Now on ScienceBlogs: Lives of the Saints of Science: Darwin

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Search

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Atheist Nexus
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread




I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave in the slave-holding states of the union.

[Methodist Episcopal Church, Statement of the General Conference, Cincinnati, May 1836]

Recent Posts


A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives


Blogroll

Other Information

« What word should they have used? | Main | Darwin's God and the problem of Civil War reenactments »

Neurosurgeon and creationist Michael Egnor podcasts his ignorance

Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 8, 2007 2:33 PM, by PZ Myers

Nah, I haven't bothered to listen to the Luskin/Egnor podcast from the Discovery Institute—I trust Orac's summary enough that I know it's a load of the same arrogant, clueless BS he was spinning here a while back.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/35104

Comments

#1

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 8, 2007 2:53 PM

Look at it this way: if Egnor is the best thing the IDers have going for them now, they're even further toward credibility freefall than we took them for.

#2

Posted by: Bill Egnor | March 8, 2007 3:20 PM

You know, this guy kills me. Not so much that he is an ID idot, but because we have the same last name. It is not a very common name, so the odds are good that this dork is actually a distant cousin. Ewwwwww.

#3

Posted by: Mike Haubrich | March 8, 2007 5:42 PM

We're ALL distant cousins, Bill. But we can say he changed his name for marriage if it will make you feel better.

#4

Posted by: Caledonian | March 8, 2007 6:32 PM

Makes me wish there were some way to vet neurosurgeons for stupidity before they were allowed to "open up the hood".

#5

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 9, 2007 1:32 AM

what really puzzles me is why nobody from the excellent ecology and evolutionary bio. dept. and stonybrook has bothered to stand up and toss a few eggs at Egnor.

Hell, Futuyma himself resides in that dept.

why are they letting him get away with this idiocy?


#6

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 9, 2007 1:34 AM

AT Stony Brook, not AND.

damn clumsy ass fingers.

anyway, for those who don't know, there are several famous evolutionary biologists in that dept.:

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/

#7

Posted by: slpage | March 9, 2007 8:15 AM

From the silver lining department....

I will be using Egnor in my class 'Introduction to Science and Bioscientifici Terminology' as an example of pseudoauthority...

#8

Posted by: saurabh | March 9, 2007 3:03 PM

Woah, George Williams AND Futuyama in that tiny department? Pretty good.

As to the good doctor's argument: I feel there's a bit too much defensive bluster going on. We ought to loosen up and admit that he's right: the genetic code is an open question. We don't know how it developed. There are several *good ideas*, but nothing really definitive. Similarly the ribosome, and a lot of other fundamentals of life.

That said, these are features that are common to all living things. The difficult conundrum of how they developed has NO bearing on the subsequent evolution of that system, which is quite clear.

Especially with regards to information content. I was a bit disappointed that PZ didn't make this clearer, but as far as the Doc's original point goes, Shannon information is EXACTLY the correct way to look at things. That's why it's called "information theory". Mutation represents new information, period. The subsequent decision about whether that's USEFUL information with respect to life is one that's made by selection. It's all quite straightforward. Mutation proposes, selection disposes. Come on. Give us something new.

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





           Sign in or register with TypePad.            Sign up with Movable Type.

Site Meter

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM