…and this is a 
Lifecode: From egg to embryo by self-organization
Category: Books • Weirdness
Posted on: July 17, 2007 8:55 PM, by PZ Myers
As I mentioned before in my review of Stuart Pivar's LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization, I'm actually sympathetic to the ideas of developmental structuralism. This is the concept that physical, mechanical, and chemical properties make a significant and underappreciated contribution to the acquisition of organismal form; genes are not enough, do not carry a complete specification, and what we have to consider is interactions between genes, environment, and cytoplasm. Good stuff, all of it — and I'd like to see more work done on the subject. In my review, though, I had to point out that Pivar hadn't actually addressed any biology, and that his modeling was little more than an extended flight of fancy, unanchored by any connection to any embryology.
Now Pivar has put out a new version of his book, Lifecode: From egg to embryo by self-organization. I'm sorry to say it doesn't address any of my criticisms, and is even worse. This is not a scientific theory, and it isn't even a collection of evidence: it's a jumble of doodles. I read through it all this afternoon (there really isn't that much to read), and I have to conclude it says nothing about the development or evolution of biological organisms, although it is relevant to something else.
What seems to be new in the book is a set of experiments, of sorts. Pivar's model of development has long been that we achieve the diversity of organismal form by starting with a torus, and that fluid movements and distortions of the toroid form lead to the more elaborate forms at the end of development. The donut is the unifying principle underlying everything (hmmm, makes one wonder if there is a tie-in to the new Simpsons movie). So what he's done in this work is make some flexible plastic toroidal tubes filled with fluid and flexed them and twisted them, and taken some pictures. These balloons of fluid, as you might guess, buckle and wrinkle in predictable ways — ways that, in Pivar's interpretation, leap to be represented as morphogenetic events. A tube that is bent, for instance, makes a series of wrinkles with an even distribution that look, very vaguely, like maybe you could pretend they are segments.
So he does pretend. At length.
We already know that segmentation does not form as a consequence of responses to distortions in a tube. Primitively, it is by a sequential partitioning of new segments from an undifferentiated mass; in many insects, it is set up by patterns of interaction between genes. These are genes that are fairly well-characterized and have been found indispensable to the process; as I wrote in an earlier article, general rules like the ones Pivar is modeling do not apply, and each segment seems to be hard-coded into the regulatory logic of pattern formation. It really doesn't matter how pretty a model might be—what counts is whether the mechanism being modeled actually exists in the organism. And no, Pivar's model doesn't work anywhere that I've seen yet.
Much of the book is filled with sketches in which he starts with something like his toroidal tubes, and then imaginatively transforms the tube into some animal. These transformations are completely unfettered by data or even the slightest familiarity with the embryology or evolution of the organism in question. Here, for instance, is a tube transformed into a polyp like creature and then into a spider.
Nothing in the development of a spider comes even close to looking like that. No evolutionary intermediates looked like that. Chelicerates did not evolve directly from some kind of collapsed coelenterate, and the intermediates don't even make functional sense. The radial tentacles of coelenterates are not homologous to the legs of spiders. This is artistic self-indulgence, nothing more.
Even worse, here's a transformation that makes no sense at all. He's portraying the development/evolution of paired limbs as a process of stretching and separation of a fluid-filled tube at an attenuated midline boundary.
It's absurd. Limbs don't develop like that at all! The limbs in a pair develop independently, as protrusions and extensions from the body wall. Digits do not form by pulling left and right apart, like tugging on a string of sausages.
The doodles in this book bear absolutely no relationship to anything that goes on in real organisms, but after staring at them for a while, I realized what this book is actually about.
This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals.
It's that bad. This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges, and even there, I suspect the clowns would tell us that it is impractical, nonsensical, and has no utility in their craft.
A good, solid, empirical structuralism based on an analysis of the mechanics and forces on real embryos would be a useful contribution and would help us to understand development and evolution. Lifecode is not that contribution. It's not even close.
In light of the fundamental disconnect from reality represented by the substance of the book, it's almost unfair to critique the unprofessionalism of the presentation, but it's got to be said: it's also terribly done. The original Lifecode was slick and glossy, at least, even if its content was abysmal; this version is a spiral bound mess, with poorly photocopied figures. The figures have no legends, and aren't even referenced in the text; with no explanatory content at all, we're left to puzzle over them to try and figure out what he's getting at. The images of limb morphogenesis and chelicerate development above are as is — you have seen all the explanation there is, which is none. Almost two thirds of the "book" consists of photocopied papers and book chapters by other authors that are not related to the thesis at all, but are just plopped in. There doesn't seem to be any unifying principle to the selection at all, except perhaps that many mention toroids and shape. This isn't really a book at all, it's more of a scrapbook of collected fragments.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Who publishes this kind of crap?
