back when it was still owned by the Royal College of Surgeons, it was dreary and somewhat uninspiring. Last year I went back and lo! it had been aquired and was now run by English Heritage, and it was fantastic. I was there late in the afternoon one Friday and had the place to myself. I spent nearly 30 minutes in Darwin's study just soaking up the atmosphere. I had one of these audio tour guide thingies and who did the commentry? Sir David Attenborough - who else?
BTW, the Queen's Head is a better pub in the village.
Posted by: Rockingham | October 16, 2006 2:57 PM
Let me second Rockingham. Twenty years ago, in the bad old days when the Royal College of Surgeons ran Down House with benign neglect, I tried to get there only to (a) get lost on the way, and (b) find on finally arriving that the bloody place was closed! But since English Heritage has taken over it's been transformed. Now if only they could pull off the same inspirational trick for Stonehenge!
Posted by: Tony Jackson | October 16, 2006 3:22 PM
Did you see the barnacles?
fusilier, who'd be reading that book, right now, except it's under a stack of lab exams
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | October 16, 2006 4:14 PM
John Wilkins says,
Robin (the native bearer) was kind enough to get us into Darwin's laboratory behind the greenhouse. We know you didn't get in there because he told us.The laboratory has a bee hive and worm pots and lots of exciting stuff that Robin reserved especially for me and PZ.
Eat your heart out. :-)
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 16, 2006 4:29 PM
I guess I knew at some level of my pinheaded consciousness there were restrictions on access to the Burgess Shales. I remember chatting with a fellow climber-hiker type who had been there, but he's also a museum employee. I may have to finagle something. Or just hike as close as possible and look from afar.
Or, better yet, locate an appropriately-named pub in a nearby community: "Burgess Ales," "Wonderful Dive," or something along those lines...
Posted by: Steviepinhead | October 16, 2006 4:36 PM
Stevie, you could get your friend to get pictures of some of the museum's specimens, and then you could blow up those pictures to make a Burgess Shales-themed amusement park.
Or gallery of some sort.
Posted by: Stanton | October 16, 2006 5:43 PM
Actually, the Burke Museum here in Seattle was fortunate enough to host a travelling exhibit of Burgess Shale fossils from the Smithsonian (IIRC) about a year ago.
Splendid, splendid, splendid! Such evocative names--hallucegenia, marella, wiwaxia! And as pretty in person, though mostly very, very small, and difficult to distinguish against their dark settings. Amazing that the sharp eyes of the paleontologists first spotted them at all, a hundred years back. Sad that some would squeeze their own eyes shut, even now.
All this is a bit adrift from our start at Down House. But the Crea-IDiots have their sites of false worship and we have ours, where vistas into beckoning realities first were glimpsed.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | October 16, 2006 6:14 PM
Lectric Lady wrote:
"I want to walk where Darwin walked" I said, justifying to my friend a very expensive trip to the Galapagos.
hmmmm WWDD?
Easy...Galapagos.
**eg**
Posted by: Paul Decelles | October 16, 2006 7:17 PM
I'd skip the whole "getting infested with trypanosomes along the way" part, though.
Posted by: redbeardjim | October 16, 2006 8:09 PM
"Larry Moran and I stopped at the entrance, to pose with a picture of the prior owner"
"...stop throwing shit at Darwin!!! One of the greatest scientists ever!"
" "I want to walk where Darwin walked" I said, justifying to my friend a very expensive trip to the Galapagos."
"Think about all that we owe to Darwin..."
"I spent nearly 30 minutes in Darwin's study just soaking up the atmosphere."
You have to love the devotion and commitment that accompanies profound faith.
.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 16, 2006 8:14 PM
Just face facts. Religious faith simply isn't equivalent to science in any sense.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 16, 2006 9:08 PM
Wh clmd thy wr y dmb crckr?
Posted by: R O'Brien | October 16, 2006 9:17 PM
The Burke's Burgess exhibit was fantastic. If you ever have a chance to see these fossils, by all means do so.
Sadly, I suspect that if that Darwin mural was here in America, it would likely be vandalized.
Posted by: Rex | October 17, 2006 2:33 AM
Larry, how could you? You promised me you'd say that you had to tie me up and whip me before I revealed the secret...
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 17, 2006 3:32 AM
Larry, how could you? You promised me you'd say that you had to tie me up and whip me before I revealed the secret...
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 17, 2006 3:36 AM
Two points...
"Just a country squire...
Well Darwins'fasmily was well-off, and his wife was a Wedgewood, BUT think about the co-author of evolution - Alfred Russel Wallace - who had to work his way up.
The IDEA is the important thing here ......
Both Darwin and Wallace went on to do lots more useful work.
Wallaces' "The Malay Archipelego" is a good read, as is "Earthworms" - I've got Victorian copies of both .....
The car looks like the front end of a small Renault (14?)
Posted by: G. Tingey | October 17, 2006 3:38 AM
Envy thy name is Wilkins!
PZ and Larry had TWO native bearers (of which I was one) and as you should know both Robin and I work for a company of bearers "Expendable Natives Corporation", our motto is "We feed ourselves to the fauna before you". Luckily in rural Kent the most fearsome fauna extends only to a mildly irritated weasel, so we were safe.
We also encountered Darwinalia of a profound nature which, whilst I shall not bother to mention the pathetic detail, was obviously better than YOUR Darwinalia.
Louis
P.S. To the chump posting as Phil Corn: passion about, and admiration for science, scientists and nature in general does not constitute religion. Science is not about a dispassionate series of equations read out in a dull monotone. There is passion, love and all wonderful human experience to be had in the sciences. Just because some people get an emotional (and, yes, irrational) thrill from walking along Darwin's sandwalk does not equate this in any way to a faith. Muppet.
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2006 6:03 AM
Hey Phil, if you don't feel any reverence when contemplating the contributions of great thinkers and great artists, I feel sorry for you.
"The worship of God is. Honouring his gifts in other men each according to his genius. and loving the greatest men best, those who envy or calumniate great men hate God, for there is no other God."
-Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 17, 2006 10:12 AM
"admiration for science, scientists and nature in general does not constitute religion. Science is not about a dispassionate series of equations read out in a dull monotone"
But you are talking about science as opposed to Darwinism.
The parallels between the veneration of things Darwin, and Catholicism for example, are actually hard to miss. Adoration of the saints, sacred texts, pilgrimages and hallowed sites, cathedrals, relics and icons, heresy and even inquisitions. It's all there except maybe hymns.
.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 17, 2006 12:53 PM
I venerate, for example, Dante and Bach every bit as much as I do Darwin and Einstein. Am I a devotee of multiple "religions" according to your peculiar definition?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 17, 2006 2:09 PM
The parallels between the veneration of things Darwin, and Catholicism for example, are actually hard to miss. Adoration of the saints, sacred texts, pilgrimages and hallowed sites, cathedrals, relics and icons, heresy and even inquisitions.
So if you like people, places, art and books you're automatically religious?
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 17, 2006 3:01 PM
They're not hymms. It's called filking.
Posted by: Ken Cope | October 17, 2006 3:32 PM
Anton Mates said:
So if you like people, places, art and books you're automatically religious?
Only if you take Picasso's portrait of himself and fashion it into an icon that you enshrine with pearls, gold, gemstones, as well as burn incense of frankinscense and myrrh whenever you watch The Colbert Report.
Posted by: Stanton | October 17, 2006 4:53 PM
"You have to love the devotion and commitment that accompanies profound faith."
Yes, evolution is a faith! Just like gravitation, the roundness of the earth, that the earth revolves around the sun, that 1 + 1 = 2...
It's all faith. Or... isn't it?
DUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 17, 2006 6:21 PM
Some time ago, I posted a link to Carl Sagan's Cosmos Series, but it was only the first episode. Here is a link to the entire series.
http://www.cosmos.4x2.net/
It is well worth watching. What is amazing is how little it has aged. As to evolution, the political battle has gotten even worse since 1980.
Posted by: bernarda | October 17, 2006 6:36 PM
Well, I'm not sure any of this "Darwinism" (?) = Religion stuff was aimed my way, but my above sentence lost a key phrase between neurons and keyboard:
I didn't mean to suggest that we admirers of evo-bio have our own "sites of false worship," or even "true" "worship," but certainly there are sites well worth remarking, where scientists--and through them all of humanity--were fortunate enough to obtain one of those further glimpses into reality's depths.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | October 17, 2006 7:41 PM
"I venerate, for example, Dante and Bach every bit as much as I do Darwin and Einstein. Am I a devotee of multiple "religions" according to your peculiar definition?"
