…and this is a 
Why Evolution is True
Category: Books • Evolution
Posted on: October 13, 2008 11:32 AM, by PZ Myers
I hope Jerry Coyne will forgive me that my frequent thought as I was reading his new book, Why Evolution Is True(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) was, "Wow, this sure is easier to read than that other book." That other book, of course, is Coyne and Orr's comprehensive text on Speciation(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is a technical and detailed survey of the subject in the title, and that I wouldn't necessarily recommend to anyone who wasn't at least a graduate student in biology. We all have our impressions colored by prior expectations, you know, and Jerry Coyne is that high-powered ecology and evolution guy at the University of Chicago whose papers I've read.
The new book is simple to summarize: just read the title. It's aimed at a lay audience and answers the question of why biologists are so darned confident about the theory of evolution by going through a strong subset of the evidence. It begins with a discussion of what evolution is, then each subsequent chapter is organized around a class of evidence: fossils, embryology and historical accidents, biogeography, natural selection, sexual selection, speciation, and human evolution. If you want a straightforward primer in the experiments and observations that have made evolution the foundational principle of modern biology, this is the book for you.
Why Evolution is True makes an almost entirely positive case for evolution; it has an appropriate perspective on the current American conflict between science and religious fundamentalism that avoids dwelling on creationist nonsense, but still acknowledges where common misconceptions occur and where creationist PR, such as the Intelligent Design creationism fad, has raised stock objections. It's a good strategy — the structure of this book is not dictated by creationist absurdities, but by good science, and creationism is simply noted where necessary and swatted down efficiently. It's a more powerful tool for it, too — creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly.
You all really ought to pick up a copy of this book if you don't already have a sound understanding of the basic lines of evidence for evolution (or, if you do, you could always get Speciation to get a little more depth). I recommend it unreservedly. Oh, except for one little reservation: it won't be available until January. Go ahead and put it on your Amazon pre-order list, then.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: moother | October 13, 2008 11:46 AM
wot? iz evulutianz real?
jeebuz save us all!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 13, 2008 11:48 AM
Forget about "irreducible complexity," what we see in life is irreducible randomness (but not of the quantum kind--rather using "irreducible" as the IDists do), along with natural selection which fashions it all into something competitive.
Explain the randomness, and you can come up with a theory. Don't explain the randomness, and you're not even addressing the major problem.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 13, 2008 11:48 AM
Forget about "irreducible complexity," what we see in life is irreducible randomness (but not of the quantum kind--rather using "irreducible" as the IDists do), along with natural selection which fashions it all into something competitive.
Explain the randomness, and you can come up with a theory. Don't explain the randomness, and you're not even addressing the major problem.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Qwerty | October 13, 2008 11:48 AM
It won't be available until January! You're a big tease. You must have received an advance copy because Coyne knows all your nonscientific minions and ilk will flock to Amazon.com or their local Borders to get a copy! I'll be first in line.
Posted by: Rik. | October 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Since it sounds like I've learned most of what's in that book in high school, I won't be buying it.
Posted by: Kobra | October 13, 2008 11:50 AM
If nothing else, it will make a great gift to give to the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement.
Posted by: Arthur | October 13, 2008 11:50 AM
How does this book differ from the one Dawkins is currently writing?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 13, 2008 11:52 AM
And I'd managed not to double-post all through the recent difficulties, till now. La vie, I say.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2008 11:56 AM
This looks interesting. Since my knowledge of biology is fairly sketchy, my education being mainly in social sciences and humanities (at present I'm a law student), I'm interested in a book that would explain these concepts in comprehensible layman's terms.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 13, 2008 11:57 AM
I would be very surprised if you learned what's in this book in high school. This isn't superficial, and it's not the kind of thing that can be covered in a couple of lectures to a public school class. Coyne did not aim that low -- this is more like the stuff that every college biology major ought to know.
Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2008 12:02 PM
OK, fair enough. It's not often I regret my path in life, but I do sometimes regret my very limited knowledge of the physical and natural sciences. I'm on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 12:28 PM
Pretty much agree with what #9 (Walton) said. My knowledge of biology is lacking, my education is mainly in IT, and hopefully in the near future, Linguistics. A book that will give me a straightforward overview of the evidence would be entirely helpful.
Posted by: Ari | October 13, 2008 12:33 PM
Wow, thanks for the link to theflyingtrilobite's website. I'm going to start keeping tabs on the artist, very good work.
Posted by: Rik. | October 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Ok, fair enough. I haven't read it, after all. Since you wrote that
and we've discussed most of these subjects in biology class in high school (although not very deeply - now that I think about it, there certainly wasn't enough to fill up a whole book) I figured it wouldn't tell me much I didn't already know. Obviously, I was mistaken, since I'm not even a biology minor.
Then again, I have no idea how much - or how little - you Americans learn in your schools these days. And since I know you hate smileys, (smiley's? smilies?), instead of just typing ":P" I will instead textually convey that my last sentence is not to be taken entirely seriously, but is rather an attempt at a humorous pass at the quality of education in the USA.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | October 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Walton said;
And yet your lack of knowledge never prevents you opining as if knowledgable, your post that PZ replied to being a perfect example.
Muahahaha
Posted by: ggab | October 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Pre-order complete.
I have the creationists to thank for this.
I have always had an interest in cosmology and physics, and discovered that no matter the forum, no matter the subject, you are likely to have your conversation interupted by a creationist carpetbombing.
As it happened more and more, it caused me to expand my horizons further into the realm of biology.
At first I was bothered by the fact that I was being forced to educate myself on a new subject that didn't interest me all that much, but now I'm absolutely fascinated.
Thank you Jesusfreaks, for making me a more rounded person.
Wish I could do the same for you.
Posted by: Rik. | October 13, 2008 12:43 PM
I'm off for tonight. Still won't buy that book, though. All the money I have goes to either the tuition fee for the university I study at or books required for said study.
Also, it's taking ages to post anything on scienceblogs. Blargh.
Posted by: Jason, Cincinnati | October 13, 2008 12:43 PM
I just finished The Ancestor's Tale yesterday and am hungry for more. I wonder how this compares.
Posted by: Mike Beidler | October 13, 2008 12:50 PM
Many thanks for the book review! It's at the top of my Amazon Wish List!
That being said, are there any other books out there along the same lines, e.g., sophisticated and detailed yet readable and not overly technical?
Posted by: BobC | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll.
I know next to nothing about biology but I was able to understand and enjoy this excellent book.
Posted by: qedpro | October 13, 2008 1:24 PM
Its too bad we all couldn't chip in and send a case of the books to that bastion of ignorance so inappropriately named the Discovery Institute for christmas - excuse me Winter Solstice.
Not that they read science books, but you never know.
Posted by: Tex | October 13, 2008 1:27 PM
I second BobC's nomination of Making of the Fittest as an excellent place to start.
Posted by: The Wholly None | October 13, 2008 1:41 PM
Please consider donating copies of these two books to your local public high school library so that young minds may be exposed to good bioscience. It's a small action we can take that will pay great dividends, I think. I am not a scientist, but when I was a kid, I read every book that Isaac Asimov ever wrote, and that made me love and respect science forever.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | October 13, 2008 1:46 PM
I've been looking for a book like this for some time. One that I can recommend to Fundies who ask me questions that reveal their total lack of understanding of evolution. I'll plan to read it as soon as it comes out, and see if it fits what I've been looking for.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | October 13, 2008 1:49 PM
I've been looking for a book like this for some time. One that I can recommend to Fundies who ask me questions that reveal their total lack of understanding of evolution. I'll plan to read it as soon as it comes out, and see if it fits what I've been looking for.
Posted by: foreign observer | October 13, 2008 2:08 PM
evolution is true,yes After hundreds of years of hard work by thousands of scientists and the convergence of paleontology,biology and genetics is it not time for a LAW of evolution?
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 13, 2008 2:23 PM
foreign observer @ #26
Why?
Posted by: BobC | October 13, 2008 2:28 PM
I'm pretty sure a theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than laws and facts. Unfortunately the creationist retards think a theory is a wild guess that has no evidence.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 13, 2008 2:38 PM
Evolution is not a separate law of nature. It's inevitable if you have a reproducing population, heritable traits, and an environment.
(Actually you don't even need an environment.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 13, 2008 2:44 PM
(You do need mutation, though. If inheritance is perfect, it doesn't work.
Coming up with theoretical minimum requirements for a process that's so far removed from them in the real world isn't easy.)
Posted by: CJO | October 13, 2008 2:50 PM
is it not time for a LAW of evolution?
On the premise that theories grow up into laws? It's a category mistake. A scientific law is a (mathematical) expression of a deep regularity in nature, one that has never been observed to fail, given boundary conditions.
A theory, on the other hand, unifies diverse observations into a single explanatory framework that can be used to make predictions about future observations and generate novel hypotheses.
Note that a law has no explanatory power, being simply an expression of how things are.
Population genetics might be said to have a few laws, notably the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Regardless, there will be no "law of evolution," nor is one needed.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 13, 2008 3:05 PM
In other words, theories explain laws.
Posted by: Nanahuatzin | October 13, 2008 3:08 PM
foreign @ 26
In his book, Darwin presented the five parts or hypotesis that he intended to probe in his book.
Probably those are what we could call the fives laws of evolution.
1. Evolution as such
This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of entities that live on it also change.
2. Common descent
This is the understanding that every group of living entities that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
Common descent occurs because one lineage would, willy-nilly, be a little more prolific than another, and would thereby wipe out the other. So only one survives.
3. Multiplication of species
This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
4. Gradualism
This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
5. Natural selection
This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others.
Darwin could demostrate most of this, but in some cases que could not get a mechanism to explain it (a law says how, a theory say why). That is was modern science has been doing all this years.
Posted by: eric williams | October 13, 2008 3:22 PM
"Regardless, there will be no "law of evolution," nor is one needed."
Au contraire, monsieur!
There IS a "Law of Evolution"
It has two parts:
1. Living things change over time.
2. Many of the organisms that are extant today are different from those of the past.
What we do not have is a "Theory of Evolution", that is a credible mechanism that explains how it occurred.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 13, 2008 3:27 PM
Something useful at last. Will pre-order today.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | October 13, 2008 3:29 PM
Maybe we should all read the book together and have a blog entry per chapter.
Posted by: ThinkingApe | October 13, 2008 3:36 PM
Ubi Dubium,
I was thinking the same thing, about recomending this to the 'Fundies', as you put it, in my life. Unfortunatley the one thing they have in common (now I'm talking specific IDiots that I know) is that they don't read books. Maybe if the book comes out in a screaming-foaming-at-the-mouth Youtube version, they'll sit through it.
Posted by: Ben | October 13, 2008 3:37 PM
Educate laity? You mean we can't just Dickie D everyone FTW?
Posted by: CJO | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM
If you couldn't even begin to explain how you might frame a proposed scientific law mathematically, chances are it's not a law. Is "the design of currency changes over time, and many of the currency designs extant differ from those of the past" a law of economics? Your proposed law is no more precise. Really, your second part is just a corrolary of the first. It's merely a statement of one consequence of "change over time." At best, you've offered a definition.
As for the kicker, there, you're being obtuse. The mechanisms described by Modern Evolutionary Theory are as credible and have as much predictive and explanatory power as those described by any theory in the history of science.
Posted by: Father Nature | October 13, 2008 3:44 PM
The creationist response to this book will be:
(hands over both ears)
"LA LA LA LA LA LA...."
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | October 13, 2008 3:47 PM
Either Charlie Wagner or some other similar crank. Our present understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, while doubtless incomplete, is regarded as highly "credible" by all of the people that know most about it. Your personal incredulity is not interesting.Posted by: Paul King | October 13, 2008 3:50 PM
How does Coyne's book compare with Mayr's What Evolution Is ?
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | October 13, 2008 4:09 PM
David @ #29-30:
Instead of "heritable traits", I would have said "heritable differences in reproductive efficiency".
Another thing you don't need is death. Definitions of evolution often talk about competition for resources and differential survival, and of course it's a historical fact that Darwin was deeply influenced by Malthus. But death isn't logically necessary to evolution. In a theoretical world of unlimited resources in which no organism dies and no lineage goes extinct, it would still be the case that more efficient reproducers would come to dominate the population, driving less efficient variants into (relative) insignificance. In a contest of exponential growth, the guy with the bigger exponent wins. It so happens that in the real world of finite resources, losing that contest leads to extinction, but that's a side-effect of evolution, not a prerequisite.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | October 13, 2008 4:10 PM
Walton @11
"I'm on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law."
You swine, I've just spat my beir all over the keyboard.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | October 13, 2008 4:25 PM
Hey Thinking Ape #37,
I bet I know how you can get a fundie to read that book. Tell them you will come to church with them as long if they promise to devote the same amount of time reading that book as you spend in church.
Posted by: Thinker | October 13, 2008 4:34 PM
So, will Jerry Coyne follow Harun Yahya's example and send copies of this to creationists...?
Posted by: Dr Milton Wainwright | October 13, 2008 4:35 PM
Hi, anyone inteerested in evolution might also be interested in my recent research called "Its Not Darwin's or Wallace's Theory" and associated comments on the Richard Dawkins website,which can be found by searching "wainwrightscience" on Google,
Best Wishes, Dr Milton Wainwright,Dept.Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield,UK
Posted by: Dr Milton Wainwright | October 13, 2008 4:35 PM
Hi, anyone inteerested in evolution might also be interested in my recent research called "Its Not Darwin's or Wallace's Theory" and associated comments on the Richard Dawkins website,which can be found by searching "wainwrightscience" on Google,
Best Wishes, Dr Milton Wainwright,Dept.Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield,UK
Posted by: BobC | October 13, 2008 4:37 PM
Stimpson, why should anyone give a shit if you morons educate yourselves or not? Just keep your stupidity out of our schools, asshole.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 4:49 PM
What we do not have is a "Theory of Evolution", that is a credible mechanism that explains how it occurred.