Posted by: Paul Mannering | July 17, 2007 9:00 PM
But it could be useful as sketches for a new animated movie, showing critters emerging from the slime. Maybe Pixar would be interested.
Posted by: Monado | July 17, 2007 9:02 PM
Oh, come now. Everybody knows that balloon animals didn't evolve, they are formed individually by their Creator - usually a sad alcoholic wearing grease paint.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 17, 2007 9:10 PM
Many balloon animals were killed or harmed in the making of this book. Good!
Posted by: MarcusA | July 17, 2007 9:23 PM
That's exactly what I was thinking of saying in the comments, except I suddenly found you saying it in the post.
I think I'll give my ego a boost by saying "great minds."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 17, 2007 9:31 PM
clowns would tell us that it is impractical, nonsensical, and has no utility in their craft
Clowns are always bitching about the core curriculum. They're worse than business majors.
Posted by: HP | July 17, 2007 9:33 PM
That last diagram was priceless. Trying to keep the youngest asleep, so I didn't laugh out loud, but I nearly popped my eardrums trying not to!
That's definitely some original thinking, and it might be fun for a goofy off-world science fiction story or something.
Posted by: DaveX | July 17, 2007 9:34 PM
'An animal is not a truck! It's not something that you just dump something on! It's a series of TUBES!'
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' new theory of life...
Posted by: gg | July 17, 2007 9:42 PM
Damn PZ, you already read that whole book you are a word crunching machine. I will be the first yo admit my biology is as comprehensive as a idiot savants common sense. There is no way I would ever argue with you about evolution. I would be embarrassing. I am an evolution skeptic, but I would never debate you, because I don't know how th spell abogenesis or anthropic and neither dose my word processing capabilities.
But when Read stuff like this, I cannot discern who is right, I don't know enough to know. This is why I am an old earth ID'er. I respect your opinion just like I do a plumbers, I'm not a plumber. It is what they do. We are having a debate the same way over at the topical optogon on the origin of the universe, and if life came though evolution or not is not a concern of mine, just the cause, and as a physicist I can speak intelligently to the subject, I suggest you read it and keep up with it. Michael is only 22 years old and needs some help me thinks, find someone to help him. If you cannot understand it at least give me the same respect I give you.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 17, 2007 9:47 PM
But I am curious about where he claims to have come up with these concepts. Does he have any observations at all?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 17, 2007 9:49 PM
gg:
Marvelous!
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 17, 2007 10:24 PM
That's actually a really cool concept.
Posted by: Louis | July 17, 2007 10:25 PM
I respect your opinion just like I do a plumbers, I'm not a plumber. It is what they do.
Except you have shown yourself to be the sort who will go on for hours telling the plummer the problem can't possibly be what he thinks it is, despite the fact that you know nothing about the subject. He is still right, of course, no matter how much you wave your arms and jump up and down, and probobly thinks your a raving loony - and rightly so.
Posted by: Nerull | July 17, 2007 10:49 PM
Pivar/Pixar -- are you sure this book isn't a computer animation tutorial instead?
#10: I think his observations are from the Adobe Flash shape tweening function...
Posted by: Ann Homily | July 17, 2007 10:51 PM
Now I'm POSITIVE You didn't just say you think that Pivar's ramblings are as likely to be true as our present understanding of embyrology...
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 17, 2007 10:52 PM
Can you do that? Can you just make stuff up and write a book about it?
Sweet!
On another note, can anybody tell me how to get in touch with Stuart Pivar?
That guy's obviously got some wicked hash.
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 10:53 PM
Except you have shown yourself to be the sort who will go on for hours telling the plummer the problem can't possibly be what he thinks it is, despite the fact that you know nothing about the subject. He is still right, of course, no matter how much you wave your arms and jump up and down, and probobly thinks your a raving loony - and rightly so.
Ok.Imusually don't do yjid, buy you need a dressing down
1) have I ever argued that I knew evolution wasn't true, other that questioning it
2) I might also question a plumber so he doesn't take me to the bank, but I do not question his knowledge only his materialistic honesty, by asking those questions.
3) PZ talked about the truth in a recent blog as a philosophical question, and none nof the peanut gallerynhad a clue about philosophy, It was evident, this is not your fault, but the fault of the schools and univerities.
Philosophy is one of the most important subjects tyjat should nr yaught.
when someone talks about truth, it becomes philosophical, and without training the ignorant lose their mind. They can't deal with it.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 17, 2007 11:05 PM
If Lifecode was about plumbing:
Pivar: "Here are some pretty drawings that show cold water transforms into hot water through vortexes."
PZ: "Um, we make hot water by applying flame or resistive heating to water. Not through vortexes. Are you loony?"
The Physicist: "See, I can't understand this conversation about hot water. That's why I'm still convinced that shit flows up hill."
Posted by: Ian Menzies | July 17, 2007 11:34 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, another genius martyring his time for the sake of us ign'ants.
Physicist, why don't you drop David a line, and the two of you can go off together to merrily discuss philosophy and theology to you little hearts' content unencumbered by us boorish troglodytes who refuse to honour your armchair gentleman profundities with the rapt attention they so obviously deserve? You're obviously not getting what you want from us, so why are you wasting your time and mine?
Frankly, I'm getting very bored with these accusations of ignorance, and would like to see your ilk start demonstrating some intelligence of your own. You can't know how ready I am to see some.
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Tsk.
The balloon animal / tubes comparisons are hilarious, though.
Methinks Mr. Pivar's favorite boyhood toys were Pla-Do and Transformers.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 18, 2007 12:07 AM
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Your ignorance has already been shown by your post at the topical optogon, whein you didn't even read the limits of the debate before you shot off your mouth. I mean if you gonna make a point at least read what the debate is about.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 18, 2007 12:15 AM
Given the splitting that occurs in the last image, I think that this might be more about bubble animals rather than ones formed from balloons.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | July 18, 2007 12:17 AM
Brownian said:
Can you do that? Can you just make stuff up and write a book about it?
No, no, no, not at all--and he didn't. See, here's what is says about LifeCode on the Amazon page:
"This book is the result of a ten-year study of morphology and evolution with the help of an [sic] large private library of rare books and an extensive collection of natural history items."
Posted by: cm | July 18, 2007 12:21 AM
Frankly, I'm getting very bored with these accusations of ignorance, and would like to see your ilk start demonstrating some intelligence of your own. You can't know how ready I am to see some.
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Mo, your not bored, you are afraid, you have yet to as have the sycophants here answer a question about truth, because they can't. So you think you can win by hurling insults. And you post over at the TO was unintelligible and you weren't even privy to the fact that the debate wasn't about evolution.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 18, 2007 12:23 AM
*sniff*
that's goooood crank!
has Pivar been nominated for a place on crank.net yet?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2007 12:32 AM
the ignorant lose their mind. They can't deal with it.
is that an explanation of your behavior, or just projection?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 18, 2007 12:34 AM
The Physicist:
That may not be... true. Quite a few comments were made since the last time you posted to that thread. Whether or not any of those comments address the question to your satisfaction is for you can say, and if you still have some interest in the topic (and it seems you do) you might want to read through the newer comments if you have not already done so. 'Sup to you, of course.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 18, 2007 1:03 AM
In other words, The Physicist, do realize that in Science, people are free to voice their own ideas to explain evidence, but, other people are equally free to point out when the aforementioned ideas are incapable of explaining the presented evidence, or when they run contrary to it.
Also, please learn how to spell.
Posted by: Stanton | July 18, 2007 1:08 AM
(Truth==Beauty) && (Beauty==Truth)
I thought everyone knew that.
Posted by: Sophist, FCD | July 18, 2007 2:06 AM
In fact, scientists believe it should be taught even before children have learned how to spell.
Posted by: Stingray | July 18, 2007 3:05 AM
Sophist, no:
(truth==java) if {
(syntax==correct) && (programmer==good)
}
else (truth==C++)
=]
Lepht
Posted by: Lepht | July 18, 2007 3:13 AM
Uh, so I'm expected to be your memory as well as doing your thinking for you?
Very well. Here is the text of your own introduction on Topical Octagon:
Please, do go on about how the sycophants and I are all afraid.
Posted by: Brownian | July 18, 2007 3:15 AM
Sophist, I think you need to learn some better code optimisation techniques ;)
Posted by: DrFrank | July 18, 2007 4:54 AM
I had missed that original "series of tubes" thing. So after reading that post yesterday and then encountering the "meme" yet again on a kitten picture today, I thought I'd better find out what your shared cultural reference was. Now I see that Ted Stevens' mixture of jobs/posts at the time sort of explains his peculiar mix of metaphors. However, what is it that explains Stuart Pivar's toroidal tube obsession? Blowing too many smoke rings from mind-altering substances?
Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2007 5:06 AM
Brownian:
Physicist, why don't you drop David a line, and the two of you can go off together to merrily discuss philosophy and theology to you little hearts' content unencumbered by us boorish troglodytes who refuse to honour your armchair gentleman profundities with the rapt attention they so obviously deserve?
Class - great start to the day, it's making me giggle like a loon behind my computer screen.
Posted by: Azra | July 18, 2007 5:14 AM
Um, if it wouldn't intrude to get back to a discussion of science-- It's my impression that molecular developmental biology is really just starting to get off the ground, since genomics and the discoveries of people like Janni Nusslein-Volhard. Is this right? Because it looks like Pivar is doing the kind of flailing around that happens in science when nobody is sure how things are going to fall out. (I'd say it's like one of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, except mentioning Kuhn makes too many people mad.)
So, PZ, I'd really like to know, is Pivar just a flake? Or is he addressing questions that are up in the air, where nobody is sure of even the general nature of the answers, so off-the-wall solutions have a chance of success?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | July 18, 2007 6:01 AM
He's a flake. There are real questions, and hanging out with Gould as he claims to have done he probably picked up on them...but his approaches are unscientific and nonsensical. The two diagrams above (and the many more in the book) have no foundation in reality.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 18, 2007 8:10 AM
It looks as though this book is a bad attempt to re-write D'Arcy Thompson's "On Growth and Form" but without actually having studied animals or plants in any way, shape or form.
For people interested in the "mechanical" approach to body shape, Canto has a nice edition of "On Growth and Form" for less than $20. It even has an intro by SJ Gould.
Posted by: steven pirie-shepherd | July 18, 2007 11:09 AM
Can you do that? Can you just make stuff up and write a book about it?
Sure, and you can find one in every hotel room! Ba-Dum PSSH
Posted by: Tom Boaz | July 18, 2007 11:22 AM
Alternate punchline: ...and the Gideons will distribute it for free!
Posted by: Tom Boaz | July 18, 2007 11:24 AM
The spider has ten legs.
Posted by: ing | July 18, 2007 11:42 AM
Mere details. Do not question the genius!
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 18, 2007 11:47 AM
Aren't those pedipalps?
Paging Mrs. Tilton?
Posted by: rrt | July 18, 2007 11:54 AM
He's a flake. As PZ already demonstrated, he's -not- addressing things that haven't been sussed out yet: he's addressing things we already know about. And he's amazingly incorrect.
Posted by: James Stein | July 18, 2007 1:21 PM
The illustrations remind me of those of the early 20th century palaeontologist William Patten, who had a big thing for ontogenesis, and self-organisation as the driving force behind evolution (Gould wrote about him in one of his essays ("Shields of Theory and Actuality" I think). Patten was an interesting chap, and decided that eurypterids evolved into cephalaspids (he even thought he'd found paddle-like appendages from Tremataspis at one point). His drawings looked much like those of Pivar. And were equally invented.
It all went horrifically wrong when he tried to apply this model to human behaviour, and wrote one of the most gods-awful books I've ever read on this.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | July 18, 2007 1:50 PM
Having worked and published in one of the best labs working on the problems in limb development I second your charges of gross ignorance of how development actually proceeds. Not only do chick and mouse limbs not develop like that, but at the time of initial growth both embryos are still open ventrally meaning there is no way they can bend around and join. In fact they are as far from being joined at the tip as it is possible for them to be.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 18, 2007 4:24 PM
Wonder if he also things trees grow this way, never mind the blindingly obvious evidence from just looking at them that they don't, or the vast number of computer models used to generate them using fractal systems... And Physicist, they are quite correct. This is not someone developing a theoretical model of how something not well understood works, but someone inventing a new model that has no relation to what is already known to happen, through numerous observations of it. He is talking about, "Why pipes and not just channels cut in the floor leading to a big pit?", while we are talking about, "Why won't this particular glue work on this kind of pipe in cold weather?" He is babbling about basic concepts, and getting it wrong, while we are talking about the nitty gritty details and rules that determine *why* the basic concepts are what they are in the first place, and not something else.
