…and this is a 
Last week, I received an ominous email from Stuart Pivar.
Dear PZ,
The work of my lab has been subject to questions and harsh criticisms, some reasonable, some not. The scientific ones are dealt with in a new book On The Origin Of Form, Evolution by Self-Organization, an alternative to the natural selection paradigm, This is a substantially expanded presentation of the self-organization model previously published.
I welcome your assessment. If you are convinced now of its plausibility, as are many others, I solicit your participation in the dissemination of the idea for further investigation. A copy is on its way. Meanwhile, please see www.ontheoriginofform.com
SP
Uh-oh. Pivar, you may recall, is the fellow who tried to sue me for FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS two years ago, all over my review of his book, Lifecode. That tends to damp my enthusiasm for any more books from him.
I did not reply. He sent me an update a few days later, anyway.
Dear PZ, The new book presents a model of self organization amplified well beyond that shown previously, addressing, among many other issues, the reasons that the idealized models are inconsistent with parts of observed embryology. Many prominent scientists have now accepted the plausibility of the model.
If you plan to comment publicly kindly view this new material. You will probably find the premise plausible as well.
see www.ontheoriginofform.com
Stuart
Plausible? It must have undergone significant revision, then, since in its earlier incarnation, it was best described as surreal and absurd. Then the book arrives in my mailbox; you can even preorder it on Amazon now, and just look at the encomiums published on the cover!
"Stuart Pivar's book, On the Origin of Form, contains ideas that deserve full scientific scrutiny, especially in light of the turmoil roiling evolutionary biology at present. Pivar is presenting, in a series of brilliantly rendered graphical diagrams that show his interpretation of how modifications of a torus shape can generate a vast panoply of biotic form, a new theory of morphogenesis.... This is a seismic event for science. Conventional evolutionary biologists are right to be very worried about this, because it has the potential to trigger the complete collapse of Modern Synthesis Biology."
--Mark A. S. McMenamin, PhD, Paleontologist, Professor of Geology, Chair of Earth and Environment, Mount Holyoke College"This is the discovery of the connection between the laws of physics and the complexity of life."
--Murray Gell-Mann, PhD, Distinguished Fellow, Santa Fe Institute, Nobel Laureate
Oh freakin' boy.
I read it. There's not much to it: it's a hodgepodge of short articles, some by Pivar, some taken from the published literature, some commissioned for this work. For the most part, they either make no sense (Pivar's contribution), or they don't justify his ideas (most of the other author's work). For instance, Pivar offers a chapter called "Acupuncture Meridians and Bio-Energetic Fields" which has no data, but does discuss chi and chakras, and drops a lot of names from 19th century biology. It includes an essay from Stephen Jay Gould on neoteny, a concept that doesn't seem to be used in Pivar's model. There is nothing coherent at all about the presentation. All we have are assertions that all life is built on toruses, and all variations are produced by simple physical distortions of the ur-tube. It's not convincing.
The heart of the book, as in its previous incarnations, is a series of figures that illustrate fanciful patterns of development and presumably relates these to evolution. There is a six page summary titled "The Self-Organization of Biological Form", introduced as "The central premise of this book is expressed in the following pages in the form of a scientific paper." Six pages! With 55 plates! The text is simply inadequate to describe what the author is showing with the figures.
I dismissed his earlier efforts as an attempt to describe the evolution of balloon animals. How true that was: this "paper" has a methods section. Here's the relevant part.
…this led to this investigation of the morphological properties of the amoeboid pseudopod, for which purpose toroidal balloons of latex rubber, polyvinylchloride, and other elastomeric sheet materials were fabricated in varying sizes and proportions. Small (10 cm) toroidal balloons made as water toys, widely commercially available, were used. These were filled with air, water, glycerine, honey, and other fluids of varying viscosity. A 20 cm ballon, filled with water, and then submerged in water, was observed to assume a series of distorted configurations which bear resemblance to various developmental forms of animal and plant species by simple manual manipulation of the hydrostatic pressure in the parts of the structure. Schematic drawings were made of predictable extrapolations of the deformations. These drawings are observed to corroborate the congruence of the model with the adult forms of the species suggested in the experiment.
See? He actually developed this model by studying balloon animals, not embryos. Literally. This is his problem: he claims that they resemble developmental forms, and that there is congruence with the adult, but when I look at the drawings, I see proof that the man has never looked at an embryo in his life, so how would he know?
For example, here's how he illustrates the development of limbs in his balloons:
But that's not how real vertebrate limbs develop! They aren't joined at the fingertips, for one thing, they don't form those odd radial bands, they never ever look at all like that. They start out as paired bilateral buds, with a pattern of graded molecular signals across them that specify proximal and distal, and anterior and posterior, and the bones appear as progressive condensation of discrete elements within the bud. His cartoon makes no sense!
Have you ever wondered how the tiger got its stripes? Apparently, they're right there in the primordial torus. Behold, the new embryology of the tiger:
This is complete bollocks. None of those images correspond to any stage in the embryonic development of any mammalian embryo. After implantation, we form a disc-shaped bilayer — do you see anything like that in the images? Developmental biologists have been making fatemaps for over a century, where they plot out how the cells and tissues of the early stages move and shift to form the adult, and trust me, those images do not fit any fate map I've ever seen. It's total fantasy, built from playing too much with inflatable rubber duckies in the bathtub.
From all this, Pivar draws some bizarre conclusions.
Life without Evolution, Form Without Genes
Conjoined twins and other anomalies have unique structures including novel bone forms, muscles, nerves, and blood vessels all organized into a perfect working system to accommodate the new form. This complex of organs, each fitted perfectly for its function, appears all at once, perhaps for the first time in the history of the species. This occurs without the benefit of evolution or any special code in the DNA.
Hence, complex form does not require a genetic code. Substantial modifications of form can occur in a single generation.
It's as if he never heard of developmental plasticity before.
To claim that life does not require a "genetic code" (does misuse of that term annoy you as much as it does me?) cannot be concluded from developmental abnormalities. Those do have a genome, you know; it is, however, an array of genes that are being expressed in a novel context to produce an unusual result. We also know from a very long history of teratological research that all kinds of aberrations can occur in a single generation, so that is no surprise. However, these aren't heritable, and so are not the beginnings of novel morphologies.
Once upon a time, great structuralists like D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson could make substantial contributions to our understanding of form, and their work is even enduring, because it was built on a foundation of empirical observation of embryos and tissues, not balloons. I think modern developmental biology could even use more focus on how physico-chemical properties of cells are essential contributors to form and pattern. However, the molecular/genetic research program has been incredibly successful, and has produced inarguable data that genes and gene expression are essential components of development. You can't talk about the evolution of form without talking about both variation in genes and gene expression.
We can see that many developmental processes are describable at a high level by a summary of forces and the responses of sheets of cells to those pressures…the buckling of the neural plate during neurulation, for instance, looks like a reaction to a physical force. However, what we find over and over again is that those events are also a consequence of differential gene expression, and domains or fields of cells with one set of adhesive properties defined by the expression of certain genes in contact with another field with different adhesive properties, again as a product of their genes. Any new structuralist theory must incorporate these facts, and given the strength of the data in molecular developmental biology and the narrowness of the work in structuralism, I know which one is going to be at best a minor informative contribution to the science.
But Pivar's book doesn't count. It has nothing to say about biology, and is in fact nothing but a series of claims that are contradicted by the most basic observations.
If he ever tries to publish another book like this — and so far, this is looking like a major obsession, so it may happen — there's something he'll have to do before I find it at all plausible: throw out all those goofy illustrations. They aren't evidence. The only way to discuss the science of evolution and development is to look at real embryos.
P.S. Murray Gell-Mann: you should be ashamed of yourself.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 25, 2009 3:18 PM
What a crackpot!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 25, 2009 3:18 PM
Isn't this a sign that whatever it is they are pushing is going to most likely suck?
Posted by: Kate | June 25, 2009 3:21 PM
It's like a bunch of "Just-So" stories.
I'm no biologist, but even a lay person such as myself has seen enough about embryonic development on TV and in National Geographic to see that this guy is full of crap.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 25, 2009 3:22 PM
Perhaps Stuart Pivar asked you to review his latest book knowing that you would be less than kind to it. This would give him a chance to sue you yet again.
Maybe if you gave him a camera, he might leave you alone.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 25, 2009 3:22 PM
Still sounds better than ID.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: mk | June 25, 2009 3:23 PM
That Gell-Mann part has to be a mistake... or hoax. Right?
Posted by: Bostonian | June 25, 2009 3:24 PM
Is it at possible that this Nobel Laureate's words were taken out of context? Maybe he was talking about something more plausible and revolutionary, such as the Time Cube.
Posted by: Derek | June 25, 2009 3:27 PM
I'm no biological expert, but I find his butchering of self-organization, and morphogenesis to be quite disturbing.
Posted by: Barry | June 25, 2009 3:27 PM
So, what would be a good summary of what you are saying? That it’s kind of like the book Evolution as Entropy; only much, much worse?
Posted by: rob | June 25, 2009 3:31 PM
Murray Gell-Mann, the 1969 physics Nobel laureate? i can only imagine he was taken out of context for that quote. like he was talking about something completely different and Pivar lifted in and slapped it on his book.
Posted by: slugboi | June 25, 2009 3:34 PM
Sounds like this guy should be writing science fiction, not real science. Honestly, it's an interesting concept, but even someone that has as little knowledge of the biological as I do knows that this is B.S. Seems like his use of the New Age angle will garner him a lot of respect in that circle. I'm sure he'll fit right in with the witch doctors...
Posted by: H.H. | June 25, 2009 3:35 PM
Yeah, what ever happened with that? Was the suit dismissed or was it withdrawn or what? I do remember several people stepped forward at the time to help you, I just hope the lawsuit didn't end up costing you anything to make it go away.Posted by: SC, OM | June 25, 2009 3:38 PM
It's an interesting and entertaining world you inhabit, PZ.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 25, 2009 3:39 PM
Didn't the Discovery Institute come in one day can claim PZ's dismissal of this guy was a sign of his closed-mindedness instead of say, having observed embryos.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 25, 2009 3:39 PM
Does Pivar have a high school diploma? I don't think he could possibly have passed the minimum science requirements, nevermind any kind of degree in biology.
Posted by: Michelle | June 25, 2009 3:41 PM
I believe the following acronym is appropriate for Stewart's little theory:
"WTF?"
Posted by: druidbros
|
June 25, 2009 3:41 PM
I eagerly await your review PZ... and perhaps the countersuit you will bring against him for continued harassment.
Posted by: bootsy | June 25, 2009 3:43 PM
Sure, he traced the development of Balloon Animals, but what does he know about the black hole that allows thousands of clowns to fit into a tiny car?
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
June 25, 2009 3:44 PM
Has this man ever even taken a biology course? This looks like an idea that would sound good to someone of moderate intelligence who's been living under a rock for most of his life.
Posted by: Gell-Manniac | June 25, 2009 3:44 PM
Yeah, that's weird. The only convincing explanations I got are: Gell-Mann owes Pivar a huge favor, it was taken out of context, or age has gotten to him.
P.S. Feynmaniac sucks.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 25, 2009 3:46 PM
I don't know whether the quote is genuine or not, but my impression of Gell-Mann is that he's incapable of feeling shame.
Any bets on how much PeeZed is gonna get sued for this review?
Posted by: sabazinus | June 25, 2009 3:49 PM
I was thinking about getting my Doctorate in Education with a concentration in Special Education. Now though, I see the errors of my ways. I should go for a Doctorate in Embryotic Development via Balloon Animals. This balloon poodle? Someday, it will evolve into a swan! With hands! If I put stripes onto this empty balloon with this Sharpie, it will automatically turn into a zebra when I inflate it! Amazing! Just think of the hallowed corridors of science I can lurk within given such advanced training.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | June 25, 2009 3:51 PM
Re: Murray Gell-Mann - Recall that Pivar previously claimed an endorsement from Neil Tyson that was completely bogus and explicitly denied by Tyson.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 3:51 PM
damn you Janine, I was gonna make the "and this time, he'll demand a camera" joke!
Posted by: Qwerty | June 25, 2009 3:53 PM
I think you should recommend him to the Discovery Institute. They also publish their conclusions without doing any of that icky scientificky stuff and they also make it up as they go along.
Of course, your review bursts his balloon.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | June 25, 2009 3:55 PM
I think Gell-Mann has become a crackpot. The "I'm huge in physics, so anything I say about anything else is golden" kind of type.
Posted by: Leon | June 25, 2009 3:57 PM
Be prepared for another lawsuit threat! Scientists go to the lab; pseudoscientists go to court.
Posted by: Nichole | June 25, 2009 3:58 PM
"If you are convinced now of its plausibility, as are many others, I solicit your participation in the dissemination of the idea for further investigation."
Sound to me like he only wants to know your opinion if your opinion is positive, PZ.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 25, 2009 3:59 PM
At the risk of being sued for fifteen million bucks, this guy has to be lying about Gell-Mann.
I'm an idiot (just ask my wife), but even I think this guy is stupid.
Posted by: Pareidolius | June 25, 2009 4:02 PM
He clearly went to the M.C. Escher School of Biology as evidenced by his inside-out tiger balloon thingys. Awesome insanity and worthy of inclusion into the Batshit Crazy Hall of Fame alongside TimeCube and Happeh Theory.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 25, 2009 4:04 PM
The book as favorable blurbs from Murray Gell-Mann and Mark A. S. McMenamin. I know that Gell-Mann is a Nobel Prize winning physicist but I'd never heard of McMenamin. Apparently he's a legitimate paleontologist and geologist.
However, I looked at the Amazon listing for one of McMenamin's books, The Garden of Ediacara. Most of the reviewers seemed unimpressed:
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 25, 2009 4:06 PM
"Many prominent scientists". Oh, you mean Francis Collins and Ken Miller?
Posted by: Kobra | June 25, 2009 4:08 PM
Oh, what an exercise in contrasts that was. PZ's posts were sensible, the quotations from the book and emails were not. My head hurts now.
Posted by: MngrBndr | June 25, 2009 4:09 PM
I don't think Pivar has ever seen a tiger because what is wrong with that tiger's tail? It goes from giant fin to two tails and then finally normal???
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 25, 2009 4:09 PM
His lab?
I get this great image of postdocs and grad students diligently twisting balloons and filling waterwings with honey while the PI (SP) pounds out his next book in his adjoining office...
except I think it's just him in the bathtub.
Posted by: John Pieret | June 25, 2009 4:10 PM
Oh, well. I'll dust off my admission to the Southern District of New York in case you need any help.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 25, 2009 4:12 PM
Yes, the suit was dropped. It blew up big over the blogosphere, got mentioned in various other media like the NYT, and was so obviously preposterous that it collapsed of its own silliness.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 25, 2009 4:14 PM
That tiger Embryo diagram made me lol.
Thanks for brightening my day.
Posted by: NitricAcid | June 25, 2009 4:14 PM
#35- His lab? Of course he has a lab. It's a very well-trained Labrador Retriever coming up with all these ideas for him.
Posted by: Zak | June 25, 2009 4:14 PM
What legitimate science book says "Scientists are going to be worried about the contents of this book"?
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 25, 2009 4:14 PM
One might say Pivar is a classic crackpot.
Posted by: DuckPhup | June 25, 2009 4:20 PM
OK... this all fits. It all makes sense now. When God breathed into Adam's nostrils, during Creation, he was actually blowing him up... inflating him.
Posted by: Jackal | June 25, 2009 4:21 PM
Aw com'on. His drawings are pretty creative. Of course, they belong in a whacked-out animation rather than a science book, but I think a cartoon about Balloon Animal World would beat a lot of the crap out there these days.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 25, 2009 4:21 PM
In one of his books -- Dragons of Eden, IIRC -- Sagan devotes much time to dissecting von Daniken's astronomical pronouncements in a thorough and relentless manner. He also notes that while as an astronomer, he knew that what von Daniken said about astronomy was bogus, yet von Daniken's speculations about archaeology and early human history, particularly Mesopotamia, sounded plausible to his ears. Then he met with an archaeologist and expert in Middle and Near Eastern history and prehistory, who told him that he'd had the exact opposite reaction: He knew von Daniken was spouting bollocks about archaeology, but thought that his astronomical verbiage sounded plausible.
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 25, 2009 4:23 PM
Play the "Twilight Zone" theme music. Could this be quantum entanglement with Woo-Woo?
Posted by: EJ | June 25, 2009 4:25 PM
It's a shame he's such a loon because his drawings really are quite lovely.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 25, 2009 4:26 PM
Hmm. Maybe I should write a book on embryology via prim torture (this is the nick name for something called "sculpties" used in Second Life. Its not too dissimilar to Piver's balloon animal theory. You take a sphere, then you "displace" each surface by a value within a limited number of valid points. The result, if you do it right, has even had people make "dragons" and other complex organic shapes from them. Though, I personally fail to grasp how they manage some of them, knowing the limitations of the method.
But, its not unlike this guys theory. Why use something that makes sense, in the case of prim torture, why actually import an objects real geometry directly, when you can use some ludicrous alternative method, which doesn't particularly work well, beyond the highly limited applications it "can" be applied to? Should be an absolute hit in the delusional world of some of the "scientists" these people find to quote mine, or actually are crazy enough to think it is reasonable. lol
Heh.. I even have a theory on why we don't have limbs with 12 fingers, wait for it, wait for it.. Because the original "sphere" didn't have enough "points" to distort into a hand with more than five fingers. All praise me! I just overturned biology! Mind.. if he reads this, he might look at Second Life, read up on how sculpties work, then release a new book about how its really not balloon animals, but sphere animals... Could I sue him for stealing the idea? lol
Posted by: Elf Eye
|
June 25, 2009 4:28 PM
Re the essay by Stephen Jay Gould on neoteny: I wonder if this essay was printed with the permission of Gould's estate. If not, wouldn't that be a serious breach of copyright?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 25, 2009 4:32 PM
I think it's supposed to be two flaps of skin that surround the tail bone growing over on the other side or... something.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 25, 2009 4:33 PM
Phoenix Woman (#44):
I noticed the same thing with regards to Lakoff, oddly enough: political wonks criticized his oversimple understanding of politics but thought his neuroscience sounded reasonable, while neuroscientists felt at home with his generally progressive politics but thought his "science" was jargon plastered on to tart his ideas up.
I recall that LifeCode carried an "endorsement" from Neil DeGrasse Tyson which turned out to be fraudulent — it was actually a chimera, with the first part taken from an unrelated NOVA interview and the second completely fabricated. I would be less than surprised if something similar happened again: we've seen the way Pivar's stripes are painted, as it were.
Also, in his new (ahem) masterwork, do Stuart Pivar's spiders still have ten legs apiece?
Posted by: distracted undergrad | June 25, 2009 4:34 PM
McMenamin - he's a prof at my school - is a serious paleontologist/geologist, and generally considered a great lecturer ... when he sticks to paleontology & geology rather than going off about grand theories of technologically advanced prehistoric civilizations and connections between all the scientists. I don't know about the Gell-Mann quote, but I can completely see McMenamin saying this.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | June 25, 2009 4:34 PM
Oh my gosh the tiger HAHAHAHAHAHA he's never seen a tiger baby? Yeah, they come out looking like adult tigers, only smaller. Hilarious.
Fifteen Meeleeon Dollars mwahahaha
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 25, 2009 4:35 PM
his main supporter is from Mount Holyoke College?
LOL
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/about/index.shtml
?
Posted by: Ed H. | June 25, 2009 4:35 PM
When Pivar's book gets published I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see something like this appear on the back of the book jacket:
Posted by: Venger
|
June 25, 2009 4:36 PM
I think Pivar's making the same mistake the rest of the "goddidit" creationist types make, a basic catageory error. He thinks and is trying to convince others that his sad little fantasy is science, and if he tries very hard not to add the bit that says god designed all the animals using balloons to work out the details he thinks he can get away with it. He's trying to sell to the wrong market, anyone interested in real scientist will always see him as a bad joke. If he adds the "goddidit" bits back in he could probably market this stuff as the actual mechanism behind intelligent design and then at least the DI would love him, since they still need a working theory and "intelligent design by balloon animal" is several steps up from their usual crap.
Posted by: MP | June 25, 2009 4:39 PM
The Gell-Mann quote is most definitely stolen and taken out of context.
In fact, I am quite certain that it comes from Gell-Mann's own book, "The Quark and the Jaguar" which does in fact discuss connections between the laws of physics and the appearance of life. That quote probably comes from the dustcover of the book, I am quite certain it is NOT about Pivar's book.
I don't have my copy of "The Quark and the Jaguar" on hand, but it is subtitled "Adventures in the Simple and Complex" and the back cover includes the description "an explanation of the connections between nature at its most basic level and natural selection, archeology, linguistics, child development, computers, and other complex adaptive systems." Pretty similar to Pivar's quote, right?
It's a great book, slightly "philosophical" but definitely NOT pseudo-science nonsense. Just wanted to help clear Gell-Mann's name.
Posted by: James F | June 25, 2009 4:39 PM
I'm guessing that Prof. Gell-Mann was quoted in much the same way that PZ was quoted for Ray Comfort's book.
In the meantime, Pivar should extend his studies to gerbiloons.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 4:40 PM
<headshake>
What a sad, sad waste of honey.
Enter Tulerpeton, followed by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega.
Posted by: Dahan | June 25, 2009 4:40 PM
EJ @ 46,
Well, They're OK. He'd pass my Drawing One class, but I'd have to see more work to know whether he'd be able to handle Drawing Two.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | June 25, 2009 4:42 PM
wow, I've never actually seen a straw man in the womb before.
Posted by: Brock | June 25, 2009 4:42 PM
Man. Fuckin' [url=http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekla031119.htm]waminals[/url]! Jesus christ.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 25, 2009 4:43 PM
Ich @ #53:
What's funny about that? It links to this.
Posted by: Eric | June 25, 2009 4:44 PM
It's what I'd expect if Professor Frink wrote a book on biology.
Posted by: Brock | June 25, 2009 4:48 PM
Crap, I botched that (every site has their own comment tag system, argh). Lemme try again:
Man. Fuckin' waminals! Jesus christ.
Posted by: Geds | June 25, 2009 4:49 PM
It's what I'd expect if Professor Frink wrote a book on biology.
Yeah, but he'd have weaponized balloon animals with the floating and the popping and the DYING and the glavin!