LOL
so wrong it hurts when I laugh at it.
I also know that you've been corrected on this hundreds of times, and yet will always come back to repeat the same lies over and over again.
another pathetic creobot, lying to maintain your house of cards you call your "worldview".
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 4:52 PM
I'm pretty sure a theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than laws and facts.
you can drop the qualifier; you have it right.
Posted by: freelunch | October 13, 2008 4:55 PM
Coyne's book has actual intellectual value. It doesn't need to be given away, certainly not to people who are too proud of their ignorance to remediate it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 4:58 PM
I bet I know how you can get a fundie to read that book. Tell them you will come to church with them as long if they promise to devote the same amount of time reading that book as you spend in church.
I'd be happy to trade all the hours I spent in church until I was an adult, for any ignorant person like yourself to spend that time in an actual science course that teaches the basics of evolutionary biology, and forces you to actually fucking read the literature on the subject.\
You see, moron, most of us here have ALREADY read your "sacred" tome, and eventually discarded it for what it was: A work of fiction.
You clowns are still on the hook for the amount of time those of us who abandoned your nonsense already put into it.
So get to reading, punk.
Posted by: Ty | October 13, 2008 5:07 PM
Damn effing straight.
I have hundreds or thousands of wasted hours in church on my account too. I will happily use that credit to get some good hearted but ignorant person some useful education.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | October 13, 2008 5:20 PM
Hello Ichthyic,
I am sure the amount of time I have spent reading science easily dwarfs the amount of time you have spent in church. I am not a church goer myself. I was merely making a suggestion to those who would like fundies to educate themselves. I think PZ is one of those guys.
And Bob at #49, didn't you say at #20 "I know next to nothing about biology".
I myself am wishing that the average american had a grasp of 8th grade math right now and knew what they getting into when they signed up for an adjustable rate mortgage.
Posted by: who is your creator | October 13, 2008 5:25 PM
Why evolution isn't true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared "long before" in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
"Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers ... The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability... 'It had the tools,' he said, 'but it needed the opportunity as well.'" http://www.scientificblogging.com/n[...]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
"A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development ... Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response ... Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. "Many genes viewed as having particular 'functions' in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved," says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C." http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E[...]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com[...]descent.html
2. For the fossil 'evidence' ruse created by evolutionary 'science,' go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos[...]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, "quote-mining" "straw man" and the new buzz word, "trolling"!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning...
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 5:27 PM
I'll add this book to my Amazon wishlist, so when the dollar goes back up, I can get this and The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | October 13, 2008 5:27 PM
Just went to order the book from Amazon and was confronted by adverts for two creotard websites promising to teach me about the "truth of evolution". Eurrgh. As a result I shall be spending my hard-earned in a local bookstore when January comes around instead.
Posted by: Alejandro Bolaños Rosales | October 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Thanks for the book recommendation, PZ!
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | October 13, 2008 5:32 PM
SciBlogs is not well today. Are those DOS assholes still causing trouble?
Posted by: who is your creator | October 13, 2008 5:42 PM
Why evolution isn't true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared "long before" in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
"Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers ... The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability... 'It had the tools,' he said, 'but it needed the opportunity as well.'" http://www.scientificblogging.com/n[...]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
"A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development ... Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response ... Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. "Many genes viewed as having particular 'functions' in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved," says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C." http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E[...]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com[...]descent.html
2. For the fossil 'evidence' ruse created by evolutionary 'science,' go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos[...]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, "quote-mining" "straw man" and the new buzz word, "trolling"!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning...
Posted by: who is your creator | October 13, 2008 5:46 PM
Why evolution isn't true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared "long before" in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
"Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers ... The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability... 'It had the tools,' he said, 'but it needed the opportunity as well.'" http://www.scientificblogging.com/n[...]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
"A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development ... Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response ... Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons." http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[...]l_genome.htm
"Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. "Many genes viewed as having particular 'functions' in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved," says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C." http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E[...]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com[...]descent.html
2. For the fossil 'evidence' ruse created by evolutionary 'science,' go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos[...]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, "quote-mining" "straw man" and the new buzz word, "trolling"!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning...
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | October 13, 2008 5:48 PM
I love the comment from Richard Dawkins:
Oh how I LOLed at that. RD is national treasure.