He might as well be doing something like writing a book on some hypothetical computer based on string and rubber bands, while we are sitting in front of a real one based on silicon, and using it to experiment with how to make better silicon computers. Its not just wrong, its completely absurd.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 18, 2007 5:49 PM
I'd like to second that, from a layperson's personal experience. We saw early ultrasounds of my daughter in the womb. Her arms started out as buds sticking out the sides of the torso and grew outward--not a tube that separated in the middle.
Does this book fit into the "not even wrong" category?
Posted by: Leon | July 18, 2007 6:01 PM
Posted by: Stanton | July 19, 2007 1:12 AM
PZ, James Stein, Thanks for answering. I didn't think Pivar could be right, but it does seem he falls into the not-even-wrong category.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | July 19, 2007 4:35 AM
Has Pharyngula started to use a milder form of punishment than disemvowelling, namely modifying random words by changing most of their letters to ones on nearby keys on a qwerty keyboard?
Jim Roberts
Posted by: jotetamu | July 19, 2007 11:04 AM
This is the model theory of embryonic seld-organization
Theorem:
The forms of the animal phyla are simulated by the topological expansion of an elastic spherical surface within a spherical surface of less elasticity. Inward expansion of the inner sphere produces a torus. Circumferential expansion produces the radial body. Axial extension forms a segmented tube. Bending failure creates internal membranes which originate the appendages. The number of bends beginning with one, are the number of paired appendages. These quantified differences depend on elasticity which is controlled by the chemicals in the protoplasm, under the ultimate control of the genes The genes maintain and modify the relative size of the organs of an unchangeble bodyplan.
The shell or bones of the skeleton derive from the outer sphere, deformed by the forming body within, or, in vertebrates, without.
There are only two animal body plans. Since all life begins as a sphere within a sphere, it is proposed as plausible that this is nature's secret.
Posted by: stuart pivar | July 19, 2007 12:37 PM
stuart-
do you have a website which summarizes your "theory"?
please post a link?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 19, 2007 3:58 PM
Problem is Stuart, while some of the basic stages happen as you claim, its the "basic" stages. Once division into a tube happens, other genes kick in, which then start forming bones and other things, in a way 100% different than you are describing. You are talking about a fantasy idea based on pure hypothesis, and no data. Real scientists have studied how such things form and even filmed them, and there is nothing like what you are claiming happening in any of the actual observed data. Its fine to come up with an idea when people have no clue what is going on, but when your idea contradicts what everyone else has actually observed in the lab? That's just nuts.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 19, 2007 6:46 PM
A reply to post #18:
Amusingly, hot water *can* be created from cold through vortexes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube
Also, more directly, simply swirling water around enough will heat it of course...
I haven't managed to work out whether you intended the statement you assigned to Pivar to be false ;)
Posted by: bls | August 20, 2007 7:27 PM
"...balloon animals".
Not quite. I think he was describing the Slime toys. (Wikipedia entry)
And no, those are not pedipalps. The "spider" in his illustration has those, too, plus the 10 legs. (Comment # 42)
Posted by: Susannah | August 21, 2007 12:31 AM
This reminds me of Kepler's proposition that polyhedra determined the positions of planets: a neat idea that has all sorts of cool implications, but which sadly bears no resemblance to reality. Oops.
BTW, to say that philosophy is irrelevant to science is nonsense. It's essential.
Posted by: Jamie Flournoy | August 21, 2007 2:55 AM
That explains it! I recall seeing a picture in Thor Hyerdahl's account of the Kon Tiki expedition, of the statues that typically showed the arms beginning to split apart at the fingertips. They appeared just as in step 10, human, in Pivar's figure above (except fleshed out, not skeletal). What further proof could one ask for?
Posted by: mark | August 21, 2007 10:44 AM
While I don't think you should be able to be sued for posting an opinion on a blog, this review is unnecessarily scathing(which is not to say it is lacking in entertainment value), and is arguably not a review at all but merely an attack of this person's ideas.