Posted by: thegusdad | June 25, 2009 4:50 PM
I'm not one of Dr. Gell-Mann's science-y peers. Perhaps one of you who is would like ask him about his apparent endorsement of balloon morphology? One email addy for him is
mgm at santafe dot edu
Posted by: black wolf | June 25, 2009 4:50 PM
I'm torn. On one hand, he's a kook, a loon, a hack. But then - he haz kittehs.
Speaking of loons and clumsy transitions:
I'm posting this on the few most recent threads once, just so that everyone who might be interested gets it:
Heads up: Ken Ham live with chat questions tonight, beginning 7:30-8:00 PM Eastern, 2:00 AM CET
at
http://creationmuseum.org/live/
Please, whatever you think of Ken's message, stay calm, respectful (I know it's hard) and relevant. Anything deemed inappropriate will be censored or lead to bannings. Their rules, ya know how it is.
Posted by: george.w | June 25, 2009 4:51 PM
Did he hold his pinkie to one corner of his mouth as he demanded "Fifteen MILLION dollars!"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 25, 2009 4:52 PM
What's funny about that?
You don't see how linking liberal arts to science would describe Pivar's work perfectly? Found it rather ironic myself.
*shrug*
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
June 25, 2009 4:53 PM
His drawings are cool. Maybe he should write Sci-Fi?
Posted by: Peanutcat | June 25, 2009 4:55 PM
Is it possible that he's never seen pictures of a developing fetus before?
Posted by: Les Lane | June 25, 2009 4:55 PM
Another McMenamin publication worth noting.
Pivar has moved a step closer to reality. He apparently now recognizes the virtue of peer review. What he doesn't yet grasp is that it should begin at an early stage and on a more comprehensive scale. A typical graduate student presents poster sessions (e.g at a developmental biology meeting). Viewers recognize what's useful (and what's not) and guide the student down productive channels.
In modern biology one can go very far wrong in the absence of detailed knowledge and professional guidance. We appear to have here an example of the Dunning Kruger effect
Posted by: charley
|
June 25, 2009 4:58 PM
To be fair, the Taurus was a very influential automobile whose morphology was evident in several generations of vehicles to follow.
Posted by: Erik | June 25, 2009 5:00 PM
This seems like some sort of horrible mash-up of creationism and Rudyard Kipling's "Just So" stories.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 25, 2009 5:02 PM
Ich: Ah, I see.
Actually more like "fine arts"...when I read "liberal arts" I think Trivium and Quadrivium.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
June 25, 2009 5:04 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to dump a little bit on Gell-Mann as well. He's basically a celebrity-in-residence for the Santa Fe Institute. He serves to raise funds, and has been doing a nice job of that. He's kind-of irrelevant to much of the science going on there, though. He was terribly dismissive of a close friend's (world class) linguistic expertise... basically treated her like a know-nothing in favor of outdated and discredited theories pushed by the Russian linguists he decided to listen to.
When I was there recently, I was a bit surprised to see so few scientists there interacting with him during lunch break. My guess is that there were likely others who had holes undeservedly ripped into their backsides as well.
That he might endorse something woo-ful outside of his area of expertise wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 25, 2009 5:05 PM
I haven't had any luck finding that quote in The Quark and the Jaguar using Google Books or Amazon's search-inside feature.
Posted by: TJ | June 25, 2009 5:08 PM
Why is everyone letting Mark McMenamin off the hook? He has actually published on the origins of animals!
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 25, 2009 5:09 PM
Wow if MGM really said that, I shall reconsider the whole quark thing! maybe hadrons are just little balloons after all... I just hope he doesnt go the way of the Josephsons of this world, but I think that is still very unlikely.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
June 25, 2009 5:10 PM
Well, there went about 11 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Might I suggest a new category? I think a new tier needs to be added that indicates a "super-sciency-kook" category. Call it, say - "Tin Foil Hats". That way I'll know to only casually skim the insanity.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 25, 2009 5:11 PM
However:
From the publisher's flap copy available here among other places, emphasis added.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 25, 2009 5:12 PM
That's the best entertainment I've read all day. I had to try hard not to laugh when I got to this part:
That's a lot of syllables for describing PLAYING WITH BALLOONS IN THE BATHTUB.
And then, the tiger. OMG.
Posted by: Les Lane | June 25, 2009 5:12 PM
Posted by: Watchman | June 25, 2009 5:12 PM
So........
Those little bubbling and squeaking noises I heard coming from my wife's belly when she was expecting.........
They weren't her tummy rumbling?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 5:15 PM
PZ, quite frankly I am shocked by your carelessness.
Stupidity on the scale of that law suit is heavy stuff. Even if it was not massive enough to collapse to a singularity, it could still pose a serious hazard. I do trust the appropriate authorities have been notified so they can route ships and aircraft around the remains of the suit.
Posted by: Bad Albert | June 25, 2009 5:25 PM
I'll take $25 million in the pool, please.
Posted by: Susan | June 25, 2009 5:25 PM
I know nothing about developmental biology, but that part cracked me up. You just know his next book is going to cover the self-organization of Devil Duckies.
Posted by: Shane | June 25, 2009 5:30 PM
I predict a long and illustrious career. Next he can move onto Silly Putty, then Lego, Silly String, PLAY DOUGH, and finally: ...the WORLD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Why doesn't this guy give it up and accept his true passion. Become a freakin' clown already.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | June 25, 2009 5:39 PM
Just ask that nice Mr Pivar what experiment could be carried out, or what observation could be made, which would clearly discriminate between balloon animal world and the Modern Synthesis.
If he can't do that, he's got nothing.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
June 25, 2009 5:40 PM
Yeah, PZ, you should listen to Matt @85:
Stupidity on the scale of that law suit is heavy stuff. Even if it was not massive enough to collapse to a singularity, it could still pose a serious hazard.
'Cause, like, I saw this documentary recently? And it had this one Romulan dude? And he like totally destroyed the whole planet Vulcan with just a drop of that lawsuit! It was frickin awesome!!! But it would totally suck if any of that lawsuit spilled onto planet Earth.
Posted by: eNeMeE | June 25, 2009 5:51 PM
I want one of those two-tailed tigers!
Someone really needs to extract one by c-section, so I can have tigers with lasers on their tails for my mad scientist lair. Not to mention the giant bone spur out the ass. I could impale a shark with a laser on its head on there!
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
June 25, 2009 5:58 PM
I suspect the quote by Murray Gell-Mann was out of context. Likely, Stuart Pivar was talking to Murray on the phone about his concept, getting Murray all confused with the concept, or incoherence of it, and a some point, Murray, trying to speed the conversation to a close, tried to repeat or summarize what he thought was Stuart's point, or at least the parts they had discussed. It could easily happen, especially to a tired, frustrated old man trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem | June 25, 2009 6:01 PM
Sven DiMilo @ #35:
You're lucky. I have a vision of his pet labrador retriever attempting to create balloon critters.
Sit, Ubu, sit!! Good dog.
Posted by: Watchman | June 25, 2009 6:02 PM
Maybe so.
On the other hand, Pivar may decide to branch out, and publish On the Origami of Species.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 25, 2009 6:04 PM
Pivar is in the Neil Adams class of self-deception. Both he and Adams rely heavily on skillfully-executed drawings to convince people of the plausibility of their scenarios. Both of them appear to be pretty functional in other areas of their life. Pivar is by all accounts a millionaire art collector, and Adams is a extremely successful illustrator known for his work in both mainstream comics and advertising.
And both of them are so in love with their ideas that they are immune to evidence. They do not appear to know that it is science's task to attempt to slay their beautiful theories with as many ugly facts as possible. And so they rattle litigious sabres.
Posted by: Rieux | June 25, 2009 6:05 PM
Well, that's not precisely correct. His lawsuit was specifically based on the fact that, in a "Pharyngula" post (that was not the book review), PZ called him a "classic crackpot." (As truthspeaker @ #41 clearly remembers.)
So Pivar's central assertion was that "[Pivar is] a classic crackpot" was horrendous libel that justified a $15 million award to him.
Now, we don't actually have to believe that the negative review of Lifecode was unrelated to the lawsuit... but that's what the Complaint that Pivar filed said.
Posted by: Danica | June 25, 2009 6:07 PM
I can see that plate of the tiger "forming" making a rather interesting tattoo...
but that's about it!
Posted by: _Arthur | June 25, 2009 6:07 PM
What about leopard spots ? Does the Pivar Theory explains them too ?
Can a leopard ever change its spots ??
Posted by: Watchman | June 25, 2009 6:08 PM
Scott, you took the words right out of my mouth. I'm glad I refreshed the page before posting almost exactly the same words, which were to the effect that Pivar's not an across-the-board lunatic, he's just so in love with his beautiful idea that he's blinded to its obvious (and profound) wrongness.
Posted by: _Arthur | June 25, 2009 6:10 PM
What about leopard spots ? Does the Pivar Theory explains them too ?
Can a leopard ever change its spots ??
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 25, 2009 6:11 PM
According to PZ, Pivar's book includes "a hodgepodge of short articles, some by Pivar, some taken from the published literature, some commissioned for this work" -- and it even includes something by Gould. Gell-Mann's quote, then, could be about any part of it (or none of it.)
Several years ago Murray Gell-Mann was the keynote speaker at the James Randi 'Amazing Meeting.' I think he's also written articles for Skeptical Inquirer (on abuses of quantum perhaps?) and is listed as one of the Fellows for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry -- so he's certainly not known to be woo-inclined.
Besides, look at his quote. His 1994 book The Quark and the Jaguar was about connections between the laws of physics and the complexity of life. It was widely acclaimed. Is it likely that he'd praise another book as if it broke ground and made the important discovery on this very same topic? I'm skeptical.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 25, 2009 6:12 PM
And Murray Gell-Mann wonders why he's not taken seriously enough to warrant being addressed in the same breath as Richard Feynman?
Murray, stick with a field that you know, and stop jerking around in the non-existent nether regions of biology that's not even wrong.
If the forms and mathematical beauty of a toroid impresses you, than by all means, eat a fucking doughnut, but stop assuming pretty mathematical equations can relate to biological development. Elegance does not necessitate function. PZ's right, shame on you. You don't see me writing supportive comments on the books regarding quantum loop gravity, because I personally happen to believe that string theory is a sack of bullshit. At least I know I'm no pretend physicist, and I'll stick to my own field.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 25, 2009 6:19 PM
I wonder if Stephen Jay Gould's estate approved of that.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 6:20 PM
Apologies if someone has already posted this info (I usually read all comments before posting, but am tight for time today): The publisher, North Atlantic Books, advertises a book about Your Spirit Animal, one about Crop Circles, etc. on their homepage. Here's an excerpt from their self-description on the company profile page:
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 25, 2009 6:20 PM
Watchman #94 wrote:
That was ... wonderful.
Rieux #96 wrote:
Unfortunately for Pivar, filing 15 million dollar lawsuits to protest being called a classic crackpot is, itself, universally considered an indication of being a classic crackpot.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | June 25, 2009 6:21 PM
Is it just me or does the first illustration just look like a diagram of mustaches?
Posted by: distracted undergrad | June 25, 2009 6:24 PM
Ichthyic @ 69: That's right - Mt. Holyoke dispenses with the mortarboards: we get our crackpot hats right at graduation.
It's a school that offers sciences classes - that they would like to think are pretty high-grade, and I would like to think so to, since I'm giving them a chunk of money to take them - as well as things like English, and thinks that a well-rounded student will take both. Not a new concept.
(Don't worry - they're held in different buildings on different ends of campus, to minimize contamination)
Posted by: Paco | June 25, 2009 6:24 PM
Mmmmm doughnuts. No wonder meat is so delicious.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 6:27 PM
Holbach @32: Ken Miller would never be taken in by that book. Miller carefully confines his crazy, and he is quite good on the subject of development biology.
Posted by: Dania
|
June 25, 2009 6:43 PM
It does annoy me to no end. When I hear someone saying "genetic code" when they mean "genome", I have to breath deeply in order not to scream some ugly words at the said person.
I blame my high school biology teacher: she was always telling us how bad it was to make that mistake.
Posted by: Brian | June 25, 2009 6:50 PM
Wow. Stuart Pivar is back again? And he does not disappoint.
Keep on bringing teh funny, Stu!
Posted by: PalMD
|
June 25, 2009 6:52 PM
Should we really make fun of crazy people?
Well, sometimes...
Posted by: Lifewish | June 25, 2009 6:56 PM
@ #44: I think you've been Dan Brown'd...
Posted by: Zar | June 25, 2009 6:57 PM
It's too bad the guy is so stuck on playing at biology. He could make some interesting sci-fi/fantasy comics.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 25, 2009 7:09 PM
Scott H noted:
[Emphasis mine]Reminded me of the fact that Harun Yahya's tome had brilliant and glossy illustrations...
Posted by: gruebait | June 25, 2009 7:10 PM
My balloon animals think this is stupid.
Posted by: grasshopper | June 25, 2009 7:16 PM
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Gell-man.
Posted by: Omphaloskepsis | June 25, 2009 7:38 PM
That tiger illustration was HILARIOUS. Thanks, I needed the laugh!
Posted by: Canuck | June 25, 2009 7:43 PM
That was some funny shit right there. I'm not even a biologist (electrical engineer with a chemistry degree to boot), and I was keeled over laughing by the time I got to the tiger stripes.
I've read a lot about self-organization in non-equilibrium systems (things for which Ilya Prigogine won the nobel in chemistry in 1977) and I venture that this bone head knows nothing about the REAL nature of self-organization in systems. Or how complexity can arise out of the recursive application of a small and very simple set of rules of inference.
Morphogenesis is a lot more complex than this childish business with balloons. Tiger stripes. What a moron.
Posted by: Bryn | June 25, 2009 7:55 PM
Just to be on the safe side, I've stuck a "PZ Defense Fund" sticker on the household piggybank just in case Pivar feels froggy again after your next eviseration of his silly work. I really love the body length to tail ratio on his tiger-in-ova. I assume he's never seen a newborn tiger cub (or any other cat, for that matter). Perhaps he ought to stop playing with balloons and silly drawings-made-to-fit-his-hypothesis and take a look at the real world some time.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 25, 2009 8:06 PM
Balloon biology? Just when I thought I'd seen it all...SIGH.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 25, 2009 8:26 PM
Did they really get Murray Gell-Mann to write a comment for the dust jacket? Murray's a brilliant physicist but personally I wouldn't trust him to tell me how to get a seed to sprout. Looking at the dust jacket blurbs, one of Murray's own statements comes to mind - something about consulting the entrails of Richard Feynman.
Now why are there no blurbs from biologists - specifically those who study evolution and genetics? Could it be that all such people from whom a blurb was solicited were derisive? Think about it - how many dust jackets do you see with comments like "this is the worst piece of shit I've ever seen".
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 25, 2009 8:27 PM
Lynna @ 109
True, but he is still attached to that nonsense that brings discredit to the legitimate side.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 25, 2009 8:35 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention the obvious - all life forms developed from tori? Was this flash of (non)genius inspired by John F. Kennedy's "Ich bin ein berliner"? "I am a jam-filled pastry from Berlin" Well, it's hard to explain what a berliner is - you just have to see one. Think of the 'wiener' from Vienna (Wien) - the modification of "Wien" to "wiener" is similar to "Berlin" to "berliner" and such associations between place names and food are common throughout Europe. A berliner isn't a torus, but the incorrect but popular translation of Kennedy's statement in english has been "I am a jelly filled donut".
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 25, 2009 8:39 PM
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Simpleton Foundation surreptitiously paid Gell-Mann for that endorsement. I am still somewhat flummoxed by his endorsemnet and other commenters opinion of him. I like him, but as usual, we are surprised by an otherwise stainless demeanor. I have read his books and he impresses me so.
Posted by: AZSkeptic | June 25, 2009 8:54 PM
You know, I used to play with shaving cream in the tub when I was little, and I used to be able to make all kinds of shapes with that. I've just come up with a new theory--embryonic development based on self-organizing principles from the surface tension of the tissues as they develop. The surface tension is not unlike the surface tension of shaving cream, thus providing an excellent medium for developing models of embryonic development. (Your children can also make fake beards with it.) Any PhD's out there want to endorse my theory? I can show you my
bathtublab and some examples of my models.Posted by: Sameer | June 25, 2009 9:23 PM
This guy Pivar seems to be gunning for the Gene Ray chair in Woo university.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
June 25, 2009 9:27 PM
@James F [#57],
Maybe Pivar was fishing for a blurb, à la Comfort.
Posted by: photon | June 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Those toroidal water balloons are popular masturbation toys (or so I'm told ...). I really don't want to think about what Pivar's been doing in his bathtub, but it's probably been more productive than his writing.
Posted by: Alex Deam | June 25, 2009 9:49 PM
Dodgy reviews?
This seems coincidentally relevant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8118577.stm
Posted by: bunny | June 25, 2009 10:24 PM
I feel obligated to comment on the mis-pluralization of "torus" in this post; the correct plural is "tori". While http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toruses and several other wiki-based and less refutable online dictionaries have short blurbs claiming "toruses" as a valid pluralization, it should be noted that the claimed association is asymmetric, and that no definition found of "torus" supports it as a legal spelling.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 25, 2009 10:30 PM
I have written before about how creationists and others fail to understand the difference between representations of a theory (analogies, metaphors, etc) and the theory itself. But now we have someone who has elevated this failure to the top of the scale (oh, and it goes to eleven). Balloon animals modeling embryonic development. Talk about how the map is NOT the terrain.
Oh, and @Watchman #94:
Origami of Species.
That has to be worth a Molly. What say you good people?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 25, 2009 11:26 PM
@H.H. #12: Was the suit dismissed or was it withdrawn or what?
The suit was dropped, so PZ got to keep his $15 million.
Posted by: cdx | June 25, 2009 11:33 PM
I wonder who funds this genius's research. And why.
Posted by: RC | June 25, 2009 11:51 PM
I can see the next scientology appearing. We don't use medicine from the evil drug companies! For only $2000 this religion will put you in a bathtub and squeeze you.
Ok, I've re-read that. But possibly still worth the money.
Posted by: richard blaine | June 25, 2009 11:55 PM
...it has the potential to trigger the complete collapse of Modern Synthesis Biology."
--Mark A. S. McMenamin, PhD, Paleontologist, Professor of Geology, Chair of Earth and Environment, Mount Holyoke College
I'm attending a scientific conference at Mount Holyoke as I write this. Makes me feel queasy to read the Prof's comments, and realize that a raving kook is roaming the grounds somewhere near here.
I can only hope instead that the quote was out of context, or simply fabricated.
First we had overthrow by banana, now by balloon animals!
Posted by: AntiTroll | June 26, 2009 1:20 AM
@5
Will someone please explain to me the signifigance of this whole,"Give him a camera." type comment I keep seeing on here?
Posted by: AntiTroll | June 26, 2009 1:20 AM
@5
Will someone please explain to me the signifigance of this whole,"Give him a camera." type comment I keep seeing on here?
Posted by: Alex B | June 26, 2009 1:24 AM
Almost made sense until PZ broke it down. Plus the embryo drawings killed it.
But one thing is troubling me- The article seems to suggest that another force besides natural selection can produce traits. Especially Gould's quote abt "Darwin Fundamentalists."
What else could influence evolution besides natural selection? Random mutation? But wouldn't that fall under natural selection? Anyone know?
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
June 26, 2009 2:41 AM
"What else could influence evolution besides natural selection?"
Totally shooting from the hip here; haven't read any serious literature on the topic... but here goes, unsubstantiated idea time.
Perhaps there could be qualities that are selected in subtle ways by the virtue of emergent properties of the overall system (predator/prey/environment). This wouldn't be outside natural selection per se, but could be a poorly recognized component of what's really going on. It would fit into the (poorly-defined IMHO) rubric of "complexification". Christ, is that even a word? I know it's a book title.
One of the tenets of social networks analysis (a subset of sociology, in its beginnings) is that there are properties of the group that are network-dependent, that are not really explained by typical reductionist (i.e., based on normal inferential statistics) assumptions and their associated study methods (like doing random samples and extrapolating to the larger group).
So group dynamics can be postulated to have all kinds of feedback loops that can confound the ways that we like to study these (presumed) phenomena. It's very much like trying to bust into a chicken-egg problem mid-stream to try to figure out the dynamics of what's going on. Cyclic networks of cause-effect could give rise to different phenotypes in hitherto unappreciated ways (those being perhaps certain "platforms" of stability that arise out of the chaos that these cyclical systems may generate).
Again, not really concepts "outside" natural selection, but would necessarily demand some kind of treatment in an overall worldview of evolutionary processes. If only anybody had data to analyze on the topic. This is where much of network-based stuff falls to the ground... quantifying this stuff with data. (and after that, developing new statistical methods for analysis, since normal inferential statistics falls to the ground in these endeavors).
That's my myopic take on this stuff... anybody else?
Posted by: embertine | June 26, 2009 3:06 AM
WTF? Like many other commenters here, I'm not a biologist, but those pictures of a tiger in the womb are just bizarre. Has he ever seen pictures of an actual embryo? Does he really think that tiger embryos start out as tiny tigers with tails and just get bigger and tailless?
PECULIAR
Posted by: Janus | June 26, 2009 3:11 AM
Murray Gell-Mann is a genius and a polymath, one of the few people in this world who ARE qualified to have an opinion on several different subjects. The nitwits deriding him in this thread don't have a clue what (or who) they're talking about.
The quote is certainly either fabricated or taken out of context, but even if it wasn't, these comments would still demonstrate their authors' ignorance. I especially like the one about how Gell-Mann shouldn't be "addressed in the same breath as Richard Feynman". Feynman was a brilliant scientist and a really funny guy, but he never made any discovery that came close to Gell-Mann's.
Posted by: DireLobo | June 26, 2009 3:22 AM
My feeling is that this guy has convinced himself that Science is a dodge. He may have bought into the right wing, limbaughian fantasy that scientists are making shit up right and left and don't know what they are talking about. Once you believe this, a crafty scheemer begins to see opportunity in the science "game". It's a con, and in this country, he may be able to pull it off.
Posted by: alias Ernest Major | June 26, 2009 3:36 AM
PZ gets press on an apparently related subject -
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00277.htm
Posted by: Janus | June 26, 2009 3:49 AM
Thanks for the link, Ernest.
The scientific discussion aside, both the interviewer and the interviewee sound mentally challenged to me. Just look at how the latter decides to conclude the interview:
"Vincent Fleury: One last thing about PZ Myers. He made the following comment on his blog regarding my right of reply, instead of just publishing it: "I'm always happy to help a fellow hang himself."