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 6:00 PM
So Charles Wagner is a biologist? What's his speciality?Posted by: Sven DIMilo | October 13, 2008 6:59 PM
Saying the same shit over and over and over for years: he personally doesn't see how it could have happened, therefore it couldn't have happened. *shrug*Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 13, 2008 7:05 PM
This "Who is your creator" tard showed up at PT, too. I made a short response there, which I'll copy to here:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 13, 2008 7:07 PM
Who is your creator, can you give me references to the journals Science and Nature that repudiate evolution? If not, where is your evidence? Not in the scientific literature, which means you don't have any. That makes you a triple liar and bullshitter.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 13, 2008 7:22 PM
Damn fool creationist can't even get a simple copy-and-paste done right.
Actually, since none of the excerpts on genetics that you posted contradicts the theory of evolution, the proper response is "So what?"
Although "trolling" probably applies as well. Silly creationist.
Evolution is true.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 13, 2008 7:33 PM
"You see, moron, most of us here have ALREADY read your "sacred" tome, and eventually discarded it for what it was: A work of fiction."
But Ichthy, religionists are coming up with new and exciting findings in the field of apologetics every day. You really need to spend an hour in church every week to keep up.
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 7:36 PM
So Charles Wagner is an argument from personal incredulity?Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 7:43 PM
Since when?Posted by: Nerdette | October 13, 2008 8:23 PM
This comment will undoubtedly get lost in the bashing of the creationist-troll, but might as well.
UChicago is pumping out the fun books lately, but I think I'll wait to buy this after I graduate. The last thing I need is to have Prof. Coyne think I'm a bigger fan-girl than I already am if he sees me in Zoology with said book in hand.
Posted by: Ragutis | October 13, 2008 8:40 PM
Sorry guys, no humorous segue, and not quite on-topic, but I figured this thread would be the best of the recent entries to post this in:
It's not a bunny, but has anyone seen the report of a supposed Pre-Cambrian centipede?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/12/scifootprint112.xml
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:06 PM
But Ichthy, religionists are coming up with new and exciting findings in the field of apologetics every day.
I already spend enough time recycling cans and bottles without having to spend time listening to recycled arguments too.
:P
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:10 PM
So Charles Wagner is a biologist?
no, if you look up his dungeon entry here, he's a little blond girl.
What's his speciality?
wanking.
...seriously; look it up.
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 9:15 PM
So what is Eric Williams doing quoting the guy? Is this a new morph perhaps?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:19 PM
I am sure the amount of time I have spent reading science easily dwarfs the amount of time you have spent in church.
not based on your putative arguments in favor of the non-science of "intelligent design".
from those arguments, you have at best a high school level of science comprehension.
I see no point in rehashing how your missives on that subject have already been shredded.
I was merely making a suggestion to those who would like fundies to educate themselves.
point taken. You've stated repeatedly you aren't a churchgoer.
It's just so easy to confuse you with one based on what you say.
It's obvious (and even stated by you on your own "blog") that you are just trolling here.
you aren't doing anyone any good, including yourself.
suggest you spend less time trolling and more time reading.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 13, 2008 9:55 PM
Absolutely a new morph.
See, you have to understand that Charlie Wagner is not a Christian fundamentalist; he's a sui generis agnostic crank. I am pretty sure that most other anti-evolutionists fall somewhere in the creationist (YEC, OEC)-"ID" spectrum, and would consider Charlie's panspermia+steady-state-universe cosmology to be utter blasphemous anathema.
So pretty much the only person who would quote/cite Charlie Wagner... is Charlie Wagner.
If you feel like exploring how a human mind can go wandering off into the weeds of fractal wrongness not based on any particular religious ideology, you can easily find his website. It really is one-of-a-kind.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 10:00 PM
I am pretty sure that most other anti-evolutionists fall somewhere in the creationist (YEC, OEC)-"ID" spectrum, and would consider Charlie's panspermia+steady-state-universe cosmology to be utter blasphemous anathema.
ah, I remember the really FUN* times when we used to get both Wagner AND Heddle spewing their own versions of "Cosmic ID" in a thread. At least Heddle knew something of astronomy and physics, for whatever that was worth.
*and by "fun" I mean more like tortuous insanity.
Posted by: scooter | October 13, 2008 10:04 PM
Walton said: I'm on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law.
Sometimes I think maybe evolution ISN'T true.
Posted by: scooter | October 13, 2008 10:26 PM
I'm trying to read # 56, and # 61 and #62 from who is my creator, but I've been drinking this ISP beer since I got home and I'm too frontLoaded, I can't unedrstnad it, did godiddit, did we getz cheezburgerz ?