No, appreciating talent and ideas is not being religious. But if you filed suits wanting federal courts to rule exclusively in favor of Dante's writings, Bach's music or Einstein's theories, I think you would qualify as a zealot, perhaps even a cultist.
--
"So if you like people, places, art and books you're automatically religious?"
It depends on the level of devotion, don't you think?
--
"They're not hymms. It's called filking. Ken Cope"
Thanks for enriching my vocabulary Ken. That's a good word and I enjoyed reading the poem. It wouldn't really substitute for a hymn, but if the first two lines of each verse were read by an official, and an audience chimed in for the next two, it would make a fine liturgy.
--
"Yes, evolution is a faith! Just like gravitation, the roundness of the earth, that the earth revolves around the sun, that 1 + 1 = 2... It's all faith. Or... isn't it?"
Johan, surely you can discern the differences between things that can be observed, measured, demonstrated or duplicated in experiments, and the TOE. You know, the empirical evidence deal.
--
"certainly there are sites well worth remarking, where scientists--and through them all of humanity--were fortunate enough to obtain one of those further glimpses into reality's depths"
Of course there are.
.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 17, 2006 8:42 PM
Oooh, a Burgess Shale themed amusement park would be wonderful! Build the Ediacara water slide right next door though. ;^)
Has anyone been to the Mendel exhibit at the Field Museum yet? How is it? The connection to this thread is that I thought that Mendel's monastery was going through some sort of renovation to make it into a tourist attraction but haven't heard much about the progress, if any.
Posted by: Mena | October 17, 2006 10:53 PM
No, no, no, no, no, no.
At most, people who appreciate science have a mild concern with celebrity. People who appreciate history manifest the same sort of behaviors - and it's not at all similar to people who adhere to religions.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2006 11:07 PM
No, appreciating talent and ideas is not being religious. But if you filed suits wanting federal courts to rule exclusively in favor of Dante's writings, Bach's music or Einstein's theories, I think you would qualify as a zealot, perhaps even a cultist.
Hm. I guess it's a good thing pro-science-education folks only want to push modern evolutionary theory, which relies pretty much not at all on Darwin's original writings, and has modified or outright rejected many of his theories while adding ideas he could never have anticipated.
Federal courts so far seem to agree, funnily enough.
"So if you like people, places, art and books you're automatically religious?"
It depends on the level of devotion, don't you think?
No, I don't. I'm extremely devoted to my wife, but I don't consider her a literal goddess, just a metaphorical one.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 18, 2006 1:35 AM
"Sacred Sites" ...
Hmmm .....
How about: R.B.G. Kew?
A greater "temple" to science and imagination than any cathedral, and still working.
AND: - was this your first time in the UK, PZ, or have you been here before?
Posted by: G. Tingey | October 18, 2006 3:24 AM
"Johan, surely you can discern the differences between things that can be observed, measured, demonstrated or duplicated in experiments, and the TOE. You know, the empirical evidence deal."
BS! There are a massive amount of empirical evidence for evolution. Evolution is a FACT or, even better, it's a scientific THEORY!!!!
F-----A-----C-----T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
T----H----E----O-----R----Y!!!!!!!!!!
Read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
...and grow up!
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 18, 2006 6:03 AM
Johan,
I've read all the arguments from many sources, but thanks for the links anyway. Advocate articles and sites like these tend to gloss over the problems and hang on for dear life to things that seem to be supportive, like the supposed evo of the horse in the Wikipedia article.
By the way, I'm fully grown, but I understand your attitude. Inquiry and curiosity about the TOE and baseline problems with it are often received as blasphemy.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 18, 2006 12:04 PM
"By the way, I'm fully grown (...)"
I doubt it!
"Inquiry and curiosity about the TOE and baseline problems with it are often received as blasphemy."
Yes! You are correct! Those fat biologist don't argue about anything...ANYTHING...at all in evolutionary theory. Oh no! They just sit on their big fat asses, drinking coffe all day long.
"(...) supposed evo of the horse in the Wikipedia article."
Thats 100 % creationist bullshit. When T. H. Huxley saw the "the Marsh collection" he said...""[these specimens] demonstrated the evolution of the horse beyond question, and for the first time indicated the direct line of descent of an existing animal."
But then, shit and lies, is all the creationists got.
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 18, 2006 12:12 PM
By the way...
Inquiry and curiosity about the roundness of the earth are often received as blasphemy.
Inquiry and curiosity about the heliocentric theory are often received as blasphemy
Inquiry and curiosity about "if 1+1=2" are often received as blasphemy.
...
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 18, 2006 12:27 PM
"When T. H. Huxley saw the "the Marsh collection" he said...""[these specimens] demonstrated the evolution of the horse beyond question, and for the first time indicated the direct line of descent of an existing animal." "
But Johan, Huxley was already a convert. He was just looking for substantiation for his belief, and Marsh had put together an exhibit that provided that.
That was a long time ago. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would go back to the late 1800's for a supporting quote. Even Eldredge has noted that the horse tree is not convincing. Drawing conclusions based on morphology in fossils involves huge assumptions.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 18, 2006 1:44 PM
Phil, descent with modification is beyond-conclusively demonstrated by an Everest of molecular evidence, without even needing to talk about fossils. But feel free to keep talking out your ass if it makes you feel clever.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 18, 2006 1:52 PM
JOhan wrote:
"There are a massive amount of empirical evidence for evolution. Evolution is a FACT or, even better, it's a scientific THEORY!!!!"
It's not a scientific theory.
I believe it qualifies as a Law of Nature, alongside the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Motion. After all, natural Laws are mere descriptions of how things behave. If you drop a mass in a gravitational field, it will fall towards the center of gravity. This has been demonstrated by a huge body of observational and experimental data.
A theory is an explanation or a proposed mechanism for some observed aspect of the world. Theories DO NOT become laws because in many cases the law preceeds the theory.
The Law of Gravity is a perfect example. There are proposed "theories" of gravity, but none are satisfying. On the other hand, until objects defy the law of gravity, it's position as a law of nature is unchallenged.
So, the Law of Evolution stands firm: Living organisms change over time and the extant organisms are different from the extinct ones. However, there is no credible Theory of Evolution. While we know that evolution has occurred, we haven't the large body of observational or experimental evidence needed to support any specific mechanism.
It is clear then that my position on this matter is perfectly logical and defensible: I accept evolution as a fact and I invoke intelligent design as the mechanism.
To ask the question "do you believe in evolution or intelligent design is like asking do you believe in gravity or do you believe in Brans-Dicke theory. (or General relativity or Rosen bi-metric theory or Process Physics). It's an absurd question.
Posted by: charlie wagner | October 18, 2006 1:55 PM
Nuts of a feather flock together, I see. Don't you have anything better to do with your life, Charlie, than make this constantly reiterated pathtetic display of your ignorance and insanity?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 18, 2006 2:12 PM
"descent with modification is beyond-conclusively demonstrated by an Everest of molecular evidence"
Steve, descent with modification is one thing. Dogs shows are evidence of this.
But the notion that tens of millions of species were produced, with mutation being the mechanism that makes this happen is not plausible in my view. If you are convinced that it is, then you are easily convinced, but there are serious issues with this idea.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 18, 2006 2:46 PM
Well, Phil, can you present a better theory? I mean, you must have one! Yes! Everybody, listen up! Phil has falsified the theory of evolution! He will get the Nobel Price (I'm a f*cking Swede so I can fix that!!!) Phils theory for the diversity of life, it's a new f*cking paradigm in evolutionary theory. YEEEES!!!!!!
"Drawing conclusions based on morphology in fossils involves huge assumptions."
Well, thank f*cking God for molecular biology. We don't need those f*cking fossils. I say; Smash those f*cking transitional fossils!!!
"I accept evolution as a fact and I invoke intelligent design as the mechanism."
Judge Jones! He f*cking rules: "we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child". Well, thats clearly not a scientific theory! You can't falsify it, you can make any predictions, there are no empirical evidence that supports it.
One more time (sloooowly)
S---C----I---E----N---T----I----F----I----C
T-------H------E-----O-----R------Y
Steve LaBonne, thanks for adding some common sense into this discussion!
Posted by: Johan Karlsson | October 18, 2006 2:55 PM
But as I say, carry on if it amuses you. It might amuse me if I weren't jaded from seeing so many similar trolls over the years.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 18, 2006 3:02 PM
Steve LaBonne wrote:
"Nuts of a feather flock together, I see. Don't you have anything better to do with your life, Charlie, than make this constantly reiterated pathtetic display of your ignorance and insanity?"