Even if he's trying to make a joke, we all know people who've committed suicide, and I would never entrust my children to a babysitter who states he is always happy to help someone hang himself."
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
June 26, 2009 3:51 AM
#142: Janus
[Gell-Mann] ...one of the few people in this world who ARE qualified to have an opinion on several different subjects.
"IS". modifies "one". And I agree, and would add that LOTS of people (scientists and non) are qualified to have (expert) opinions on many different subjects. I wouldn't want to be lumped with posters above who expressed otherwise, in other words.
"The nitwits deriding him in this thread don't have a clue what (or who) they're talking about."
This nitwit might know more than you think. There was this time when the BBC TV dudes came out to Santa Fe to do a show on the Institute, and Murray got locked out of the building. I'll just put it this way... if it was Dicky Feynman out there, SOMEBODY would have bothered to let him back in, instead of all the snickering, pointing and laughing that ensued. Obviously, I can't run a proper experiment to test this assertion.
"The quote is certainly either fabricated or taken out of context"
I bet a little of both.
"Feynman was a brilliant scientist and a really funny guy, but he never made any discovery that came close to Gell-Mann's."
My general assessment of statements like that is that it reeks of discussions of who the best drummer in the world is, or some such nonsense. They both are/were giants, there can be no doubt. Past achievements aside, Gell-Mann's contribution to give complexity science a kick in the butt (basically subsidize it) is nothing short of phenomenal. Attracting the best minds on the planet on a shoestring is not an easy thing to do -- and he is absolutely key in having gotten that done.
That being said, he's also human.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 26, 2009 4:06 AM
"and now i want... 100 BILLION DOLLARS"
I thought the tiger ball diagram was a cute sci-fi drawing. Does it come in colour?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 26, 2009 4:31 AM
It sort of feels like D'Arcy Thomson on a very bad acid trip.
Posted by: XD | June 26, 2009 4:43 AM
I'm never going to be able to look at the Firefox logo in the same way, ever again.
Posted by: Carpworld | June 26, 2009 4:52 AM
#137 AntiTroll
IIRC when Pivar made his legal threats he said he'd back down if PZ would buy him a Leica M7 or something - he was very insistent that he got his camera.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 26, 2009 4:53 AM
Thanks for the link Erest (#144). My favourite part was this:
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
June 26, 2009 4:58 AM
Oh m'gawd. I just had a look at the pics for the first time. This is some really trippy shit here, yesireebob. G-M got punked, that's for sure.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | June 26, 2009 6:53 AM
"what would influence evolution other then natural selection?" to paraphrase question.
My thinking is some represented by this scenario: a change occurs that selects out better than others. Classic. But this mutation carries with it through some combination of chemical happenstance a NEUTRAL (no selection advantage) change - at least neutral at the time. The "neutral" change indeed on its own right may even have negative selection value.
Evolution occurs because of the non-neutral motivating change. But even the neutral change carry-along defines the character of the entity in some way.. and also maybe in some future time and under different circumstances it will have primary value positively or negatively on "fitness" and thus affect (de)evolution.
I know I can get slapped around for not presenting a thought well-formed and I may be stretching a point .. but take my gist as some trait evolved into being without being selected "positively" per se -- it tagged along on something else that did. To me that is an example of evolution without selection.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 26, 2009 6:57 AM
One skill Feynman had was picking locks. He could probably have let himself back in.
Posted by: XD | June 26, 2009 7:10 AM
@#150
That was John Kwok, not Stuart Pivar.
Posted by: bsk | June 26, 2009 7:11 AM
The tiger diagram simply must win best webcomic of 2009!
Posted by: Carpworld | June 26, 2009 8:04 AM
#155
You're absolutely right, my bad. So difficult to keep up with every nutball that goes for PZ.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 26, 2009 8:48 AM
Yeah he's a real kook magnet. After a while they start blending together and become some sort of deranged spamming crackpot who sues PZ and asks him to leave his high school buddy Ken Miller alone. I call him John Davidmabusonivar.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | June 26, 2009 8:52 AM
To better illustrate Blake's excellent detective work (strikeouts are from the Gell-Mann flap blurb, bold is from Pivar):
This is
Gell-Mann's own story of findingthe discovery of the connectionsbetween thebasiclaws of physics and the complexityand diversityofthe natural worldlife.Looks like plagiarism to me.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | June 26, 2009 9:18 AM
Thanks for the laugh this morning. Balloon Animals. I can't believe he would set you up so nicely after the last review.
Posted by: Confuseddave
|
June 26, 2009 10:34 AM
Any science book that relies on "brilliantly rendered graphical diagrams" as a selling point is likely to be rubbish.
Posted by: Bodach | June 26, 2009 11:09 AM
Watchman @ 94: Brilliant. Bravo, I say. / golf clap
And, as no one has brought up Homer Simpson: "Mmm, donuts."
Posted by: Dave Wisker | June 26, 2009 11:18 AM
So, given his embryological drawings, is Pivar the new Haeckel?
Posted by: Jim | June 26, 2009 11:27 AM
Good to see the term "bollocks" being used. Not enough crap is described as bollocks.
Also in my experience "bollocks" is a particularly British expression, well very few here in Canada use this great word. PZ are you being anglicized?
Posted by: SilverBee | June 26, 2009 11:32 AM
I found you through a link in today's AlterNet newsletter. Thanks for an entertaining hour looking through your archives. Why is it that I enjoy the creative productions and agree with the opinions expressed by people (meaning you, of course) comfortable with drug use and spicy language when I'm such a socially prim senior citizen? (rhetorical question)
I'll be back to read and view more of your delightful work.
Posted by: SilverBee | June 26, 2009 11:37 AM
I found you through a link in today's AlterNet newsletter. Thanks for an entertaining hour looking through your archives. Why is it that I enjoy the creative productions and agree with the opinions expressed by people (meaning you, of course) comfortable with drug use and spicy language when I'm such a socially prim senior citizen? (rhetorical question)
I'll be back to read and view more of your delightful work.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund
|
June 26, 2009 12:56 PM
I found the complete quote for the McMenamin endorsement. Scroll past the Spanish intro.
Posted by: Les Lane | June 26, 2009 1:14 PM
Stuart Pivar links
A quirky character to say the least
Posted by: BAllanJ | June 26, 2009 2:20 PM
Re: Murray Gell-Mann
Even the best of them can "go emeritus" on us.... I'm thinking here of Freeman Dyson's position on AGW, as an example.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 26, 2009 5:46 PM
From the link provided by W. Kevin Vicklund (#167):
Something tells me that McMenamin is not using "morphogenetic field" in the sense established by developmental biologists, meaning a patch of cells in the embryo which develops into a well-defined structure via a process coordinated by signalling chemicals at work within the field.
Endorsing Stuart Pivar by citing the bafflegab of Rupert Sheldrake. I think that deserves a double facepalm.
(Lines like "The atomic theory is called a theory because no one has ever actually seen an atom" manage to pack so many kinds of FAIL into such a short space that McMenamin might deserve pride of place helming the failboat.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 26, 2009 6:05 PM
OK, right now the tally of endorsements stands at 1 from a total kook, and the other quite possibly fraudulent (which, I remind the Gentle Reader, is basically Pivar's MO). Has anyone with journalistic or scientific credentials written Gell-Mann to ask about this yet?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | June 26, 2009 9:45 PM
There's a number of other endorsements on that page I linked. I wonder how many are bogus?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 26, 2009 11:46 PM
I like how Pivar boasts of receiving encouraging word from Noam Chomsky (an item trumpeted by none other than Suzan Mazur). What does a linguist know about embryology? On Planet Pivar, apparently a lot!