I'd also like to add that all explanations of reality are basically metaphors that are a function of the instruments that we use to examine reality. There is a limit to what we can 'observe' and measure. We make up words and stories to explain our limited datasets. If observation with better instruments seems to contradict a good metaphor either a better(more inclusive) metaphor is formed, or someone makes up something(see 'dark matter', 'dark energy') that would allow the metaphor to still be 'right'. There is a lot of money being spent right now trying to detect something that might not exist.
I don't believe that the author of this book is ignorant of how creatures actually physically develop, he is just trying to illustrate a metaphor for development, a possibly useful idea for thinking about development. It is certainly interesting.
Posted by: Jim | August 21, 2007 11:08 AM
You'd be quite wrong. His "metaphor" doesn't fit and is strongly contradicted by actual observations of embryos. You don't need a flawed instrument to see that hands do not develop from masses that are fused at the fingertips, and we have a large body of evidence that shows that no vertebrates form limbs at that way.
In science you don't get to ignore the evidence because your fantasies are so much prettier.
"Unnecessarily scathing"? The work is so out of touch with reality and evidence and scientific explanations that I thought I was being unnecessarily kind.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 21, 2007 11:16 AM
"and is arguably not a review at all but merely an attack of this person's ideas."
Awwww, the poor ideas.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 21, 2007 11:31 AM
Isn't the imagination a wonderful thing! Just like religion, it is an 'as if' model with no basis for reference other than the authors unintuative supposition on the topic in hand.
Marvellously ludicrous. I am ordering my copy today!
Posted by: Rob East | August 21, 2007 11:53 AM
Ack.
if (syntax.correct() && programmer.good()) { truth = java; } else { truth = Visual Basic; }Much better.
Posted by: John Bode | August 21, 2007 12:06 PM
Doesn't reviewing a work necessitate identifying bad ideas and labeling them as such? How, then, can one say that something is not a review but is merely an attack on ideas? It doesn't make sense.
Geez, I hope I don't get sued for saying that.
Posted by: Ric | August 21, 2007 2:13 PM
PZ, please make sure to have him expound upon this point at the deposition. I'd love to be a fly* on the wall as he goes into detail about that.
Hell, if your lawyer is willing to produce it, I'd probably buy a copy of the DVD.
* is that the first body plan of two?
Posted by: thalarctos | August 21, 2007 2:37 PM
This sounds like someone who read Weisman, was intrigued by the idea of fate maps, then dropped some acid.
Posted by: spinoza | August 21, 2007 4:29 PM
I'm sorry PZ, I don't take the NY bar for another 8 months - otherwise I would take care of this pro bono.
Posted by: Chris Bell | August 21, 2007 4:51 PM
"This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals."
Well, that's just plain ridiculous. Any self-respecting clown can tell you that balloon animals are formed out of straight lines, not toruses. Tsk.
Posted by: Rob | August 21, 2007 10:33 PM
""Unnecessarily scathing"? The work is so out of touch with reality and evidence and scientific explanations that I thought I was being unnecessarily kind."
Don't fight this fight, it's not worth it. You insulted this guy. This happens all the time on the internet and even in this thread. People don't like being insulted. You managed to insult this guy to a point that he's suing you. Suing you seems unreasonable to me, but you made it a point to insult him.
I can't imagine that he could sue you successfully, but I can't imagine you convincing anybody that this is some sort of objective review of his work. You hate this book. You mock it. It is perhaps deserving of these things from your point of view.
My opinion is that you could save quite a bit of money and unnecessary histrionics by simply contacting this guy, explaining to him in a rational(rather than condescending) manner, why you don't like his book, and why you decided to lash out to such a degree that he was insulted. Apologize for being insulting, as being insulting is completely unnecessary, in any instance, really. What purpose does it serve besides your own?
I bother to post this because I really don't think that this battle has any real relevance, it is just a feud between two people. I would hate to see this little dispute be the symbolic battle of 'Freedom of Speech' on the internet or something, where all the bloggers are following it etc. This shouldn't be a story. This isn't a battle between 'reason' and 'faith' that will teach us all a lesson and be remembered. This is just a flame war that has extended into real life. Only a very, very small percentage of the people in the world would even be able to make sense of this situation. The only useful function of this situation is to create publicity for both parties, which is of no advantage to anyone but them and their lawyers.
Just drop it PZ, you are an unconvincing martyr. Diffuse the situation, don't start a crusade, and get back to what you are supposed to be doing, of which stating your opinions is just a part.