Steve, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me so long as you vote for Sherrod Brown in November.
Posted by: charlie wagner | October 18, 2006 6:32 PM
Johan,
"Phil has falsified the theory of evolution! He will get the Nobel Price (I'm a f*cking Swede so I can fix that!!!)"
I'm just sick to hear that. I had called my Mom and told her I thought I had an NP in the bag.
"I say; Smash those f*cking transitional fossils!!! "
If you bid on doing the work, better go lump sum. Definitely not a time and materials situation.
"Steve LaBonne, thanks for adding some common sense into this discussion! "
I agree.
---------
Steve,
"And if you had any knowledge and understanding on which to base this opinion (as do the thousands of trained biologists, myself among them, who will tell you you're full of it), that opinion might conceivably be of interest to someone besides yourself. "
I'm glad you have credentials. I'm just a mechanical designer. So any questions I might ask would be coming from a practical or applied point of view. There is not a lot of room for guesswork in my profession.
Some of the questions I have about the role of mutations have to do with what goes on during DNA replication. If polymerase is there specifically to check and repair errors during that process, doesn't that pit that enzyme against the mechanism that is supposed to provide alterations that evolution needs in order to work? Would you consider polymerase "smart"? It's hard to look at replication as just a chemical reaction when information that defines the organism is involved, don't you think?
Johan, please feel free to comment.
.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 18, 2006 7:51 PM
Well, yes, but so what?
You appear to be assuming that because there are two conflicting natural processes (error-checking vs. mutation), that the error-checking must always win out. Obviously, it doesn't.
It should be apparant that in nature, there are sometimes processes that oppose each other in effect, but sometimes one process will be overwhelmed by the other. Erosion vs. deposition and/or vulcanism comes to mind, as but one example.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 18, 2006 8:21 PM
Owlmirror,
"Well, yes, but so what?
You appear to be assuming that because there are two conflicting natural processes (error-checking vs. mutation), that the error-checking must always win out. Obviously, it doesn't.
It should be apparant that in nature, there are sometimes processes that oppose each other in effect, but sometimes one process will be overwhelmed by the other. Erosion vs. deposition and/or vulcanism comes to mind, as but one example."
The so what of this is that evolution is dependant on mutations, yet you have an enzyme which specifically serves to prohibit them. It is not hard to find estimates that suppose that polymerase reduces errors down to the tune of one per billion. That's pretty close to "error-checking must always win out" if you ask me. If "one process will be overwhelmed by the other", it is going to be mutations, though I would not consider them a process.
But the issue is not really about conflicting processes. It is about whether or not mutation is a plausible driver mechanism for variation. I don't think it is at all.
Geological processes is not a good comparison. Mutations are random errors but the function of polymerase is nothing short of deliberate.
What is your answer to "Would you consider polymerase "smart"?"
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 19, 2006 12:07 AM
Filking comes from science fiction/fantasy enthusiasts, who overlap quite a bit with the community of people who don't reject science. Hymms come from a community of people who frequently reject science, and are thus enthusiasts for a very slim subgenre of fiction/fantasy, which they treat as historical documents.
I'm just a mechanical designer.
[cough] Salem hypothesis.
Posted by: Ken Cope | October 19, 2006 2:09 AM
"Johan, please feel free to comment."
Damn! Owlmirror beat me to it! F*CK!
Posted by: Johan | October 19, 2006 10:41 AM
Charlie, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for Brown after he voted for the Boy Emperor's Torture Legalization Act in the House, but vote for him I will, along with the rest of a straight Democratic ticket. In the words of Democratic bumper sticker I saw recently, enough is enough.
Phil, I simply don't believe you've actually read the things you claim to have read, because you'd have found your rather elementary confusions addressed in them.
Try actually reading this: http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 10:55 AM
Additional comment on polymerase error rates: I see essentially two evolutionary pathways that could explain the current rates. One (which I tend to favor) is that selection at the individual level- which would favor faithful transmission of genes- has in fact driven these rates about as low as the chemistry will allow, and the continued occurrence of mutations in, and thus the evolvability, of lineages in which this minimum has been reached is essentially a byproduct of that brute chemical reality. The other is that there is effective group selection for evolvability of lineages such that the error rate, while physically capable of being driven lower, hasn't been because lineages that have accomplished this haven't survived because of their genetic inflexibility. I imagine that this question could be addressed in part by chemical studies on the detailed mechanisms of the enzymes in question, including maybe some site-directed mutagensis to see if DNA replication can be engineered to have an even lower rate. Perhaps such studies have even been done for all I know; I don't pretend to be up on the literature.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 19, 2006 11:06 AM
Hm. "one per billion." One per billion what, exactly?
The most basic and fundamental error is the assumption that "nearly zero" means absolutely zero, at all times and in all cases. Given that mutation exists — indeed, we are all mutants — this assumption fails in the face of reality.
I suspect that the real problem is the assumption that polymerase operates on all types of DNA replication.
Have you read up on meosis?
Why not? Mutation is a variation.
Huge assumption of a fact not in evidence.
The question is sufficiently ambiguous that I am not sure how to respond. What exactly do you mean by "smart-inside-scare-quotes"?
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 19, 2006 11:41 AM
That should be meiosis, of course.
Wikipedia corrected my spelling, and I didn't notice. Oh, well.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 19, 2006 3:09 PM
Ken,
"Hymms come from a community of people who frequently reject science, and are thus enthusiasts for a very slim subgenre of fiction/fantasy, which they treat as historical documents."
I don't think "reject science" is a fair characterization. Just about all the fathers of the modern sciences were "religious". Their beliefs are excused as being quaint now, while materialism is considered enlightnenment, whether it is realistic or not.
" Salem hypothesis."
There is a reason for the discord between the hard sciences and those currently prefixed as evolutionary-. Biologists are not bound by the constraints of actual possiblity, at least when it comes to some of the irregular ideas in evolutionary theory. Their discipline would be much improved if it required study of statistics and probabilities.
-----
Steve,
"Try actually reading this:"
I read the piece you linked to. I'm not sure of what point you thought it would make. The writer, as far as I could tell, was just looking for a comfort zone between the evolutionists who emphasize mutations and the ones who highlight selection. I think it is splitting hairs over two weak performers.
There were a couple of quotes that I enjoyed, like this one:
"There are many random events that took place in the past and these had a profound influence on the outcome of evolution. One of the easiest to understand is mass extinction"
Moran then backed up his statement with this gem from someone else's book:
"mass extinctions are an important force in explaining the diversification of life through time. It is doubtful whether many of the major changes observed over the past 250 million years would have taken place had mass extinctions not occurred.."
I'm always amazed at the conclusions that these guys can come to. How is starting from scratch a shortcut?
In your second post:
"Additional comment on polymerase error rates: I see essentially two evolutionary pathways that could explain the current rates. One...is that selection at the individual level.....The other is that there is effective group selection..."
Two pathways, both of them involving selection. You have to have a mutation before there is anything to select. I think you guys have morphed selection into some kind of process out of need. The word gets used in evo articles as if it were a fairy that can make wishes come true. If you think about it, selection is just a population of some sort reacting to the environment. It can't be anything but a result. There is nothing dynamic about it.
----
Owlmirror,
Hm. "one per billion." One per billion what, exactly?"
Base pairings.
"The most basic and fundamental error is the assumption that "nearly zero" means absolutely zero, at all times and in all cases.
I think the error is not being in touch with what is realistic and what is not. In order for evolution to have produced millions of plant and animal species, astronomical numbers of beneficial mutations had to occur. It would have taken at least millions, probably billions of these to get from a single-celled organism to just one higher order mammal, with enzymes fighting the process every step of the way. Would you hazard any sort of guess about how many DNA copy errors would be involved in producing a giraffe?
"I suspect that the real problem is the assumption that polymerase operates on all types of DNA replication.
Have you read up on meosis?"
The suspicion on polymerase being involved in meiosis is old news now I think.
"Mutation is a variation"
Yes, but one witn number problems as far as evolution goes. The most likely result of a mutation is no impact at all or bad news.
"Huge assumption ["the function of polymerase is nothing short of deliberate"] of a fact not in evidence."
You are talking about an enzyme that is there to support a perfect replication so that informational quality is maintained. Would you call this as just a chemical reaction?
"What exactly do you mean by "smart-inside-scare-quotes"?"
I thought you panned the question so I copied and pasted it again.
----
This is a cumbersome format to debate in. If you guys haunt any particular forums, post the link.
Posted by: Phil Corn | October 19, 2006 11:11 PM