Pivar seems pretty dedicated to collecting (and/or manufacturing) laudatory quotations from people who have no competence in the subjects necessary to judge his work.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 27, 2009 12:05 AM
taxonomy?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 27, 2009 12:18 AM
Well, it's a valuable contribution to the art of taxing nerves. . .
Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 12:36 AM
T-axons?
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 12:49 AM
Duh. Balloon animals are clearly monophyletic.
(I note that the "original" quote on Pivar's page is "This purely structuralist model is a valuable contribution to taxonomy.")
I wonder if it's meaningful that both Chomsky and Hazen use the words "plausible and publishable".
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 1:10 AM
Moar snippets from McMenamin's pretentious flapdoodle:
OK, so biology doesn't work, and genetics doesn't exist and is "obsolete", but is still the basis of all research...
Dear Professor Mark A. S. McMenamin, Ph.D.Some complete git wrote a pathetic absurdist screed essentially saying that all of the biological sciences do not exist, contradicting himself in the process. Then this complete git signed your name to this screed, and associated it with the work of the classic crackpot Stuart Pivar. Please be informed in case you wish to take legal action against the dishonest dingleberry who is misrepresenting you and science.
Most sincerely, a friend.
Posted by: windy | June 27, 2009 1:29 AM
Does he really think that tiger embryos start out as tiny tigers with tails and just get bigger and tailless?
That would be the Manx tiger
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 1:30 AM
Quote mining noted: This appears to be taken from here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;317/5842/1172.pdf
Where Massimo Pigliucci summarizes Carroll as follows: "what the modern synthesis has not given us is a theory of form, and applying population genetics to genomics—as valuable an exercise as that is in its own right—isn't going to give us one either"
Naturally, creationists/IDiots love any admission of any problems whatsoever with current biology, and copied and pasted this all over the place.
Posted by: Lynna | June 28, 2009 2:57 PM
Part of the problem is that the publisher is willing to put out this unsubstantiated flapdoodle. The publisher surely did not engage a qualified editor, and did not follow even rudimentary rules of fact checking. See my earlier post @104.
Supposed blurbers may not have given permission-for-use, and can sue the publisher.
Posted by: Diego | June 28, 2009 5:34 PM
#146: Wrong, Feynman would've lock picked that door.
Posted by: Jovi | August 3, 2009 3:31 PM
Criticize with ease. I see a lot of criticism here, and no contribution to the body of knowledge that is science. Are you so bored, isolated by your own inability to understand something so simple and profound, that you delight yourself as you bash an old man proposing the first complete model of the origin of biological form? If you agree that biological form is self-organized, then I'd like to see your model. I can imagine you and your followers standing around the first blueprint for a skyscraper and telling each other that it could never be built because there isn't a thatched roof in the plan. Pull your head away from the microscope and just take a look at the world around you. The patterns, the symmetry, the torus shape in every living organism, these are obvious to anyone who makes the effort to observe.
Posted by: Ed Mikol | August 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Stuart Pivar is clearly a very strange torus balloon anagram for Steve Martin.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 17, 2009 5:52 PM
Jovi, I mean Stuart. There is no evidence for your woo...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 5:55 PM
I can imagine you and your followers standing around the first blueprint for a skyscraper and telling each other that it could never be built because there isn't a thatched roof in the plan.
that's quite the imagination.
you, uh, might want to see someone about that...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 6:05 PM
What else could influence evolution besides natural selection? Random mutation? But wouldn't that fall under natural selection? Anyone know?
this is basic stuff.
look up:
Genetic Drift
Founder Effect
as mechanisms of trait evolution within populations other than selection.
mutation, horizontal gene flow, etc., are sources of variability for the above mechanisms to influence in one direction or another.
maybe a refresher course would help a bit?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14
very simple to understand and well laid out resource.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 6:10 PM
I see a lot of criticism here, and no contribution to the body of knowledge that is science.
Stuart -
sockpuppeting is a bannable offense here, surely you want to be able to keep posting about your ideas, yes?
That said, I wasn't aware that this blog was a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Moreover, what can you say about your ideas that have contributed anything to the body of scientific knowledge?
what new and interesting predictions regarding developmental biology do your ideas generate?
none, because they're in the "not even wrong" category at this point.
You've made yourself a laughingstock.
quite sad, really.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 17, 2009 6:21 PM
Quick! Somebody call the WAAAAMBULANCE!
Posted by: Jovi | September 1, 2009 4:34 PM
I am Jovi. Stuart is Stuart. I am not Stuart. This simple logic evades some on this form, as does a great discover in the history of science.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Oh. Your woo is original then. Completely insane, but yours. Good for you.
Posted by: Jovi | September 1, 2009 4:56 PM
A brief history on what was once considered "insane" and is now generally accepted as self-evident would do you some good.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 5:03 PM
Now you're just boring. Are you a fan of Lyndon LaRouche too?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 1, 2009 5:09 PM
A brief history on what was once considered "insane" and is now generally accepted as self-evident would do you some good. - Jovi
A brief history on what was once considered "insane" and is now generally accepted as self-evidently insane would do you some good.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 1, 2009 5:17 PM
A brief history on what was once considered "insane" and is now generally accepted as self-evident would do you some good.
OK, I'm hooked.
I can haz list, plz?
Posted by: Jovi | September 3, 2009 1:13 PM
If you can show me one complex organism that does NOT exhibit torodial or multi-torodial topology, then I will gladly gather and produce whatever list you require.
Posted by: Jovi | September 4, 2009 6:12 PM
The fact that all complex organisms exhibit torodial or multi-torodial topology is the bedrock of Mr. Pivar's theory for the origin of form. No one here has commented on that profound observation. The preferred discourse here is to compete in the area of who can most distastefully slander Mr. Pivar.
Mr. Meyers does not understand Mr. Pivar's theory and I doubt that Mr. Meyers has ever even opened the book. Have any of you read it? The embryology that Mr. Meyers relies on to discredit Mr. Pivar is not inconsistent with Mr. Pivar's theory. The two coexist if you consider at what stage Mr. Pivar's model ends and Mr. Meyers's observations begin. Does anyone here know anything about the theory or are you all just experts on balloon animals?
The threat that Mr. Pivar's theory poses toward real scientists is not intellectual, it is economical. His theory explains something that the search for a DNA blueprint for form has been unable to explain. Every year, large sums of money fund research in the quest to find the blueprint for form in the DNA. If Mr. Pivar's theory were widely accepted, that funding would cease.
I suspect that at least some of you rely on such funding, but don't despair! You are doing an excellent job at suppressing a new idea, and, if worst comes to worst, you all have a promising career ahead of you writing for the tabloids!
Posted by: Steve_C | September 4, 2009 6:29 PM
Hehe. For fuck's sake. It's Myers. Sure sign of a loon.
Yes we all know about the conspiracy. We're obviously a part of it.
Pivar hasn't shown anything.
Posted by: Jovi | September 8, 2009 8:40 PM
Mr. Pivar has "shown" that all forms of complex life can be the result of mechanical forces on a torodial bilayer membrane. Is that anything?
So I'm a "loon" because I misspell a word? That explains you a lot Steve_C. To you, Mr. Pivar and 99% of the world's population are loons.
You have ridiculed and now you blindly reject. What next? Will you violently oppose and then accept it as self-evident?
If funding is your concern, what is the price of an open mind on the subject of the origin of form. I'm just curious.
Posted by: Jovi | September 9, 2009 5:53 PM
I appreciate the responses I have received here.
My involvement here is ended.