…and this is a 
There are no more excuses. None.
The defining characteristic of all arguments with creationists is how damned ignorant they are. I'm sure many scientists have been stupefied into stunned silence when they first encounter these people; these advocated of creationism are typically loud and certain and have invested much time and effort into apologetics, but when you sit down and try to have a serious discussion with them, you quickly discover that their knowledge of basic biology is nonexistent. It's worse than that. We're used to freshmen entering our classes who don't know much about the basics, and we can deal with that; these, though, are people with negative knowledge, whose brains are so packed with raging falsehoods that we have to struggle to overcome an unfamiliar hurdle.
For example, last year I got into a radio debate with a Discovery Institute creationist, Geoffrey Simmons. He had written a whole book for creationists arguing that there are no transitional fossils…yet he had never heard of any of the major fossil discoveries in the whale series, and seemed to have gleaned all of his understanding from a garbled misreading of a short Scientific American article.
It's infuriating. You want to argue against evolution? Then you'd better have some elementary understanding of what evolution actually says. We've got the same phenomenon going on right now in one of the comment threads, where a particularly obtuse creationist, Sean Pitman, is raving about the inadequacy of natural selection. I wouldn't mind, except that he's a freaking idiot. This goes on day after day — creationists are mired in a pit of ignorance so deep and so black that it takes incredible patience to lead people out of it (and also, some rhetorical boot-stomping against the fools who are trying to drag others even deeper into the darkness).
I have no illusions that we'll suddenly see a blossoming of enlightenment, but we now have tools to help us, a whole series of recent books that cover the basics. Everyone should read at least one of these, especially if you're one of those clowns who wants to argue that there is no evidence for evolution. Read and understand, please; we've already got enough idiots who claim to have read them and didn't grasp anything in them.
Read Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Or Sean Carrol's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Or Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Or Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). These are all eminently readable, and are aimed at an audience that knows next to nothing about biology — they will quickly pull you up to a level at which you can at least ask intelligent questions. We even use Carroll's book here at UMM in our freshman biology course, with the idea that it will introduce them to the concepts they should have gotten in high school, but most didn't.
Now we have another entry in this collection: Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll).
READ IT.
Maybe you already know everything Dawkins writes about in this book, if you've got a degree in biology and have done a fair amount of reading in the field; there really aren't any radical surprises here, just a lovely review of familiar facts. You should read it anyway. Realize that this is the level that you have to operate on if you want to discuss the science of evolution with the public. What this (and the other books I mentioned above) is is a primer on how to communicate the ideas of science to a wider audience. It's an overview and a synthesis, and it takes each piece of evidence and makes them part of a narrative. This is science plus storytelling — it's what you have to do.
Or maybe you're a high school student who is interested in science, but all you're aware of is that the dumbed-down curriculum in your school has stripped out all of the important content from your courses. Or maybe you've got a teacher who is promoting creationism in subtle or not-so-subtle ways in the classroom. Get this book: it will give you the preparation for college that the conservatives on your local school board want to deny you. It'll also make you ten times smarter than your creationist science teacher, which always feels good.
Hey, and when you graduate, give that science teacher a copy as a parting gift. Or perhaps as a gift to the next class.
Or maybe you're just a sensible layman who'd like to know more about this subject, but really don't want to have to get a Master's degree to understand what the author is talking about. You want something you can read on a quiet Sunday morning, before the football game starts. You want to learn, but you're not about to invest a lot of sweat in the effort. This is your book. It touches lightly on a lot of lines of evidence, and explains them clearly. You too can become informed painlessly, and for a low, low price!
Like I said, there are no more excuses. If you want to argue for or against evolution, cretins like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort or Carl Baugh or Eric Hovind or any of the thousands of other wandering ranters against the Enlightenment are about to face a big problem: more and more of the people in their audiences are going to have read these books, and are going to be prepared to call them on their bullshit. The enemy of ignorance is education, and the creationists know that; it's why there is so much effort by the religious conservatives to destroy public education. These are books that provide an end-run around the current deficiencies in science education in this one area, and what they ought to do is help people question the wanna-be theocrats. If they lie about evolution, if they are so transparently wrong about this one subject, maybe more people will wake up to the anti-science agenda so many are peddling in this country.
Dawkins' new book is very much a grenade thrown right at the heart of the creationists. The God Delusion was a kind of wake-up slap to shake people into attention, and now The Greatest Show on Earth follows on to pound them into the ground with a fusillade of evidence backed up by sound theoretical explanations. It's all beautifully explained, too, a kind of elegant overview of the various lines of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, with much of the discussion informed by an awareness of the kinds of denial creationists typically make.
Read it, please, please, please.
We need a vocal and informed group of activists in this country who understand the science, but we can't demand that they all go to grad school. This book and others like it will help us build the intellectual foundation and the network of well-versed literate elites who can can address the rot at the root.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Steve | September 16, 2009 11:58 AM
I have a copy pre-ordered on Amazon.com. I can't wait to read it!
Referring back to an earlier post, what's it going to take to get someone to pick up the movie "Creation"???
Posted by: el donaldo
|
September 16, 2009 12:04 PM
The problem is not just ignorance, or the ignorant dragging the innocent into their pools of darkness. The concept of knowledge and the faculty of independent critical thought are under assault as well. There seems to be a growing conception that human knowledge is something that you can pick and choose from, as if it were a lifestyle. I encounter in my first-year students all the time the idea that "belief" in evolution is an option based on your outlook and sympathies: they aren't willing to recognize that it's the expression of an obdurate reality that demands either engagement and understanding or retreat into a delusional fantasy world. This misunderstanding of the place of human knowledge threatens scientific understanding largely (alternative medicine as a lifestyle choice), but it also threatens our public and civic discourse. Human knowledge becomes associated with an "elite" understanding, as opposed to a populist insistence on ideologically convenient beliefs.
Posted by: JefFlyingV, Whitehouse Blues | September 16, 2009 12:06 PM
I'm looking forward to reading Dawkins new book.
Steve, presently there are negotiations going on for the distribution rights for the movie Creation. I saw the reports on other blogs after the Toronto Film Festival.
Posted by: Jimbo | September 16, 2009 12:09 PM
So I'm getting that the book is good. I already knew that it would be. Could you perhaps have given some inkling of the contents of the book?
This is possibly the most glowing but information-free book review I have ever seen. If I were an English teacher and you handed this in, you'd get no more than 15%.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 16, 2009 12:10 PM
The lead creationists are not ignorant, just as Sean Pitman is not ignorant. They are intentionally repeating falsehoods that have worked for years to mislead the ignorant. This book will help save some folks from the black hole of ignorance that anti-science creationists depend on to sell their dogma, but it will not affect the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis or any of the other organizations dedicated to spreading falsehoods.
Posted by: Rickety Cricket | September 16, 2009 12:10 PM
As a sensible layman, I believe it is my duty to read this book and have pre-ordered it. The God Delusion helped "out" me as an atheist (before, I was a non-believing accommodationist).
Thanks for the other recommendations PZ.
Posted by: Coel | September 16, 2009 12:12 PM
Typo, line 3: "these advocateD of creationism are typically loud and certain"
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
September 16, 2009 12:12 PM
@el donaldo,
I see this same thing. "Different Worldviews produce different results."
Right. "Worldviews" (whatever they might be) that are not congruent with reality will produce wrong results. "Worldviews" that are congruent with reality will produce potentially correct results, or at least models of reality at are more-or-less correct.
This whole idea of "worldviews" is strange. It's as if solipsism is alive and well.
Posted by: Lorax | September 16, 2009 12:12 PM
Hold it, didn't Mooney say Dawkins can't write an instructive book for the public?
Posted by: Petursey | September 16, 2009 12:17 PM
I've read it !! I can HIGHLY recommend it.... it's everything PZ has said and more...
It's also funny, informative, instructive, well written and superb RESEARCHED and rational.
Posted by: Motley | September 16, 2009 12:19 PM
My dad is a creationist who is willing to learn but my explanations just aren't good enough. He's listened to plenty of creation science evangelists on television, still doesn't know much about either 'side', but tends to take the view that Darwin was merely suggesting things and had no idea people were going to run with this.
I will say again: he's willing to learn and if he's wrong he will accept it. For a Southern preacher, I've certainly made leaps and bounds with him. He's actually questioned why homosexuality is so wrong and whether it could be genetic or not, questioned whether it's democratic policies that will lead us to a dark place or whether it's really HIS side that is going to do it, and etc.
Do you think this book would be helpful to him? Is it explained in a way that promotes understanding to even beginners?
I'm going to buy two copies. One for me, one for him. I'm going to ship it to him and say "I read your Bible, now read mine."
:D
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 16, 2009 12:19 PM
It's also funny, informative, instructive, well written and superb RESEARCHED and rational.
So, it's like Gould's Brick for laymen?
Posted by: Tim Danaher | September 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Well, mine has arrived.
I just have to wait until October 7th to read it, when my mam will be bringing it over to Germany with her. The things I do to save £5 postage.
Posted by: George | September 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Added it to my wish list. I enjoy reading Dawkins, me thinks I have read all of Dawkins (joke intended.)
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | September 16, 2009 12:20 PM
I agree El Donaldo. I always cringe when I hear someone ask something along the lines of, "do you believe in evolution?" Truth is truth and is independent of belief. I've never been asked if I believe in gravity, electro magnetic propogation, helio-centricity or if the moon is made of cheese. Why? Because it would be silly to ask except as part of making a point. The problem with creationists is deeper than just religion. I run into ignorance all the time when I speak to people. That in itself would be annoying enough but is harmless unless that person is trying to speak with some authority on a subject that they don't understand. How often have you heard someone go off about how we can fix the economy simply by doing such and such? More Americans are ignorant of macroeconomics than they are of evolution yet economics effects their daily lives. Being in the military I regularly hear about how congress needs to "just vote the right way." Politics is damned complicated, even in the best situations. There are committees, advisors, people making bribes (lobbyists), constituency considerations and a whole host of other considerations that go into a single bill.
The bottom line is that most Americans talk out of their ass on a whole host of subjects, not just evolution. PZ is absolutely right when he says that the enemy ignorance is education. People must become educated on the subjects that effect their lives if they want to have anything meaningful to say about it. The internet is one of the greatest tools ever invented for that very purpose but it is also one of the worst opiates. I'm not sure how to get people to spend more time on educational sites and less time reading about celebrities or surfing porn, not that porn is necessarily a bad thing. Honestly, it comes down to us as individuals pushing the people we know to do their own research and find the answers to questions they may have. Point them to reputable websites and books. The information is out there just waiting to be absorbed.
Posted by: Lyle | September 16, 2009 12:21 PM
I have ordered the book and the audio CD from amazon. I plan to get Dr Dawkins to sign both when he comes to the University of Virginia in October. I'm looking forward to the book and hearing Dawkins speak again.
Posted by: greymav | September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
If it's up to Dawkins' usual standards of writing, then reading it will be its own reward. I just received another book of his from Amazon yesterday, oddly enough...
Posted by: Lee Picton | September 16, 2009 12:23 PM
I pre-ordered with Amazon, but I have to wait another week. How come you guys across the pond got access to it sooner?
Posted by: k-dub | September 16, 2009 12:23 PM
I've been eagerly awaiting the release date and the call from my local bookstore that my copy has arrived. I had the pleasure of seeing Dawkins on a book tour for the Ancestor's Tale and have been a fan of his ever since. I hope it lives up to my level of excitement; I believe the probability is high.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 16, 2009 12:24 PM
Sean the Pitiful is over here now? I'm glad I've been ignoring the Endless Thread -- the t.o Howlers spent like a year or more mopping the floor with that guy. Some people are impervious to....reason, evidence, education, basically anything.
Re Dawkins book: My wife has been promised a review copy, by virtue of being current Prez of the local Humanists. Reviews will forthcoming, via the group blog. Bow down and be jealous!
Posted by: Xenophanes
|
September 16, 2009 12:26 PM
I plan on getting it the day it comes out in the States (22nd) and getting it signed by Richard on the 16th of October!
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | September 16, 2009 12:27 PM
One thing must be kept in mind about ordinary rank and file creationists.
A good part of their motivation isn't any particular fallacious argument such as they might give you.
It is fear. Specifically fear of torture at the hands of the Big Guy.
Posted by: ThurrtyPhiv | September 16, 2009 12:30 PM
Speaking of Eric Hovind, wasn't yesterday the deadline for them to raise the money needed to pay off Kent's tax bill? I figure they would have already posted something on their website had the actually raised the $380k. I may have to road trip to Pensacola for when the government auctions off Dinosaur Adventure Land.
Posted by: astromcnaught | September 16, 2009 12:31 PM
Yes Sir, I will read it.
Twice.
Posted by: arrakis
|
September 16, 2009 12:32 PM
I'm waiting for my copy to show up.
I'm a history major, but I took a basic biology class to fill a gen-ed requirement. When the teacher stated on the first day that we would not be discussing intelligent design because it isn't scientific, I knew that I was going to like him.
Posted by: Moggie | September 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Shubin and Coyne have set the bar pretty high, but I still look forward to reading this book. But the people who really need to read it won't do so. On numerous occasions when I've been arguing evolution online with a creationist, or watching from the sidelines while others do the work, the creationist has openly refused to read (free!) material pointed out to them. They're quite unashamed about this, and seem to regard it as a personal affront that anyone would expect them to read evidence written (gasp!) by a competent biologist. It's much the same as the response you'd expect if you asked a fundie to read the Gospel of Judas.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 16, 2009 12:33 PM
Jimbo:
If you were an English teacher and PZ were your student, I have absolute confidence that he would write in accordance with the assignment you gave him... presuming, that is, you're capable of giving clear, appropriate directions.
As it is, this is his blog, and he's writing for his own purposes. This wasn't a review (i.e., a piece of journalism intended to help readers reach a reasoned buying decision), nor was it criticism (i.e., literary analysis), nor a book report (i.e., an academic exercise). Instead, it was advocacy: PZ wants, for his own reasons, his readers to buy and read this book, and he's made a very effective case. (I, for one, will buy it, but only if/when it's available in unabridged audio.)
If you had been my daughter's English teacher and had displayed the same confusion about various rhetorical modes that you've revealed with you kvetching here, my writing assignment would've been to draft a letter of complaint to your department head or principal.
Posted by: Benoit | September 16, 2009 12:34 PM
Amazon'd. Only 6 sleeps to go...
Posted by: SteveN | September 16, 2009 12:39 PM
I'm half-way through the book at the moment and can only reiterate what PZ says: nothing spectacularly new for anyone with a grounding and interest in biology, but so brilliantly built up, step by step, that no-one with an ounce of rationality in their bodies could deny the fact of evolution after reading it. Superb stuff indeed!
Posted by: Alan Clark | September 16, 2009 12:42 PM
I am 100 pages into TGSOE and enjoying it. I particularly like his refutation of the Hitler-was-inspired-by-Darwin claim. Hitler was actually inspired by artificial selection, which has been in use for millennia and which is not controversial. Hitler's idea was to use it to modify our own species rather than others. Darwin's insight was that other species could do the selecting as well as humans. Two very different things! Another difference is that Hitler believed in races competing against each other, while Darwin saw evolution as individuals competing against each other. Again, two different things. Although I knew all these facts, Dawkins puts them together to refute the claim in a way that I would not have thought of.
My only quibble is that there does not seem to be any mention of trochophores, my favourite evidence for evolution. These are the larvae of several marine phyla, such as molluscs and segmented worms. These animals could hardly be more different, but their larvae are completely indistinguishable!
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
September 16, 2009 12:43 PM
Sigh. Having just deposited my Maternal Bailout Fund (a.k.a. birthday gift), I could actually afford Dawkins's book, but I've committed myself to reading the PhD thesis of a friend, so I'll probably have to postpone The Greatest Show for a little while.
Posted by: idlemind | September 16, 2009 12:43 PM
Excellent observation, but I think it's more than just fear of divine punishment. I think at base it's fear of no afterlife at all -- if all the magic mumbo jumbo isn't true, then they gotta die, for real. So any threat to their belief system is seen as a threat to their very existence.Posted by: Collin Lysford | September 16, 2009 12:45 PM
I've already got the book pre-ordered and I'm going to write an article about it for my college newspaper as soon as I finish reading it. PZ, you might find yourself cited. ;)
Posted by: Antonio | September 16, 2009 12:51 PM
The cure for solipsism is a 2x4 to the patella. In particularly stubborn cases, to the occipital.
Posted by: NatVision | September 16, 2009 12:52 PM
Audible was showing it on their "common soon" list for release on the 22nd, too (think you have to be a subscriber to see the list tho'). I'm there next Tuesday . . .
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 16, 2009 12:53 PM
Coyne - Why Evolution is true - check
Shubin - Your inner fish - half check (got sidetracked with some other reading will get back)
got a few more to pick up it looks like
Posted by: vicars daugh | September 16, 2009 12:54 PM
Oh yes. I second Petursey. Beautifully explained (and illustrated) with witty asides and informative foot notes. Some stuff I knew about but found a greater understanding. Other stuff was new to me. I fall into the enquiring layperson category and I could keep up with Richard's explanations.
Posted by: NatVision | September 16, 2009 12:55 PM
. . . that would be "COMING soon" - helps to proofread.
Posted by: Wildflower | September 16, 2009 12:56 PM
I'm seriously looking forward to reading the book but, alas, the paperback won't be released until April 2010 and the hardcover is going for 21 Euros (30 US dollars) which, I hate to admit, is more than I can afford.
So until then please put up the spoiler alerts. :P
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 16, 2009 12:56 PM
Ah, such unabashed optimism.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 16, 2009 12:57 PM
I should have said this was a teaser. I'm also writing up a more formal review for publication.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | September 16, 2009 12:57 PM
I've pre-ordered my copy as well. I'm intrigued at what can be that good about the book... but mostly because Ancestor's Tale was such an amazing book.
One thing I am just chomping at the bit to see is what new books we are going to get from the Dawkins' fleas' circus.
What will it be?
You know there has to be at least one book written with a title like that in response to Dawkins' book :)
Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 16, 2009 1:01 PM
Not that I needed any encouraging to read Dawkins but damn that was one helluva good pitch!
M&K, eat your hearts out!
As for creationists, has anyone actually confirmed that they can read?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 1:03 PM
Hmm...is that why there appears to be a glow on the horizon?Posted by: Lynn WIlhelm | September 16, 2009 1:06 PM
I just pre-ordered from Amazon. Called my local B&N first, they'll have it for $30, but said I could order it online for $18, member price $16 and change. THEN I went to Amazon and they have the $16 price--got free shipping too. ( I do have to wait longer though) Crazy pricing structure, huh??
I got three, one for my mum--liberal christian but doesn't understand the science. One for my fundie sister, who may not appreciate getting this for her B-day--but what the hell, she really needs to read it. I hope she passes it on to her teenage girls, who've had religious education rammed into them for years. One of my nieces once told me that the earth was created with "age", the other said evolution can't be true because we don't know the absolute origin of life--they just regurgitate what they learn at christian school. One of them is taking an apologetics course at her new homeschool group at their church.
Oh, the other one's for me to read.
By the way B&N lady (at store in NC) said there were quite a few on hold already. Sounds good.
Posted by: greatest video ever | September 16, 2009 1:11 PM
PZ, you're thoroughly embarrassing yourself.
How come this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
isn't still pharyngulated?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 16, 2009 1:12 PM
NatVision (@35):
Thanks for the heads up re audible.com. I can't check my audible account from work, but was planning to look it up when I got home. When it is available, I hope it's read by Dawkins himself; he did a great job on The God Delusion.
Posted by: Samphire | September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
#23: Have a look at http://drdino.com/legalupdate.php#kent-letter.
Eric needed $380,000 to pay the taxman to prevent him forfeiting CSE's properties and, according to the link, they have made the total with minutes to spare. All God's doing, of course - apart from the young deluded lad who sent Eric his pocket money to pay towards Kent's fine.
Why is it I find it impossible to believe a word Eric says?
And it gets worse. It looks like Creation Science Evangelism is coming shortly to an advertising slot near you.
Posted by: Hesiodos | September 16, 2009 1:15 PM
This is exactly why I pre-ordered it from Amazon. I live in a community and group that is "iffy" about evolution at best, and actively hostile much of the time. It's my own fault- I wandered in the swamp lands of religion for most of my adult life and raised my kids that way after marrying a devout woman. Now that I've "deconverted" about a year and a half ago, I'm slowly trying to introduce more reality based thoughts into the family without causing a split. Just like a divorce, a sudden change of mind on the part of a parent can be rather disorienting and alienating for a teenager enmeshed in conservative christian culture. So little things, like encouraging critical thinking about everything, and opening to scientific discoveries even if they are "threatening" is, I think, helpful. Basic, well written books on real science are important. To tell a good story is to attract the attention and the imagination. If it is a true story, that makes it all the more incredible and wonderful indeed.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | September 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Well, I'm excited, but I guess my enthusiasm doesn't match that of others here. I'm picking up a copy from my library tomorrow to read; then I will probably add a copy to my shelves.
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
September 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Those ID / Creationist loonies have had their cages rattled by us. Although they might never understand science and reason, they are desperately trying to convince "young kids" that their way is the correct way. Fact of the matter is... half of those "brainwashed" kids, when they enter college, they will figure out the truth. And the ones they do not get to will have gotten (hopefully) a good education and reject the views by logic alone.
The religious right is pissed of because
1-they are losing ground, and
2-we are constantly on their toes making sure their idiotic agendas do not pass through to places it should'nt.
RELIGION SHOULD STAY PRIVATE!
They've never had ground to stand-on anyways... it's all mental.
Posted by: death adder | September 16, 2009 1:19 PM
I read Neil Shubin's book and thought it was excellent. Very well written and extremely interesting. I highly recommend it!
Also want to give a heads up for the new book from the great science writer Carl Zimmer "The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution" due out in October. Add it to your to read list!
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
September 16, 2009 1:21 PM
greatest video ever (#46):
In the same vein, but more importantly (harrumph!), why isn't this poll crashed into uselessness yet? Grumble, grumble.
Posted by: Lynna | September 16, 2009 1:22 PM
This was a joy to read, PZ. All is forgiven regarding the the fish-tongue-eating invaders from nightmares.
One phrase really stuck in my mind, "negative knowledge". Luckily, I'm alone in my office so no one can see me punching the air and shouting "Yes! That's it!" Negative Knowledge™ rules in a brain so damaged that it cannot process real knowledge -- a brain that has at the top of its priority list "Must Confuse Myself Lest I Go to Hell". Creationists: taking a deliberate step in the wrong direction. Increasing entropy indeed. Entropy disguised as order.
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 16, 2009 1:23 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I encounter in my first-year students all the time the idea that "belief" in evolution is an option based on your outlook and sympathies: they aren't willing to recognize that it's the expression of an obdurate reality that demands either engagement and understanding or retreat into a delusional fantasy world>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that the persistence of that attitude stems from the present physical security we have been experiencing for the last 70 years or so. Except for the odd storm, fire or epidemic the supper market is always full we have cars and we have the luxury to argue about politics. Any dependence on nature is obscured by our societies physical stability. There seems to be a disconnect between our need to understand the true nature of reality and action as if it is a matter of belief only.
I am reminded of a comment I heard about. It occurred during dispute with farmers and price they were getting and markets. The person who was against the farmers interests in the dispute said "Fuck the farmers we'll by canned corn"
That really illustrates what kind of "thinking" we are up against.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 1:25 PM
Everyone is out to buy the book. I'll just wait until one of my friends are finished with it and borrow it. I so cheap!
That doesn't surprise me. Cdesign Proponentists have a way of not looking at evidence that will refute them and enforcing the idea that they don't exist.
Posted by: 386sx | September 16, 2009 1:25 PM
This is monumental. This book will change all of history as we know it.
Posted by: Lee Picton | September 16, 2009 1:28 PM
Oh, pooh, I wasn't keeping on top of things, and didn't realize Prof. Dawkins was coming to this country again and eagerly checked out all his appearances on the East Coast. They are all sold out with the exception of a simulcast at Philadelphia. I wonder how many others would have liked to attend? Maybe his venues aren't large enough? The husbeast and I were even willing to stay in a hotel to accommodate any schedule. Are there any resellers out there willing to part with two tickets to Philly or New York?
Posted by: TheTrueScotsman | September 16, 2009 1:33 PM
Read it already.
Bought it at London Gatwick Airport last weekend and read it on the beach in Turkey in three days last week.
It is pure-dead brilliant as we say in Scotland.
Easy for a laymen like me, simple well written and concise. It is full of wonderful tales of creatures big and small, of fossils and molecules all interacting in ways I never dreamed of.
I can only echo PZ. I think we should buy copies for schools too.
Posted by: Seldon | September 16, 2009 1:38 PM
Payday arrived, so I just picked up my copy
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 1:40 PM
Nice...ordered "Greatest Show" from Amazon, bought Stengers "New Atheists" with it, $30 for both with free shipping!
@ Rev. BDC,
Have you read Carrol's "DNA" and "Endless Forms"? Very good pair of books..."The Plausibility of Life" by Kirschner and Gerhart dovetails nicely with Carrol's books, makes for an interesting and enlightening three-read.
Hmmm...I think I just sold myself on a reread...
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | September 16, 2009 1:41 PM
I picked it up in a bookshop a couple of weeks ago. I was reading it fairly late that evening, and finally decided to call it a night and go to bed. After all, it must be nearly two in the morning by now. I looked at the clock. It was ten to six.
Yes. It's a good book.
TRiG.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Lynna beat me to it.
PZ wins 1 (one) Internets.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 16, 2009 1:45 PM
... a fusillade of evidence backed up by sound theoretical explanations. ... a kind of elegant overview of the various lines of evidence supporting evolutionary theory...
Yabbut does it explain gravity, thermodynamics, the laws of motion and mechanics and fluid motion, the great laws of the universe and of movement?
Posted by: JBlilie | September 16, 2009 1:45 PM
My pre-order went in weeks ago.
Posted by: MikeM | September 16, 2009 1:49 PM
Given what work furloughs have done to my family's budget, I just can't justify the expense right now.
Sounds like a great idea for a Festivus gift, though. I think I can wait.
Posted by: Gareth Edwards | September 16, 2009 1:50 PM
I'm about 3 chapters into the book, I'd like to consider myself to be quite well informed on the subject of evolution but I've learnt a few things already and learned to look at other facts, that I already knew, from a new angle.
It's a well written book, entertaining and informative.
I'd reccomend it to everyone.
Posted by: Travis | September 16, 2009 1:56 PM
I really wish I could see Richard Dawkins later this month in Toronto, but sadly it has been sold out. I am quite disappointed by that. But I will pick up a copy of this book, I am not sure why I did not preorder it earlier on as I have been looking forward to it for some time.
Posted by: Marek14 | September 16, 2009 2:01 PM
My English bookshop in Prague got it pre-ordered, apparently, and I got it last week and read it through :) Very nice book, on par with... with... well, with anything else by Dawkins, actually :D
Posted by: JustaTech | September 16, 2009 2:04 PM
Requested it from my library 3 minutes ago, hopefully the 30 people ahead of me are fast readers.
Posted by: Lynna | September 16, 2009 2:04 PM
Moggie @26
I've had the same experience. A gift of a science book was refused with, "Why should I read that crap?" The only surprise being the uncharacteristic use of the word "crap".
Posted by: DugSciof | September 16, 2009 2:10 PM
I'm up to Chapter 11 already, but I need to finish it by tomorrow afternoon because I'm going to the Dawk's lecture on the book in the RDS, Dublin later on. It's well worth the read.
Posted by: NatVision | September 16, 2009 2:11 PM
@Bill Dauphin, OM #47
There give no details at Audible other than including it on the coming soon list; Amazon shows the audio book version as being narrated by Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward, which is good news.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | September 16, 2009 2:12 PM
A major problem with trying to educate creationists is that they don't want to be educated. They easily COULD read one of those books, or do a little research on the fossil record, or read this blog, but they don't. Why? Because they might find something that contradicts their opinion. If you say creationism is wrong, to these people, you are saying that their life choice is wrong. And they don't want that.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 16, 2009 2:13 PM
PZ, apologies if you've already said this and I missed it, but what is the topic of the book you're writing? Is it going to be about evolution, in the view of TGSOE and Coyne's book, or science communication, or atheism, or ...?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 16, 2009 2:15 PM
I have to say that I hope Dawkins doesn't repeat in this book his hoary old chestnut that life "looks designed," when there's really no way to argue that coherently.
I don't deny that life may "look designed" in various contexts, and particularly when people begin with the belief that life exists "for a purpose." But life does not look like what designers have actually made, so in that sense the "analogy" fails immediately. On further analysis, which Dawkins goes on to do, life looks even less designed.
Certainly Dawkins ends with the conclusion that life doesn't look designed when closely scrutinized. Yet Behe and Meyer use statements by Dawkins and others that life "looks designed" to considerable propagandistic success. And it's not a meaningful statement, for many people in many cultures have looked at life and thought it to be quite different from what has been designed--this even includes many in the West prior to the Industrial Revolution (Paley relies heavily on rather questionable comparisons with human devices, mostly the new industrial and scientific machinery of his day).
To put it another way, biology has existed nearly as long as any other science, and this can be credited to the fact that studying life is not like archaeology. And Dawkins ought not to be making the same meaningless "argument" that the DI propagandists make.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Lilith | September 16, 2009 2:17 PM
I've just started reading my copy as my bedtime reading and enjoying it very much. Too much because I don't want to put it down.
It speaks to the layperson, but doesn't sound like it is talking down to the knowledgable reader.
Incidentally, it is also on the Aussie Government's arts program, Books Alive, as one of the "50 Books You Can't Put Down"
http://booksalive.com.au/
The spiel says:
Posted by: Lynna | September 16, 2009 2:22 PM
Michael D. @74
I would amend that to read "A major problem with trying to educate creationists is that they think science education is a waste of time." In other words, they want to be educated by reading (and rereading, and endlessly discussing) parts of the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Creationist apologetics, etc. To them, that is the ultimately useful education. They might see the point in a bit of science education (just enough to get by) for a job, but to them, reading a new book by Dawkins would be like reading old Soviet propaganda. Unless they had a job-related reason for reading it, they can't imagine wasting their time on it. Yes, they are that far gone.
Posted by: Laura | September 16, 2009 2:22 PM
I cannot wait to read this! I'm finishing Beak of the Finch right now and it's simply awesome.
On another note, I feel like whenever I try to explain evolution to someone who has never given it a real thought, I get the same type of response.
It's always something like "How come there aren't any crocoducks then" (Not that they use crocoduck, but they think that evolution involves two completely different species mating and producing offspring), or they just can't seem to grasp the concept of billions of years. They think that new species are just "born" within a few generations. And of course with transitional fossils... there should be just millions of these "semi-evolved" creatures or something.
It's so frustrating because for me evolution makes sense. I can't wait to read Dawkins' book because then it helps an uneducated person like myself be able to explain the obvious to the oblivious.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 16, 2009 2:30 PM
When it comes to providing an introductory overview of evolution Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True stands out amongst all the others PZ mentions and doesn't mention (e.g., Daniel Fairbanks' Relics of Eden) given it's relative comprehensiveness without getting to textbook or encyclopedic bulk. All are great reads but with exception of Coyne's limit their focus.
So I'd love to read an analysis of how Dawkins' book stacks up relative to Coyne's. Especially since I'm currently promoting Coyne's book to those looking to get initially schooled.
Posted by: rrt | September 16, 2009 2:31 PM
For those wondering about availability and formats (sorry if I missed someoe else posting this):
In the US, both print and UNabridged audio will be available on the 22nd. The audio will be on CD, narrated (as The God Delusion was) by Richard and Lalla. I saw a price of $30, for 14 CDs...doesn't seem too outrageous to me, though I prefer Audible. There is an abridged version--apparently the only audio version available in the UK--that can be had NOW via Audible (not sure about other sources). The unabridged version will apparently also be available on Audible on the 22nd.
Posted by: Uncephalized
|
September 16, 2009 2:36 PM
"We need a vocal and informed group of activists in this country who understand the science, but we can't demand that they all go to grad school."
And even if everyone did, it wouldn't all be for biology anyway. :)
Posted by: GFA | September 16, 2009 2:37 PM
Cause and effect, or effect and cause, or common cause and bi-effect?
Sorry, nit-picking. It doesn't change the jist - we can't let the loonies take over the asylum - they have to be put back in their padded cells.
Posted by: ctgopks
|
September 16, 2009 2:40 PM
I love the phrase negative knowledge!. It is so right on in describing the savage, deliberate ignorance of some people. For those who see creationist crap as an article of faith, the lack of which will damn them to eternal fire, reasoning will never be productive. That would require a basic intellectual curiosity.
Posted by: Elf Sternberg | September 16, 2009 2:46 PM
I'm currently reading Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. Just let me say that, for all the self-pleasuring the pro-ID community is doing over this book it is, ultimately, a very deceitful book with subtle, underhanded tactics that rests on two claims: (1) All of Dembski's detractors are wrong and Dembski really is as brilliant as Newton and our grandchildren will recognize this as the current generation of Darwinsts finally die off, and (2) ID should be an accepted theory of science even though all of the evidence points to it never, ever being useful to the applied sciences.
I'll have to read Dawkins just to clean my brain out.
Posted by: Die Anyway | September 16, 2009 2:49 PM
Maybe someone can send a copy to Bill Foster, mayoral candidate in St. Petersburg, Florida. See today's article:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/are-fosters-religious-beliefs-relevant-in-st-pete-mayors-race/1036480
I'll be looking for a copy in our local library system. At one point I would not have expected such a book to be carried in a bible-belt area like this but I have in fact found all of Dawkin's work there including The Ancestor's Tale and The God Delusion. There are apparently some librarians with scientific/atheistic leanings but I'm sure they have to keep it well hidden.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 16, 2009 2:51 PM
I ordered my copy in March. It arrives next week. I should have moved to the UK and would have had my copy already.
Posted by: Brock | September 16, 2009 2:51 PM
Ooh, I hope that quote is on the dust-jacket :D
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 16, 2009 2:55 PM
el donaldo (#2)
Well, I'd say your students are lucky, then, if you're undoing that damage. I was actually fed a lot of postmodernist tripe about cultural and moral relativity by teachers in certain first-year (and higher) anthropology and philosophy courses. I was mislead to think that, rather than philosophical tools or facts, these relativities were values to be upheld or ideals to be practiced. Luckily, a friend of mine pointed out certain consequences of thinking this way which got me questioning the validity of what I'd been taught.
I agree, but also be aware of the non-religious denial of reality within academia.
Posted by: Siamang | September 16, 2009 2:55 PM
I have yet to meet a creationist who actually reads any book I recommend. This includes people who seem to genuinely be open to persuasion. I once sent a copy of Zimmer's book on evolution to someone. (Amazon had it used for five bucks.)
He didn't read it. This is after he said a bunch of stuff about how he would, of course. He got a few pages in, he said... then he got busy. Not sure when he would be able to get back to it.
So the alien hivemind conditioning inside him made him feel uncomfortable enough while reading to put it down. Chalk up another victory for religion.
Anyway, This is the book, people. Hammer all creationists on their refusal to read it all the way through. I've read your bible, you read this. NAIL them on it, and don't let them change the subject or engage them at all until they have and they can answer questions that require them to have specific knowledge from the book itself, with page numbers. Questions like "on what page number does Dawkins refer to the evolutionary path between gills and tetrapod ears?" Also questions requiring comprehension.
If they can't answer, then refuse to debate online. Merely goad them for being afraid to face the evidence. If they bring up something from the book (that they got from a website), just go right back to the question of "have they read the book?" Make them prove they've read the whole book, and not a website attacking it. If they post "well, (according to answers in genesis) Dawkins misstates X", respond with this answer:
"Dawkins explains that, in full, and he's correct. But you need to read it all in context to see how fully he explains it. A quote out of context leaves out the explanation. You need to read the whole book, which you haven't done. I can only guess it's out of fear. Please come back when you've read the entire book."
Hammer them with the exact same thing, and don't engage and encourage others NOT to engage with anyone who hasn't read the book. Make the online argument about their fear to read, and DON'T let them move the topic to anything else.
Seriously. Nail them on this.
Posted by: Kisil | September 16, 2009 2:56 PM
This is a great idea for structuring debates with creationists and other peddlers of wacky ideas.
In brief: Send college students to debate the crackpots. It will give the students practice and exposure. Even better, it provides a filter to keep the crazies from getting face time opposite scientists, which legitimizes their views. The ones who beat the students can move up the chain.
Posted by: Peter G | September 16, 2009 3:09 PM
Personally I don't find debating with such people as creationists the least bit infuriating. Frankly I find it quite diverting. The sheer joy of demolishing their arguments is its' own pleasure. Mind you, the simpletons present no challenge. That's like playing tic-tac-toe with a three year old but hey three year old children have to learn too. I consider it a public service.
Posted by: charley | September 16, 2009 3:10 PM
The term "worldview" is popular with Evangelical Christians, because it provides a way for them to refer to their religion that doesn’t sound religious. If each religion is a worldview and science/naturalism is a worldview, then the debate is no longer between reason and non-reason, but merely between competing worldviews. Sneaky bastards.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 16, 2009 3:19 PM
They only get to be sneaky if you don't call them on it.
"I'm sorry Mr. Mindless Creationist, but you are not entitled to make things up and call them facts."
Posted by: bobxxxx | September 16, 2009 3:26 PM
#90:
That was my experience until a few months ago on a Christian blog. I told him about the ERVs that have been found in exactly the same locations on the chromosomes of people and chimps. He copied and pasted some bullshit about it from the creationists of the Dishonesty Institute. I explained the Disco assholes were just changing the subject. He then agreed ERVs are a problem for magical creation, and he later agreed to read Jerry Coyne's book. He was much more educated than the average Christian hick, so I think he might have actually accepted evolution by now.
Posted by: Tusle | September 16, 2009 3:31 PM
...and thus no longer about truth. It is truly bizarre to me that those who claim the existence of The Absolute have come to embrace the worst of post-modern relativism.
Posted by: Discombobulated | September 16, 2009 3:36 PM
Screechy Monkey@75 said:
I haven't seen him make any posts or comments about it, either, but he did an interview a week or so ago on the Chariots of Iron podcast, and talked about it at the very end. Here's a quick transcript of the question:
Posted by: Moppelita | September 16, 2009 3:38 PM
I'm convinced.. I'll read it.
Posted by: charley | September 16, 2009 3:43 PM
They still think their worldview is the only correct one, though. They use the worldview approach to try to survive in intellectually hostile environments.
I think those of us who try to rely only on reason and evidence to understand the world should avoid accepting the label "worldview" for our position, because the term is too diminishing. The use of evidence and reason is a human universal which transcends religious divides. It does not belong in the same category as religion any more than Atheism does.
Posted by: MikeyM | September 16, 2009 3:44 PM
Aaaargh! Word problem!
Posted by: raven | September 16, 2009 3:56 PM
Worldview is just a fundie xian cult euphemism for Presuppositionalism. It is also flat out wrong.
Not all worldviews are or can be correct. You can say the earth is a disk sitting on a turtle all you want. No one has seen the turtle and our satellites orbit a sphere.
The creos claim they have the same evidence as scientists but just analyze it differently through their "worldview". They lie here. They distort 5% of the data, ignore 95% of it, make up some lies, and then claim proof that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Posted by: djarm67 | September 16, 2009 3:59 PM
PZ Myers radio experience with the Discovery Institute creationist Geoffrey Simmons. (5 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C4684769B6EF1A07
My book review of Richard Dawkins: The greatest show on Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6An6NyVQE
DJ
Posted by: Larsus | September 16, 2009 4:17 PM
Hello, "Pharyngula"-readers!
Since there are so many smart people here, and I would presume most of them interested in biology, I would like to pose a question. I'm not in any way doubting evolution, but I've never really tried to study it in depth as well. Also, I do not know where I could point that question to (googling very specific things is hard to do).
Since evolution by natural selection relies on the random mutation of the genetic code, and the mutation rates are very low (I think), it needs a lot of time and a lot of generations to "create" big changes in the organism.
Now, I can understand that organisms with a lot of children/successors are a good basis for very different characteristics.
But what about animals that reproduce seldomly like whales or elephants? If an animal only bears one or two children in its generation, there cannot be that much of a change per generation, also not every change is beneficial. I cannot really grasp how - even if we are talking about thousands of thousands of years of evolution for this species - very, very small changes would work for animals that reproduce at a very low rate.
Could anyone please point me to an informative article, or write two paragraphs about how my perception is totally wrong? ;) Thanks in advance.
(Sorry for any errors, English is not my native language)
Posted by: JackC
|
September 16, 2009 4:17 PM
I will be getting the Greatest Show on Earth - definitely.
On a similar note, I have only just now found that the company I work for is apparently heavily vested in this "ThinkFinity" site. I would be interested in what anyone thinks of the site (I have no personal interest or link with it)
I did a quick basic search using "evolution" as a keyword - and having passed through about 100 documents so far, it seems pretty reasonable.
Another possible good source to continue to have No Excuse.
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
September 16, 2009 4:23 PM
Larsus: I think the main point of this post is exactly your question answered. Not to put too fine a point on it - but "read the book".
I am not in any way qualified - even remotely - to offer any personal answer to your question, but I note that many times it seems that such beasties as sharks are described as somewhat "prehistoric".
JC
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | September 16, 2009 4:23 PM
PZ, the problem is not that these people cannot understand, the problem is that they do not want to understand.
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 4:23 PM
thousands of thousands of years of evolution
What's wrong with your perception is that it's millions and millions of years, a concept that is very difficult for us to wrap our minds around.
You are the target audience for this book.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 4:31 PM
Yes, yes, PZ. We get all that.
But what we want to know is--and I can't believe I'm the first to evoke this in this thread--does it explain PYGMIES + DWARFS ??
Posted by: Vinny | September 16, 2009 4:32 PM
There's no Kindle version. I've forgotten how to use paper :(
Posted by: Akiko | September 16, 2009 4:33 PM
I will buy them all and use them to teach my elementary school aged children. When their school taught them history they started with the "pilgrams". When I pulled them out to home school them I started with the Big Bang.
Posted by: Geds | September 16, 2009 4:38 PM
Brownian @108: But what we want to know is--and I can't believe I'm the first to evoke this in this thread--does it explain PYGMIES + DWARFS ??
And I'll bet Dawkins is too scared to even address the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
I used to believe in evolution, man. But then I heard about the aquatic ape and the pygmies and dwarfs and I don't believe in nothin' no more, man. I'm gonna go back to Bible College.
Posted by: Akiko | September 16, 2009 4:38 PM
Wildflower #39
Look for used copies to pop up soon on Amazon. You can get hardcopies pretty cheap there sometimes.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 4:41 PM
Aw man, I hated when schools did that. I also hated it when they said that the pilgrims came for religious freedom. They always forget to mention that they suppressed it soon afterwards.
Posted by: Tristan Croll | September 16, 2009 4:45 PM
Larsus @ 103:
Well, one problem you may have in accepting this is that you're out in your timeline by at least three orders of magnitude. It's not "thousands and thousands" of years, but millions and millions, at the very least. The earliest known cetacean (whale), for example, Pakicetus, lived somewhere around 52 million years ago. At a very generous 20 years per generation on average, that's 2.6 million generations between it and modern whales.
Similarly, the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is estimated to have lived around 4.6 million years ago. Using the same 20-year generation time, that's at least 23,000 generations for what are, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor differences.
Evolution is a very slow process.
Posted by: MikeM | September 16, 2009 4:52 PM
Everyone remember Orly Taitz?
Sorry for the O/T, but she received some news today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/connie-rhodes-birther-cha_n_288814.html
Awesome. The court went out of the way to tell her the suit was frivolous, and warned her at the same time. Here's hoping her reaction was to wet her panties.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:57 PM
Since evolution by natural selection relies on the random mutation of the genetic code,
some corrections:
evolution relies on more than just selection as a mechanism of change
selection acts on any heritable source of variation, not just random mutations
start here for basics:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
But what about animals that reproduce seldomly like whales or elephants?
change is indeed slower in organisms with slower reproductive rates.
over how long a time span would you like to look for change?
still, because we can see major trait changes with minor changes to the genome (for example, if a change occurs in major regulatory gene, or gene involved in triggering limb development), often we can see major changes occurring over rapid (geologically speaking) time scales.
for example, the evolution of an amphibious, 4-limbed ancestor of whales to what amounts to the basic form of the modern whale took place in around 10 million years.
that's rather fast.
you also have to remember that evolution is not necessarily linear, patterns in traits can move back and forth, depending on what selective pressures are prevalent at any given time.
so, while you might ask the question that since whales could evolve in 10 million years, why can't you get a bacteria to sprout wings in a human lifetime, you have to recall that there is no directional selection for bacteria to evolve wings to begin with.
to compare a good record of change in the fossil record, you might compare the series involved in the evolution of whales, say, with a similar time frame looking at the evolution of forams (tiny little marine organisms). In the forams, which were already of course entirely aquatic, you see shifts back and forth in test size and shape, which correlate nicely with changes in their environment over the same time periods. However, unlike the whales, if you looked at the beginning and end of the sequence, you might notice they look the same! This, even though selection was indeed changing them during all that time.
I know this might not make a lot of sense, but I'm sure if you're genuinely curious, and want to really learn about it, you'll start to see what I'm talking about. Much of what I'm talking about here is covered in Jerry Coyne's book, and Prothero's book, or can be googled up as independent web articles.
some examples of fossil series:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html
Posted by: Rrr | September 16, 2009 4:58 PM
Tristan Croll, responding to Larsus, September 16, 2009 4:45 PM #114
But don't worry. You'll get there eventually. Probably. Maybe if you propafligate?
:-)
Posted by: JackC
|
September 16, 2009 4:59 PM
I just had to add this - from Bill D@#27 above:
I was forced to - of all things - a "Communicating Clearly" class - three days!! - at work. At the end of the second day, the instructor gave us an assignment - "Tomorrow, bring a pair of shoes to the class".
So I did.
Brake shoes.
And yes, I knew exactly what was coming. And when he expressed some disdain in what I did, I said "Well, you should have communicated more clearly."
:-D
JC
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Tusle (#96)
Because they are content to seemingly destroy the positions against them without realizing what this tactic does to the coherence of their own position.
~*~*~*~*~
charley (#99)
I very much agree, though for a slightly different reason. It's critical to insist that objective reality exists and we have some form of access to it that gives us an accurate understanding. Talking about "worldviews" is a denial of objective reality (or its knowability). If people aren't willing to accept objective reality exists, then they can make no meaningful statements about the world. Science, by definition, concerns itself with figuring out the workings of objective reality. It's impossible to both accept science and deny objective reality, thus it makes no sense to refer to science as a "worldview" (or a part of one).
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 16, 2009 5:04 PM
Hello, Larsus. Welcome.
You make three statements in this sentence, to which the answers are "Not really", "No", and "Sort of". Let's break it down, yo -
"Since evolution by natural selection relies on the random mutation of the genetic code" - Evolution does not "rely" on anything; rather, it happens a s consequence of certain things. Random mutation is one, but mutations are only relevant if they are mutations that survive into successive generations; that is, they are selected by the pressures brought to bear on populations by the natural forces present in their environment. This is usually simply called "Natural selection."
"and the mutation rates are very low (I think)" - Actually, they are not; there are large numbers of mutations (changes in alleles) in every generation, which is, in part, why people don't all look alike. Most mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, they are neutral, at least in and of themselves. Mutations that are neutral for some number of generations may turn out to be either harmful or beneficial in future generations if something in the environment a population lives in drastically changes.
"it needs a lot of time and a lot of generations to "create" big changes in the organism."
The more reproduction that you have over a greater range of time, the more variation you have as result. What distinctive changes you have across a given population depends on what selective pressures are present in the environment; at one extreme you end up with complete extinction, at the other you end up with a population (or several distinct populations) that are recognizably descended from the original group yet are different organisms. An example of this is a group of lizards that were spread throughout a cluster of islands in the South Pacific a few decades ago; researchers recently went back to those islands to study their descendants and found that on each island the lizard population was different from the original "seed" population, and from each other, in ways that clearly indicated that speciation was occuring. They were diverging. Evolving. Exactly as our understanding of evolution predicts.
If both the changes in each generation are not sufficiently harmful to the population to cause massive die-offs, and the environment does not also because so drastically harmful, then the population will continue to increase and accumulate change. In the examples that you used, whales and elephants, the changes in these animals have in fact been fairly minor over the last several thousand years. If you go back tens of thousands of years you find that elephants drop to a meager handful of species after the last major glacial period with the extinction of the woolly mammoth. You'll find more info at this link - http://allelephants.com/allinfo/evol.php - which also points out that the actual scale you need to be thinking in is millions of years.
So, yes, your perception is wrong... but these are exactly the kinds of questions that lead to corrective data, so don't feel too bad.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 16, 2009 5:06 PM
I hate the way everyone here hacks, punches & jabs at the idea of 'worldviews'.
Philosophically, there is a very strong case for relativism, very strong indeed. Every scientist really should read Kuhn's 'The structure of scientific revolutions'. If you want to see relativism at its worst (or actually, best) read Goodman's 'Ways of worldmaking'.
Right now you mostly come across as scientists-doing-to-philosophy-what-creationists-do-to-TOE; it's not an especially pretty sight.
That being said, the ones who REALLY have no idea what relativism entails are the creationist simpletons we all love to hate. The next time they call 'Worldview' you can just come back at them with 'Wow, so you dont think there is any knowable truth to be found, anywhere? Can I quote you on this?' That should shut them up.
Posted by: fly44d | September 16, 2009 5:09 PM
Will be picking it up from my local independent bookshop (Bookshop Santa Cruz! "Keep Santa Cruz Weird!") as soon as I can. Then copies to my granddaughter and nephews soon after.
Posted by: Larsus | September 16, 2009 5:10 PM
A big "thank you" to everybody who cared to answer, especially Ichthyic (#116)! It seems my knowledge on the specifics was too superficial, I'm very satisfied with the explanations.
"that's 2.6 million generations between it and modern whales"
Wow, (now) knowing that whales and whale-like creatures have been around for so long is certainly enlightening. Thanks!
Posted by: AZ Geo | September 16, 2009 5:10 PM
I'll be headin' to the Barnes & Noble as soon as I get out of class on that day. I'm afraid my homework over the next few days will suffer a bit, but I'll learn more anyway!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 16, 2009 5:10 PM
That's Sean Pitman M.D.. Being a physician trumps being a lowly biologist or paleontologist in knowledge of evilution. He also single-handedly invented the fnar (or somesuch acronym) which completely refutes natural selection.
Posted by: James F | September 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Creationism really is like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, isn't it? Except that lots of people think that it's winning, despite the missing limbs.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Larsus,
That is a very good question, and one that I'm unqualified to explain in any great detail, but I'd advise you to read a bit about a species close to the last common ancestor of humans, chimps, and gorillas, Nakalipithecus nakayamai, discovered in 2005, and the likely divergence times between the groups based on 'molecular' clocks, both of which put our split at around 5-8 million years ago. Consider that both chimps and humans reach sexual maturity at around 12-15 years old, putting effective generation time at around 15-20 years, give or take. This means there are approximately 250,000 to 400,000 generations between you and I and the last ancestor between us and the other great apes.
Further, a recent study has suggested each of us carries between 100 and 200 single-point mutations (changes in your DNA from your parents'), meaning we've accumulated over 37,500,000 to 60,000,000 point mutations by that time. Consider that the human genome has only 3,000,000,000 base pairs, suggesting only a 1.25% to 2.00% difference between that ancestor and us. Double that (after all, the chimps and gorillas have been mutating at the same rates over the same time) and you get a 96-97.5% difference, which is about what we see today. (Remember, all it takes is one single point mutation from adenine to thymine to change glutamine (GAG) to valine (GTG), causing the gene for hemoglobin A to instead make hemoglobin S, the sickle-cell trait).
Of course, these are all back-of-the-envelope calculations which ignore a substantial amount of what we know about genetics, but I thought I'd throw out a few numbers to put it all in context.
Anyone, please feel free to correct my multiple mistakes here.
Posted by: justdisa | September 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Ordered my copy! Dawkins will be speaking at the University of Washington, here in Seattle on October 8th. It is FREE to go hear him, so I will definitely be there. You can get your disclaimer sticker for the inside cover here so you run no risk of confusing or offending your creationist friends and family members.
Posted by: Larsus | September 16, 2009 5:13 PM
You people are too fast for me, I cannot even follow all the answers :) (also, I'm missing an edit-button for previous comments)
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Larsus @ 103:
Dr. Sean Carroll's book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution , dedicates an entire chapter (#2) to your question about the adequacy of time for mutational rates to provide the morphological changes we discover through time.
We now possess observational rates of mutational changes in species and populations in various conditions, the latter factor is important given rates that are selected can vary based on environmental pressures. This DNA evidence independently validates the fossil evidence and the geological dating of those fossils. In fact the empirical evidence shows there is ample time for populations to evolve.
Posted by: Pope Pokey | September 16, 2009 5:14 PM
The problem with evolution deniers is that it's your word against theirs.
You can buy a library full of books and try to reach some common sense with a lot of efforts and patience, what you will get in return will be the same most of the time. At least there is enough to doubt about the credibility of the sources and John Doe knows about a scientist who thinks something different and bladibla.
In the worst case they do not read, listen, do anything but trying to reach you. Also with a lot of effort and patience. Their prime job is to save you. Anything you say or do is Ignored since it's false anyway. A trap of the devil even. No need to get into serious discussion, you are the one who is deluded and has such an open mind that your brains have fallen out. You should ignore the world, accept christ and make some donations to glorify it.
Religion is an overwhelming emotion people get addicted to. The mental equivalent to narcotics.
Posted by: SaintStephen | September 16, 2009 5:16 PM
A truly spirited call to arms, PZ Myers, in the only real meaningful sense of that word.
My sincerest thanks and admiration for writing it.
Posted by: Travis | September 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Akiko
I am not surprised to hear that, but pretty sad after reading it. When I went to school (this is in Canada) we also talked a lot about the history from that time to modern day but that was certainly not all that we did, our discussions of human history went back a very long way, and in other classes, much farther than human history.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 16, 2009 5:29 PM
I've been reading TGSOE. It's good. (We got it a few weeks earlier here in the UK,)
Jerry Coyne's WEIT is excellent, too.
Posted by: C.C. | September 16, 2009 5:29 PM
The actual debates in evolution today are as far behind the early efforts of Darwin and Mendel as Einstein was beyond Newton - and the sad thing here is that the fascinating details of heredity and development, the interactions between RNA, DNA, protein and the environment of the cell/organism - all that goes by the wayside and instead you have to debate some jackass who claims that by reading a little bit from Darwin, he's learned all he needs to know about evolutionary theory.
Modern evolutionary theory is complicated indeed, especially at the microbial and molecular levels. So, it requires a little background - but, likewise, if you don't understand how evolution works at some level, you'll never understand biochemistry in any depth either.
However, to simply ignore all that and screech, "Darwin was wrong!"... that's like someone trying to debunk Einstein by pointing out that Newton was wrong about a lot of things... ridiculous beyond belief, but that's the situation.
Even sadder, the poor creationists think that evolutionary scientists are in some kind of lock-step agreement - they simply can't conceive of how science operates, the basic uncertainties involved - they want knowledge that is indisputable and unchangeable. (Some atheists, even more sadly, think the same thing)
In this way, they miss out on everything that's going on around them - blinded to the very world they live in by their prejudices and preconceived notions. They're running blind, but they think they can see... now, that's a disaster in the making.
Posted by: Badger3k | September 16, 2009 5:30 PM
I'm sure Mooney will say that Dawkins should not have written the book, it should have been a "real" scientist (since I don't think Mooney has any idea of what a real scientist is, I put that in) who could frame things the correct way so as not to offend the stupid...I mean those with Other Ways of Knoowing. Maybe Josh can comment on how mean Dawkins is as well.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 5:36 PM
@Geds #111:
My nephew was really into the aquatic ape hypothesis when he was a teen. We all do stupid things when we are young, though. I myself once voted for the Reform Party of Canada. *Shakes head sadly.*
I recall that we devoted a substantial component of social studies to describing the cultures of the various groups that inhabited Canada before the Europeans, and this is in a province that acts as if history began with the drilling of Leduc No. 1.
Posted by: seks | September 16, 2009 5:38 PM
Eminim ki Mooney Dawkins'in kitabı olmamalıdır, bir "gerçek" bilim adamı olması gereken diyecekler kulüpler (çünkü sanmıyorum Mooney gerçek bir bilim adamı, ben koymak ne olduğuna dair herhangi bir fikri vardır içinde) ki olabilir kare şeyler doğru yolu çok aptal rahatsız değil..
Posted by: MadScientist | September 16, 2009 5:41 PM
Greatest Show On Earth was on the shelves in the Australian capital last weekend. I was shocked; non-fiction books are pretty rare in Canberra and intellectual books seem pretty rare overall in Australia (I spend thousands each year importing books since I came to Australia 16 years ago; if I'm lucky a big shop in Sydney or Melbourne might have a book I want). I still can't find "Why Evolution is True".
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | September 16, 2009 5:45 PM
Got it when it was first published in the UK a couple of weeks ago. I'm reading it slowly as a demonstration of my massive self control (ha!) plus I want to finish several other books first.
But for those that are interested, here are the chapter headings:
Chapter 1 Only a theory?
Chapter 2 Dogs, cows and cabbages
Chapter 3 The primrose path to macro-evolution
Chapter 4 Silence and slow time
Chapter 5 Before our very eyes
Chapter 6 Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'?
Chapter 7 Missing persons? Missing no longer
Chapter 8 You did it yourself in nine months
Chapter 9 The ark of the continents
Chapter 10 The tree of cousinship
Chapter 11 History written all over us
Chapter 12 Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy'
Chapter 13 There is a grandeur in this view of life
Appendix The history-deniers
The hardback has coloured pictures too: Basket ball players and a gorilla, the San Andreas Fault, stages in human development, and even tatoos, amongst many others. The pictures, diagrams, and illustrations are acknowledged.
Nature might be pitilessly indifferent, but life can be good.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 16, 2009 5:46 PM
Sean Pitman, M.D. SUPER GENIUS
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 5:47 PM
Turkish porn spam praising Dawkins and indicting Mooney?
This thread has evolved!
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 16, 2009 5:48 PM
"Nature might be pitilessly indifferent, but life can be good."
Beautiful!!!
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 5:49 PM
My copy is sitting on the coffee table, will read it just as soon as I finish reading Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis
Posted by: Travis | September 16, 2009 5:53 PM
Brownian,
And in my experience history in the west starts a fair bit later for many people. When I lived in Vancouver it sometimes felt like many people did not realize that Europeans had come to Canada more than 100 years ago. Being from the east coast this sometimes seemed rather weird.
We also talked a lot about the local and not so local aboriginal groups of Canada as well.
Gee, you voted Reform? I voted Reform in a fake election in grade 6 and still feel dirty and ashamed at having done it.
Posted by: BdN | September 16, 2009 5:55 PM
@Larsus
Puisque vous parlez vraisemblablement français, je vous conseille de jeter un coup d'oeil sur la vidéothèque numérique de l'enseignement supérieur, Canal-U :
http://www.canal-u.tv/themes/sciences_de_l_ingenieur/sciences_du_vivant/mutation_evolution_et_selection
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 6:00 PM
Own 3 of these (Prothero, Shubin, Coyne) and read two (YIF, WEIT). The two I have read were fantastic reads, Your Inner Fish was especially great.Posted by: G.D. | September 16, 2009 6:01 PM
#121: Kuhn's classic is mildly interesting, showing for instance that social mechanisms determine what questions scientists ask. Not very surprising from a modern point of view, but of course an important observation to keep in mind. He also points out that social mechanism will have effects on the acceptance rates of new ideas. Not very surprising either. He even argues that science works in fits and starts, involving 'revolutions' - major upheavals - followed by periods of 'normal science' working under the premise of the new theory. Not very surprising either; after all, when theories which has been in use for a while are discarded because of a build-up of recalcitrant data, it will create waves and perhaps even require that some of the main proponents of the old view retire before the new theory gets commonly accepted. OK; nothing particularly shocking there.
But sometimes Kuhn seems to want to argue something stronger, namely that not only are the questions scientists ask determined by social mechanisms, but that the answers they find are as well (in a non-trivial way). That we never get closer to the truth, we're just changing perspectives. That is post-modernist crackpottery, and Kuhn provides absolutely no support for this ridiculous view.
People shouldn't read Kuhn's dated and uninteresting book. On the other hand, everyone with some philosophical background and even a remotely intrigued by relativism should read Donald Davidson's classic "On the very idea of a conceptual scheme" from the early 1970s. Relativism has never been particularly popular in Anglo-American philosophy, and that classic paper is part of the reason.
Posted by: sailor1031 | September 16, 2009 6:02 PM
I don't suppose this will stop Mooney's whinging even though his thesis is now thoroughly refuted. Incidentally regarding scientists explaining science to the masses has anybody seen the youtube series on physics from Stanford U. featuring Leonard Susskind. Exactly what Mooney claims scientists don't do.
Posted by: co | September 16, 2009 6:08 PM
Unfortunately, though Susskind tries hard, I find him a horrible lecturer (have only seen several of the QM and GR lectures). He hand-waves his way through things that could properly be made rigorous (without losing any of the "intuition", and in many cases adding to it), and seems rather nervous to me, with lots of "Uh... anyway"s and sloppy reasoning.
Though Lewin's lectures are usually at a much lower level (MIT undergraduate physics), I much prefer him as a popularizer of the stuff (see, for example, http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-03Fall-2004/CourseHome/index.htm ).
Posted by: Abbadon | September 16, 2009 6:09 PM
It's not of protein domain evolution so who really cares?
Posted by: opaltiger | September 16, 2009 6:09 PM
I must say, I feel very smug sitting here with my two-week old UK edition. It is so very rare the UK (and by extension Europe) gets something nice before the US, I always have to enjoy it a little.
If you're not in the US, hush. I am having a moment of satisfaction.
Posted by: ATL-Apostate | September 16, 2009 6:09 PM
My pre-order from Amazon hasn't arrived yet.
grumble grumble grumble...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 16, 2009 6:12 PM
The reason why some sharks still look like their ancestors did 85 million years ago (and to a lesser extent 400 million years ago) is not some insanely low mutation rate. It is stabilizing selection: they've hit a winning formula in a largely stable environment, so any big changes are harmful and are selected against.
Rays, sawfish and the like are nested inside the shark group in the tree of life, showing that sharks are capable of very visible evolution. And you should see some of the Carboniferous through Triassic ones...
Posted by: BdN | September 16, 2009 6:12 PM
@Larsus (bis)
You could also take a look at the CNRS' page on the subject.
Posted by: kevin gallagher | September 16, 2009 6:16 PM
I'm halfway through and i swear i'll never have trouble arguing with creationists again, you know how sometimes they come up with stuff that you KNOW is inaccurate but you just don't know enough about the subject to argue properly? This book seems to answer all those kinds of arguments and he does it with style :D I just took my book to the library to have coffee and a read and came back home five hours later.
Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | September 16, 2009 6:19 PM
By the way PZ i had to give a HELL YEAH when i saw a post of yours referenced, your probably already down in the history books, as well you should be, but it MUST make you feel good seeing that :D
Posted by: Peter Kemp (Aussie Lawyer) | September 16, 2009 6:20 PM
That "worldview" schtick is simply a weaselword.
I always liked Lewis Black's take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4
Posted by: crispyfinger | September 16, 2009 6:20 PM
I'm about halfway through the book and I would recommend it to absolutely everybody.
We not only need a group of well informed individuals in any one nation but internationally. The problems here lie a lot deeper than it would at first appear.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 6:21 PM
Would you be able to go explain this concept to X-Lurker on the Dembski thread please?Posted by: maxamillion | September 16, 2009 6:24 PM
I am confued about the release date of this book, I did some checking and it is apparently available in supermarkets here.
http://catalogues.bigw.com.au/portal/offerdetails/the-greatest-show-on-earth-by-richard-dawkins/12528834462012?N=4294924703+4703&Nipp=45&source=search
$22.43! I might buy a couple of copies for xmas.
I will check it out today.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 16, 2009 6:32 PM
What, there's a cdesign proponentsist on a thread from August? But... but... I wanted to go to bed at a reasonable time "today"...
BTW, 85 Ma ago is in the Cretaceous, and 400 in the Devonian. Complete geological time chart here.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 16, 2009 6:38 PM
True. Remember, Alberta and Saskatchewan were part of the Northwest Territories up until 1905.
Yeah. I think I considered myself 'fiscally conservative' or some such crap at the time. Besides, I tend to have a bit of shit-disturber in me, so an upstart party had its appeal.
I'm so glad I grew up.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 16, 2009 6:39 PM
I have my copy pre-ordered right now off Amazon. :)
I also bought his "University of Intelligent Design Crocoducks" shirt to help drive the point home to any wandering IDiots.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 16, 2009 6:47 PM
kamaka & Tristan Croll - Larsus said "thousands of thousands." That equals "millions" :)
Carry on.
Posted by: el donaldo
|
September 16, 2009 6:49 PM
@ #121 I'd say, yes but. "Relativism" is really just a word you use when you want to call something bad. It's used to damn the poststructuralist denial of foundational truths. But it's possible to be antifoundationalist and not be relativist - and I think you're right that too many people jump away from poststructuralist lines of inquiry without recognizing that. The scientific method, for instance, is itself antifoundationalist, in that knowledge thus obtained is fallible. This is not to say that there isn't a real world out there that has a uniform, discoverable nature, only that there's always the awareness that our description may be followed by another that is more apt. So while the universe persists regardless, truth has to content itself with an only provisional certainty.
It doesn't profit much to read Kuhn anymore, but I still think it's worthwhile to go back and read C.S. Peirce. And then forward to Rorty. @ #148, I'll take that recommendation to read that Davidson article - I think I actually have that on the shelf somewhere.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 16, 2009 6:54 PM
el donaldo:
Yeah, I remember those kinds of folks when I was in undergrad in the early 1990s. Back then, at least at UC Berkeley, it was typically the left-wing-inclined, budding intellectuals pondering philosophical notions like "Truth is subjective," or "There really are no such things as knowledge or facts, only opinions." In my experience, those dabbling in such musings eventually matured and abandoned them upon realizing that, indeed, jumping in front of a bus traveling 55 mph was a good way to get smashed into a former living being. It's a fact, and they weren't going to challenge it.
Of course, at the moment, we're dealing with something far more nefarious, a staggeringly large collection of gleeful ignoramuses with their own pseudo-country: Know Knothing Knation
Its citizens, roughly 30% of the American population at large, deny not just evolution but the very concept of expertise. Who needs expertise when the deity has already given everyone the gift of gut feelings?
Staunchly anti-intellectual, the average citizen of Know Knothing Knation mistakes the marriage of ignorance and certainty for common sense, and will, in a manner that is simultaneously angry and happy, assert his conclusions on every subject from cosmology to international relations to Constitutional interpretation. Inexplicably obsessed with the sex lives of others, quick to judge, easily offended, cowardly, nativist and provincial, the average citizen is also the kind of person who has never traveled outside his home town or eaten anything but local cuisine, but who will nevertheless insist vehemently that his town and his food are not just best the world has to offer, but the best anyone anywhere possibly could offer.
The Know Knothing is pious, but his religion too is a cognitively dissonant blend of Christianity and gut feelings. Its Golden Rule: Jesus shares all my prejudices.
Know Knothing Knation's belief that its citizens are the only real Americans would be laughable if it had not already fortified a loose-weave authoritarian theocracy, whose grand edicts are pronounced from on-high by a quasi-monarch named Rash Limbo and dutifully propagated by lower officials. This pseudo-state also controls FUX Televison, an 24-hour Orwellian stream of propaganda and hedonistic fiction and reality TV.
Dr. Dawkins' latest book at least provides another weapon in our arsenal against Know Knothing Knation. It won't convince any of them, of course, but it will do wonders for the every day conversations of those of us who understand the basics of evolution, but neither the details nor the big picture.
Posted by: Meee | September 16, 2009 7:15 PM
The sad truth is that no matter how complete an argument is, there will be a way to argue against it, especially when someone has a vested interest in coming up with a counter argument.
We're all pretty sold on gravity, for example. No one is really sure how gravity works (to my knowledge, at least), as in the exact mechanics of it, but we're fully aware of the effects of gravity. We know that an object of a certain mass will exert a certain pull, and we know that if you stand in a park and drop a lead ball, it'll fall down.
And yet some people argue against it, with arguments ranging from "you can never be 100% sure that the lead ball won't float up one of the times you drop it" (which is technically true, we can never be 100% sure) to wishy washy arguments like "it's all a dream/simulation and gravity doesn't work like this in the real world" and so on. These arguments are impossible to disprove, and many people make these arguments (most as a thought exercise but I know of some people who believe it), and they always will.
A bunch of researchers could get together and compile the most remarkably detailed history of the universe imaginable, with a detailed explanation (complete with proof/evidence) of what happened at every point in space at every nanosecond of time leading up to the publishing of the research, and some smug religious bastard would sit back with a smirk and say "Ah, but God was there before time was created and set it in motion" or "god is beyond the ability of your instruments to measure", and it's impossible to disprove. And that person would have many, many followers.
Ignorance of the facts of evolution, of science in general, may be the reason a lot of people claim they're false (and thus believe in creationism or some variant). But I'm willing to bet that a large number of people have an underlying desire to believe in a god (or a faith system) for whatever deep routed reason they have (perhaps they simply don't wish to live in a "godless" universe and all it implies), and they'll latch on to whatever arguments they can to justify this belief.
The people who use current creationism arguments would believe in creationism whether the arguments existed or not. The beliefs come first, the rationalisation later. And people can rationalise literally anything if they want to.
Posted by: fly44d | September 16, 2009 7:17 PM
"mistakes the marriage of ignorance and certainty for common sense"
excellent.
Posted by: death adder | September 16, 2009 7:17 PM
@Larsus #103
A good article that begins to address your questions appeared in ars technica today. Titled "Five essential things to know about evolution" and you can find it at
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/five-essential-things-to-know-about-evolution.ars
I especially refer you to this paragraph from the article:
"A million years is a lot longer than we think it is
Evolution may take time, but there has been a lot more time available than most of us fully appreciate. The major evolutionary transitions, which took place over millions of years or more, still account for a tiny fraction of the history of life on earth. Most of us kind of know that, but it's difficult to really comprehensively understand what millions of years mean. All of recorded human history? That's less than a tenth of the time since modern humans left Africa. Which is only about a tenth of a million years. Which is less than a quarter of the time since our ancestors last canoodled with those of the chimps a bit over four million years ago.
All of recorded human experience is just a blink of an eye, and yet we've seen hundreds of extinctions, dozens of speciations, observed speciation happen in the lab, watched entire ecosystems change, and driven quite a lot of these changes ourselves. If you really have a grasp of evolutionary time, then the question isn't one of "did evolution result in the origin of species"—it's too easily obvious that it did. Instead, the relevant question becomes one of why it produced the species we now see. "
I hope that helps.
Posted by: Barry | September 16, 2009 7:23 PM
This is the most inspiring and motivational post I have yet to read here. It was almost as if it had somehow been plagiarized from some lofty discourse on science and philosophy which only the most elite of the elites had been privileged to hear. It just goes to show that some sentiments are indeed universal, remain lodged in your mind forever, and that all truly great minds think alike. The message is clear; we all have skills with which to fight the attack of anti-science and creationism, and our skills must be honed by study. And the books recommended here are in the forefront of this honing process. Anti-science and creationism may appear to be a handsome faced opponent, but it is not. Its ugliness must constantly be confronted. In a way, each of us has an El Guapo of anti-science and creationism to face. For some, shyness in speaking up for atheism and evolution might be their El Gaupo. For others, a lack of education in evolutionary biology might be their El Guapo. For us, the El Gaupo of anti-science and creationism is a big, dangerous movement of people who want to kill us. But as sure as my name is Barry, the people of Pharyngula can conquer their own personal El Guapo of anti-science and creationism, which also happens to be the actual El Guapo of anti-science and creationism. Read these recommended books, as I have, and fight! As I said, this essay is so supreme, so transcendent, that I was just sure that, like a universal expression of truth and rationality, I had heard all the major motivational points somewhere before. It really was that great.
Posted by: Tim | September 16, 2009 7:26 PM
It's not a book, but AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is also a great primer: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC. The most directly informative ones are in the middle with great videos about transitional fossils, cladistics, and positive mutations.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 16, 2009 7:27 PM
@ #166 I find I would agree with you more if instead of writing 'there's always the awareness that our description may be followed by another that is more apt' you could have stated that 'our description WILL be followed...'
Science never really stops, does it? You never actually reach the point where you're just filling in the last little details. And the scientific method itself keeps changing, too.
Erm... I think I'm disagreeing on the discoverable nature of the 'real world'.
I agree with you, however, that this does not necessarily lead to relativism, if that last term is understood as the idea that all worldviews (paradigms, what-have-you's) are equally valid. I think (and you probably don't) that all worldviews are equally true, but some are more valid than others in terms of elegance, consistency, inclusiveness etc.
Actually, I too have that Davidson paper lying around somewhere. I'll have to go read it now.
And to my very last breath I'll keep saying Goodman is preferable to Rorty
Posted by: rrt | September 16, 2009 7:31 PM
Looks like I was mistaken about the abridged UK audio version being available in the US on Audible. When I sign into my account, poof! No more Greatest Show. :( Must be blocking it to US customers. So a few more days for you privileged Brits to gloat, I guess...
Posted by: Radwaste | September 16, 2009 7:36 PM
Those of you having trouble with answering a creationist about why they should learn before they speak can quote one of "theirs". About 1600 years ago, Saint Augustine - Augustine of Hippo - had this to say about evangelists who open their mouths without knowing what they were saying:
I call this, "Saint Augustine's Lament".
Posted by: Ravenred | September 16, 2009 7:36 PM
Coincidentally got my copy yesterday. I'm only about 100 pages in, but it's a lovely, gentle, uplifting ride.
I'm an interested layman in terms of biology, although I'm generally fine with the concepts, the way in which Dawkins iluminates them is expertly graduated.
Highlights so far:
- the essential rabbit versus the genetic cloud of rabbit
- the evolutionary hairpin
- insects and flowers directing the course of each other's evolutions
Highly recommended. I'm going to have to see whether or not I'm actually game to pass this on to my creationist sister-in-law...
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 16, 2009 7:42 PM
@168 To the best of my knowledge (which admittedly doesn't amount to much) we USED TO 'know that an object of a certain mass will exert a certain pull', but for quite a while now we know that objects do not exert any pull - they curve the space around them. Which probably would have made Newton scratch his head very vigorously.
It certainly baffles me.
And yet, I seem to 'know' it.
I keep thinking the nature of this 'knowing' is quite problematic!
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 7:44 PM
Almost finished reading it, and what struck me most so far is the open and unashamed ridicule of creationists, what he calls the "history deniers", on almost every page.
It's really a new quality.
Good book !
Posted by: Cath the Copycat Canberra Cook | September 16, 2009 7:47 PM
MadScientist, that's crazy talk. Even boring old Borders has a huge non-fiction collection. Just avoid A&R and Dymocks for browsing - although even they will have a big name like Dawkins. Personally I prefer Abbeys, in Sydney, which is on line and has an amazing range. Prices can be high in some cases, but availability is rarely an issue. Kinokuniya in Sydney is also good, but I like to support local independents.
Oh, and I read it 2 weeks ago. Good book, but Pharyngula had too many spoilers for it :)
Posted by: raven | September 16, 2009 7:49 PM
1. Mutation rates aren't that low. Humans pick up 150 mutations or so each generation. What is rate limiting seems to be not mutation rate, but selection pressure.
2. A species that produces less than 2 offspring/generation will go extinct. Replacement in humans is 2.2. You can see how that works, Hint, Males don't have babies.
3. You are correct that large, slowly reproducing species should evolve slower. They are also at high risk of extinction. 8 of 10 current species will go extinct, one will leave a successor, and 1 will split.
4. Thousands of years? Think big. The biosphere is 3.7 billion years old. We split from the common ancestor chimp-human 6 million years ago. The average species lasts between 1-10 million years.
Posted by: Last Hussar | September 16, 2009 8:01 PM
I'd like to correct one post- we didn't get it early, the US is getting it late.
Couple of weekends ago wandered into Waterstones (Looking for book on uniforms from the 18th Century) and this was on promotion. Hardback £10. Had only been out two days. I've got to the bit about e.coli and irreducable complexity, and the fish, but it's been on hold while I finished "Superior Saturday".
It is a book for laymen- no previous knowledge is needed. Dawkins even flags up when things are going to get complicated, and so when it would be a good time to stop if reading late at night!
What PZ is smugly not revealing is that he is referred to as a "Blogwit".
I also suggest "How Mumbo-Jumbo took over the World" by Francis Wheen, where he exposes the idiocy of new-agers, creationists, Comp-Therapy and post-modernists ( Did you know E=MC2 is sexist because it prioritises the masculine E over other more feminine formulae?) It would be nice for an updated edition so he can point at Birthers, Tenthers and Teabaggers.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 16, 2009 8:01 PM
Depending on the definition of "species".
It's 2 AM, so I won't go into that again... depending on the definition, there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico... :-)
Posted by: marc buhler | September 16, 2009 8:01 PM
Three to four years ago I was quite involved in the Talk Origins newsgroup (as I had been for the decade on and off before that).
Sean Pitman and I had a several month long argumant in T.O. about his use of "antibody evolution" being flawed as proof that evolution was flawed, and after Google changed the newsreader and I (and many other readers) were tired of the discussion, I dropped out of T.O.. (I also had my kids teaching me to play RuneScape and I found it far less frustrating than trying to communicate with "Dr." Pitman.)
The heart of Sean and my debate about antibodies is this:
The antigen binding site of an antibody, after a B-cell has been activated to express that antibody, can undergo specific mutation to "fine tune" the immune response, a process called "somatic hypermutation". This directed mutation (specific mechanisms focus the changes within the antigen binding region, not elsewhere in the antibody molecule) allows B-cells to produce daughter cells with improved antigen binding. Some aspect of this was "flawed" in Seans mind, and he thus - in his web site - was claiming it as proof "evolution" (itself) was flawed.
Antibody binding sites - and the sites on T-cell receptors for MHC-antigen complexes - are *not* encoded in the vertebrate genome directly. Using "somatic hypermutation" as an example of evolution has the flaw that it is not a part of "mainstrean evolution" at all; like a cell in most any tissue of the body apart from reproductive stem cells, any genetic changes in a cell do not get passed to future generations. The "evolution" of an immune response can be used as a model of evolution itself, but it is not "evolution itself", and any shortcoming of antibody mutations Sean so blindly is fixated on really means nothing as far as evoluton at a genomic level goes.
I shudder to think that Sean's web page will contain much the same flaw as it did 4 years ago, but I guess I expect no less.
Binding sites of B- and T-cells are the one real advantage vertebrates have over pathogens, one which can not be hijacked at a genomic level by a pathogen as all possible binding sites are generated by lineage specific recombination events in the precursor cells. It may amuse some here that it took genomic integration of a bit of viral sequence to help kick off the "adaptive" aspect of immunity at the dawn of vertebrate evolution.
Genes for "antibodies" and T-cell receptors consist of several segments and even random nucleotides, which are brought together so a "constant region" segmant and one of the many "variable region" segments have a cluster of small segmants ("diversity" and "joining" ones) and those random nucleotides are all formed into "an antibody gene", albeit a gene not in the genome for future generations of that species. The fact that "future generations" of daughter B-cells may carry that "antibody gene" or an "evolved" version of it can not be used as "proof" of some flaw in evolution as Sean tried (tries?) to do.
Since I have worked in immunogenetics for like three decades now, I will comment here one way that "information" regarding antibody binding can pass between generations, even if no gene is passed itself. The binding site of an antibody - the "idiotype" - can itself be an "antigen", so if breast milk expressed antibodies are seen by an infant's immune system there could be an "anti-idiotype" mirror-image response. At some point, the "anti-idiotype" itself becomes seen as an antigen, and the resulting "anti-anti-idiotype" gets expressed and thus contains the binding information that was expressed in the mother's immunity.
Sean may have some understanding of haematology but his immunogenetics is woeful.
Posted by: SerenAur | September 16, 2009 8:02 PM
Thanks for the reminder, PZ, even after watching Richard Dawkins on Newsnight last week I somehow had not got around to buying TGSOE.
I'm now carrying around a marker pen at all times after seeing a bus with an advert for Alpha courses. It has the question "Does God exist?" and tick boxes for Yes, No and Probably. And there's another one with the question "Is this it?" - also with Yes, No and Probably tick boxes!
Posted by: Last Hussar | September 16, 2009 8:04 PM
Oh, and may I suggest people answering Larsus check for condescending tone. He's asked an honest question, and is willing to listen, in a second language.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 16, 2009 8:09 PM
Importantly, somatic hypermutation is just that – increased mutation rates triggered by DNA repair enzymes that work away at random. It results in lots and lots of B and T strains that bind to who knows what.
The next step is... wait for it... selection: those that don't recognize anything commit apoptosis (they're selected against); those that recognize the body's own antigens too strongly commit apoptosis (they're selected against); and those that (later) recognize foreign antigens multiply (they're selected for).
Posted by: Revyloution | September 16, 2009 8:10 PM
As a layman, I resent the suggestion that I would waste my valuable time watching sports on television.
On a positive note, the nice lady who makes me coffee has switched to the side of reason in this fight. When I first met her, she was firmly against evolution, and leaned towards a young earth. For over two years our brief 10 minute conversations, and with the help of 'Your Inner Fish', caused her to accept the reality of an old Earth and common decent.
It wasn't all torture for me, she makes great coffee!
Posted by: bullofthewoods | September 16, 2009 8:28 PM
You can explain evolution to the creationists,but you can't comprehend it for them.
Posted by: Katkinkate | September 16, 2009 8:48 PM
I saw a small display of the book (paperback) at the local Angus and Robertson bookshop while I was waiting to see a movie last week and bought it. Still reading it.
Posted by: marc buhler | September 16, 2009 9:14 PM
David (@186),
Yes, selective forces in adjusting the overall immune repertoire through sub-clones of particular antibody motifs is a very darwinian mechanism.
That it does or does not due something expected or allowed in evolution itself can in no way be used as a fatal flaw for evolution, but that was the heart of Sean's argument (for this example - "antibody evolution" - his other topics have their own misunderstandings).
A darwinian model of antibody responses in a vertebrate (with no input into the gene pool for the species) has no validity being used as a requirement for Darwin's Theory to be correct. Sean should one day grasp this. One hopes.
Posted by: Cath the Copycat Canberra Cook | September 16, 2009 9:35 PM
MadScientist, that's crazy talk. Even boring old Borders has a huge non-fiction collection. Just avoid A&R and Dymocks for browsing - although even they will have a big name like Dawkins. Personally I prefer Abbeys, in Sydney, which is on line and has an amazing range. Prices can be high in some cases, but availability is rarely an issue. Kinokuniya in Sydney is also good, but I like to support local independents.
Oh, and I read it 2 weeks ago. Good book, but Pharyngula had too many spoilers for it :)
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | September 16, 2009 9:42 PM
It was bound to happen, multiple slothrops popping up here and there. That's the way it is with tyrone slothrops.
Posted by: raven | September 16, 2009 9:43 PM
Sean's version of evolution was just a strawman with a blanket thrown over it. It was not correct.
He didn't understand antibiotic resistance evolution very well. Kept calling it low level simple minded evolution. Some is just point mutations changing the affinity of an antibiotic for a target.
Much of the clinically relevant antibiotic resistance is far more complicated. Antibiotic resistance determinants get packaged into transposons, hop onto self transmissable plasmids and appear wherever selection occurs.
The whole process is a long evolutionary trajectory involving the determinants themselves, being made into transposons, and hopping onto plasmids that may contain 10 other drug resistance genes. The vanR determinants themselves are operons with 7 genes, 3 essential, the rest regulatory. The end result is a 7 gene operon, 2 transposons encoding transposases, and a plasmid.
Nothing low level about the whole process. This is basic medicine he should know. I suspect he does know and just chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit his model. Really, is creationism worth it if one has to lie a lot? I think not, the fundie cultists obviously disagree.
Posted by: Barry | September 16, 2009 9:46 PM
I fully agree with the several previous posts that talk of a “world view” is a dead giveaway that you are conversing with a dimwitted creationist opponent. One of my most admired scientists is the late ethologist Konrad Lorenz. He had a most beautiful way of scientifically expressing himself in his own native language, and on several occasions stated that the most moving experience of his life was to have personally persuaded one of his students to embrace what Lorenz called his Weltanschauung. By that he meant the same outlook based on reason and evidence that he and all scientists share, and that all of us here share too. We need to start confronting these idiots, follow the lead of Lorenz, and whenever they start talking about their silly concept of a “world view” just say that we don’t use that meaningless notion; we have a our own way of expressing our perception of the world, and it’s our Weltanschauung. I bet that will throw them in a tizzy.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 10:04 PM
That's odd, because I picked up Why Evolution Is True from Dymocks in Tuggeranong. Cost me a pretty penny but it was worth it.These days I use http://www.booko.com.au - shopping online is cheaper and easier than going to actual stores.
Posted by: cmflyer | September 16, 2009 10:12 PM
Teach ENSI activities, biology teachers! I've "wedged" some major fundies with these.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 10:14 PM
"Why evolution is true" is available in Melbourne in all the major stores(so is "Darwin's black box" lol).I find A&R actually the best of the lot wrt science books, especially Dymocks is rubbish.
Another great thing about TGSOE i thought were the color photos, amazing stuff.
Wonder if as many people will find Pharyngula via this book, as happened after TGD(including myself).
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 10:22 PM
One of my most admired scientists is the late ethologist Konrad Lorenz.
mine too. Rarely gets a mention any more, unfortunately.
My graduate prof was a student of his early on; gave me a copy of King Solomon's Ring. Such overwhelming curiosity attached to such a keen mind. Great book for those who've never read it, btw.
Still, I think the thing that really attracted me about Lorenz was that in addition to being a decent scientist, he was a great naturalist in general.
Probably also why I was attracted to Steinbeck's portrayal of Ed F Ricketts when I was younger. Ricketts was another great naturalist.
Even though I think it might be impossible to do these days, I find myself still trying to make being a naturalist work to a greater or lesser extent as a career.
I think I get more pleasure out of teaching a young child the wonders of a tidepool than I ever got out of any of the papers I managed to publish.
damn, but that does sound sappy though.
*redface*
Posted by: Wretch Fossil | September 16, 2009 10:31 PM
Why read the book after the myth is totally disproven by my article at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2009/09/carboniferous-human-leg-bone.html
Why follow the pipe piper after he is exposed in
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=13&f=1588690160&p=69
Note 1: first link takes you to an article evidencing there were human femur/skull cap 300 million years ago.
Note 2: second link shows Mr. PZ MyerS erred in claiming Mr. Ed Conrad's specimen EC96-001 is a concretion,without any trace of fossil bone.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 10:35 PM
Yawn, WF still wasting his time here? ZZZZZZ
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 10:37 PM
holy crap, did someone blow up the insane asylum or something?
seems like we've been inundated with the mentally ill the last couple of days.
got any more Mars fossils, wretch?
Posted by: Odonata | September 16, 2009 10:42 PM
I sure wish the US didn't have to wait so long to get Richard Dawkins' new book. After reading PZ's post, I'm more eager than ever to read the new book! Richard Dawkins is truly amazing; he can write books so eloquently yet at such a fast pace. Once I start reading his books I always have a hard time putting them down to go to bed!
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 10:55 PM
17 years I spent teaching city kids about the natural world at a school camp in a state forest, leading kids through the process of discovery. Easily the most fulfilling job I've ever had.
Didn't pay squat, though, it was a labor of love.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 16, 2009 11:05 PM
I got a $25 gift card for Angus & Robertson on my birthday; their website says it's $28.95 so I'll I've got to do is shell out four measly buck and it's mine.
Well, assuming I ever remember to bring the blasted card to work with me it will...
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | September 16, 2009 11:15 PM
Wretch:
Yeah...so, how was the dating done, again?
You sure it wasn't an aquatic ape or somethin'? I especially love how there's a picture of the package it arrived in (as if that's connected, somehow...)
I'm assuming you're a Vedic creationist then?
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | September 16, 2009 11:18 PM
...in a plain brown package w/handwritten names & addresses. Yeah, every earth-shaking discovery that rocks the scientific world gets sent discretely like porn to a parochial school.
Posted by: Adrian | September 16, 2009 11:27 PM
The broad, negative connotations you use when describing people of religious faith (especially in your opening paragraph) really turn me off to what you have to say. Be wary of your unwavering convictions. There is importance and respectability in both scientific and religious reasoning. It is also foolish to generally assume that creationists are ignorant of biology. Rather, they have no faith in it as a fundamental explanation of how life works. They may view biology as a naive theory the same way you view their faith in higher power as naive. I tend to side with both, and neither extreme. None of mankind's "proofs" are without their gaps and flaws.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 11:44 PM
really turn me off to what you have to say.
and yet you read it anyway.
point, PZed.
There is importance and respectability in both scientific and religious reasoning.
Theologians have been trying to prove that for eons.
they've failed.
miserably.
It is also foolish to generally assume that creationists are ignorant of biology.
you mean unintentionally or willfully?
based on their arguments, it actually does have to be one or the other (it's a simple fact), so you only get to argue legitimately that it's the latter case, as it's quite possible that various creationists HAVE been exposed to some kind of biology of one kind or another, and deliberately play ignorant in order not to disturb their irrational worldviews.
Rather, they have no faith in it as a fundamental explanation of how life works.
assuming you mean "explain the variability in life we see" and not how it works (that's a different issue), nobody ever asked them to. It speaks for itself, again, if one chooses NOT to be deliberately ignorant of the tens of thousands of case studies showing that it does.
They may view biology as a naive theory the same way you view their faith in higher power as naive.
I view your knowledge of what I know about unicorns to be naive.
I tend to side with both, and neither extreme.
then you're both lying to yourself, AND playing the fallacy of the golden mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
it really is a case of demonstrating what works, and what doesn't, to both explain the world around us and be able to make useful predictions.
the reason for the success of science itself, and the Theory of Evolution in particular, is that it simply works.
religion?
not so much.
there really is no fictional middle ground.
Religion explains nothing, makes no reliable predictions, has no practical material use.
at best, you could call it a social meme utilized for group cohesiveness.
But then, I prefer sports myself for that.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 17, 2009 12:04 AM
In all my time "debating" creationists, I haven't seen a single one who knew how natural selection works or what a transitional form is. They don't know understand descent with heritable modification or common descent. Many equate evolution with the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe. They have no idea what predictions are made in evolutionary theory, what experiments and observations have satisfied these predictions - and then proclaim that evolution is unscientific!The worst part about it is that the creationists don't even want to learn, they use their straw man version of evolution even after being tirelessly corrected my multiple people who spend hours of their time having to correct the misinformation about the theory just to be able to have the chance for providing evidence for it. The attacks are ideological in nature so no matter how many times you correct them, they aren't even willing to learn what they are arguing against. The same straw man arguments appear time after time.
Again, not a single creationist I've come across has been able to when asked give a definition has even come close to explaining what evolution is or how it works. So I don't buy your argument that creationists are ignorant of biology. Even more so because most of the population is ignorant of scientific theories in general so why should that change for a population who reject the universally-accepted cornerstone of biology?
Posted by: Kendo | September 17, 2009 12:16 AM
A friend of mine just bought "Your Inner Fish" and says he's enjoying it immensely. I'm going to buy TGSOE and swap with him when we're finished.
Barry@171,
Would you say we have a plethora of El Guapo?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 17, 2009 12:18 AM
They may indeed. But it doesn't mean that we live in this happy cultural relativistic reality where the truth lives in a happy middle ground between two opposing sides. One side can simply be wrong.Think of it this way: imagine the argument was not about evolution but about a round earth orbitting the sun. The flat earth geocentrists could as fiercely believe in their argument as strong as the heliocentrists, but it doesn't mean that both sides are looking at the same evidence under different perspectives. One side is simply wrong - in this case the flat earthers.
So creationists can view evolution as "just another explanation" and think it requires as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does in special creation. But science doesn't work that way. In science, validity is not expressed by opinion but by empirical evidence and reasoning. Creationists can call evolution a faith all they like, but the fact of the matter is that evolution is a scientific theory that has empirical validity.
Cultural relativism is nonsense, it's a vacuous idea that doesn't have a place when talking science. If someone expressed that their computer worked on magic smoke while the scientists said it was the passing of electricity through semi-conducters arranged in such a way to make logic gates the truth doesn't lie in the middle. Science works, and no matter if you think those who support science are in a position of faith too, it doesn't change the fact that science works!
Posted by: whydowebelieve | September 17, 2009 12:20 AM
Agreed! The creationist and apologetic types cannot survive an educated populace.
Posted by: Cody Pfeiffer | September 17, 2009 12:41 AM
i am a very intellectual 17 year old, if i may, with a compulsive obsession for science. most interest in the field of physics, space, and biology. (i say intellectual even tho im not capitalizing or using correct punctuation, who cares, its the internet)
First off, i do not see how anyone cannot believe in evolution? its in front of our eyes, if evolution was not here, neither would you be, neither would this thread. the internet evolves, mammals evolve, stars evolve through diff. stages. For example: take an adult male from the...1700's? now look at the amount of hair on his arm. (or for a real-time reference, look at an elder, such as grandparent) he is much more likely to have a greater amount of hair on his arms than our generation will on theres. why is that? over time the human race made clothing to protect our health from "harsh weather", so to say. over time our bodies got used to that and produced less hair because of our "helping"? cant think of a word. thats just a very very small example. daily i get in arguments with very religious people about the belief of religion. i can go very deep, with many facts. i want to form a "committee", i really wish whoever has the will power to take this up and get a hold of me on my email to do so. I respect all beliefs, but will argue for my own, not to put anyone down, but to let there mind expand ..expand into conversations never heard of or thought before. my great uncle edward pendray help invent the very first liquid propelled rocket with an intelligent team of scientists including dr.goddard, my goal is to create the very first time ever there was peace and no war. the only way this can be achieved is through our beliefs. after all, what are we fighting over? besides money and religion? the oceans? lol, we are all on one world, at the rate we are going we are all dead! cant we figure this out? work together as a one world nation, and pursue everyones dreams, advancing far into space colonization and immunity to most common factors of death. its simple, people just dont understand.
Thanks for reading this.
(p.s., did DAWKINS thoughts on evolution , evolve from DARWINS thoughts on evolution? dawkins? darwin?)
CODY PFEIFFER
Posted by: kamaka | September 17, 2009 12:45 AM
Hey Cody,
You are all mixed up on cause and effect.
Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2009 12:51 AM
I've already got the book... but I don't get to unwrap it and read it until my birthday on the 22nd. Stupid birthday, I would have already read it if not for my birthday.
Rarrr... grumble grrr.
Posted by: raven | September 17, 2009 12:54 AM
Yeah, they are. Just dumb as fence posts.
Also ignorant of astronomy, geology, archaeology, and all other sciences and history as well.
Very few even know what is really in the bible or understand xian theology.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 17, 2009 12:59 AM
If you were intelligent, you'd have consistent capitalization of the personal pronoun since is obligated in English. Furthermore, you'd see that there is substantial evidence for evolution. Seriously what's with the appeal to authority crap. As if we care.
Blind much? I mean we've got transitional fossils and microbes constantly changing and becoming resistant to antibiotics.
I think what you are saying is that clothes should eleminate body hair. Your sentances are coherant for me to make sure.
But I'll answer. Just because we have technological adaptation does mean the trait is just going to puff out of the population. Body hair may have other advantages, such as cooling us down by trapping moisture, that allowed for it be sexually selected for. It is also a symbol of "manhood", which gave it sexual preference when women chose mates and therefor propagated.
This usaully means "your beliefs are like mine, let me convert you."
The rest of your dribble is irrelevant to the discussion and a bit creepy.
Posted by: kamaka | September 17, 2009 1:00 AM
(i say intellectual even tho im not capitalizing or using correct punctuation, who cares, its the internet)
By the way, you're visiting an internet site where intellectual niceties such as spelling and grammer are required if you want to be *taken seriously* as a very intellectual 17 year-old.
Just sayin'
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 17, 2009 1:01 AM
Whops, I meant to say
silly me.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 17, 2009 1:14 AM
Adrian:
A point of rhetoric that might matter if you were the target audience of this blog. You're not, and Dr. Myers is not trying to persuade the likes of you.
Oh, the delicious irony of so admonishing a passionate advocate of the scientific method. It's the same irony I feel when skeptics are implored to be "open minded."
No, there isn't. (I need not back my retort with argument, since you offered no arguments for your assertion.)
Dr. Myers is a professor of biology at a university and lectures around the country. He has run across multitudes of creationists. He's assuming nothing.
Religious beliefs are not on an equal footing with scientific beliefs just because people happen to believe them. Scientists and people of faith may each think the other is naive, but there is no equivalency. One of them, and only one of them, happens to be correct.
Run for office; you're poised for a great career. Just leave the thinking to people who know how. The truth is not always equidistant from two opposing points of view.
And by the way, I'd appreciate it if people like you would stay off my juries. Just because the prosecutor argues that my client is guilty of murder, and I argue that he is not, does not mean that my client is guilty of manslaughter.
Duh. If they were, scientists would have to pack it up, and go home. With every advance in scientific theory, someone will successfully challenge the theory at its margins. And improve the theory thereby.
But, in no way does this compel the conclusion that the belief that life on planet Earth is a product of millions of years of evolution through natural selection must be on equal footing with the belief that all life on planet Earth was farted out the ass of an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible elephant on July 23, 600 B.C.
One is a belief based on mountains of evidence accumulated over more than a century by people willing to change their minds if the evidence so required, and the other is just barking mad.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2009 1:29 AM
actually I like to HIDE
says the crazy dude who posts ALL OVER THE INTERNET.
Posted by: Anne | September 17, 2009 1:57 AM
As an atheist layperson, I enjoyed the book enormously and got a lot out of it. I will be encouraging everyone I know to read it. None of my friends or family members are creationists in need of re-educating, but I figure the more widely this knowledge is disseminated, the better.
I also loved his opening analogy about the Latin teacher who has to expend all their energy trying to convince the class that the romance actually existed. My background is in history, so it really brought the problem to life for me in a whole knew way.
Posted by: me | September 17, 2009 3:39 AM
"Read and understand, please; we've already got enough idiots who claim to have read them and didn't grasp anything in them."
Having looked at all the words in a book in approximate sequence does not mean you've read it per se.
Posted by: DebinOz | September 17, 2009 4:38 AM
Amazon.com obviously knows what I read. It sent me a suggestion for this book a while ago. I am just amassing a big book order, and then my order will be placed.
Maybe I'll get multiple copies.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 17, 2009 5:29 AM
@ 192: that's the way it is, indeed...
Most gave up long ago trying to hold him together, even as a concept- "It just got too remote," 's what they ususally say.
(sorry, there was no way I could resist using that quote)
@ 194 Your last sentence but one is a bit confusing, gramatically. Maybe that's why I don't really see the point of replacing 'World view' with its German translation. Are you saying that the dimwitted creationists will be dumbfounded by their ignorance of foreign languages, or what?
Anyway, though I prefer to speak of "worlds" or "world versions", sometimes an unguarded "world view" does slip out, and I resent being lumped in with the Dim-Witted Creationists.
There are some very rare instances where the phrase "world view" does not betray a DWC opponent but rather a (excuse me) Bright-Witted Irrealist brother in arms.
We really should unite against the common enemy.
The Judean People's Front.
(sorry, couldn't resist that one either)
Posted by: Rorschach | September 17, 2009 6:04 AM
@ 223,
Romans even....
:-)
Posted by: the heretic | September 17, 2009 6:04 AM
Yes we know that evidence will never be enough for the faithheads but what I can never get my head around is the self-delusion that springs from this. These people are lying for jesus and they seem to be perfectly happy with this. I've had many a 'debate' with these people and have corrected them on misinformation - for example human footprints in the coal measures is a common one used by jehovas witnessess but they are always able to lie and cheat their way from facing facts. If they really believe in a supernatural being would he really like to be defended by such underhand methods.
Posted by: agenoria
|
September 17, 2009 6:38 AM
SerenAur @ 184
I just came back from the library with a copy of Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. There was one of the "Does God Exist?" ads on the side of the bus and someone had ticked "No".
I was reading TGSOE in the park last week and when I got to the bit about insects not being able to see red, but can see UV, I went to the formal gardens. There were red and yellow varieties of the same flower. The yellow flowers had a yellow centre - and so did the red. There weren't many insects in either. Most of the bees were in the purple flowers ;) (BTW I know anecdotes aren't data and there is far more to pollination.)
Posted by: Mike W | September 17, 2009 7:05 AM
El Donaldo @2: "There seems to be a growing conception that human knowledge is something that you can pick and choose from, as if it were a lifestyle."
It's like those who walk out into traffic thinking they're safe because human law says the truck must stop for them. Unfortunately for them Newton's Laws trump human law.
Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2009 7:07 AM
Here is an exceptionally good set of four youtubes of a recent BBC programme with Richard Dawkins, Ruth Padel (g/g/gd of Darwin) and Margaret Atwood (author).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO8YjqEXCLM
The programme discusses the new Dawkins book, Darwin film and touches on Atwood's new book on a related theme.
Paul
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 17, 2009 8:22 AM
WooHoo! Just got back from some late night shopping (Melb, Aus) where I stumbled across TGSoE in Target for $22.75. Right out on special display in the middle of the aisle. Got me some socks, jocks and Dawk's!
With Phil Plait's DftS on the way from Amazon my commute reading is looking great for the next few weeks!
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 17, 2009 9:08 AM
I'm glad I ordered my copy from the UK, there's only paperback on sale in the land of Oz while the copy I bought is hard-cover.
Posted by: latsot | September 17, 2009 9:22 AM
I've read it twice. It's even better than I expected.
Most of the reviews (from non-scientists) I've seen for the book are vaguely negative: I don't think they appreciate why books like this are so badly needed and I suspect they bought into the "Dawkins is strident" bullshit before they even opened the book. Either that or they feel they can't write a review without a negative comment so they pick on his much-vaunted and in no way evident shrillness. The book doesn't pull any punches. From the first paragraph it puts creationists in their place and doesn't apologise in the least for doing so. But when your argument is based on evidence, this isn't an insult. It wasn't meant as such and in my opinion doesn't come across as such. He's saying "you creationists are either ignorant or lying, here's why."
The way Dawkins spells out the evidence, gives exactly as much technical information as is needed and, above all, links everything together as a consistent story is masterful.
There have been comments on various forums by people who recently read WEIT and wondering if they should read TGSOE now or maybe wait for a bit. Read it now.
Read it now even if you've just read WEIT. Read it now even if you've just read TGSOE.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 17, 2009 10:41 AM
Not in my experience, or PZs, or those of several other people who have already mentioned this here.
I contend that every single creationist in the world doesn't even know that 95 % of the evidence even exists.
If you have faith in science, you're doing it wrong.
Naive, or theory?
"Theory", you see, is a technical term. It applies to well-tested overarching explanations, like the theory of general relativity, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift.
Science cannot prove, only disprove.
Suppose we discover the truth. How do we find out that what we have discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?
Ehem.
Emphasis mine.
No, seriously, fuck all this crap. It's unreasonable to expect anyone except certain kinds of nerd to master the English spelling system, which contains up to 15 % irregularities that have to be learned by rote. I'll answer Cody's questions later.
Butterflies can see red.
===============
Konrad Lorenz was a… complicated personality. During WWII, he wrote stupid race crap. Afterwards, he clearly became more reasonable, but always stayed on the right edge of the political mainstream, and it seems he never quite got over the basic assumptions lying behind the "pure race" concept. Maybe he qualifies as a Type III antihero.
And I, too, don't see how "Weltanschauung" differs from "worldview". Perhaps you can manage to interpret some tiny philosophical difference into it, because the former is derived from "looking at" as opposed to "seeing", but I doubt that.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 17, 2009 10:53 AM
They do make reading a lot easier, however.
Category error. Do you believe in gravity…?
Nope.
Evolution is defined as descent with heritable modification. Stars and the Internet don't reproduce or inherit.
Because you haven't looked at enough people to get a statistically significant sample size together.
What you wrote here is complete and utter nonsense. The amount of hair isn't decreasing.
No. In the savanna, those with shorter body hair can sweat more effectively, so they have an easier time surviving and having children. Clothing came later, when people entered colder regions.
Are you sure you're 17 years old and not 7?
I mean, I do think we're coming closer and closer to that goal. Just look at the EU. But… do have a bit more patience.
Some of us just want to be a War President™…
It's not simple. It's hard work.
In a very loose sense, maybe…
Is that a pun on their names?
You already told us your name. I don't see what the point is in repeating it. And I especially don't see what the point is in SHOUTING it – if you're 17 years old in 2009, you can't tell me you didn't know all-caps means shouting on the Internet.
Posted by: Snc735 | September 17, 2009 11:09 AM
Pre-ordered my hard cover copy today! Can't wait to get started on it!
Posted by: Lily | September 17, 2009 11:29 AM
The Greatest Show on Earth comes out just in time for my birthday. I've been dropping a lot of hints, so hopefully come next Saturday I will have a copy of it.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 17, 2009 11:43 AM
Adrian (#207)
Name one important, respectable thing religion provides that can't be found elsewhere.
If they (and you) consider acceptance/understanding of biology a matter of faith, that is evidence that they (and you) are ignorant.
They may, but they'd be wrong. Biology's theories are supported by empirical evidence and independent confirmation whereas faith in god is supported only by experiential evidence (the sort that supports any religious belief and can't be confirmed), lying, bullying, rewriting of history, exploiting psychology, and other things that serve to cover up the inability of religion to provide an accurate representation of reality.
Well, congratulations on being a spineless, ignorant fence-sitter.
Flaws in science does not in any way mean that religion bears equal or complementary explanatory power. It's possible for science to work imperfectly and religion to work not at all.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 17, 2009 11:45 AM
Kel (#211)
So long as it's kept as a means of investigating and explaining beliefs and practices in relation to their culture of origin, it's both useful and harmless. When someone takes that extra step and says that we can't judge a belief or practice because it makes sense to the people of a particular culture, then it's being misused. (And yes, I'm aware I'm possibly in the minority in considering this a misuse. I'm arrogant that way. Muwahaha.)
Posted by: Laura | September 17, 2009 11:59 AM
I can't WAIT to read this book!! I currently have my AP Bio students read The Ancestor's Tale, but I'm hoping to alternate year to year. Hooray for Dawkins and his unrelenting attention to detail!
Posted by: Rich | September 17, 2009 12:09 PM
I bought my copy of "The Making of the Fittest" yesterday at the neighborhood Barnes and Noble. While perusing the evolution titles, I was surprised by the number of anti-evolution/pro-intelligent design books. Roughly 1/3rd of the total. A casual observer could conclude from this that evolution *is* an ongoing scientific controversy. Probably the book buyer is just ordering the latest titles but this will continue until the legitimate science writers out-publish the cranks.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 12:10 PM
I see the venue for drooling over Davin M's snarky intellect has moved ;-)
Anyway, I won't be buying the book, because if I bought every book I wanted to read I'd need an income 3 times its current size (and more horizontal space for storage), but I have reasonable hopes that my library will get around to buying it soon. I'll read it then :-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 12:16 PM
David even.
NED MOAR KOFI
Posted by: Walton | September 17, 2009 12:22 PM
David M:
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Please tell me that was a joke... please...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 17, 2009 12:26 PM
yes Walton, it was a joke. no one could ever look at the unprecedented bloody infighting within the EU and honestly claim it's a first step towards global peace.
Posted by: Mo | September 17, 2009 12:31 PM
Evolution is a fact.
What's not a fact (to my knowledge) is how complex systems arose from molecular origins on the basis of step-by-step mutations.
Does Dawkins (or has anyone) address the irreducible complexity principle so eloquently outlined by Michael Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" (1996) in a convincing manner?
If so, the title of the book should have been "The Molecular Origins of Life." If not, what does Dawkins have new to add?
Posted by: Peter | September 17, 2009 12:36 PM
Kel@211:
If cultural relativism is nonsense, why do websites tolerate nonstandard English? Like ours.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2009 12:49 PM
Behe has been trashed in the scientific literature. His idea died with the refutations. There is no scientific principal of irreproducible complexity, except in the delusional minds of IDiots.Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 17, 2009 12:50 PM
Mo (#246)
I see you've left yourself a nice little escape hatch here. Maybe you should explain what would be "convincing" before anyone tries to address this. It's not like it's hard to find thorough debunkings of irreducible complexity, but it might be hard to find one that is "convincing" to someone who moves the goalposts about.
Posted by: trespassers | September 17, 2009 3:13 PM
Cody@213
I think people are misreading this sentence as saying that you can't believe in evolution, when I am positive you are saying that evolution is so obvious that it's astonishing to you that anyone *doesn't* believe in evolution.
Of course, that being said, I hope you don't think the fact that we're here is 'proof' of evolution as I'm fairly convinced that the Celestial Teapot poured us out at 2PM one Sunday. Which Sunday is not important, that's just a distraction caused by the Sinister Scone to lead us astray.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 17, 2009 3:49 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak (and David M):
I see trespasers (@250) has already mentioned this, but I think Cody's been a bit misinterpreted: However convoluted his(? "Cody" is not a strongly gender-specific name) expression may be, he's pro-evolution.
Interesting. Remember that we have no idea whether English is Cody's native language. I spent a year in Seoul (half a lifetime ago) teaching English in a commercial language school, and I knew plenty of people with names not too dissimilar from Gyeong Hwa Pak who were fucking brilliant, yet couldn't have written Cody's post any more correctly than he did. It's perfectly correct and helpful to point out that his mode of expression may lead to problems communicating; crankily assuming that he's unintelligent because you don't like his capitalization is not useful, nor is it kind.
So which is more important, do you think: Proper capitalization or reading comprehension? Cody said, "i do not see how anyone cannot believe in evolution? [emphasis added]" He's on our side!
Sheesh. Doesn't evolution already have enough enemies, without us knifing its friends over their penmanship?
All that said, Cody, you would be less likely to be misunderstood in this way if your writing were more regular. It's not a matter of some absolute moral right or wrong; it's a matter of not confusing the people you're trying to communicate with.
Posted by: trespassers | September 17, 2009 3:58 PM
Bill Dauphin, OM@251
You put it exactly right, thank you.
Posted by: Skydaddy | September 17, 2009 4:04 PM
I'm a scientifically-literate Christian with a graduate degree from a top-ranked secular university. I'm no Bible-thumping Young-Earth Creationist. The textual and cultural evidence is clear that the first few chapters of Genesis are a collection of ancient myths, legends, and just-so stories. (That doesn't mean they're not useful for understand the truth about Man's relationship to God, but that's a different thread.) I happily accept the evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and that modern humans appeared tens of thousands of years ago.
I also observe that changes occur in populations as a result of artificial and natural selection. The relationships between wolves and dogs is clear.
What I'm not yet convinced of is the notion that the same mechanism is also responsible for the differences between annelids and parrots. I just haven't seen enough evidence. Perhaps this book will lay it out and convince me.
However, I am sick and tired the insults and condescension hurled at those of us who believe that there's more to reality than science is able to explain. You're welcome to believe that this universe "just happened," or disbelieve anything that's not scientifically testable, but that doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else. Science isn't the only way of knowing and it isn't the only path to knowledge.
So we'll see if Dawkins can explain his evidence without insulting the people he's trying to convince. I'll look for the book via interlibrary loan. We'll see how much of it I read, though. Dawkins doesn't have a real good track record of talking to folks like me.
Posted by: Zmidponk | September 17, 2009 4:52 PM
Skydaddy #253:
Well, I have started reading this (it's currently £10 in Waterstones, for any UK readers), and, although I haven't gotten that far into it, from what I have read, if this doesn't convince you, nothing short of building a time machine and travelling back to witness first-hand the events in question will.
(Oh, and by the way, the reason the same mechanisms are responsible for the differences between annelids and parrots as the differences between wolves and dogs is simply that there is nothing that makes this mechanism stop working. So, really, if you've understood evolution correctly, you're actually advancing the hypothesis that there is some unknown mechanism that stops evolution from happening after related organisms have diverged to a particular degree from each other, and their common ancestor, apparantly on a very arbitrary basis.)
It is the only one that has shown any real, concrete evidence of working and the only one that consistently tallies with objective reality.
Well, if you mean religious folk in general, in this book, he actually explicitly makes the point that most educated members of the clergy actually accept evolution, it's just that, amongst them, it is commonly attributed to God, in one way or another. So if, like them, you are open-minded enough to view the evidence and accept that evidence, then this book is for you. However, if you are like certain other religious folk, then you will conclude that, if the evidence contravenes any and all details of what you believe due to your faith, no matter how solid that evidence is, the evidence MUST be wrong, in which case, it would be utterly pointless for you to read this.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 17, 2009 5:09 PM
Skydaddy (#253)
Why? What would prevent it? I mean, if you doubt it, surely you have some idea what stops change from accumulating after a certain point. And then you'd still need a mechanism that explains the genetic relatedness between annelids and parrots better than evolution.
Once you "other ways of knowing" twits can cough up a coherent alternative epistemic system, we'll stop laughing at you. I mean, how do you confirm your alternative "knowledge" is accurate? You can't. The best you can do is demand that we join you in (or leave you to) your whirlpool of circular reasoning.
Whiners who pitch tantrums when they're not allowed to put unjustifable beliefs on the same level as science and take any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack?
Posted by: trespassers | September 17, 2009 5:14 PM
Skydaddy@253
I don't blame you for being sick and tired of being insulted and condescended to. I'm confused, though. What is it that is real but also unexplainable by science? It's like a riddle! Is it an egg? Is it in your pocketses?
Would you agree that it makes us more scientific? More rational, even?
I'm willing to be open minded about this. What is another path to "knowing" that isn't science based? What is this "knowledge" and what do you gain for "knowing" it?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 17, 2009 5:27 PM
Yes, because spelling realise "realize" is of the same analogy as the different perspectives that a creationist and an evolutionist has on the diversification of life. Got straw man?Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 17, 2009 5:57 PM
trespassers @ 256
I think we're all agreed that there are indeed many things that science can't explain. Thing is, religion can't explain them either, and at least scientists can honestly say they're working on it.
Posted by: trespassers | September 17, 2009 6:06 PM
Tyrone Slothrop@258
Sure sure, I'm just curious what is real but not a matter of scientific inquiry. I would never say that science has all the answers, it just asks the right questions.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 17, 2009 6:11 PM
See, this is the kind of nonsense that sounds good when making a proclamation, but is devoid of actual substance. Is there more to reality that science is able to explain? Of course. Science cannot explain everything. The problem that surfaces is that when people say "science cannot explain everything", they don't actually put forward a legitimate means of inquiry that has the ability to explain what science can't. Merely they just want to say "You can't disprove what I assert, so leave me alone" Isn't this a scientific statement?
Okay, so what other ways are there which are valid forms of inquiry? Again this is the kind of statement that sounds reasonable until it's thought about for more than two seconds.Posted by: Tony | September 17, 2009 6:12 PM
Anyone know of a good evolution book for a 4-5 year old kid?
Posted by: Markus Arelius | September 17, 2009 6:55 PM
I ordered mine today. Thank you.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 17, 2009 7:33 PM
Trespassers @ 259
I'm just curious what is real, period. Do things have to be observable to be real? Is the force of gravity real? If our understanding of gravity changes, does reality change?
Just the old familiar questions, you know.
A vaguely related issue,
Kel @ 260,
I tend to think art is a valid form of inquiry. Art can certainly enhance our understanding. One might say that there is a difference between 'Knowledge' and 'Understanding', but this difference is not easily defined.
It seems obvious that art and science adress different domains of human experience, although music and mathematics are sometimes said to be bordering on each other somehow.
Posted by: DLC | September 17, 2009 10:25 PM
It's not ignorance alone, but willful fingers-in-the-ears yelling gibberish ignorance. These people are taught that they must believe in what the witch-doctor tells them, no matter what it is, no matter how much cognitive dissonance is sets up. It simply does not matter to them if Darwin was right. Even a personal visit from Mr Deity would operate to change their mind.
Posted by: DLC | September 17, 2009 10:27 PM
Whoops.
That last line should have been "Not even a personal visit from Mr. Deity . . . "
Posted by: Michael Dowd | September 17, 2009 10:59 PM
I fully agree with your review, PZ. (I just read Dawkins' new book myself a few days ago. His publicist at Free Press sent me a review copy.) The last two paragraphs of the last chapter (page 426) brought me to tears.
Everybody should read this book. (Especially religious people!) I think it will make a real difference. The other books you listed above are also excellent, of course, as is Sean Carrol's "Remarkable Creatures". But IMHO, "The Greatest Show on Earth" really is the best of the best. I see it's also available in audio CDs from Amazon.
Posted by: skydaddy | September 18, 2009 1:49 AM
Firefox 3.5 on my creaky old W2K box has the comments a bit munged, but I'll try to respond as best I can...
"there is nothing that makes this mechanism stop working"
Hmmm. What you seem to be saying is that given lots and lots of time, the small changes build up into big changes. Except that doesn't jive with the evidence and argument *I've seen to date*. (Note the qualification, please.) It seems to me (again, note the qualification) that this is based on the assumption that there is no other agency at work. Now, it's fine to make such an assumption, but it seems to me that such an assumption should be acknowledged as an assumption. (Materialism cannot be proved or disproved to be true or false any more than supernaturalism can be proved or disproved to be true or false.)
But back to the point: The mechanism DOES stop working. There are "living fossils" such as the ceolocanth, cockroach, komodo dragon, king crab, and so on. Why did they stop evolving? The standard answer is that they had achieved an optimum form with respect to their environments, right? So there IS something that makes the mechanism stop working. It's a naturalistic explanation, granted, but it still stops the evolution of that population. So, your statement is incorrect on its face. But that's playing logic games. I'm not trying to score points. I'm just trying to understand.
What I think you mean is, mutations happen randomly. If there is no environmental preference (aka survival advantage) for a particular mutation, it has no greater probability of being perpetuated than any other mutation. So, once an organism achieves a form that is "good enough" for its environment, it stops changing.
Regarding "ways of knowing"... History and art (often referred to as "social sciences") both work with "real, concrete evidence" and "objective reality." And like the "hard" sciences, the "real, concrete evidence" and "objective reality" require INTERPRETATION.
"Well, if you mean religious folk in general, in this book, he actually explicitly makes the point that most educated members of the clergy actually accept evolution, it's just that, amongst them, it is commonly attributed to God, in one way or another."
Well and good, and it goes both ways. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Benedictine monk. Augustine saw no conflict between faith and "the plain evidence of the senses."
If Dawkins can refrain from insulting me because of my convictions regarding super-natural reality, we may find common ground yet.
"you'd still need a mechanism that explains the genetic relatedness between annelids and parrots better than evolution."
A "better" explanation is not necessary. All that is required is a plausible alternative. And an alternative explanations of relatedness is easy: Design. I'm a designer. Designers re-use elements of successful designs. I've written uncounted lines of computer code to do this-and-that. Some functions I've written from scratch. Far more have been the ones I've cut and pasted from other projects. Very often that cut-and-paste includes unused snippets of code ("junk DNA", anyone?). Sometimes those snippets express themselves unexpectedly. (What's the appendix *for*, anyway?)
This is the point I'm trying to make: "The Universe Just Happened" is not the only rational lens through which to view (and interpret) reality.
"Once you "other ways of knowing" twits can cough up a coherent alternative epistemic system, we'll stop laughing at you."
Hey, thanks for the invective! You've removed yourself from the discussion, with prejudice. Bye, bye.
"What is it that is real but also unexplainable by science?"
mmm, for starters... Love. Hate. Fear. Beauty.
"Would you agree that it makes us more scientific?"
Yes, by definition. See previous comments regarding the limitations of science.
"More rational, even?"
Perhaps. But there is great value in the irrational. After all, certain aspects of reality are best described by irrational numbers such as e and pi (a semantic nicety, perhaps, though it is telling that IT CAN BE PROVEN that these numbers which describe Hard Cold Empirical Reality cannot themselves be completely known. It gets better when you understand that reality can often be best described in terms of fractals, which involve "imaginary numbers", multiples of the number i, the square root of -1, which does not exist in the "real" world.)
"What is another path to "knowing" that isn't science based?" "Okay, so what other ways are there which are valid forms of inquiry?" "Is there more to reality that science is able to explain? Of course. Science cannot explain everything. The problem that surfaces is that when people say "science cannot explain everything", they don't actually put forward a legitimate means of inquiry that has the ability to explain what science can't"
As noted above, history. Art. Emotion. Transcendent, subjective experience (including *shared* subjective transcendent experiences).
"What is this "knowledge" and what do you gain for "knowing" it?"
mmm, civilization, maybe? It predates "science" by a few thousand years, you know. :-D
"The problem that surfaces is that when people say "science cannot explain everything", they don't actually put forward a legitimate means of inquiry that has the ability to explain what science can't."
Um, actually, we do. But "scienceists" (I just made up that word) reject anything other than science as a "legitimate means of inquiry." To scienceists, things such as love, hatred, good, and evil are merely phenomena that "must" have a naturalistic explanation. Never mind that they don't. It's an article of faith that science will eventually reveal an explanation. No other explanations need apply.
"It seems obvious that art and science address different domains of human experience..."
Very good!
"music and mathematics are sometimes said to be bordering on each other somehow."
Bordering? No. There's in fact a great deal of overlap. Although, neither science nor mathematics can yet explain how a piece of music can drive one to laughter, tears, or rage. (The ancient Irish said there were three kinds of music: For laughing, crying, or fighting. It's said that rock-and-roll added a fourth.... ;-^)
"The last two paragraphs of the last chapter (page 426) brought me to tears." Posting them might save a great many people (including perhaps myself) a lot of time, and fall under the Fair Use doctrine as well. Please do so!
Goodnight and good luck.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 3:45 AM
skydaddy (#267)
So do you try to account for the possibility of the flapping of invisible fairy wings influencing the trajectory of a golf ball? I mean, it's only an assumption that there aren't invisible fairies flitting about the green. And if you've somehow ruled out the fairies, well, what about the invisible gnomes whose pointy hats might bump the ball ever so slightly as they watch you putt? No gnomes? What about the naiads in the water hazard, then, sending up spumes of invisible, magical water? We could go on forever ruling out these possible agencies, couldn't we! If we instead ignore the agency of infinite mythological critters, need we acknowledge the assumption we make in doing so?
They didn't. Evolution doesn't work towards goals. Evolution can work brilliantly to prevent change if no change would benefit the population in question.
Wrong. Evolution is still working to maintain the stability given a stable environment. Such stable species are quite exceptional, though. Your task is to come up with some mechanism that would prevent changes from accumulating to the point of speciation given an unstable environment.
It's not Dawkins' job to accomodate your superstitions. It's your job to demonstrate their validity. Throwing a tantrum when your beliefs aren't respected is just your way of avoiding your inability to demonstrate their validity.
You do need a better one because parsimony prefers the most functional explanation. Evolution is a particularly brilliant explanation given the multiple lines of evidence it ties together. Not only is that genetic relatedness there, but it's there in a ratio relative to the time since annelids and parrots diverged. Maybe you should read the book so you know just what sort of evidence your alternative explanation would be up against!
A designer seeing design--big surprise. Problem is, you're trying to infer from your experience as a human designer the method of a supernatural (whatever the fuck that means) designer. You're only gaining the illusion of an explanation when really what you get is sweet, sweet circular logic and a whole bunch of explaining to do about this designer. For instance, why would your imaginary designer reuse features in a way that perfectly mimicks what you'd expect to see if these shared features evolved from common ancestors? Why would this designer who could start from scratch instead allow for instances of incredibly stupid design (prostates, backwards photo cells in eyes, etc.)? And so on.
Please tell us who is saying "the universe just happened" with supporting quotes. And you're not making that point, you're simply stating it over and over again.
Gee, what a typical creationist tactic. Avoid the argument because someone called you a name. Get over yourself, you crybaby would-be turd-polisher. You are advocating other ways of knowing without providing any supporting epistemic systems, thus you are a twit. (Can't be prejudice if it's my conclusion.)
Wow, equivocate much?
No, no, reality can often best be described in terms of psychically interpreting the skidmarks on the underpants of imaginary giants that roam the earth in the now and always and never all at once!
And these explain what, exactly...?
Because you and your ilk provide no functional alternative epistemology. Twit.
Well, I wouldn't say we think that those things "must" have a naturalistic explanation, but in the absence of any other explanations, it's not unreasonable to provisionally assume they do. But by all means, stun us "scienceists" with your alternative explanations. Just don't expect us to be impressed by incoherent verbal diarrhea and unsupported, meaningless assertions.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 3:47 AM
This sounds like a scientific statement again. An article of faith? Now this is downright deceptive. When emotion can be explained in Darwinian terms as can morality, then how is it a matter of faith? Such elements can be subject to experimentation, to observation, to hypothesising and testing. It might not make sense to talk about love on a biochemical level as it is experiential on the level of thought, but that doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a naturalistic pathway (indeed there's plenty of science on the nature of love) or that it is a matter of faith to accept that it has a naturalistic explanation.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 4:02 AM
nothing stops evolving, there are forces such as stabilising selection / punctuated equilibrium. It's quite easy to think about. Say you are an insect that lives in a particular environment. Now its particular survival strategy is camouflage. Now if through evolution its camouflage renders it pretty much completely invisible, then what else can the force of natural selection do but to sustain that particular camouflage?Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 18, 2009 6:31 AM
GAAAAAAH!!!
I'm quoted favourably by skydaddy! Oh, no... Oh, no no no no no!
Well, there's what you get for not seeing everything in just black-and-white. You immediately get appropriated by black or white.
A-and I got appropriated by the WRONG SIDE... By a friggin' ID-iot! Who babbles about shared transcendent subjective experiences!
Ye-es that's right, folks! Experiences that are both shared and subjective. Words fail me.
Let me make absolutely clear that the bible is a work of art. Nothing more, nothing less. It is to modern literature what Pythagoras is to modern mathematics: One of many starting points, one that contains some usefull stuf and a lot of outdated lunatic junk.
A.Noyd @ 268
As to the question of what art explains...
well, do you get out of the lab much?
Ever read literature, listen to music, see paintings?
Ever think about what you read, hear, see?
Art explains a lot, man. It explains why we act like we do - no ethologist or psychologist worth his juice will claim that he can explain all our behaviour - and why we experience our emotions the way we do.
I'll grant you, art doesn't offer explanations of the x-causes-y, x-therefore-y variety. The reason is that art does indeed use a functional alternative epistomology. A work of art 'means' things in a different way than a scientific paper does - it expresses and exemplifies, rather than denotes.
Step out of your lab; there's a lot of people at your university who will be quite willing to talk to you about it. Some of them talk nonsense. Some don't.
Posted by: skydaddy | September 18, 2009 9:50 AM
Well, seeing as you all seem to be constitutionally unable to refrain from tossing insults, I'll bid you good day. I'm not going to waste time on people who can't be civil.
I'll leave you with a thought I got from an old rhetoritician: ad hominem is Latin for, "I'm out of arguments."
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 18, 2009 10:05 AM
"I'll leave you with a thought I got from an old rhetoritician: ad hominem is Latin for, "I'm out of arguments.""
Seems a pretty good description of your last comment. But then again, if you're insulted by the mild-mannered Prof. Dawkins, then I guess you bruise easily.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 10:07 AM
Where did I throw an insult at you?Posted by: Travis | September 18, 2009 10:16 AM
Arguing with creationists just CAN'T be done. You'll end up walking away from the encounter so frustrated, having gained no ground, and in an overall crappy mood. I've just sort of learned to accept it for what it is and realize that these people are more or less helples...
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 11:57 AM
Tyrone Slothrop (#271)
There's no doubt that art can be used to explore human experience on an experiential level. However, it does not follow that art thus explains anything. Sex explores experience experientially, but it doesn't explain anything, so what makes art different? Also, if the ethologist and psychologist can't currently explain behavior entirely, it doesn't mean they never will. This just smacks of an argument from ignorance.
Meaning it offers explanations of what variety instead? Can you give a specific example of something explained via art? Can you narrow it down from "why we experience our emotions the way we do"? Otherwise, you're asking me to take your word for it.
I'm not a scientist and don't work in a lab. (Don't want to pretend to it with so many of the real deal about.) Thing is, if art has a functional epistemology, there should be a way, using that epistemology, to reliably tell the nonsense from the sense. Care to explain what features of the epistemology of art would allow me to do that?
And please, knock it off with the insinuations that I don't appreciate art. I'm just not going to uncritically swallow that it works to explain anything unless you can show me that it does.
Posted by: Stuart Lettley | September 18, 2009 11:59 AM
To Mr. Travis (above) and all those who think creationists are idiots. I wish that you give me your opinion on the outcome of the hypothetical experiment that I will now put forward.
If I put in a box all the elements known to scientists, such as oxygen, iron, carbon, etc etc. If I then add maybe some electrical charge or magnetic force or something along these lines and then close this box, and wait for a very very long time , say a few bilion of years or more (if you think necessary). Are you saying to me that if that box is opened after this very long time period, then a Jumbo Jet will just fly out the box. Do you really want me to beleive that life will just happen in that box, then it will mutate and evolve and humans will result who will have the brains to make this machine that will jump out of the box.
Is this what you want us to beleive, and for not believing you we are idiots?
I think otherwise.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 12:00 PM
skydaddy (#272)
Not all insults are ad homs, you disingenuous weasel. You don't win by default if someone calls you a name. But if your sensibilities are too tender, then go on. Be aware that it appears as though you can't support any of your arguments and you're looking for a way out. Just do us all one favor--man up and read the book even if it (oh noes!) makes you feel insulted. Some things are more important than your precious ego, such as understanding why you're wrong.
(Sorry if this double posts. The site didn't like me trying to submit it so soon after the one above and I have no idea if it's just waiting to post that one later.)
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 12:03 PM
Kel (#274)
I don't recall that you did, but I wasn't exactly holding back. Either he sees us all as one mass acting in unison or he's using my abuse of him to dishonestly dodge out of answering your more polite questions. I'm guessing the name calling is a pretense and he finds the demands to support his assertions uncomfortable enough to flee, but I'm mean that way.
Posted by: trespassers | September 18, 2009 12:07 PM
So, it looks like I missed skydaddy's dramatic exit. So sad.
Tyrone Slothrop@263
I don't know what makes something real. I'm also curious! :) I think that unless something is observable, then its chances of being real are not that great and probably requires more testing. Gravity's effects are observable and measurable and predictable, even if gravity itself is invisible to our eyes. But if our understanding of gravity changes, I think it would be ridiculous to say that reality changes. More accurate to say that our understanding of reality has changed.
I realize that I'm speaking from ignorance, and I'm always happy to learn. For me, the difference between gravity and god is that gravity is consistent with observation and makes testable predictions, and god is ... anything but.
skydaddy@267
I'm not clear how these are not explainable by science. I know that love, hate, fear, and the appreciation of beauty and the mathematics of beauty are all quantifiable by scientific methods. Emotions and even hallucinations have been observed in the brain using fMRIs. Science has shown that beauty in faces (symmetry, proportions, etc.), for example, is measurable and universal. I'm aware that science has limits, I just don't see anything that theism brings to the table that is even comparable. I trust doctors more than witch doctors, for example. I'm willing to be persuaded, as long as the answer is *not*, "I just feel that god is true," because that's a useless answer.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 18, 2009 12:17 PM
It's not just an assumption, it is based on the fact that there is no evidence for any other force at work. It's much more than an assumption. You are assuming there must be another force and are inserting your desire for it to be a particular type of force and you have exactly zero supporting evidence for this assumption.
Do you believe there is another force beyond what we know about gravity and physics as to why the moon continues to orbit the earth? We don't assume there is no other force because we haven't looked for anything, we "assume" because we have exactly zero evidence supporting an invisible hand guiding the moon (or insert whatever other unknown force you'd like).
Assuming there must be some higher power is the ultimate in unsupported assumptions because there is no, that's right NO evidence to back that assumption.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 12:21 PM
Stuart Lettley (#277)
Simple answer: No.
That is a terrible analogy. However, even if that was how evolution and abiogenesis did work, why do you fancy such explanations are less likely than an impossible magical being poofing us into existence? I mean, really, if you believe that then you're just being arbitrary in your rejection of science on grounds of improbability.
If you're unconvinced, why don't you give us a more detailed explanation of how you think evolution works and we can correct it for you so you're working with an accurate understanding.
Posted by: Zmidponk | September 18, 2009 3:55 PM
skydaddy #267:
Then you're not really conversant all that well with the evidence. For just two examples, we have genetic evidence that shows fairly damn clearly that everything alive on Earth is pretty closely related to each other (for example, the genetic code of a pumpkin is about 75% the same as the genetic code for a human, and the genetic code for a mouse is about 99% the same), and we have fossil evidence detailing chains of organisms evolving, complete with transitional forms (contrary to what creationists would tell you). Explicitly setting out the evidence for evolution is what Dawkins sets out to do with this book, so, for more, go read it.
Yes, it is an assumption, but it's on the order of assuming that some other 'agency' is not pushing everything down towards the Earth, so the reason everything we throw up in the air comes down again is gravity, not this mysterious other agency. In other words, we assume there is no such 'agency' because there is no evidence of such an agency.
No, actually, if you understand how evolution works, in those cases, it is actually the 'mechanism' that holds them in place - it hasn't actually stopped working at all. As A. Noyd pointed out, evolution does not work towards goals. And those cases are the exceptions, not the rule.
...until the next mutation or genetic change that gives an advantage, or the environment itself changes. The cases you have listed are all cases where we have organisms that have evolved to be extremely well suited to their environments, so the former hasn't happened for a very long time, and they've adapted to very stable environments and/or adapted to survive well in a wide range of environments, so the latter hasn't either. Hypothetically, though, you could induce evolution by simply getting a large enough population of one of those creatures, transplanting them to a sufficiently different (but still survivable) environment and then leaving them to breed.
You know why history and art are known as 'social sciences'? To a greater or lesser degree, the strict discipline of science is applied to them. In history, for example, something doesn't become 'historical fact' unless you have weight of evidence that the event actually occurred. Conversely, you basically postulate, above, that some mysterious 'other agency' stops evolution from happening after a particular point, basically on no evidence whatsoever.
Oh, don't worry, Dawkins still finds the assumption of the existence of things on the basis of no evidence just as silly as he always did (and rightly so, in my opinion), but this is not the focus of this book.
No, actually, in science, a better explanation is one that explains more, and fits in with the evidence more - and so is the preferred one.
Except for this explanation to be plausible, you have this mysterious 'Designer', who must be an extremely complex organism indeed, popping into existence ex nihilo. Which isn't plausible at all. So, even by your own flawed idea of what's required, design doesn't stand up.
(Oh, and, by the way, there is some evidence that there IS a purpose for the appendix, contrary to what had been thought. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was something about certain diseases have the effect of wiping out the naturally occurring bacteria in the gut, and the appendix acts as a sort of reservoir of that bacteria to repopulate the gut once the disease has been eradicated.)
Well, sorry, but, from where I'm standing, it is YOU who is saying 'the universe just happened'. You're saying 'the universe just happened, thanks to a mysterious, magical Designer, for which I have zero objective evidence'. You're also seeming to do the typical creationist thing of confusing evolution with other things. Evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe. It never did, and was never meant to. It doesn't even explain how life began on this planet. Again, it never did and was never meant to. What it does explain is how the current diversity of life came about from the first single-celled living organisms.
So I guess you don't feel like addressing his point, then? Or is it that you are unable to?
Nope, sorry, they are all explainable by science, most notably by the field of neuroscience. Whether they are actually fully explained, though, I do not know.
Well, there's a rather large flaw in what you're saying there. Mathematics is an extremely useful field. In fact, if you get heavily into advanced fields of maths, they are some of the most useful fields imaginable. But, at it's root, mathematics is based on numbers, and all numbers are simply labels for particular concepts. When you realise this, what you're really saying is that mathematics does not yet have good enough labels to adequately describe particular things that can otherise be proven, mathematically, to exist. What you're proposing is that this means that we shouldn't actually do anything in order to then come up with such a label, but just lay it at the feet of 'the Designer'. This is a nonsensical position, quite frankly, and I think others agree with me, as they've gone to the trouble of inventing such things like pi, fractals and 'imaginary numbers' as a step towards that end.
Well, if you define 'scienceists' as those who accept that the scientific method has repeatedly shown itself to be the best way of actually finding out about the universe, you are correct. And guess what? When scientists actually begin to examine these things, they begin to find evidence that there ARE such explanations. For example, MDMA (more commonly known as the drug 'ecstasy') often artificially produces a feeling of love for those around you, even if they are complete strangers, due to how it affects your brain.
skydaddy #272:
And feigning insult because someone called you out on your bullshit is creationist for 'I can't address your points, so I'm leaving.'
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 18, 2009 4:31 PM
AIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!
Let me make something very clear, once and for all: art is not a form of inquiry into the unknown, it is a form of communication. All information that an be gathered from artwork was put there by the artist, purposely or inadvertently.
I'm fucking sick of having art used by woo-ists as an excuse for making up shit and pretending it's reality.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 18, 2009 4:40 PM
oh, and one more thing. the way skydaddy talks about "love, hate, good, bad", as well as mathematics is just another piece of evidence that theology scrambles your brain to the point where you start believing that words/symbols are real things.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 18, 2009 6:49 PM
A.Noyd (#279) I think he may be referring to my calling him an ID-iot. Just when he thought I was his friend...
@ #276: OK, for the plunge...
An example of art explaining something. From personal experience.
Say you are acquainted with two ladies, both of whose proximity arouses the same physical reactions in you (change in heart rate, change in hormonal balance and whoa, there goes the old stomach, feeling all funny). Both seem to offer the same chances for passing on your genes. How to choose? Science, you'll agree, is no help here.
Now you happen to be reading a book where a young lady has to choose between suitors (A Suitable Boy, by Vikram Seth, for instance. Very good. Read it when you've finished Dawkins.) She loves all three, for different reasons. Book thus shows different meanings of the word love, not all of which may have occurred to us before.
Reading, you find yourself rooting for one of the three suitors, and hoping that that particular match will come off.
Book thus tells you which meaning of 'love' is most important to you personally.
Book shows and tells, clarifying things that were unclear before. You may choose to call this exploration, instead of explanation, but that really won't count as an argument until you clearly define the difference between the two.
The bottom line is: You appreciate art. I never meant to imply you didn't. I merely meant to ask: why do you appreciate art? Cuz it's pretty? Cuz it makes you feel good, or relaxed or whatever?
Didn't think so.
We like it that art makes us think, that art offers us a version of the world that is right (or, as the case may be and often is, wrong) and gives us a chance to learn what it is that is right (or wrong) about it.
Finally: a functional epistemology does not automatically allow one to distinguish sense from nonsense. The Phlogiston fanatics and the Oxygen enthusiasts both used the scientific methods available to them.
Same goes for Steady State vs Big Bang and many other debates.
As for art: I personally would say that if anyone enthusiastically uses the word 'semiotics', he gives himself away as a nonsense-talker.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Jadehawk (#284)
I suppose I can understand some of their confusion. Creating or consuming art can help one make connections in one's mind or realizations about oneself. That sort of information is new to the person experiencing it. I can see it functioning as a system of inquiry into one's self-hood. Perhaps even, collectively, into cultural identity. But there's no way to determine that pieces of information discovered this way are superior to (more true than) their alternatives in explaining or shaping reality. (How could alternatives even be recognized?!) So, I don't think this sense of gaining information counts as knowledge since whatever one gets out of it could be just as good as anything else, but the illusion of knowledge is there because the artist or consumer gains some understanding s/he didn't have previously.
Posted by: CJO | September 18, 2009 7:11 PM
Book thus tells you which meaning of 'love' is most important to you personally.
Book shows and tells, clarifying things that were unclear before. You may choose to call this exploration, instead of explanation, but that really won't count as an argument until you clearly define the difference between the two.
I'd start with transparency as an attribute of explanation, and (at least partial) opacity as a defining feature of what I'll slightly modify as 'intuitive exploration' being the domain of art.
By transparency, I mean you can see all the moving parts. Nothing is a 'gut feeling,' it's all fully logical and you can test it, by making predictions based on what you think your understanding via the explanation is, and checking how the real world conforms to that.
Art relies on more than cold, rational analysis. It invites us to, or demands that we, engage with it at a level other that the strictly cognitive. And the thing is, we are largely opaque to ourselves and our introspection at this intuitive level. You know you like something, but if you are induced to produce a rationalization of your preference for one of the three kinds of love in your example, your always eager cognitive engine will be only too happy to churn out a host of 'reasons why' that may all be totally wrong, because this level of 'gut feeling' is simply unavailable to introspective cognitive processes. Reseach in psychology, using a bunch of ingenious tricks and traps, largely bears this out. The 'rational mind,' for lack of a better term, can't bear not to have reasons for what we have intuitively decided upon, perhaps for wholly other reasons than the cognitive part of us can know.
Now, add a social dimension to this, and it is true that we generally take people at their word when they tell us why it is they feel the way they do about something. But I'm positive all of us have experience with a person who seems to be completely obtuse with him or herself about an issue or a conflict he or she is experiencing, and I'm fairly confident that we all know the feeling of realizing that we've been lying to ourselves about a matter of some emotional import.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 18, 2009 7:12 PM
Jadehawk # 284
AIIIIIEEEEEE yourself.
You seem to be confusing art with advertising. Advertising is a form of communication. Art bloody well IS an enquiry into the unknown; to state otherwise is to be woefully ignorant of the process whereby art is created.
A novel is like a scientific experiment: you set up the conditions, get the thing going and see what will come out.
It is like a scientific experiment in that you usually have an idea, guided by theory, what the results will be, and even that those results do not always occur as predicted.
It is unlike a scientific experiment in that the demand for perfect repeatability is absent (unless one were to count reading the novel as a repetition of the experiment - something to be said for that, actually.)
Posted by: CJO | September 18, 2009 7:19 PM
btw, Tyrone, love the handle. GR's one of my faves (though I doubt I could tell you why!).
I always thought if I were to go for a clever handle like that, it'd be Imipolex-G.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 18, 2009 7:20 PM
*sigh*
only a complete idiot would think that art isn't communication. that a lot of people use it as a sort of mental Rorschach test is a different issue, and as CJO already mentioned, it provides you with rationalizations of subconscious choices.
no one said art doesn't inspire thoughts, either; that's however completely different from being a process that reveals knowledge previously unknown to humanity.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 7:22 PM
Okay, shoot. If I put in a box all the elements known to scientists, such as oxygen, iron, carbon, etc etc. If I then add maybe some electrical charge or magnetic force or something along these lines and then close this box, and wait for a very very long time , say a few bilion of years or more (if you think necessary). Are you saying to me that if that box is opened after this very long time period, then a Jumbo Jet will just fly out the box. Do you really want me to beleive that life will just happen in that box, then it will mutate and evolve and humans will result who will have the brains to make this machine that will jump out of the box.This is why we think creationists are idiots, they simply don't understand evolution.
That's not what scientists want you to believe at all. Why must creationists construct versions of evolution that are nothing like the process works. Perhaps it would be good if you picked up Why Evolution Is True and read about what the process is and what the evidence is for it.Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 18, 2009 7:26 PM
A.Noyd
There are ways of comparing alternatives. Of course there are! The plays of Shakespeare, and the pieces of information discovered in them, are superior to the plays of Ben Johnson and the information therein. Read any essay comparing the two. Pretty much all these essays will, by various means, arrive at the same conclusion.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 18, 2009 7:41 PM
Jadehawk,
what, exactly, is the difference between mere 'thoughts' and lofty 'knowledge'? Let me guess - some form of correspondence with reality, right?
Problem being that reality is only available to us via our knowledge of it. Making the condition for 'knowledge' a correspondence with, well... knowledge.
Excuse me for not answering your next few posts, it's the middle of the night here. Gonna go sleep. Busy days ahead.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 18, 2009 8:48 PM
Stuart Lettley #277
The box is called the "Earth" and your thought experiment is a very simplified version of what happened (except that jumbo jets can't fly out of the box, just around in the box).
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 19, 2009 12:18 PM
Tyrone Sloproth (#286)
Well, if they're both ladies, I'd say we'd have a problem getting my genes passed on without some serious help from science! (And yes, I know that's not what you meant.) More seriously, I wouldn't simply assume science couldn't help.
So the book inspires you to think but does it really do any more than communicate ideas to you which help you clarify what you already know? Even if you decide that decisions made based on this clarity counts as new information, this goes to what I was getting at in 287; how do you figure you're gaining knowledge if you've no way to decide against alternative decisions?
Exploration answers "what" and doesn't necessarily require any understanding of that "what." Explanation answers "why" or "how" and requires both having and conveying understanding. Both can supply knowledge, but the key factor that you're missing in your scenario is the ability to confirm new information as more or less representational of reality.
Excuse me? Is there something wrong with appreciating art for its aesthetic value? I can appreciate it for other reasons, sure, but I don't throw out simple pleasure in order to do so.
Yes, it does, unless you want to quibble over "automatically." Since I was just reading it at lunch yesterday, I'll take Paul Boghossian's defintion of an epistemic system from pg 98 of Fear of Knowledge: "a system of principles that is designed to tell us what there is reason to believe." If your epistemic system doesn't alert you to what is unreasonable (nonsensical) to believe, then it's not functional. So does art have a functional epistemology or not?
(#289)
So artistically derived "knowledge" can occasionally contradict itself and that's okay? If so, how can you speak of nonsense-talkers within art? Perhaps their "experiments" merely produced different results. How do you know any of your so-called "knowledge" is accurate?
(#293)
Okay, first off, you're implying here that there are pieces of knowledge contained within the plays and not that reading them inspires revelations about the self. This is a qualitatively different claim. In your book example, it's impossible to tell which alternatives are superior or inferior because once you've adopted a piece of information as part of your self-identity, you can't go back to your "before" self to compare the alternatives. You can't even know which alternatives would work to inspire different relevations.
But with this new example we can ask things like: Do those pieces of information originate within the plays or are they expressed within them but derived elsewhere. How do you tell? Also, what do you use to judge the superiority of said knowledge?
(#294)
Oh, really? So if one "knows" that the sky is the same color as trees, how would one evaluate the truth of this piece of "knowledge"? If you're slipping into relativism, you'll undermine all your own arguments for knowledge and reality (and the inferiority of semiotics). Either we have access to reality as it is or we can't know which beliefs about it are true.
Posted by: His Royal Oddness | September 19, 2009 3:27 PM
My copy of Dawkins' book arrived a couple of days ago. I've already burned through the first two chapters, and can say that this is quite possibly Dawkins' magnum opus on evolution. Potential massive bestseller. Can't put it down.
Posted by: Gareth | September 20, 2009 12:11 AM
Just a quick comment. While I totally agree that a new enlightenment, stressing the values of rationality and scepticism, is absolutely essential, I wonder to whom you address your articles. It seems to me that the vast majority of those mired in the swamp of superstition and wish-thinking are not dogmatic or fundamental, they are just those who have not thought to think about it, being raised in a non-thinking culture. Do you contend that it is helpful to call those people idiots or clowns? They might be uneducated but I think it is our job to educated them. It is only through this painstaking process that we can hope to swell the ranks of the rationalists and bring forth the new enlightenment... ok, not so quick!!
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 20, 2009 6:58 PM
CJO #290
Thanks, I considered going for Laszlo Jamf, this blog being something of a watering-hole for evil scientists, or, on a more positive note Heino Vanderjuice, but on a whim it became slothrop.
A-and it turns out there's a whole 'nother Slothrop roaming these pages!
Oh yesss, we're scattered throughout this pret'rite Zone alright...
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 20, 2009 7:35 PM
A.Noyd #276,
I don't think I'm using an argument from ignorance. Consider two types of jealousy. One where you want something somebody else has, and one where you just don't want the other person to have something good.
These emotions are very much alike. Same hormone levels, same areas of the brain affected. The only difference probably being a slightly different neural pathway.
Now the progress of science being essentially limitless (sounds of laughter erupt from the room. It is the deep Oh-ho-ho one would associate with an audience of men, enjoying brandy and cigars after a good meal at the club. there are good-natured shouts of 'really, sir!' and 'Slothrop, you rascal!' Slothrop continues.)one day we may be able to measure a single neural pathway.
However, neurons connect differently for each individual, so we can never know 'the' pathway for either jealousy1 or jealousy2. To know which pathway connects to which emotion for a certain individual, that individual has to be tested.
This testing is bound to be pretty intrusive, so it will create new memories, thougts and feelings, i.e. new pathways will be formed. The object tested will change by being tested.
I think I argue unknowability in this case, rather than from ignorance.
And, @ #296
I don't undermine my own arguments for knowledge and reality. I don't make arguments for reality. Why would I, when reality is unknowable?
This does not amount to relativism, however. There are ways of discerning between good and bad art, right or wrong theories, smart or dumb ideas, other than by checking their 'truth'.
For instance, Intelligent Design chooses to accept some pieces of evidence while rejecting others. Wrong.
The theory of evolution accepts pretty much all evidence. Right.
When the next idea comes along, incorporating even more evidence and/or giving even better explanations for it, that will be even more right.
The precise epistemological status of 'evidence' does not enter into it.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 21, 2009 2:57 PM
Tyrone Slothrop (#300)
For the sake of argument, I will pretend these two types of jelaousy exist as you've defined them.
Uh huh. You're taking a conveniently literal approach to what constitutes a "pathway." You seem to be saying that it is reliant on exact patterns of neurons, not generalized brain structures and electrochemical interactions. Problem is, if "pathways" are so highly reliant on the specific connections of neurons, then no generalizations about behavior can be made. Since we each have different neurons and slightly different arrangements of them, this would mean we would be unable to relate to one another at all. Also, since neurons are created and die throughout our lives, our "selves" would be extremely fragile things. This is true to some extent, but we'd be eternally unable to recognize ourselves if we took this fact to your proposed absurd degree.
Oh, so you know what the fuck you're talking about with neurons and brain science? Sorry if I don't believe you.
If reality is unknowable, then any statement we might make, including "reality is unknowable," has no better guarantee of being true than any of its alternatives (at least so far as we can know). Now, if you want to quibble that I cannot use "true" to mean "conforming to reality" then you can only do so via relativism where "true" instead means something like "conforming to the foundational ideas of a given thought system." Anyways, the point I was making is that you cannot speak of superior ideas while at the same time rejecting that we have some access to reality.
Only entirely arbitrary ways. Good and bad in relation to what? Right or wrong in relation to what? Smart or dumb in relation to what? If you have reality, you have your answer. If you don't, you have "what I choose to think." Which leave you precisely zip to fall back on if I choose to disagree with what you think.
Wrong why? If we can't access reality, we don't know that it's better to take all evidence into account, thus the creationist is justified in being selective according to his viewpoint. We might disagree with the creationist, but we can't make a case for our disagreement being more than a personal choice to value all available evidence.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
September 22, 2009 4:16 PM
*facepalm*
Who the fuck cares if the cat is alive or dead, when a jumbo jet will fly out instead?
Posted by: BenW
|
September 22, 2009 10:54 PM
I know it is not related directly but Eric Hovind raised the money to keep Dino Land. There was an article over on WND about it.
Good news, the government gets $380K that was owed.
Bad news, Dino Land is still in business.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 7:21 PM
PZ Myers takes note of my debates on his blog:
Funny that PZ, like so many evolutionists, doesn't actually address any of the arguments made or even my most basic questions. It's very easy to resort to ad hominems, but its another thing entirely to actually try to substantively respond to sincere and long-considered questions regarding the creative potential of the proposed evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) - - which is not nearly as obvious to the candid mind as PZ likes to imagine...
Really now, if I, having at least a reasonable background in genetics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, pathology, hematology, and the mutational basis of many diseases and other phenotypic changes, am so clearly ignorant of the basic concepts involved behind the mechanism for evolutionary biology it should be very easy for someone like PZ to point out my obvious errors in understanding and logic.
Instead, the use of comments like "insanely ignorant", "negative knowledge", and my personal favorite, "such an idiot" makes one wonder if PZ actually understands the mechanism of evolution to the degree he needs to understand it to support his marvelous claims for it? - I mean, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity that is... Or, is he simply resorting to bluster in an attempt to conceal his own ignorance as to the predictive value of RM/NS as being able to do much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 28, 2009 7:26 PM
sean-troll, you've run away from the discussion, you don't get to claim we didn't address your idiocy; repeatedly.
now please stuff your fsaar back whence you obtained it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 28, 2009 7:30 PM
Sean, Mendacious Delusionalist, you have never presented any evidence for your ideas, just claimed them. You have presented no evidence for your imaginary designer, just claimed it existed. You have presented no clear evidence for your inane calculations, just claimed you were right. You have published no papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature. And you expect to be taken seriously? Sorry, in order to refute science, you must do science. Which you don't. Just another liar and bullshitter for your deity™. Crawl back under your rock godbot.
NoR, PhD in Science, which trumps a mere MD, much less a delusional one, on all things scientific.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 7:36 PM
Re Jadehawk #305:
My wife just delivered our first baby, a healthy boy, by C-section due to a nucal cord. So, needless to say, I've been a bit occupied by more important things...
Beyond this, I'd hardly call posting over 50 posts to this forum and directly addressing dozens of individuals in a sincere and considered manner could be classified as "trolling". You may disagree with me, but that's not the same thing as questioning my sincerity or addressing the substance of my basic questions...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 28, 2009 7:41 PM
Similarly, Lincoln was born in a log cabin he helped build with his own hands.
Glad your kid & his mother are OK.
p.s. it's "nuchal"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 28, 2009 7:42 PM
Pitman, you refuse to define your terms, you make up fsnots (or whatever the acronym for your unsupported hand-waving is) without giving the least idea how you pulled them out of your rectum, you retreat when your fantasies come under scrutiny by genuine scientists (and no, a body mechanic is not a scientist), and now you're claiming victory because PZ Myers wrote:
PZ is correct, you are a freaking idiot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 28, 2009 7:43 PM
Sean, you still haven't put forward your ideas in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which means you have nothing of interest for us. Win you Nobel prize. Publish your work in Science or Nature. Or are you scared to present your ideas in front of real scientists?
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 7:46 PM
Re: NoR #306:
I've just asked a very simple question regarding an very clear observation:
Why does RM/NS work so well when it comes to producing very low level systems which require no more than a few hundred specifically arranged residues at minimum, but is not observed producing any system of function which requires a minimum of more than 1000aa? What is the reason for this observation? One would think that such an observation would be at least occasionally observed given the validity of the ToE.
So, what is the statistical basis for this observation? Do you have any idea? Any idea at all? If so, I'd be most grateful to you if you'd explain it to me. This would be much more useful to me and to many others - far more useful than your very predictable useless ad hominems. At least try and be witty with your attempts at personal slander ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 28, 2009 7:52 PM
Sean, you keep getting it backwards. We don't have to answer you inane questions. You have to posit your theory and defend it with hard physical evidence. And we are still waiting for you do commit yourself and present a fully formed theory with physical evidence. Something tells me you aren't up to the task, being that it requires real scientific thinking...Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 7:56 PM
Re: Tis Himself #309:
I've been very careful to define all of my terms. The concept of specificity in amino acid arrangement for functional proteins and multi-protein systems is not a new one. All such systems have a certain limitation to sequence flexibility which can be approximately determined.
The same thing is true of minimum size requirements. Different types of functional systems have different minimum size requirements. Many multi-protein systems have minimum structural size requirements that go well beyond the 1000aa level. The rotary flagellar motility system, for example, has a minimum size requirement that is well over 1000aa - more than >5000 coded residue positions at minimum.
So, what concept, specifically, do you not understand? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp these things you know... even Darwin was a theologian by training without an official educational background in science...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 8:23 PM
Re: Sven DiMilo #308:
Thanks. I'm glad they're Ok too. Thanks also for the typo correction ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel
|
September 28, 2009 8:24 PM
If your questions are so basic, when why not put them into the form of a scientific paper and send them off to journals for peer review? Why not present them at science conferences? Surely this would be a better means of getting answers that complaining that a biologist isn't responding to your requests on his blog post.You're just an evangelical arsehole, preaching that you've destroyed darwinism instead of fighting it out in the one place it actually matters - in academia.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 28, 2009 8:33 PM
Re: NoR #312:
You're right. You don't have to do anything. I just thought that if anyone could answer my simple questions it would be some very smart scientists like you guys and/or PZ Myers. But, I guess that no one has to answer even very simple questions that they don't want to answer...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 28, 2009 8:34 PM
Plagiarist Pitman, have you secured any research fsunding?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 28, 2009 8:42 PM
I'll answer that question when you answer how you pulled your 1000 fsnars (or whatever the fuck they are) out of your asshole. Did the number come to you in a revelation? Did you actually sit down and work it out from first principles? Or did you just pull it out of your asshole like the rest of your creationist shit? What's so magical about 1000 fartz? Why can a mutation happen at 999 fnaps but not at 1000 flars? Did The Big Guy In The Sky put a limit of 1000 fpats, kind of like being unable to exceed the speed of light?
Or here's another question. Why doesn't mutation work at 1000 ffffs? Just because you say so? That's what I've gleaned from your magical 1000 fnspts.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 28, 2009 8:43 PM
Sean Pitman, on another thread I described the completely infallible and totally scientific god detecting device I invented, which is still not picking up any God Particles™.
How can you still believe in your god when my standard says it's not possible for it to exist?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 28, 2009 8:46 PM
Sorry Mendacious Delusionalist Sean. Check the peer reviewed scientific literature. The answer to your inane and sophomoric questions will be found there. If you are capable of reading real science, which I sincerely doubt.You are the one who must but forward your idea, with the physical evidence to back it up. Until you do, you are merely a nobody doing nothing. Until you publish, you have nothing. Why are you afraid to face scientists on their own turf? Maybe because you know you and your ideas are frauds. Time to put up or shut up, like any person of honesty and integrity.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 28, 2009 11:36 PM
I've made several posts talking exactly how your argument is flawed, from the fallacious logical underpinnings to the misunderstanding of natural selection. In short, you're asking a question that has no value in which to answer. But no, despite many people pointing out the logical flaws of your argument (and your absurd claim of a search space) you persist in asking questions that conform to your fallacious view. Ask the wrong question and you won't get any answer of value.The idea of search space is wrong, your assertion that complex patterns cannot form is wrong (you simply deny that it's possible even when shown structures that fit such a description), and your entire argument rests on you dismissing natural selection because you have the fallacious notion in your head that if Natural Selection didn't do it then the Judeo-Christian god did. Regardless of this logic 200 years ago dismissing Lamark in favour of God.
So despite all this, you're insisting that people keep playing your game and answer questions to your satisfaction. Yet in the time scale of billions of years that evolution has worked on, you're dismissing the possibility that complex structures can form based on the few decades that people have been looking and that off the tops of our heads we cannot give you information to fit your criteria even though we've shown time and time again that your criteria is flawed?
This is why you should stop preaching and participate in the scientific process. Write papers, submit them to journals, attend conferences, etc. Because all you are doing now is trying a "gotcha" argument, that is looking for something we cannot answer then concluding that the entire process is fundamentally flawed because of that. This is intellectually dishonest, and for someone professing to be a Christian I find it surprising that you can keep up this dishonesty in the face of legitimate avenues of inquiry that have been pointed out to you time and time again!
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 28, 2009 11:45 PM
You're forgetting, Kel - lies are only bad when they aren't Lies for Jesus™. It's totally okay for Christians to bear false witness as long as they can justify that it's for the good of the faith.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 29, 2009 12:07 AM
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 29, 2009 6:39 PM
Re: Kel #321:
All you've presented, as far as I can tell, is your very odd argument of the "tortoise and the hare". You have this idea that if beneficial mutations can produce low level systems that it is just as easy to produce higher level systems. You claim here to have presented examples of evolved higher level systems, but you've not done so. None of your examples of evolution in action required more than a few hundred residues at minimum to work - not one. Surely you have something better?
If your mechanism works like you imagine, why can't you come up with at least one example of evolution in action producing a novel system that requires, at minimum, more than 1000aa?
Your problem is that your idea of sequence space is mistaken. The ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial is far far lower than you have yet to imagine - and it gets exponentially lower and lower with each scale up the ladder of increasing functional complexity...
How is it flawed to ask for an example of evolution in action beyond the 1000aa level? Or, how is it flawed to ask for at least some statistical basis for determining how much time would likely be required to produce any system of function beyond this minimum structural threshold requirement? - starting from any gene pool you wish to name?
I think you're just frustrated because there are no such examples and you don't really know why...
The question is, why can't you answer these very simple questions? Really, they aren't that difficult to understand. Why is the answer so difficult for you to come up with? Your tortoise and the hare analogy is what is obviously flawed here. You clearly don't have the first clue as to why evolution via RM/NS happens so easily at lower levels, but not at all beyond the 1000aa level...
If you really want to get honest about things, at least try to produce some real science to support your just-so stories - something with some actual statistically-based predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 29, 2009 6:51 PM
Sean:
And you fail to understand that the process is iterative; each iteration works on the result of the previous one, not on the original.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 29, 2009 6:58 PM
Re: Tis Himself #318:
There's nothing magical about the level of systems requiring at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work (usually in multi-protein systems). It is just that I've noticed that all examples of evolution in action fall well short of this level of functional complexity, requiring no more than a few hundred specifically arranged residues at minimum. I started wondering why there was this observed cut-off for evolutionary potential in real/observable time? Why might this be?
It seems to me that there should be some sort of statistical reason for this decline in evolutionary potential relative to the minimum structural threshold requirements of higher vs. lower-level systems. As it turns out, it seems like the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence/structure space decline quite dramatically (exponentially in fact) with each increase in the scale of functional complexity.
It only stands to reason then that the minimum likely distance between what exists in a given gene pool of options and what might exist to some useful advantage increases in a linear manner with each increase in the scale of functional complexity under consideration. Therefore, the average number of random mutations necessary to bridge the gap, regardless of the type of mutations, increases exponentially as the Hamming gap distance increases. Of course, this in turn translates into an exponential increase in the average time needed to evolve higher and higher level systems of function.
Natural selection does not help to solve this problem because the gap is a non-beneficial gap. In other words, it cannot be crossed in any sort of positively selectable sequence of smaller steps. It can only be crossed by purely random chance mutations that actually bridge the gap. The odds that this will happen in a given span of time decrease, exponentially, with each linear increase in the scale of functional complexity.
The argument that mutations are just as likely to produce a system with a 999 fsaar minimum as a 1000 fsaar minimum isn't true. A system with a 1000aa minimum structural threshold requirement is exponentially less likely to be found vs. one with a 999aa minimum requirement.
It is a statistical argument that explains quite nicely what is actually observed in real life. If you think otherwise, by all means do explain the statistical odds of success at various levels or scales of functional complexity...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 29, 2009 7:02 PM
Iterative, as John Morales says, and I wonder if Sean Pitman is understanding that the process is massively parallel.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 29, 2009 7:06 PM
Re: John Morales #325:
I do not fail to realize that the evolutionary mechanism is iterative. However, if each step up the ladder, with each step most certainly resting upon lower-level steps, is just as easy as the one that came before, there should be no observed stalling-out effect of evolutionary progress depending upon the level or scale of the ladder of functional complexity under consideration.
The fact of the matter is that there is a very obvious decline in the observability of evolution in action beyond any system that requires a minimum of more than a few hundred amino acid residues. Obviously this means that the iterative steps are not all equally crossable. It becomes more difficult, on average, to cross higher and higher level steps. What is the reason for this?
My answer is that the reason is a linear increase in the non-beneficial gap distance in sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
What is your answer?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2009 7:08 PM
Sean, Mendacious Delusionalist, what you say is of no interest to a scientist, since you are not following tenets of science. I have before me a paper by one Thomas Schneider of the National Cancer Institute (Nucleic Acids Research, 28, 794-2799, 2000), who refutes everything you have to say. It shows natural selection is necessary. Now Sean, who am I to believe? A credentialed scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature, or a delusional M.D., who is not a real scientist, but rather a human body mechanic, who does not publish in the peer reviewed literature, and doesn't appear to even try to. This one is a no brainer Sean. You will lose it every time, because you have two options if you are a man of honesty and integrity. Either play by the rules of science, and put up by publishing you work, or shut the fuck up. But you will continue to babble on like a con man, who can't put up, but can't shut up, so we have your number.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 29, 2009 7:12 PM
Re: NoR #329:
Interesting. Please do quote from this paper where Schneider explains the statistical likelihood of the mechanism of RM/NS producing any novel system of function which requires a minimum of at least 1000aa - this side of trillions of years of time - - starting with any gene pool you wish.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 29, 2009 7:16 PM
Re: Artina Cage:
Iterative progress where every step up the ladder of functional complexity is just as easy as the one that came before doesn't explain the observed stalling out effect of evolution in action. How does parallel evolution solve this problem?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2009 7:22 PM
Sean, you don't get it. Until you publish in the peer reviewed literature, your word is worth less than nothing. You must make your ideas transparent and put them out there to be possibly (utterly) refuted by the scientific. Otherwise, you are just a lying con man. What is it to be Sean, Mendacious Delusionalist? Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2009 7:24 PM
Bah, In post # 332 I meant....refuted by the scientific community.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 29, 2009 7:33 PM
Sean:
1. When you speak of improbabilities for degrees of complexity, you seem to do so, since you compute them in terms of the initial stage.
2. It is just as easy, in terms of the required genomic change. Just a change of codons each time.
3. What's this "stalling-out effect"?
4. You're considering the outcomes of genetic change, not the changes themselves.
e.g. Consider the vast difference in outcomes of output on even slight changes of z or c for (zn+1 = zn2 + c).
Posted by: Kel
|
September 29, 2009 7:41 PM
Actually what I wrote there was Xeno's first paradoxx about Achilles racing the Tortoise. The analogy was that creationists have their tortoise (God), so while the evidence for evolution (Achilles) accumulates (the race begins), the creationists claim that no matter how much evidence is found (how far Achilles has run), the creationist will claim that evolution cannot overtake the god hypothesis (Achilles cannot pass the turtle).That analogy of course had nothing to do with anything more than mocking someone who is trying a proof by definitions. In terms of my argument, I've laid out a) how evolution works, b) how evolution is hypothesised to build complex structures, c) why your argument fails, d) why your argument is logically absurd, e) why you're entire arguments rests on your proof by definitions and as such you're trying to misunderstand evolution.
Did I say just as easy? No, I said it was theoretically possible. Indeed we can see such patterns in nature itself. But you rejected them. Despite the bacterial flagellum having that pattern whereby the flagellum itself being made up of other components which in turn are made up of smaller ones (just as evolution predicts) you claim this is evidence for creation. You won't accept that such systems fit exactly what evolution predicts, and I'm assuming this is because even though evolution can posit how such a program works, we did not observe it in action. So you can dismiss that evolution can make such a device and posit a designer. Nevermind that mutation and selection on small levels has been observed yet not a single designer has been seen. Nevermind that the process takes a much longer time scale than we have been observing. I explained above why I find this flawed. I find your reasoning flawed. You're concluding that because in the few decades of observation that no paper (to my knowledge or yours) has seen what you see as arbitraryu criteria. Even though I've explained several times why the underlying principle of your argument is wrong. Even though you're dismissing what happens over millions of years because of what has been observed in a few decades, somehow you're taking the conclusion that because no-one has satisfied your criteria that therefore your criteria means evolution cannot happen. This is a proof by definitions. And while the genetic record attests to common descent, while the fossil record clearly shows evolution, while observations of mutation, selection, adaptation and genetic barriers have been observed, apparently because I can't sayisfy your criteria (despite me giving long posts explaining exactly why your understanding of the process is wrong) that evolution can not happen. I'm not a microbiologist, I'm not familiar with all the genetic workings of observed natural selection. So of course I can't satisfy your criteria, even though I've laid out just why your criteria is flawed. I'm reminded of a former commenter here named Global Warming Is A Scam, who would ask the same question over and over as if it was proof against the concept of global warming. I see you doing the same thing, can I come up with evidence to satisfy your criteria? No I cannot. I can argue why your question is absurd (I have several times, yet you won't concede an inch despite the glaring logical flaws of your argument) and because you won't even concede that your argument has a logical flaw (or seek to correct it) I can only assume that no matter what I present I'll have to meet your exact criteria no matter how absurd it is. Why not ask me to produce a fossil crocoduck? I can't produce that, must mean evolution is false... Why is it that way? Aren't you accusing me of a "just so" story? I don't see you backing up your notion of the search space with any evidence. Nor do I see you accounting for contingency in nature, for interlocking complexity, for the irresibility of certain mutation, nor for the accumulation of beneficial mutations. If you want to play a game of definitions, I can do so. You say that the search space gets exponentially lower and lower, yet natural selection works by culling a exponentially-increasing population by the limiting factor of finite resources. So beneficial mutations even though more and more exponentially rare would still accumulate and be selected for. There, your proof by definitions criteria satisfied by a proof by definitions. Why 1000? Why not 999? Why not 1100, or 900 or 2000 or 250? Why does there need to be evolution in action beyond having one experiment seeing two different "fitness" increases happen over subsequent generations? I'm frustrated because your argument is logically flawed and you won't even seek to do anything other than ask the same arbitrary question over and over. And still you're arguing a proof by definitions, you're arguing with a non-biologist using a "gotcha" argument to try and dismiss the wealth of evidence from many different lines of inquiry that all converge on the same fact. I can't satisfy your criteria, so evolution must be wrong. Like I among others have asked you several times, why bother arguing it on here when you could be writing this into a paper and submitting it to peer review journals? Why aren't you going to biology conferences and arguing this point? Methinks you are an evangelical arsehole who is completely uninterested in being right, rather it's about getting laymen to think you are right. The question is, why can't you acknowledge that there's the possibility that your questions are being unanswered because it is akin to asking where's the fossil crocoduck? My tortoise and hare analogy is about the tactic in which you're presenting your argument. I know how evolution happens, I just question why you think that there won't be an accumulation over time. I've laid out the argument several times that while nothing is guaranteed in evolution, if you run the process enough times something will happen. And if the environment is a selecting factor then certain mutations will accumulate in order to give a survival advantage and the illusion of design. The eye is a glorious example of contingency; many simulations have shown how the eye could evolve and indeed each stage of the way there are animals that have such an eye. Yet apparently I can't say that the eye evolved because I can't produce a series of mutations that fit your criteria. Why? It doesn't matter what I say. You have your criteria so unless I can produce a study that shows exactly what you want then I won't satisfy you. We can't look back at the fossil evidence or molecular evidence, because that would be a just-so story. Even though the fossil record fits the biogeographic record fits the genetic record fits the anatomical record, even though all the different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion I can't ever bring evolution out of a "just so" story. I take it that if a murder is not directly witnessed it is unsolvable too. All evidence may point to the butler, but since I can't show that the butler committed the murder then we must conclude that God did it.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 29, 2009 7:45 PM
Dr. Pitman, I am not a biologist, so I should just shut up right now :P, but on the chance that I'm making a fool of myself, evolution doesn't seem that difficult a concept to grasp. Each step is resting on the combined product of many lower-level steps (developed in parallel and randomly combined from two parents—any two of numerous extant opposite-sexed individuals) and random mutations. Then you add some (natural) selective pressure (such as the extinction of a cohabitant or a geological event). (Do you account for selective pressures?) A stalling-out would be lack of selective pressure such as a fairly stable ecosystem (guaranteed not to last forever), would it not? I think you are are focusing on the individual level and missing the species level where you see the crossover from one species to another.Posted by: Kel
|
September 29, 2009 7:48 PM
"The time scale of billions of years that evolution has worked on, you're dismissing the possibility that complex structures can form based on the few decades that people have been looking"Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 29, 2009 7:48 PM
Sean Pitman wrote:
Please quote from any paper (published in a peer reviewed scientific publication) that cites that a minimum of 1000aa is required to justify evolution and back it up with evidence that it is impossible for simpler combinations to form larger ones meeting this invented standard of yours.
Or, alternatively, respond to the problem posed by my home-made god detector. It isn't coming back with a finding of 42 God Particles™ - the absolute bare minimum required for the Christian god to exist - so therefore it isn't possible for your god to be real. How can you still have faith when I've proven your god can't exist?
Posted by: Kel
|
September 29, 2009 11:41 PM
First, please quote the peer reviewed biological literature that makes 1000aa a threshold beyond which evolution cannot work... Again, how is this anything but judging evolution by your criteria?Posted by: Kel
|
September 29, 2009 11:52 PM
That is to say, why should you expect to find any paper in the scientific literature that makes reference to your criteria when you aren't participating in the scientific process and establishing that your criteria is a valid criteria to meet? Not to dwell too much on such a narcissistic comment, but surely you can see the absurdity of asking for such a thing. There's a paper that explains just how natural selection builds functional complexity from randomness, and your dismissal of it is that it doesn't have a comment in there about your criteria?
Surely it would be better to critique the paper for what it says as opposed to what it doesn't, especially when you haven't made the case in academia that your criteria needs to be met. Quit repeating your mantra and actually do science. No-one here has to meet your criteria until you do...
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Re: Morales #334:
That's not true. The probabilities between steps do not stay the same as the level of complexity increases. The probability of taking the next step decreases exponentially at higher and higher scales - regardless of the "stage" of the gene pool under consideration.
A change of codons doesn't necessarily hit upon a novel beneficial sequence of codons. Not just any change will do. In fact, the vast majority of potential changes will be functionally neutral or detrimental. Very very few will be beneficial. And, the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial functional changes declines as one considers higher and higher levels or scales of functional complexity.
If your notions were actually correct, we would see evolution in action at all scales of functional complexity. Clearly, evolution is not observed beyond very low levels, so your notions much be incorrect...
The stalling out effect is the observed decline in examples of evolution occurring over a given span of observable time as one considers higher and higher levels or scales of functional complexity - an effect which completely stalls out well before the 1000 fsaar level is considered.
The random changes themselves don't matter one lick when it comes to functional evolution until they happen to hit upon some novel beneficial sequence within sequence space. You are not considering the odds that a slight change in the starting point(s) will actually hit upon anything that is functionally beneficial. You aren't considering the odds at all on any level of functional complexity. You simply assume it will work without any sort of statistical prediction as to how long it should take to work on average. In other words, the very best you have are just-so stories - not science with real predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 1:42 PM
Re: Kel #335:
Not everything that is possible is equally probable. That's the whole question here. How likely/probably is your story at higher and higher levels of functional complexity?
You have no statistical basis for predicting the likely time needed to achieve a novel functional system regardless of the level or scale of functional complexity under consideration. You have no real argument at all behind your assertion that "it's possible".
Of course it's possible since everything is possible. My question to you is, "What are the odds?"
As I've noted for you before, the similarities between different systems can easily be explained by both deliberate design and mindless mechanisms such as RM/NS - - no problem. The similarities aren't the issue here. The problem for RM/NS is in explaining the required differences. The argument of homology doesn't explain how the required differences arose. Can your mechanism explain these required functional differences? - with reasonable odds given a reasonable span of time?
You will no doubt blindly respond with some off hand statement like, "Of course! Given billions of years anything is possible". My question for you is, yet again, what are the odds? Given billions of years, how likely are your assumptions? - at different levels or scales of functional complexity? Do you even know where to begin in estimating these odds? Of course not. That is why your position is nothing more than just-so story telling.
In short, you don't really have a scientific understanding of your mechanism. But, don't feel bad. Neither does PZ Myers.
Again, and argument for common descent isn't the same thing as an argument for the mechanism of RM/NS. We all agree that homologies do in fact support a common origin of some kind. We just don't agree that this common origin was the result of the mechanism of RM/NS.
The observation that there is an observed stalling out effect with scales of functional complexity needs to be explained. This observation has not been explained either by you or by mainstream scientists to my knowledge. That's a big problem for your "theory"...
All you've "laid out" is your argument that anything is possible. That's a lame argument. Science is about probabilities, not just possibilities. What are the odds? - at various levels of functional complexity? How are those odds estimated? Do you have any idea?
If you can't remotely propose an answer to this very simple question, what you have isn't science. It's just bald assertion on your part - and on the part of PZ Myers et al.
My question is not "absurd" or "logically flawed". It is a very simple question - Why does evolution stall out in a given span of observable time with a consideration of increased scales or levels of functional complexity?
How is that question logically flawed? It is a very simple straightforward question. What is your answer?
If you agree that beneficial mutations become more and more rare, exponentially, with increasing scales or levels of functional complexity, it really doesn't matter if they will be accumulated by NS. The average time needed to realize a beneficial mutation will also increase exponentially. How do you not see this as a problem?
That's fine. Tell me the basis for determining the statistical odds of success for all levels of functional complexity from 1aa on up... What are the odds at 100aa? at 200aa? at 500aa? at 1000aa? Do you have any idea how to even address this question? If you do not, you don't have a scientific basis for your assertion that the odds are good for your mechanism to work within any span of time at higher and higher levels or scales of functional complexity.
- Snip rest
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 1:50 PM
Re: Kel #340:
I have no problem with RM/NS producing novel functional complexity. It does. It just doesn't do so at the same rate at various levels of functional complexity. The rate declines, exponentially, with increasing scales of functional complexity. That's the whole problem and this problem is not addressed by this paper - or any other paper in mainstream literature.
I have no problem with what such papers actually say as far as the actual data is concerned. What I have a problem with is that no one is addressing the odds of RM/NS actually working at different levels or scales of functional complexity. No one discusses the concept that the odds or average time required is not the same - that the odds do in fact decrease, exponentially, with increasing scales of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 1:56 PM
Re: Kel #337:
What are the actual odds of success given a few billion years of time? - at different levels of functional complexity? Are the odds the same? Are they different? Are they good? Are they bad? What are they?
You see, I'm not dismissing the possibility of anything here. Everything is possible. Not everything is likely - even given billions or trillions of years. What is the likelihood? - the statistical likelihood? - beyond your personal assurance and say so? have any actual science? Some real math and statistical analysis?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 2:06 PM
Sean, you talk about science, but you never present any. Until you start citing the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your inane claims, you have nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. And this includes your false bit of statistical analysis, which you also keep hidden, like you know it won't stand up to peer review. You must step up your game to science from the present bullshit, and that starts with your publishing your statistical work in the peer reviewed literature so it can be reviewed by real scientists. Until then, you simply have an opinion that is worthless, because you have predetermined the outcome to show your imaginary deity.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 2:07 PM
Re: Artina Cage #336:
I'm talking about a situation where the selective pressures are in place and are very strong for the success of a higher level system if it were ever discovered by random mutations between any pre-existing systems or sequences within a gene pool of options.
Your under the mistaken notion that it is just as easy to combine existing systems and sequences to produce new higher level systems as it is to produce new lower level systems. This isn't the case. The odds of success are not the same at different levels or scales of functional complexity. In fact, the odds get exponentially lower and lower with each increase in the scale of functional complexity.
The reason for this is due to an exponential decrease in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences/structures in sequence/structure space with increasing scales or levels of functional complexity. It simply isn't as easy at higher levels to get pre-existing systems to correctly mutate since there are so many more non-beneficial ways mutations could happen compared to lower levels of functional complexity...
The force of NS cannot help this situation because it cannot come into play, in a positive manner, until after a new functionally beneficial sequence is actually discovered by purely random chance mutations. Only then does NS enter the game and success is achieved at a given level or scale of functional complexity...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 2:32 PM
Sean, you have not cited a peer reviewed scientific paper to refute the claim tha NS works in my post #329. Now, until you refute that paper, using the peer reviewed scienitic literature, you have to presume that NS works in your descriptions. That is the position of honesty and integrity, which all true scientist try to emulate. But you pretend that your idea isn't refuted, which shows a lack of honesty and integrity, which is also typical of Conmen for JebusTM. So, all you have is your unsubstantiated and false presuppositioned opinion. We both know that, along with everybody else looking at this blog.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 30, 2009 2:37 PM
Sean Pitman, to estimate the likelihood, one must have a model of formation. If you assume every molecule must find its way into place independently, you'll get astronomically small odds. Likewise if you assume every amino acid as an independent group. What is needed is a model of what the functional groups are, of how they change and how they are selected and so on. That we haven't reached this stage when it comes to evolution at the molecular level is not surprising. However, we have and continue to progress at an astounding rate. It would be a mistake to prejudge the outcome of future research.
An even bigger mistake is to assert that because science cannot quantitatively analyze a phenomenon at present that it never will be able to and that some sort of sky pixie is therefore needed as an explanation. You cannot posit your sky pixie as a scientific mechanism, until you a)can prove it exists or b)estimate the probability of its existence. It ain't science.
Posted by: RickR
|
September 30, 2009 2:43 PM
Why this incessant, irrational need to put Jesus in a lab coat? Is it fear? Stupidity?
Because that's how it makes you (and your faith) look, Sean: stupid and afraid.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 3:13 PM
Aren't you overlooking two of the greatest weed removers in evolution's arsenal: extinction and premature death? Extinction and premature death ought to become more likely given non-beneficial mutations. Both are also completely non-discriminatory; extinction can happen to any species and premature death can happen to any individual given the right (or wrong as it were) circumstances.What we have is this sea of organisms with continually evolving diverse parts and the bad parts are being culled just as quickly as they appear, and woe to the species that gets built using a bad part or to the species whose good parts become easy prey for a newly evolved organism. The "correct" mutation will not be correct in all situations or for all time even though it may provide a species with a fairly long and stable branch (flasb — I jest) on the Tree of Life.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 30, 2009 3:13 PM
Sean,
Let's try a new tack. Science is about increasing knowledge, right? If you were to find incontrovertible evidence of design, what would you do next. Do you assume that every difficult transistion was "designed"? What matters is the way forward. Good science always leads to new science. Where would your approach lead?
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 5:10 PM
Re: Marc Buhler #183:
Your comprehension is obviously no better now than it was then. I never argued that improved antibody binding over generations of B-cells was proof that the ToE was flawed. It just isn't a good argument in favor of the creative powers of RM/NS - that's all. All I said was that antibody evolution over generation of B-cells was an example of a form of evolution that is based on template matching - much like Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel algorithm".
The problem with using antibody evolution as proof for the potential of RM/NS is that you can't build many types of functional systems via template matching. You can't build a rotary flagellar motility system in this way, for example.
Template matching evolution does in fact work, very well. It just has very limited applications is all...
That's my point entirely. Antibody evolution doesn't explain how the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely likely able to produce novel nigher level structural systems which cannot be built in the same manner - i.e., via template matching over a few generations.
You still don't, and evidently never did, understand my point. I'm not using antibody evolution as proof against the creative powers of RM/NS. All I'm saying is that antibody evolution doesn't explain how RM/NS work to produce complex systems of function which cannot be built using the template matching that is used in antibody evolution over generations of B-cells.
Do you not see the difference between these arguments? - even after endless hours of repeated explanations? This really isn't that hard. Why not at least go back and review my website on the topic of antibodies before building your strawman misrepresentations?
http://www.detectingdesign.com/immunesystem.html
This is all quite reasonable. However, it is quite irrelevant to the point of my arguments regarding the immune system and how it is often referred to by evolutionists as proof of the high level creative potential of RM/NS. As you yourself point out, this isn't remotely true. The immune system is a poor example of the creative powers of RM/NS because it is a very limited template based example.
At least try to get the argument straight this time instead of building your usual strawman misrepresentations of my actual argument...
http://www.detectingdesign.com/immunesystem.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 5:21 PM
Re: Aratina Cage #350:
Neither extinction nor premature death help speed up the process of a population finding novel beneficial sequences at a given level of functional complexity. While these forces may remove functionally detrimental mutations, all this does is put the exploration of sequence space back to its starting position.
Functionally neutral mutations, on the other hand, can drift around within sequence space without being eliminated by negative selection. However, neutral drift also does not significantly shorten the time needed to find a novel beneficial sequence within sequence space since beneficial sequences are extremely rare and become exponentially more and more rare with each scale up the ladder of functional complexity.
You seen to confuse the removal of functionally detrimental mutations with helping to find beneficial mutations in a shorter period of time. This is a mistaken view. The removal of detrimental mutations is one thing. The finding of new beneficial sequences is a whole different story - and becomes exponentially harder and harder to do with increasing scales of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Iris
|
September 30, 2009 5:27 PM
I've just finished chapter 5 of Dawkins' book, which includes a nicely detailed section about the Lenski et al. experiments PZ highlighted here a while back. One particular statement really struck me:
That fact is just stunning to me. And Sean's argument just doesn't seem to account for the implications. While all twelve strains evolved in unique ways to better exploit their environment, one strain developed the ability to metabolize citrate, which seems like a pretty "functionally complex" adaptation to me. If it happened in the wild, the population of this mutant strain would continue to explode (relative to other strains). So given that (a) every single gene in the genome will continue to mutate at least once in 30,000 generations, (b) as aratina points out, death culls non-beneficial mutations, and (c) you've got an exploding population all containing the successful mutation, doesn't it follow that there would be more opportunity for additional mutations to increase the functional complexity of the organism's citrate metabolization system? It seems to me that far from dwindling odds, the complexity of a newly evolved function would instead spiral upward dramatically. The increase in population alone yields increased opportunities to shuffle the genes and thus happen to strike on new mutations that dramatically improve on the original mutation - which yields another increase in population, ad infinitum.
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding Sean's point. It's also possible I'm misunderstanding Dawkins' point. I would welcome being set straight on either account.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
September 30, 2009 5:41 PM
I think Sean's point is to ignore evidence such as Dawkins outlined in that chapter and to continue asserting that evolution ("beneficial sequences") is impossible.
Have you read that chapter yet, Sean?
Posted by: raven
|
September 30, 2009 5:49 PM
I see Sean Pitman is burning his strawman again. Must be 5 or 10 years now for this one. If there is a god of strawpeople, Sean will be in hell for a long time.
His model of evolution is false and a strawperson. It has no resemblance to what evolution actually is.
Evolution starts with what is available and moves in steps towards wherever it is going. Each time a beneficial mutation, which are known and common, is fixed, the clock is set back to zero.
And FWIW, Sean Pitman believes the earth is 6,000 years old, Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs, the bioshere is running down because someone ate an apple in Eden, and god will show up any minute and kill 6.7 billion people. That is the framework he uses and that is why it makes no sense and never changes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 5:49 PM
Correct, Sean presupposes his imaginary deity exists, therefore he must invent "evidences" for this deity. But he has no real evidence, as his statistical program is nothing but a sham for just that purpose, as it sounds sciency. Nor does he have any true understanding of what natural selection does or how it operates. A real understanding of the science will mean, at least in Sean's delusional mind, that his deity doesn't exist, which simply cannot happen.Dawkins right, Sean wrong. That is what the real science says. If you presume everything Sean says is not scientific you aren't far from the truth.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 6:03 PM
I think that is incorrect. The ones that are left after removal of detrimental mutations are the "correct" and "beneficial" ones at any given moment in time. This weeding process zeroes in on specific "beneficial" mutations. See, you don't have to worry about function (for the organism) at all. The process keeps moving forward by zeroing in on "beneficial"/"correct" mutations whether or not something functional comes out of it.Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 6:19 PM
Re: Iris #354:
The point you fail to realize is that citrate, like so many other such examples of evolution in action, requires no more than a few hundred fairly specified residues at minimum to achieve a useful level of activity. This is a very low-level example of evolution in action. Even if you increased the mutation rate 1000 times greater than that proposed by Lenski (even without increasing the detrimental effects of such an increase) you still wouldn't have nearly enough mutations to cross the likely gap distance between anything in any gene pool and any novel beneficial system in sequence space which requires a minimum of over 1000 fairly specified residues.
Such low-level examples simple don't explain how higher level systems are likely to have been produced in what anyone would call a reasonable amount of time via RM/NS - even given trillions of years of time.
Remember now, once a functional system like the the citrate function is evolved to at least a minimum degree of usefulness, further modifications to that system which enhance its degree of functionality of the same type (i.e., increasing citrase activity for example) are no problem for RM/NS to achieve in short order. The problem is in finding the minimum structural threshold requirements within the vastness of sequence space to begin with. And, this problem becomes exponentially worse and worse with each scale up the ladder of functional complexity...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven
|
September 30, 2009 6:20 PM
This is Sean's bafflegab nonsene of a strawman. It has nothing to do with evolution.
No need to quote Tom Schneider with his evo program that shows increases in information with a simulation of evolution. We see evolution all around us and it is a huge problem in medicine as well as the basis of our agricultural system.
Vancomycin reistance took way more than 1000 aa to produce a novel system that kills people. A drug resistance determinant became a transposon by two different Insertion Sequences jumping in somewhere to flank it. It then hopped onto a self transmissible plasmid which transers itself and its genetic complement around the biosphere. It eventually transferred itself to human pathogens causing disease being treated by vancomycin.
The VanR system is an operon containing 7 genes, 3 essential, the rest regulatory. The Insertion Sequences code for transposase enzymes which mediate the gene hopping. The plasmid contains machinery for replicating and transferring itself. The novel VanR transposon itself is 34 kb, enough to code for 11,000 aa.
So to summarize, vancomycin resistance involves a 7 gene operon, a complex transposon itself composed of two different transposons, and a mini-chromosome capable of transferring itself from one species to another.
This evolution took 30 years and we've seen the steps in real time. It was also predicted, this happens a lot with multidrug resistance which is commonly clinically significant. This is how evolution really works, taking what exists and combining and modifying it step wise in response to changing environmental conditions.
Pitman has been told this many times. He just ignores it and keeps on babbling about 1000 aa novel proteins in sequence space. Which has nothing to do with how evolution actually works.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 6:23 PM
I know what you mean, you mean 1,000 fsaar. But it is wrong and here's why: The exploration of sequence space cannot go back to the initial starting position because the sequence space is almost entirely different. Many of the mutations from the last exploration were removed from the sequence space because they were marked "detrimental" or "dead" and the rest produced new mutations, leaving a sequence space of elder survivors from the old sequence space and many new children. So what you have left is an almost completely new sequence space of purely "beneficial" mutations on which to explore.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 6:26 PM
Ah Sean, still no cited peer reviewed literature. You are just a glib IDiot who can sound semirational. But you have no science, just lies and bullshit.
Iris, check the paper in my post #329. It is by a real scientist at the National Cancer Institute, not a Liar for Jebus™, and indicates that with natural selection occurring, the population can quickly change once a beneficial mutation or series of mutations occur. Sean must deny this for his imaginary deity. Proof of which (for his imaginary deity), like his journal citations, appear to lost in the intertoobs.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 6:27 PM
Re: Raven #356:
Beneficial mutations are indeed known and are most certainly quite common - at very low levels of functional complexity where the novel functional systems discovered by RM require no more than a few hundred residues at minimum.
The problem is that there are no such examples beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold - not one. Why might that be? What are the odds? Have any idea? Can you produce a statistical basis for predicting the average time necessary for any type of gene pool to evolve any novel beneficial system of function at various levels of functional complexity?
If you can't do this, where is the "science" behind the creative potential of RM/NS? And no, arguments for a common origin are not the same thing as arguments in support of the mechanism of RM/NS...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 6:30 PM
Sean, either cite (not quote) the peer reviewed scientific literature where this statement is made. Otherwise, we have to presume it is from your meaningless statistical program and is therefore unscientific, and of no consequence to a scientific argument. Time to put up or shut up.Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 6:34 PM
Re: NoR #362:
Of course a population can quickly change *once* a beneficial mutation or series of beneficial mutations occur. That's not a problem at all. The problem is in finding at least the edge of a beneficial island within sequence space to begin with. That's the problem. Once RMs actually find even the very edge of a beneficial island within sequence space the rest is easy and the population that makes such a discovery will quickly change as you note...
So, the real question is, what are the odds of finding any novel system of function with higher and higher minimum structural threshold requirements? You have no idea, and neither does PZ Myers or anybody else within mainstream science.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 6:43 PM
Re: Aratina Cage #361:
Not true. NS is a stabilizing force within the gene pool. It maintains those sequences that are already functionally beneficial upon their original island starting points within a certain limited range of variability (largely neutral). Those individuals within the population that suffer detrimental mutations are removed from the population and are replaced by individuals that are still viable and most likely very close to the original starting point(s) or beneficial island(s) within sequence space.
In short, you can't significantly speed up the discovery of rare beneficial "target" sequences within a search space by a process of killing off those searchers that hit upon detrimental sequences. That just doesn't help achieve successful discovery to any significant degree.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 6:46 PM
Sean, explain to me what a beneficial mutation is to you. To me, any mutation that survives an iteration of evolution is beneficial for the time being.In a computer simulation, you can know exactly what you want the explorer to find even if you don't know how to get there. In reality, there is no goal and no explorer, evolution has a momentum built into it that keeps it going. Nothing in evolution is examining mutations for their benefit or detriment, that is all imputed into the process by humans.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 6:51 PM
This is a null statement meaning nothing Sean. You have shown nothing to date. Not how you calculate anything, not you alternative to evolution. Nothing. Just like one would expect from a Conman for Jebus™. Keep showing nothing. We don't believe you now, nor will we later. We have your number as a person without honesty or integrity that will lie for their concept of their imaginary deity, just another Liar for Jebus™.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 6:56 PM
No, it is a driving force.Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 6:57 PM
Re: Raven #360:
In this light, it is interesting to note that Enterococcal bacteria do not ever gain vancomycin resistance spontaneously in an isolated gene pool. The VanHAX genes happen to be on a transposable element in VRE. And, it just so happens that these genes, in the same orientation, are also found in various bacteria that historically synthesize and secrete vancomycin. Other types of bacteria, like E. coli also have very similar genes. Such similarity is thought to represent an evolutionary relationship.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/antibioticresistance.html#Cell%20Wall%20Synthesis
In short, vancomycin resistance did not evolve in real time. The genes coding for vancomycin resistance were already in the bacterial gene pool before humans started using vancomycin as an antibiotic. VRE did not evolve over the course of 15 or so years of vancomycin use in Enterococcal bacteria. They simply gained vancomycin resistance via lateral transfer of a pre-formed genetic element that was already there in the gene pool. Exactly the same thing happened with penicillin resistance that results from penicillinase production. The penicillinase gene does not evolve in real time. It is only inherited via vertical or horizontal transfer - preformed.
Beyond this vancomycin resistance isn't based on a system of function which requires specific orientation of all of its parts at the same time. It is a cascading system of function. VanH converts pyruvate to D-lactate. VanA takes the D-lactate produced by vanH and synthesizes D-Ala-D-Lactate with it. VanX selectively hydrolyzes all D-Ala-D-Ala peptides that are naturally produced by the host.
So, this "system" of function, being a cascading system without the need for the specific 3D orientation of all of the parts at the same time (unlike the rotary flagellar motility system), is no more statistically complex than its most complex individual part that does require specificity of arrangement of its own subparts. In other words, this VRE system is not significantly more complex than its most complex single protein part - which clearly has a minimum structural threshold of no more than a few hundred specified residues.
Try again...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
September 30, 2009 7:00 PM
R: Aratina Cage #369:
Not true. NS can't drive anything until after RMs actually discover a new beneficial sequence in sequence space by pure random chance.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 30, 2009 7:01 PM
Sean Pitman, you still haven't justified your maintaining a belief in the Christian god when my god-detector is clearly showing that your god can't exist - since its searching has failed to come up with a reading of 42 God Particles™ - the absolute bare minimum for any god to be be considered to exist.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 7:04 PM
Sean, still no peer reviewed evidence, just self citation. Like you don't want us looking at the real world. Like you are pulling a con on us...
As I have said all along, whatever you say must be backed up by the peer reviewed literature in order to be scientific. And you keep failing to cite any literature. Massive failure on your part, earning you the moniker Mendacious Delusionalist.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 7:10 PM
Again, you are making the mistake of imputing intelligence where none exists. Random mutations are not discovered, they happen just as a tree branch buckling under a heavy snowfall happens. And no sequences are inherently beneficial or detrimental, although specific sequences are zeroed in on by natural selection.Posted by: RickR
|
September 30, 2009 7:11 PM
Wowbagger- "42 God Particles™"
Heretic!! Everyone knows the True™ amount of God Particles necessary for the detection of the one true deity is 43! I hereby declare that your god detector is miscalibrated, and can't possibly point to the one true sky fairy. I reject all proclamations made from readings derived from your god detector, and banish you and your ilk from True Xianity™.
Splitter! Get your own church.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 30, 2009 7:12 PM
How do you know?
How did you calculate the difference?
Exactly how many "fsaarts" are there between the original population of E. coli and the citrate metabolizing one?
Show all work, please.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 30, 2009 7:17 PM
Oh, and in a previous thread, you brought up the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum. You didn't answer the following questions:
How many "fsaarts" are there between the TTSS and a minimal bacterial flagellum?
How do you calculate "fsaarts", anyway?
Posted by: raven
|
September 30, 2009 8:45 PM
Besides dragging his strawman around, Sean just lies a lot.
Once again although it is hopeless. Religious fanatics got a bad name thousands of years ago for good reasons.
What evolved was drug resistant human pathogens. By natural selection after use of vancomycin. And that was in real time. You don't understand evolution any better than any other ignorant, trailer park creationist.
The creation of a complex transposon involves Insertion sequences, themselves jumpers that end up flanking an operon such as VanR. The jump to a RTF, self transmissable plasmid. Transfer of the plasmid to a human pathogen.
This is evolution, taking what is there and modifying it one step at a time. Not your strawman bafflegab.
As to where the VanR 7 gene operon came from?. We don't know. You don't either. You just lie and then say god created it 6,000 years ago and left it laying around decaying from Fall mediated molecular death. Oddly enough, with nothing to do for 6,000 years but run down because 2 people ate an apple, it still works just fine. So much for genetic entropy.
Scientists would say the 7 gene operon itself evolved. Since bacteria and genes don't fossilize well, we may never know it's history. We have been able to trace some drug resistant determinants back a ways, a few decades. They show evolutionary changes even in that time span.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 30, 2009 8:49 PM
God damn it, I wrote out a long reply then as I went to post it, I got logged off and lost the whole damn thing!
Posted by: raven
|
September 30, 2009 9:03 PM
Sean just lies, handwaves, burns strawmen, and spouts common logical fallacies a mile a minute like any creationist. It is routine and boring.
He is also a typical religious fanatic who is trying to get the biology faculty at La Sierra U. fired. They have {gasp, horrors,} been teaching science including evolution. There is a letter of his floating around on the net.
There seems to be a schism brewing in the Seventh Day Adventist church. Probably this time between progressives and fundies. They do that a lot too. The Branch Davidians and Armstrong's Worldwide Church of god came out of them.
I don't know what he does when he isn't trying to get professors fired or formenting intracult conflicts. I doubt he is a xian terrorist but who knows, they certainly cause problems here in the USA and being a vicious religious kook is an occupational requirement. Between 1 and 2 million people in the USA leave xianity every year. No secret why. The Seans and Falwells and Terry Randalls create more atheists in a day than Dawkins or Myers do in a year.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 30, 2009 9:55 PM
I so could not be bothered replying a second time so I'll summarise what I wrote.
Why should increasing complexity make a difference? Show evidence please. We have the process, and we know how it works. You're not addressing that. As H Allen Orr said to Dembski - nice answer, wrong question. Don't commit the gambler's fallacy. What are the odds that a single mutation means a system gets more complex and stays functional? You can't answer that, nor should you pretend that you can. If you can actually predict the means by which proteins build before they actually do then you've got the mind of God! Can your mechanism be shown to exist? Natural selection has been demonstrated both in the wild and in the lab. Yet where's your evidence that there's a designer at play? Sure it could be possible that a designer is at work, but you need to demonstrate it is there. Your positing a mechanism that has not been observed, and your entire proof is "a designer could do it". Well of course a designer could do it. A god could do anything! But you need to show that such a mechanism exists, otherwise you're engaging in sophistry.As for whether RM/NS can build it in a reasonable space of time, computer simulations say YES!
I will? Hell no. In the book this thread is about, Dawkins mentions that if DNA coded blueprints as opposed to process then to get the equivalent of what we have now would take 10100 years! So no, I reject the notion that anything is possible. The process works by replication of genetic organisms, so we should expect to see a focus on sex and complex structures related to advantage in the race to survive. My answer again is that you're looking at it the wrong way! It's not just-so storytelling, the process can be demonstrated to work through computer simulations, and there is a wealth of historical evidences that support that it took place. That's quite a charge, fair enough to level it at me but to level it at a professor of biology? Big call, hope you have evidence to back it up. Anyway, to show my understanding of the process...In the process of life, there is a potentially exponentially increasing population competing for a finite amount of resources. Heritbale variation exists within the population, and that variation can increase or decrease the likelihood for an individual organism to "succeed" and pass on that successful variation to future generations. Over time those advantageous variations will accumulate.
Though I could be wrong in my understanding, if I am please correct me (this goes for anyone)
I'm arguing the evidence supports common descent, not common origin. I don't think "same genes, same designer" explains why the genetic drift in the vitamin C synthesising pseudogene shows that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other ape. It doesn't explain the fossil record, ERV markers or the fused chromosome.As for mechanism, are you actually going to show the mechanism you are positing? All you are doing is saying that RM/NS can't. You're not showing any mechanism! We can give you example after example of mutation / selection in action. It may or may not be enough to account for life. But at least it has been observed, where's the mechanism that your positing? Show me the evidence!!!
It's not my theory...But point taken. Before creationists have been asserting that evolution cannot build functional complexity. Scientists show that the process can, and now the goal is "well yes it can build some but it can't build complex function". What would happen if an experiment did show that it could build past 1000aa. Would you agree that it means that evolution can build anything? Or would you bump the number up to 2000aa? This feels like shifting the goal posts...
So why hasn't science satisfied your criteria? Have you submitted your proposal to peer review? Have you attended conferences and argued with biologists about this notion? If not, then why should you expect biologists to satisfy your criteria when you haven't academically established that they need to?
I haven't argued that anything is possible, I've argued that contingency makes the system unpredictable - but that the process means that something (as opposed to anything) will happen. What are the odds? You completely misunderstand the process if you're asking for odds. I roll a die 20 times, it comes up as: 42611316243526313415What are the odds that I threw that? 620: 1 in 3656158440062976. Wow, how improbable! You can't get that by chance. Roll the dice another 10 times. The sequence is now: 426113162435263134151253264625
That's 630: 1 in 221,073,919,720,733,357,899,776!!! Maybe I should roll it 10 more times... 42611316243526313415125326462564243661352536153325
Now that's 650: 1 in 8.028*1038!!!!! Damn, that's so improbable. If only I could roll the die 50 more times, then my 100 rolls would have odds of 6.533*1078. If I rolled it 1000 times, the precise sequence I rolled was 1.416*10778. Shit, this is just way too improbable!!!
Ask the wrong questions and you won't get any answers of value. The fossil record quite clearly shows that life has evolved, as does the genetic code, the biogeographic distribution of life as well as the morphology. You call it an assertion, yet you haven't even proposed a mechanism! You're just saying "it's too improbable, therefore God did it" That's your entire fucking argument. And you have the nerve to say that the scientists are the ones making the assertion? Evolution stalls out? Got evidence of this? Are you saying that the observations made in the last few decades means that the process that has worked for the last 3.5 billion years cannot do anything? Where's your evidence that levels of functional complexity make the process stall out? Show the evidence! The question is logically flawed because you're looking at the end result and declaring that it was too improbable instead of looking at the process in the way it works. It's logically flawed because you're asserting that a gene duplication is more improbable than the building of the gene because it adds functional complexity. It's logically flawed because you assume that if RM/NS can't do it then there must be a designer. You're missing the key component, that there is an exponentially-increasing population. Your concern is negated by the process!But of course that was nothing in relation to the reality, I don't think that beneficial mutations get exponentially more rare. If you have evidence to support your assertion then bring it. If you don't, then you have no ground to get upset that people aren't providing evidence to counter your assertion!
Posted by: Kel
|
September 30, 2009 10:00 PM
Have you submitted papers to show that evolution needs to explain what you're asking? If not, the how the fuck can you expect biologists to answer your criteria? Until you do that, all you have is a genetic crocoduck...Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 30, 2009 10:21 PM
Kel wrote:
My analogy of choice to overcome the 'improbability' of evolution is to say that the argument against it is like saying that we're accepting that the universe rolled a million six-sided dice and got all sixes - which is untrue; it's more accurate to say that it's like rolling a million six-sided dice, keeping the sixes and rolling those with a value other than six again - and again and again and again until they all show sixes.
Eventually you'll have a million dice showing six.
Posted by: raven
|
September 30, 2009 10:21 PM
We surely do know a lot about the timeline of evolution and that it happened. We have a fossil record going back 3.6 billion years. The fossil record, in fact, came before evolution and evolution explains it.
Sean thinks the fossil record doesn't exist because the earth is 6,000 years old. So all the fossils must be left over from the flood.
That guess presents its own problems. We also know that 99+% of all life is extinct. Which would prove that the xian fundie god is an incompetent idiot. He arranged to salvage all the animal life and it was a near total failure.
Posted by: Iris
|
September 30, 2009 11:12 PM
@Nerd, thanks -I will read it.
@Kel:
Yes. This is what I was getting at above at 354 (though with less confidence, and more words).
Shorter Sean @ 359:
And we're not even touching on the pleiotropic effects of every single one of these gene mutations.
Huh.
?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 11:13 PM
Sean, if you are going to posit your deity as your designer, you have to provide physical evidence for said designer. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Until you provide said evidence you are nothing but a delusional fool, as your deity doesn't exist and your babble is a work of fiction. Show physical evidence to refute those null hypotheses. Welcome to real science. We're waiting...
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
September 30, 2009 11:17 PM
Dear Brother Sean,
I may be able to help you. I've captured an actual, real fsaar. It's floating in the bottom of my toilet. Would you like me to package it up and fed-ex it to you?
Yours in search of designed stuff,
Smoggy
Posted by: raven
|
October 1, 2009 2:06 AM
Yeah, you would. You don't understand evolution and after 5 years you never will. Willful blindness since even high school kids get it. If something requires 200 mutations, it isn't going to happen all at once. There will be 200 steps of 1 mutation each and each time a mutation fixes, the clock starts over.
This is just the old fallacy, microevolution happens but macroevolution is impossible. A human can walk a block but they can't walk 100 miles. It is bullcrap.
Yeah, they do. One step at a time. Look at the recent evolution of humans. We have a good series of fossils going back almost to the split between chimps and humans. Human evolution occurred stepwise like all evolution. We see that everywhere in evolution. Our ancient ancestors were called the mammal-like reptiles. Followed by...the reptile-like mammals.
You really ought to stick to what you do best. Ranting and raving and causing problems for the people around you. Keep trying to fire evolutionary biologists at Loma Linda and any other SDA place you can. Help start the next schism in the SDA church. It's not like the old days where people fought huge battles when a church split and tens of thousands or millions died. This modern age is so degenerate.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 1, 2009 2:14 AM
Not true. NS can't drive anything until after RMs actually discover a new beneficial sequence in sequence space by pure random chance.
Sean, do you really think the only source of genetic variation arises from random mutations?
did you even think that the modern theory of evolution holds that to be the case?
did you also think that selection is the only mechanism that can act on any given source of heritable variation?
if the answer to any of the above is "yes", then get ye hence to any basic text covering the actual theory of evolution, and stop wasting our time with your army of inane strawmen.
if not, then why do you keep lying?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 1, 2009 10:04 AM
I have an idea (utter sophistry, but still) of why so many medical doctors, psychologists, engineers, and computer scientists can't grok evolution.
Their occupations are all concerned with designing or selecting things that are beneficial to humans; it is what they are good at. So, when they look at evolution they bring this assumption with them that the process has to be beneficial in the way they are used to thinking of things being beneficial; that is, they feel there has to be a decision being made with some forethought by something for the direction that evolution will take. The effect is that they interpret natural selection as another form of artificial selection that can ward off detrimental branches in the Tree of Life.
From my limited understanding of evolution, I don't see that as the case at all. Evolution operates without foresight or hindsight. It is a process of the moment, in the moment. No cost-benefit analysis is applied, no risks are considered, and no probabilities are weighed. What benefits and detriments there are can only be seen from a human perspective (such as transmissible cancer being an obvious detriment).
So I think Sean Pitman is falling into this trap of looking at evolution as if it would have to have an ethereal mind of its own to work as Pitman himself works in the practice of medicine. It doesn't appear to make sense to him why evolution would select anything but the neutral without an intention behind it to make things better. But that's missing the beauty and horror of evolution, that it is mindless and yet produces the most beautiful, healthy, and wonderful kinds of life while at the same time producing the most disgusting, sickly, and dreadful kinds of life. Evolution doesn't care about the weak like Sean Pitman—it doesn't care at all.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 1, 2009 10:13 AM
A shorter way of paraphrasing Sean Pitman's thinking:
You have to have intent to surpass 1,000 fsaar, the point at which a mutation is beneficial. Evolution does not have intent, so it is wrong and impossible. Therefore, intelligent design.
Posted by: raven
|
October 1, 2009 11:58 AM
Sorry no. Evolution is simple to grasp and even grade school kids can get the basics. All you need is an IQ around 100 and some routine education.
The reason those engineers and so on don't grasp it is real simple.
They are religious fanatics from xian or moslem death cults. It is just toxic religion warping their minds. They are afraid if they accept objective reality, they will go to hell. That is why they spend so much time with convoluted pseudoscience explanations and lies and why they never bother to learn the real science.
How many No Religions, Buddhists, New Agers, Hindus etc.. think the earth is 6,000 years old, Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs, 99% of the world's best and brightest, the scientists, have been lying to everyone for two centuries, and god is going to show up real soon and kill 6.7 billion people? It is somewhere around zero. This is the majority of the world's population. Even most xians wordwide don't reject evolution and modern science.
Creationism is a fundie xian religious belief, held mostly by Death Cultists from the south central USA. This has even been ruled on in court many, many times.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 1, 2009 12:40 PM
Ha! Raven, I stand corrected. :)
Posted by: Iris
|
October 1, 2009 1:04 PM
Nerd - if you're still here, many thanks. The paper you cited @ 329 was fascinating. I especially like the Roman Arch building analogy, as I think it is a very useful concept for understanding the development of complex biological systems. The author also hit on a facet related to the exploding population issue Kel alluded to, and which I think Sean's model ignores entirely: a single beneficial mutation exponentially overtakes a population. And here's the money shot:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794
I look forward to Sean's devastating critique appearing in the next issue of Nucleic Acids Research.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 1, 2009 1:12 PM
Isis, in interests of full disclosure, Kel was the one who brought the article up on another thread. I just remembered it, and went looking for and found it. It seemed appropriate to cite it here.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 1, 2009 1:39 PM
Kel:
If you're using Firefox, this add-on could prevent that from happening again...
Posted by: Dania
|
October 1, 2009 2:24 PM
They're not only arguments for a common origin. They're arguments for common descent. Frankly, I'm getting tired of your weasel words. You keep talking about a "common origin of some kind" when we all know what you really mean... Why? Are you ashamed of being a YEC? Is that a desperate attempt to make your ludicrous religious beliefs sound scientific?
Posted by: Kel
|
October 1, 2009 6:00 PM
I was on IE6 at the time (at work). Normally I write it in a text document and just copy / paste it in, but stupidly I did it cumulatively and only was left with the final paragraph.Oh well, I'll learn.
I found it because Ken Miller mentioned it in Only A Theory including a link to the website.Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 4:30 AM
As soon as he starts being specific, it follows that he has to be able to defend his position against pretty much discipline of science out there. Starts talking about a literal genesis, then he has to explain why we see galaxies 13.2 billion light years away while the earth only dates to ~4.6 billion years. The gradual fossil record suddenly becomes an issue, as does the countless forms of dating that put the earth beyond the 10,000 year mark (and close to the 4.6 billion year mark). That he might have to explain ERV markers, fused chromosome pairs, genetic drift as seen in pseudogenes, etc.I'm with you on this one Dania, I wish he would stop using weasel words and actually state his position explicitly. I'm pretty sure he's a young earth creationist, using the "same genes, same designer" argument, though it's hard to call him out on it when he's not explicitly stating his position.
Come on Sean, let's stop the weasel words and just talk specifics. How old is the universe? How old is the earth? How old is the sun? Does the sun orbit the earth? Is the earth flat? Is the mind material? Did life evolve? (the last question not being about mechanisms - which seems to be your gripe here, only that all life shares a common ancestor)
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 12:27 PM
Re: Aratina Cage #374:
Random mutations do indeed just happen via mindless mechanisms. However, given a particular gene pool and environment, certain sequences in sequence space would indeed be beneficial (or detrimental) if they were ever discovered by RMs. And no, specific sequences are not "zeroed in on" by NS at all. NS doesn't actually select, in a positive manner, until after RMs just happen upon a new beneficial sequence by sheer luck. NS is completely blind until this happens. It cannot "zero in" on anything until after a rare beneficial sequence happens to be stumbled upon.
For example, what is the functional difference between quiziligook, quiziliguck, and maquiziliducks in the English language system? There is no functional difference since all of these sequences are equally functionless in the English language system. Therefore, a mutation that goes from one to the other of these sequences would be seen by a selection mechanism like NS as neutral. In other words, NS would be blind to such changes. The very same thing is true in biology. Most mutations are functionally neutral and NS is in fact blind to such changes.
You clearly don't grasp the very basic concepts behind the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 2, 2009 12:40 PM
And Doctor Sean once again proves he's an ass even if he dropped the pretentious appeal to authority MD in his signature titles. Your irony - or rather, your unawareness of it - is hysterical. Your malpractice insurance must be astounding.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 12:57 PM
Sean, the Mendacious Delusionalist, is back proving why is is both mendacious and delusional. Sean, you are the one with no idea of how RM/NS works. You have shown no scientific evidence that you do. So you just have lies and appeals to your inane and unsupported authority. Time for you to go away. We have your number.Your deity doesn't exist and your babble is a work of fiction. We know that. You need to learn that.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 2, 2009 1:14 PM
Let's not forget that NS is always blind to the benefit, detriment, or rarity of a sequence in the sequence space. The process works because sequences spread throughout the sequence space by virtue of surviving the sharp blade of nature and the blunt hammer of time. Here is a question to ponder: what would happen if the pressures on sequences were removed so that any sequence would be the "correct" sequence in the sequence space? Those three words would go extinct were you to use them — natural selection at work amongst languages. Gobbledygook would not as we use it to describe words like those three you gave.You're right, though, I probably don't understand RM/NS nearly well enough. I'm not convinced you do, either.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 2, 2009 3:40 PM
Yes, that's the question I'd like him to answer. I've asked him before if he accepts evolution but has issues with the currently known mechanisms, or if he's arguing that because the known mechanisms cannot account for the evolution of life then life didn't evolve. I've also asked him to clarify his "common origin of some kind" expression. He has been ignoring this questions. Why? Because he's just as dishonest as the Discovery Institute crowd.
He's actually following Phillip Johnson's advice pretty closely:
Need I say more?
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 6:15 PM
You don't grasp the time scales behind the process! Unlike your comment this is actually evident! Even if beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare, it's the accumulation over time that you're neglecting. Well I can't say you're neglecting, you're claiming the process doesn't work beyond a certain level (which you're yet to demonstrate) then claiming that people here don't understand. Well if you're at the point where you say that a professor of biology doesn't understand natural selection...talk about Dunning Kruger!
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 6:55 PM
*shock* no, that summed it up quite well.Hardly surprising in the end, though it makes a lot of sense to do it that way. Once one brings up the Omphalos hypothesis in order to get around e=mc²...
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 8:02 PM
Re: Raven #388:
What you don't seem to understand is that if the gap distance is 200 character changes from what exists in the gene pool to the nearest beneficial sequence in seqeunce space, NS isn't going to be able to help to fix any step that happens to be closer compared to any step that happens to go in the wrong direction.
This is the entire problem for the RM/NS mechanism. NS just doesn't work, in positive manner, until after the beneficial sequence is actually discovered by purely random chance. If the gap distance is linearly larger, the average number of mutations needed to cross it grows exponentially.
It isn't impossible. It just gets exponentially less and less likely. You are under the misconception that each potentially beneficial step is the same distance appart in sequence space regardless of the level of functional complexity. That notion is false. As the levels or scales of functional complexity increase, the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets in sequence space drops exponentially. It is like trying to find at least one out of ten target locations (each 1 sq meter in size) in a 1 sq km field vs. trying to find at least one out of 100 targets in a 10,000 sq km field. The average time to success, regardless of the types of random steps taken, increases dramatically.
Your arguments for common descent are not the same thing as argument explaining how the mechanism of RM/NS could have done the job - not even close. You clearly have no idea how to back up your assertions for RM/NS with anything but just-so stories and a complete lack of understanding of the nature of sequence space at various levels or scales of functional complexity...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 8:05 PM
can you show that the sequence space gets further and further the more complex an organism gets? I'm assuming that we should never see any complex structure have a mutation that's beneficial if it has more than 1000aa correct?Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 8:10 PM
Re: Raven #384:
Yes yes, the classic and very predictable appeal to the fossil record when one can't actually defend the mechanism of RM/NS with anything other than just-so story telling. The fossil record, regardless of how you interpret it, says nothing about the statistical likelihood that your proposed mechanism of RM/NS did the job you say it did. You can argue common descent all day long as an explanation for the fossil record - but by what mechanism? You say that the mechanism is obviously RM/NS, but you make this claim without any statistical understanding of this mechanism nor any ability to predict its likely activity at various levels or scales of functional complexity.
In other words, you're just making up stories for the mechanism of RM/NS. Sorry, but how are your stories remotely useful in the scientific sense of the word? Where is your statistical basis of support? Where is your predictive power?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 8:17 PM
Re: WowBagger #383:
This is just another version of Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" algorithm. It only works if your selecting based on a template match to a pre-established sequence where every single character match in the sequence is selectable.
The problem with this little scenario is that you can't evolve something like a rotary flagellar motility system using template matching. It just doesn't work. Not every single character match to a flagellar system will be functionally beneficial - not until the minimum structural threshold is reached which gets from a pre-existing functionally beneficial steppingstone to the next.
See the problem? Probably not, but try . . . just a little. It really isn't that hard to understand.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 2, 2009 8:22 PM
You're so stupid Sean Pitman. The Fossil record provides useful sources in showing evolutionary analogies between common species. It is more unlikely that such commonalities between modern and ancestral species are the result of a design since the fossil record indicates a sequence of change from the primordial to the modern one.
But since you said:
So where are your statistically reliable understandings of Intelligent Design, since you are accusing evolution of having none?
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 9:01 PM
The problem is you fail to recognise just how the flagellum could be put together in an evolutionary sense. If you break the core components done from the flagellum, you do see functional components. Exactly as evolution predicts! There's no template matching, there's only what helps survival. If one part gets co-opted into another part of the system and that new component gives a functional advantage, why wouldn't it get passed on?Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 2, 2009 9:06 PM
But Sean, NS doesn't have a way to see if any character match will be functionally beneficial for any kind of system. It is a mindless process. It makes no difference to NS if it is selecting for a beneficial, neutral, or detrimental character; they are all equivalent to NS. The characters that survive the constant pressure of NS while also being able to multiply and spread throughout the population are the ones that get amplified by NS. You are looking at NS not as the natural process that it is but as an intentional process akin to breeding. That is incorrect.Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 9:13 PM
Re: Kel #381:
Systems at higher levels or scales of complexity require larger minimum size and/or specificity requirements before they will work at all. The means, of course, that the minimum sequence space size needed to contain these higher level systems must be exponentially larger vs. the size needed to contain a lower level system. This also means that the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences at higher levels is exponentially reduced.
You're in fact addressing the right question, but not with science. Your addressing it with just-so stories that are completely devoid of statistical backing or predictive value. You simply assert that your mechanism is able to do the job in a reasonable amount of time regardless of the level of functional complexity. You say this based only on blind faith and bald assertion; not on any sort of statistical understanding of the mechanism itself.
Again, don't feel bad, you're in very good company - to include that of PZ Myers and all modern mainstream evolutionists.
If you can't make such predictions, to any useful degree of accuracy whatsoever, then you don't have a scientific basis for your claim that RM/NS clearly did the job. The very best you have is blind faith without any real understanding of the mechanism.
The gambler's fallacy, by the way, assumes that the game isn't biased. The fact of the matter is, it is possible for a gambler to detect and successfully bet against the bias of dice or a roulette wheel by noticing certain predictable patters over time.
First off, I don't have to propose an alternative hypothesis before I can challenge yours. Your notions for the creative power of RM/NS have not been demonstrated in the wild or in the lab beyond very low levels of functional complexity. And, even at these levels you have no statistical understanding of why your mechanism works so well in a given span of time. That is why you have no statistical understanding on why higher level examples are nowhere to be found.
Beyond this, even human-level intelligence is able and has already surpassed the 1000 fsaar level of creativity when it comes to producing biosystem complexity. We already know what mechanisms, backed by intelligent design, can achieve in this regard - - far beyond your mechanism of RM/NS.
Not beyond very low levels of functional complexity they don't. If they did, computer programmers would be out of a job...
It doesn't work through computer simulations to produce anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity or various forms of template matching where the evolving sequence is compared, without reference to actual function, to some pre-determined sequence.
Also, your historical evidence doesn't tell you Jack about how your proposed mechanism of RM/NS likely did the job.
Population sizes have maximum limitations due to finite resources. That's one of the problems for the RM/NS mechanism. Variations can indeed increase or decrease within a population depending upon their beneficial or detrimental nature. The problem is that new benefits are exponentially harder and harder to discover via RMs with each increase in the scale/level of functional complexity.
I don't care if you are talking about common descent. Such arguments, even if correct, don't explain the likelihood that your mechanism of RM/NS was responsible. They aren't the same thing. Arguments for common descent are not the same thing as arguments for RM/NS.
Beyond this, ERV markers and fused chromosomes are very easy to explain without the need for invoking common descent.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Fusion
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous
There are plenty of human-designed mechanisms for producing high levels of functional complexity - to include biosystem complexity. Regardless, these aren't needed before the viability of your mechanism can be adequately challenged.
You are the one arguing for the creative powers of RM/NS are you not? If not, why are you posting to this forum?
I've been presenting this very same argument in public forums like Talk.Origins and on my website for over 10 years now. There is no goalpost shifting. It is simply an observation of fact. Evolutionary progress clearly stalls out well before the 1000 fsaar level is reached - at the level of systems that require no more than a few hundred residues at minimum.
I'm just asking a very simple question. If the mechanism of RM/NS is so clearly understood, what is the likely time needed to achieve success at different levels of functional complexity? In other words, what is the statistical basis for the success of the mechanism?
If you can't answer this simple question, you really don't understand the mechanism. It's as simple and straight forward as that.
You can argue that scientists don't have to answer this question, and that's true - as long as they want to propose just-so stories for the RM/NS mechanism instead of real science.
This is a very common but mistaken argument. It is like arguing that every single hand you draw in poker is very unlikely, yet you still drew it - right. Therefore, as the argument usually goes, the unlikely is likely enough to happen quite commonly - right?!
LOL - If the unlikely was actually common, it wouldn't be unlikely. We aren't asking for the odds of a random mutation hitting upon at least something in sequence space. It will certainly hit upon some sequence regardless. However, the relevant odds here concern the odds of a random mutation hitting upon a "correct" sequence which is determined ahead of time to be "correct" if discovered. In short, if the sequence provides a beneficial functional advantage, it is defined as "correct".
You see, not every sequence in sequence space is a potential "target" in this game. The target sequences are actually quite rare. And, they get exponentially more and more rare with each step or scale up the ladder of functional complexity. That means, as you know, the odds of successfully finding one of them decreases exponentially as well...
The fossil record, even if interpreted as being built by common descent, does not show how life "evolved". This is a question of mechanism here. Specifically, what are the odds that your proposed mechanism of RM/NS did the job? Again, you're confused in thinking that arguments for common descent are the same thing as arguments in support of RM/NS. That's simply not true. Try again...
Your mechanism of RM/NS stalls out over given spans of time in line with increasing levels or scales of functional complexity. This is an observed fact. What is the reason for this observation? You have no idea. Just admit it and move on...
Gene duplication is easy. It happens commonly enough. The problem is that your assertion that gene duplication adds functional complexity is mistaken. It doesn't do anything but make more of the same thing. It doesn't produce a novel system of function at all. And, the odds that any such large mutational event will hit upon a novel sequence in sequence space that produces a higher-level functional system are not significantly better than the odds that a single point mutation will do the job.
I'm afraid it is your understanding of sequence space and the nature of RM/NS that is logically flawed here...
At least human-level design has been shown to be capable of doing the job. It is the very same argument used by SETI...
You'd be right if the population size could keep increasing exponentially in line with the exponential decrease in the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial. I've very glad you've come to this point because most evolutionists never get even this far. The problem with this argument, you see, is that there are finite resources which prevent the continued exponential expansion of population sizes. At this point, the mechanism of RM/NS begins to stall out - not before.
Even Richard Dawkins points out that however many ways there are of being alive, there are vastly more ways of being dead (paraphrased). Obviously then, as you increase the minimum size of sequence space needed to contain systems with greater minimum size requirements (given a constant degree of specificity), you exponentially increase the number of non-viable sequences vs. those that are actually viable.
And, there you have it - and exponential decline in the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences. In order for RM/NS to keep up with this problem, the population size, as you point out, must increase at an equal rate with each step up the ladder of functional complexity... and this can only happen for so long - until the finite resources are used up.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 9:22 PM
Lots of blather Sean, but no evidence presented. Your opinion is worth nothing since it is not backed by the scientific literature, which you fail to cite. So Sean, when are you going to publish your article on your fictional method to determine something about your proteins? And your paper proving RM/NS doesn't work? Until you do, you are nothing but a fraud. When are you going to admit you are nothing by a Liar for Jebus™? Get with the program Sean, you have a lot of work to do to establish any credibility. You have none here.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 2, 2009 9:24 PM
Re: Aratina Cage #413:
You're mistaken. NS is very much like breeding (which is phenotype based) - even though NS is not mindful, intelligent or intentional. NS has the power to preferentially select between different types of sequences. This force acts differently depending upon if the newly discovered sequence is functionally neutral, detrimental, or beneficial.
So, you see, it makes a very big difference from the perspective of NS if a sequence is functionally neutral, beneficial or detrimental. The mindless force of NS can in fact detect between all three and does in fact act in a different manner for each one. It acts in a positive manner for beneficial sequences, a negative manner for detrimental sequences and a neutral manner for neutral sequences.
It doesn't matter that NS is mindless. It still can distinguish between different types of sequences - just like a mindless computer can be programmed to distinguish between different types of sequences.
What this means, of course, is that even with human selection that is based only on random mutations and phenotypic selection, you can't get something to evolve beyond very low levels of functional complexity - even if a very intelligent human is doing the selecting instead of mindless nature. Either way, function-based selection is statistically very unlikely to produce higher level systems beyond the 1000 fsaar level...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 9:29 PM
Still haven't defined what this means or how it is calculated. Your none-transparency on this make you a conman, Sean, the Mendacious Delusionalist. Quit pretending we don't have your number. And you have presented no evidence for the replacement for evolution, or your imaginary deity. Nothing but total failure Sean. Except in your delusional mind.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 2, 2009 9:34 PM
You clearly don't grasp the very basic concepts behind the mechanism of RM/NS.
bah.
what we understand, all too well, is that you are endlessly creating strawmen of how it actually works, and claiming you know what the fuck you're talking about.
you don't.
you haven't gotten it right yet.
you're stuck at the level of a basic math algorithm, and haven't even bothered to look at how things work in the real world.
you haven't read a single paper documenting how selection works in the lab or in the field.
It's like you've dug a hole for yourself, and while we all look down on you in it (and can look all around and see what's really out here), you assume we're all down there with you, and can only see a circular patch of sky and walls of dirt.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 2, 2009 9:37 PM
Actually, the fossil records proves that the statistical likelihood is certainty. It is a certainty that it did happen.
How do you know? Can you cite any literature on bacterial gene expression to support your claim?
Can you answer my questions @#376/377?
If it's an "observed fact", you should be able to site who observed it and where.
Clearly and evidently false. It was a gene duplication and additional mutation of the mutated gene that led to human trichromatic vision, as but one famous example (similar duplication and mutation led to trichromatic vision in other primates as well).
Which still means that the non-viable sequences are, naturally, selected out. Hence, the success of RM and NS.
QED.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 2, 2009 11:22 PM
Bah.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 1:12 AM
You're still just asserting, please show evidence. I've presented evidence that it is cumulative, and it has not been established that I need to address your criteria. Again, you're making me defend evolution against your criteria! Present papers / evidence / conference talks that demonstrate that I need to meet your criteria. So again, we've been looking for a few decades, and the process has been going on this planet for about 3.5 billion years! Show evidence that the process cannot go beyond the mark you suggested. Evolution has predicted that advantageous mutations will accumulate over time. Show evidence that this cannot happen beyond a certain point. Come on, you're asserting that the process only works to a certain level... plate tectonics only shows gradual movement of the continents. a few centimetres a year. So how can we get pass the 700m mark in order to make the 8.8km mountain that is Mt Everest? You cannot show that plate tectonics does that, nor can you get over the problems that such a process has. Wrong! You've missed the entire point! Not that I expected you to get it, you don't understand what is being argued by the evolutionists as has been apparent through this entire discussion. It's not that you'll draw a poker hand, but rather that you can make incredible improbabilities happen through slight successive events. Rolling a single die gives you a 1 in 6 chance of getting a number, it's not a low probability. But by repeating the process several times the probability of any given sequence is incredibly small but the process at each step of the way wasn't improbable.So when you ask "what are the odds" for evolution, you just can't do it. Why? because the odds are incredibly misleading. I can generate a sequence immensely improbable through repetition, staggeringly improbable that it in all likelihood will never be repeated again throughout the entire history of the universe! Yet here it is being rolled.
So hopefully you are asking yourself what relevance it has to this discussion? Which is exactly my point and why you are fundamentally wrong in your approach to understanding evolution itself. When you look at any given complex sequence, you are looking at something so immensely improbable that it seems that nothing could possibly make such an improbable event from occurring. This is why I've been asking you time and time again to look at the way the process works rather than looking at the end product. Can the process build complexity? Evidentially yes. You're arguing about the level it can do it to, and what I can see your arguing based on a fundamentally flawed notion! What are the odds? 1 to 1 - it happened!
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 4:15 AM
Re: Kel #421:
Any particular sequence generated by, say, a million fair throws of the dice will be extremely "rare". Yet, you're going to get something every time - right. It doesn't mean you're going to get something functionally beneficial. That's the whole point here. You can pick "rare" lottery numbers all day long. Doesn't mean you're likely to win the lottery. And, it doesn't mean that the average time needed to win the lottery cannot be calculated. It can be calculated to a very useful degree of predictive value.
If it couldn't be calculated to any useful degree of predictive value, you wouldn't have a scientific theory or hypothesis for that matter. What you'd have is a just-so story.
Finding a rare beneficial sequence in sequence space via random mutations or searching within sequence space is like winning the biological lottery. It happens very rarely and the rarity of this success becomes exponentially more and more rare with increasing scales or levels of functional complexity.
By the time you reach the level of 1000 fsaars the odds of success become so rare that even one success is unlikely to be realized in an average time of trillions of years.
If you really think billions of years are plenty enough time to achieve success at such higher levels of functional complexity, by all means show your odds analysis. Do some actual science for once - with some real predictive value backed up by real statistical analysis. Enough of your just-so stories and bald assertions.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 4:34 AM
Re: OwlMirror #419:
By what mechanism? How does the fossil record tell you anything about the likelihood that the particular mechanism of RM/NS did the job? The fossil record doesn't do that and can't do that. In order to understand the likelihood that RM/NS did the job you say it did, you need statistical analysis that produces real predictive value. You need real science since RM/NS is not directly observable beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
I'm not sure what you're asking for or claiming here. Are you really suggesting that every single functionally beneficial step in the flagellar evolution pathway was only one character change wide? Really? If that were the case, we'd see rotary flagellar evolution happening in real time every day. Since we have yet to see any system of function evolve at this level of functional complexity, in real time, your notion is clearly mistaken.
If you will go and do your own research into the flagellar system, you will find that the known beneficial subsystems within the flagellar system are not remotely close to each other in sequence space. Getting them to assemble properly starting from their uses in non-flagellate systems requires a large number of specific residue changes - dozens and dozens of them. Such a non-beneficial gap distance is very unlikely to be crossed this side of trillions of years of time (on average).
Everyone has observed this fact who knows anything about biology. If you don't believe me, try finding any example of evolution occurring over any particular span of observable time which produces any novel system of function which require a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 averagely specified amino acid residue positions.
The duplication, by itself, didn't discover the new sequence. You needed extra mutational changes to realize the new functionally beneficial sequence in sequence space beyond a simple duplication event.
Beyond this, you're assuming that this was the mechanism of trichromatic vision. You assume this without demonstrating any statistical understanding of the odds or likelihood behind this assertion. What are the odds?
I'll tell you. For realizing sensitivity to a different light frequency, the odds are pretty good since the level of functional complexity here is far less than 1000aa. However, the odds aren't nearly so good when you start talking about systems that require a minimum of far more than 1000 specified aa.
Yes - at very low levels of functional complexity where the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences is high enough to weed out enough non-beneficial sequences to find the occasional beneficial sequence in a reasonable time. When this ratio drops exponentially, however, exponentially greater amounts of time are needed. That's the problem...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 4:42 AM
Re: Kel #421:
You're not even addressing the question Kel. I'm asking for the odds of success of evolution at a particular level of functional complexity in a given span of time. The odds are not 100% - not even for a low level of functional complexity and a long span of time. There is a chance that the proper mutations will not be realized in a given span of time.
Your argument that "it happened" is utterly meaningless. It provides no predictive value whatsoever when it comes to understanding the creative potential of RM/NS. Your argument that one can produce long unlikely numerical sequences with a large number of rolls of the dice says nothing about the odds of producing a functional sequence with a given number of dice rolls - or spins of the wheel of the amino acid slot machine. What are the odds that a given number of spins of the wheel will get you not just a new sequence, but a new and functionally beneficial sequence? That's the question.
Don't you understand that question Kel? Really now. This isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 4:58 AM
Re: Kel #405:
If I don't grasp the time scales, by all means show me your calculated odds of success given your time scales. What are your actual odds of success? And, don't tell me that odds are 100%. That's just not true and is a clear indication that you don't understand the problem or the question.
It seems to me also that you aren't grasping just how exceedingly rare beneficial sequences are beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level or scale of functional complexity. You can't accumulate something that you don't find. That's the problem. And, accumulating a bunch of lower-level systems, well below the 1000aa threshold, isn't going to get you any closer to finding a higher level system. It just doesn't add up that way. Even a collection of several million three letter words doesn't automatically given you a Shakespearean sonnet - if you know what I mean.
Getting the shorter sequences to come together to give you longer sequences is fairly easy of course. The difficulty is getting longer sequences which also produce higher level beneficial functions which themselves have higher minimum structural threshold limitations.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 5:10 AM
Re: Kel #412:
It would get passed on. You're absolutely correct. If one part does indeed get co-opted into another part of the system and that new component gives a functional advantage, it will indeed be preferentially selected by NS and passed on to more offspring.
The problem is getting this to happen at higher scales or levels of functional complexity. You argue that there are subsystems within the bacterial flagellum that would be independently functional to some advantage or as parts of other types of systems of function. This is all true.
The problem is that these particular subsystems have been modified, very specifically, so they can work together to produce rotary flagellar motility. These same parts, as they might work in other non-flagellar systems, are not modified properly to come together to produce a flagellar system. In other to come together properly, they must be significantly modified.
It is this modification requirement that produces the gap problem. And, the higher level the system in question, the more modifications will be needed on average. This means, of course, that each increase in the number of modifications needed translates into an exponential increase in the average number of random mutations needed to achieve success.
For more specific details of the statistical problems with the proposed evolutionary pathway(s) for the bacterial flagellum see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 5:17 AM
Re: Kel #408:
Complex systems which require more than 1000 fsaars can mutate and these mutations can be beneficial. These beneficial changes can be quantitative - as in a change in the level or quantity of the same type of function (or even a complete loss of function). However, these changes will not produce a qualitatively new type of functional system which itself also requires at least 1000 fsaars at minimum to work.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 3, 2009 5:17 AM
Return of the 1000 fsaar woomeister, and still fighting the flagellum with teeth and claws !
It's like rationalising/sublimating why your least favourite football team keeps winning the championship.
I think I'll pass.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 5:32 AM
Re: Iris #394:
The authors confuse the apparent smallness of the number of the necessary bits needed to store complex information with the ease of ability to produce complex information with the mechanism of RM/NS. The comparison is not remotely accurate.
As far as producing a Roman arch, you need the correct scaffold first. You can't produce a mechanical motor with many interacting parts or a Roman arch with interdependent stones without the proper framework in place ahead of time. For something as simple as a Roman arch, the necessary framework can sometimes be achieved via mindless mechanisms. The same thing is true for low levels of biosystem complexity. However, as the levels or scales of functional complexity increase with each increase in the minimum number and/or specificity of part arrangements, the odds that any non-deliberate mechanism can do the job decrease exponentially. This is true even given that one isn't starting from scratch - but with a completely intact, large, functional gene pool of options.
The authors fail to consider the change in the odds of success for RM/NS depending upon the level or scale of functional complexity under consideration.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Drosera
|
October 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Sean is unable to understand that even very small changes can have big consequences. Maybe he should look into Chaos Theory and the theory of cellular automata. A single point mutation, or a gene duplication followed by very few point mutations, may already produce something with an entirely new and useful functionality. Sean seems to believe that the occurrence of a low number of 'beneficial' mutations will at best lead to an improvement of existing functions, not to something entirely new.
And Sean, can you calculate how many bacteria and unicellular organisms have ever lived on our planet? Hint: do not assume that the earth is only 6000 years old.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 3, 2009 5:48 AM
Sean is trying to argue that gravity isnt real, making up elaborate theories and calculations to support his claims.
And yet, apples fall from trees.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 3, 2009 5:54 AM
Re: Drosera #430:
Very small changes can and often do indeed lead to big consequences. A single point mutation is responsible for sickle cell anemia - for example. There are also a lot of examples of beneficial mutations producing qualitatively new systems of function which require up to a few hundred fsaars.
The problem is that there are no examples of either small or large changes or mutations leading to qualitatively novel systems of function which themselves require at over a thousand averagely specified residue positions at minimum.
As far as the total number of living things that have ever lived on this planet, even assuming 4 billion years of Earth's bio history, it would be less than 1e50 organisms - not even close to the number needed to have RM/NS have a remote statistical chance beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 6:03 AM
Can you show me the paper that outlines such an event? I'd be interested to read the experiments and the controls set.Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 6:11 AM
I've explained several times why working with odds if fundamentally flawed. No, the problem is that you have not yet demonstrated that this is true. Can you please cite the paper(s) that shows that evolution cannot work beyond 1000 fsaar? I'm still waiting for you to move away from your assertion and show the evidence that I have to specify your criteria. Not statistics, show me the evidence - work done showing mutations at lower levels of fsaar, showing that there's a significant decline as 1000 fsaar is approached then stopping altogether at 1000 fsaar. Why haven't you done this? You've asserted time and time again that this happens yet you haven't presented any bit of evidence to show that this is the case. Show me the evidence, how else do you expect me to judge it otherwise?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 7:14 AM
Sean is still the Mendacious Delusionalist. Absolutely no evidence presented, just his well refuted and inane opinion that RM/NS doesn't work. He just seems interested in giving irrelevant testimony rather than discussing the science which he obviously doesn't and won't understand. Sean, blather all you want. Your chances of convincing us with such non-scientific drivel is zero. You lost your chance weeks ago, and are becoming nothing but background noise. Something to be ignored.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 3, 2009 11:19 AM
No, it is not very much like breeding. Breeders are only productive for around 50 years and they select organisms on the whole intentionally to fit preconceived notions. NS could care less about whole organisms, operates continuously in parallel at the sequence level, and has no preconceived notions.
This right here is a mistake in your understanding of NS. Sequences in the sequence space being acted on by NS have no predetermined functionality. NS acts like a sieve that narrows and widens the filter independently of whatever functionality a sequence may procure. What is beneficial one moment may be detrimental the next moment or possibly even become neutral.Humans, with access to the historical record and a tentatively good idea of what the future holds, can look back on periods of relative calm where NS stayed fairly consistent. It is only then that we can apply labels like "beneficial", "detrimental", and "neutral" to sequences (and you should note that even these are only partially so). But a major event can almost instantaneously change NS and throw off any semblance of benefit, detriment, or neutrality that might have been applicable to a sequence.
Again, only from a human perspective and only if you can predict a fairly consistent naturally selective pressure for a specific period of time in a specific location.
Only if the mindless computer program's selector (a model of natural selection) is fairly unchanging. Once you change the selection criteria, what once was beneficial/detrimental/neutral may change. Take the WEASEL program. If you change the string being selected for, then of course "METHINKS*IT*IS*A*WEASEL" would be nearly impossible to produce. Hmm... maybe this is a further stumbling block for you. Perhaps you are overlooking how the selection criteria of NS is a constantly changing dynamic.
The sheer energy-scale, parallelism, timescale, and insensitivity of NS is a daunting force to emulate or tweak, so of course we have not yet achieved the kind of "crocoduck" evolution of a species being sought by the Intelligent Design community. However, we have seen extinctions and niche biological sectors filled in or taken over by new species which are critical parts of NS. Human history likewise records a fairly stable period of Earth's history with the most drastic (but not too drastic) NS changes being driven by humans ourselves with our global mobility and technological innovations.Posted by: Drosera
|
October 3, 2009 11:46 AM
Sean @432,
I beginning to feel like Jeremy Paxman, but I will ask you anyway:
1. How do you calculate the fsaar level of complexity of any particular protein?
2. How do you calculate the probability that any new functionality at the 1000 fsaar level of complexity arises within 1 billion years, starting with a small colony of E. coli (or any other species of bacteria of your choice) and assuming a realistic growth rate of the population?
No more hand waving please. Shows us the math.
If you can't, then please, please stop posting here until you can.
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 4, 2009 9:56 AM
Drosera #437:
You don't calculate the complexity of a particular protein, but of a particular type of functional system - i.e., what is the minimum structural threshold requirement needed to achieve a certain type of functionality?
A more useful estimate is one that starts with the maximum possible colony size supportable. Then you calculate the likely mutation rate and reproductive rate. Then you estimate the likely ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space at the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity. Given a fairly uniform distribution of beneficial islands within sequence space, the likely minimum gap distance can be calculated.
For more specific details see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
What about you? Where is your math? If you can't show your math, then please, please stop blubbering that you have science on your side regarding the mechanism of RM/NS when you really have nothing but just-so story telling and bald assertions.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 4, 2009 10:14 AM
Aratina Cage #436:
You snipped the part where I explained to you that NS, like breeding, is function-based selection.
That's right. But, for every given environment, every sequence in sequence space does in fact have a pre-determinable functionality - either beneficial, detrimental or neutral. NS cannot see into the future or the past. NS only selects based on the functionality that exists at the present time. This, of course, means that NS is in fact a function-based mechanism.
Again, NS is not thrown off. It only acts in the present - as to what is currently beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. It doesn't matter if what is beneficial today will be detrimental tomorrow. NS is still selecting based on current functionality.
Not true. Even if the environment changes on a daily basis and the future is completely unpredictable, NS still selects based on functionality - current functionality.
Of course the environment changes and of course the basis of beneficial vs. non-beneficial functionality changes as well. That's completely irrelevant to the fact that NS is a function-based force of selection. In fact, the changing basis of selection via a changing environment does not add or improve the odds of success when it comes to finding any novel system of function at higher and higher levels or scales of functional complexity.
I'm not asking for a "crocoduck" or a cat giving birth to a dog or any other such nonsense. I'm asking for the reason why the mechanism of RM/NS stalls out at such a low level of functional complexity in a given span of observable time? - regardless of the environment. What is the reason for this stalling out effect?
Your argument that NS is clearly responsible for what you see in the fossil record is based on nothing but a bald assertion. Where is your statistical analysis and predictive value to support this just-so story? How do you know your mechanism is remotely likely able to do the job beyond very low levels of functional complexity? Have you actually calculted the odds? even to a rough degree of certainty? Have you done any math regarding this concept at all?
If not, what you have are just-so stories and bald assertions, not science. Sorry. Try again...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 4, 2009 10:24 AM
Kel #434:
LOL - Working with odds is the basis of science itself. If your theory has no calculable predictive value, it isn't science - period.
The fact of the matter is that you've don't no statistical calculations or estimates for your theory regarding the creative potential of RM/NS - at any level of functional complexity. You therefore have no real scientific understanding of how it works or its creative potential over any particular span of time. All you really have is blind faith in your just-so stories and bald assertions. That's it.
This is an observation. It is observed that RM/NS works very well at levels well below the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity. It is also observed that there are no examples of evolution in action that come close to this level. There isn't a single example beyond it - not one. If you think otherwise, by all means, present such an example to me.
The question now is, what is the reason for this observation of the decline of RM/NS with scale? Do you have even a remote clue as to how to even address this observation?
One more thing, observations are only part of a valid scientific hypothesis or theory. In order to present a real scientific hypothesis, you must move beyond observation and make a prediction about the future which has some sort of calculable predictive value and potential falsifiability. This means you have to use statistics in your production of science. If you don't, you aren't doing science. What you're doing is nothing more than producing meaningless just-so stories and bald assertions.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 4, 2009 10:28 AM
huh?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 4, 2009 10:28 AM
Sean, Mendacious Delusionalist. You clarified nothing with your word salad. No hard scientific evidence presented, shown by the lack of citations to the scientific literature. You are a proven Liar for Jebus™, so we take your unsupported word for the bullshit that it is. You need to get with the program, which starts with you trying to publishing your inane and irrelevant statistics in the peer reviewed literature. I smell fear on your part in your failure to do so.
We have your number Sean. Why prolong your stupidity by wasting your time with your continued irrelevant and inane posts?
Posted by: Sean Pitman
|
October 4, 2009 10:29 AM
Rorschach #431:
I'm asking for a prediction on how many apples one should expect to fall from the tree in a given span of time. Do you know? What is your statistical basis for your estimate? Do you have one?
In short, I'm asking for a statistical reason that can be used to make predictions about the activity and success of the mechanism of RM/NS over time - at various levels of functional complexity. It seems to me that no one in this forum, not you, not PZ Myers, has any idea how to makes such scientific predictions regarding the mechanism of RM/NS.
Where then is your "science" behind this mechanism?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 4, 2009 10:40 AM
Still with the verbal salad Sean, and not a literature citation in sight. Why continue with your Lies for Jebus™ here? We know you couldn't find the truth if you tripped over it.
It keeps coming back to the old question Sean: who are we going to believe? Degreed scientists who publish in the peer reviewed scientific literature, or body mechanic who lies and bullshits for Jebus™, and can't produce any supporting physical evidence for their blatherings? This is a no-brainer for us, and you lose every time. You are just being a stupid nuisance at this point.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 4, 2009 4:05 PM
Oh... I thought Sean was slipping back and forth between thinking of NS acting like a breeder hand-picking organisms to care for and keep alive and acting like a force that carelessly wipes out countless organisms as it shapes the gene pool. I guess that is not how he was thinking, though, judging from how he responded.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 4, 2009 4:46 PM
[Finally, after days of prayer I have finally managed to circumvent Satan (who fears my witness to the atheists) and successfully sign into this blog to spread God's Holy Word]
Dear Brother Sean @ 443,
I admire you for the way you demand that the godless, atheist scientists make predictions based on your ...umm...unique theories, while steadfastly refusing to respond to their demands for peer reviewed evidence. In the spirit of Christian equivalence, I have decided to follow your lead.
Right Atheists! I'm asking for two predictions. The first is a prediction on how many children out of 100 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia one should expect to survive if their only treatmant was to have every born-again Bible-believing Christian pray for them as often as possible over a 30-day period.
The second is a prediction on how many children out of 100 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia one should expect to survive if they were treated by conventional medical means arrived at through the rigorous application of the scientific method.
Hi! Got you! Do you know? What is your statistical basis for each estimate? Do you have one? Let's see science wriggle its way out of this. It seems to me that no one in this forum, not you, not PZ Myers, has any idea how to makes such scientific predictions regarding the wonder working power of Jesus. Where then is your "science" behind this mechanism?
What a team we make, Brother Sean. Next stop--a billion dollar faith healing industry. By tapping into the power of prayer we'll be able to save all those Christian children the unpleasantness of needles and scientifically proven drug regimes.
Bless you
Smoggy Batzrubble
www.DefectiveDesign. com
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 4, 2009 5:41 PM
Gadzooks, Smoggy, you've won this round. I'm a professional economist intimately involved (in a chaste way) with statistics, and I couldn't even begin to answer your challenge.
You're calling on us to use actuarial science to analyze rates of morbidity and other contingencies. We have to use stochastic processes with various, but rigorous, mathematical foundations for predicting random events while complying with the Financial Accounting Standards Board regulations (at least in the US and Canada). However the arbitrage-free risk-neutral valuation concept isn't set up to deal with prayer and supernatural intervention. And this doesn't even consider the effect that Ruin Theory (sometimes referred to as collective risk theory) will have.
So you and Sean M.D. win. GODDIDIT!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 4, 2009 5:54 PM
Dear Brother 'Tis,
Thank you for your affirmation. I've no idea what you just said (and nor does God) but we are both very excited to have won something for the first time, and the Almighty plans to have all the bells of Heaven ringing tonight. (And all the bowels of Heaven also--it isn't widely known that God has been constipated for over a century, but he thinks his titanic turd might at last be on the move. As He said, "there's nothing like a statistician to help One clear a blockage").
What about it Brother Sean Pitman, wanna party? We've won against the atheists' rational scientists through Christian equivalence and obfuscation. That must be worth cracking open a few tinnies, partying hard, and finding someone to fuck.
Email me, smoggy.batzrubble@winewomanandrooting, and let's see if we can't get out on a bender.
Yours in Christian celebration
Smoggy
PS Dear brother 'Tis, in honor of your part in unsticking the Omniscient Anus, God would like to reward you. Name your price.
Posted by: Drosera
|
October 4, 2009 6:42 PM
Sean Pitman @ 438,
I was just asking the same thing in a more concise way, since we assume that the protein (or protein-system if you will) has a function (if it had no function its fsaar level would be 0, right?). And you didn't answer the question. How do you calculate the fsaar level of complexity of a particular type of functional system?
1. You don't know how to calculate the 'likely ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space at the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.' Yes, I followed the link you supplied. It's pure voodoo mathematics, full of arbitrary and imaginary coefficients pulled out of zombies' asses. It is worthless shit, and that's putting it mildly.
2. It's a completely arbitrary, and certainly false assumption that 'beneficial islands' are fairly uniformly distributed in sequence space and that the islands are all of roughly equal size and similar in outline, as suggested by your illustration. There is no reason why these 'beneficial islands' could not have all kinds of weird shapes, with tendrils and tentacles and archipelagos and lakes, in such a way that even if they occupied a relatively small volume of sequence space, the distance between one island and the nearest one would in many cases still be only a few point mutations.
There are obviously limits to what RM/NS can do within a limited time span. For example, it would be useful if we would have a built-in flashlight in our foreheads. Well, perhaps some deep-sea fish are evolving this right now, but mammals haven't, so far. That particular 'beneficial island' is probably too far out there. However, in spite of all your talk about 1000 fsaar levels of complexity, you have not demonstrated the existence of anything in nature that could not have evolved through RM/NS — you just claim that you have done this, based on imaginary calculations.
In short, you didn't answer my second question either.
Sorry, you failed. Come back when you can do better.
Posted by: Drosera
|
October 4, 2009 6:51 PM
Or preferably, admit that you are wrong.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 4, 2009 7:17 PM
Who said it isn't predictive? The problem is that you are asking for the odds, and that doesn't work because the process generates incredibly improbable sequences. And given the time scales and organisms involved, working out the odds is irrelevant.Instead what should be able to be worked out is how a particular mutation spreads through a population. It should be worked out about what structures to see in the fossil record, what we should see in the genetic code, what we should see in experiments in natural selection, etc. These all have predictive value, the discovery of Tiktaalik in 375MYA rock was entirely born out of predictive value in evolution. The fused chromosome pair in our DNA again born out of pure predictive value. But because I can't put odds on it therefore it's not science?
There are plenty of statistical calculations done on biology, and again you haven't established that the scientific community needs to present anything on functional complexity. Where's your paper on the matter? Where's your conference talk? I don't see them, can you present where in the scientific literature it is established that functional complexity is a hiderence for evolution?As for all I have is blind faith in just-so stories? We have the fossils. It's not a just so story when we can point to non-avian dinocaurs and point to the origins of feathers. When we can point to winged feathered dinosaurs and show that birds evolved. When we can point to the fossils showing the tetrapods invading land, or reptiles becoming mammals. When we can point at fossils showing a clear progression from land to water for cetaceans. But no, because I can't give you the odds, it's blind faith in a just-so story.
Where haws this been observed? I'm asking you to show me the evidence. "This is an observation" doesn't cut it, I asked you to show me the evidence of this observation. Why can't you present the evidence? I'm still waiting for you to present the observation. Where are the papers? How can you expect me to comment on it when I have repeatedly asked you to show me the evidence and you have not done so? Funny about that, because I have talked extensively of predictions made for evolution. The fossil record is a great start, we can predict what fossils we expect to find and at what age. We should see that life starts out simple and gets more complex - we do. We should see that fish evolved to live on land - we do. We should see transitional forms between reptiles and mammals - we do. We should see transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds - we do. We should see land mammals returning to the water - we do. We should see ape ancestors of humans that walk upright, use tools and get bigger brains - we do.Of course that isn't the only line of evidence. There are plenty of predictions about what we see in the genetic code: ERV markers, fused chromosome pair, pseudogenes, the same genes being used for different purposes in different species, etc. The game gene being used for sight in fruit flies and mice? Yep, makes sense. Then there's the biogeographic distribution of life, why is it that Australia has no large non-introduced placental mammals? Why is it that islands all over the world have flightless birds? Why aren't there Kangaroos hopping about in Africa?
That's enough to start with, I could go on. But I feel my point has been made. There's plenty of observations in a whole variety of different fields that have the potential to falsify evolution, yet in 150 years not a single observation has come across that has done that. Yet in the same period there have been countless observations across many disciplines that have conformed to the pattern that evolution predicts, and countless times what has been predicted yet unknown has been discovered. Remember that archaeopteryx was discovered 2 years after the publication of The Origin Of Species. Whales coming from terrestrial mammals again a prediction of Darwin's that has been validated in recent years.
But you can just dismiss all that because you can say "what are the odds" despite many times being shown that it's the wrong question and dismiss all the evidences that clearly show evolution because it doesn't conform to your criteria.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 4, 2009 7:28 PM
Can you please present the paper(s) on this matter that demonstrate this?