Posted by: Jim | August 22, 2007 12:16 AM
Sir, you have insulted my profession by comparing the writer to a clown. I demand satisfaction. Custard pies at dawn.
Posted by: Boffo | August 22, 2007 1:05 AM
This "Stuart Pivar" sounds like that native american indian tribe that was trying to legally claim that they invented Linux and were trying to claim intellectual property on Linux. If anyone remembers that case I cannot recall the name.
I hope this case results in really good publicity for Myers and a lot of anguish and distress for the unoriginal Stuart Pivard.
Posted by: john brown | August 22, 2007 1:42 AM
You managed to insult this guy to a point that he's suing you. Suing you seems unreasonable to me, but you made it a point to insult him.
Y'know, the mere fact of the lawsuit doesn't prove anything about the tone of PZ's review, nor about Pivar's motivations for the lawsuit. Sometimes, people get sued for no good reason. And they're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in any case.
I also like the idea that PZ is supposed to contact Pivar and explain politely why his book is unscientific and irrational. Yeah, that oughta calm him down, alright.
Don't know what line of work you're in, but I hope to god it's not mediation.
Posted by: Phila | August 22, 2007 2:14 AM
I wonder if Jim has any insight into whether sockpuppets developed from toroid forms?
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | August 22, 2007 2:31 AM
Sorry, this guy is claiming to be a scientist.
If you claim to be a scientist, you do not sue hostile critics. You refute them by the power of your superior scientific discourse. You hold them up to ridicule because they do not know what they are talking about.
Going to court about a matter of scientific debate is like taking RealClimate to court because they are rude about global warming sceptics.
Posted by: MFB | August 22, 2007 5:34 AM
What's with all the leg fascism? How the hell do you so-called 'scientists' know how many legs a spider should have? I say leave it up to the spider. If he wants to have ten legs, good luck to him. You just hate ambition.
Posted by: graham | August 22, 2007 5:47 AM
I can't imagine that he could sue you successfully, but I can't imagine you convincing anybody that this is some sort of objective review of his work.
Hey, I'm convinced. Does it escape you that someone might objectively evaluate a book and still come to the conclusion it's nonsense?
Posted by: windy | August 22, 2007 6:37 AM
'I bother to post this because I really don't think that this battle has any real relevance, it is just a feud between two people.'
This is increadible concern trolling.
"Oh you meanie, you can't be so nasty to the poor man (read: idiot living in a fantasy world) so just go and play nice now"
Dear lord alive Jim, how are you supposed to deal with nutters if you can't tell them they are wrong?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 | August 22, 2007 6:38 AM
And you post over at the TO was unintelligible and you weren't even privy to the fact that the debate wasn't about evolution
Wow. Learn grammar and spelling, then come back and talk about unintelligible again for me.
if (syntax.isCorrect() && programmer.isGood())
{
truth = "java, now with correct boolean accessor method names";
}
else
{
truth = "Visual Basic";
}
Posted by: java | August 22, 2007 10:49 AM
Ian Brown:
Well, we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
After all, certified kooks who talk total shite 22½ hours a day are people, too.
Posted by: Dan | August 22, 2007 10:52 AM
Didn't Alberta Sparrow come up with a similar kind of book in Donnie Darko? ;)
Posted by: Alissa Jones | August 22, 2007 10:54 AM
I don't suppose it was Wampanoag tribe of Bourne, Massachusetts, was it?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2007 11:00 AM
Lifecode FYI: Those who want to know for themselves what the book lifecode actually says,
may see www.aninconvenienttheory.com or www.selforganization.com
SP
Posted by: SP | August 22, 2007 11:25 AM
And the world's tiniest violin plays on.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 22, 2007 11:29 AM
I'm afraid I was Teleologically programed to believe in Teleology. ;-)
Or to quote someone else that must infuriate many:
The idea of God is an absolutely necessary function of an irrational nature, which has [absolutely] nothing to do with the question of God's existence. - Karl Jung, 1991
What purpose faith?
I like your web site, but I'd suggest a reading of Karl Popper's "Conjecture and Refutation" by some of your corespondents before I'd ever publically claim to know something about the Philosophy of Science. I assume they've all read Thomas Kuhn. The list does get rather long, if you really do have an interest: Russell, Whitehead, Chomsky... Hell, Spinoza should keep you occupied for a few months, at least. Kant should still