…and this is a 
There's nothing I detest more than intellectual dishonesty, and the Discovery Institute is a world leader in that. They have a ghastly little article up on their website, "Is origin of life in hot water?", which cites a recent paper in PNAS to argue that life couldn't have evolved without the enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions. Here's what they say about it:
So it seems according to a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors address the conundrum of origin of life chemists between the rate of (un-catalyzed) organic reactions and the lack of time available for these reactions to occur. From the article (note: an enzyme is a biological catalyst):
Whereas enzyme reactions ordinarily occur in a matter of milliseconds, the same reactions proceed with half-lives of hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the absence of a catalyst. Yet life is believed to have taken hold within the first 25% of Earth's history. How could cellular chemistry and the enzymes that make life possible, have arisen so quickly?" [Internal citations omitted]
Indeed this is one of the problems with origin of life scenarios, particularly those scenarios that presume a metabolism-first world (as opposed to an RNA-first world). The half-life of certain reactions without a catalyst can be millions of years, but studies show that the emergence of early bacteria could be dated as far back as 3.5 billion years (see ENV post on a cold origin of life and Schopf, J. William, "The First Billion Years: When Did Life Emerge?" Elements vol 2:229 (2006) for more on this). This means there was a limited amount of time for fundamental biological reactions to occur. Reaction kinetics can be prohibitive. However, the authors of this paper have a theory to solve the reaction kinetics problem.
No, the authors provide data to support a dramatic (and unsurprising) effect of temperature on the rate of chemical reactions, and the Discovery Institute uses a paper demonstrating the feasibility of life's early chemistry to argue the exact opposite.
It's stunningly arrogant — I guess they're used to their readers simply accepting whatever they say. They quote the first three sentences of the paper, and leave off the rest of the paragraph. Would you like to know what it says?
Do you think the DI might have accurately represented the sense of the paper?
Place your bets now. Here's the remainder of the paragraph:
Here, we show that because of an extraordinarily sensitive rela- tionship between temperature and the rates of very slow reactions, the time required for early evolution on a warm earth was very much shorter than it might appear. That sensitivity also suggests some likely properties of an evolvable catalyst, and a testable mechanism by which its ability to enhance rates might have been expected to increase as the environment cooled.
It reminds me of the infamous quote mine of the that section of Darwin's Origin on the evolution of the eye, in which he rhetorically sets up the problem and then goes on to explain exactly how it occurred…and the creationists only ever quote the part where the problem is laid out, and pretend the answer was missing. That's exactly what the creationists have done to this paper by Stockbridge et al. — they've pulled out just the few sentences at the beginning where the authors explain why this is an important problem, and then gloss over the whole point of the paper, which is to solve the problem.
Just in case you're curious, here's the abstract — there's absolutely nothing in here to provide any consolation to a creationist.
All reactions are accelerated by an increase in temperature, but the magnitude of that effect on very slow reactions does not seem to have been fully appreciated. The hydrolysis of polysaccharides, for example, is accelerated 190,000-fold when the temperature is raised from 25 to 100 °C, while the rate of hydrolysis of phosphate monoester dianions increases 10,300,000-fold. Moreover, the slow- est reactions tend to be the most heat-sensitive. These tendencies collapse, by as many as five orders of magnitude, the time that would have been required for early chemical evolution in a warm environment. We propose, further, that if the catalytic effect of a "proto-enzyme"—like that of modern enzymes—were mainly enthalpic, then the resulting rate enhancement would have increased automatically as the environment became cooler. Several powerful nonenzymatic catalysts of very slow biological reactions, notably pyridoxal phosphate and the ceric ion, are shown to meet that criterion. Taken together, these findings greatly reduce the time that would have been required for early chemical evolution, countering the view that not enough time has passed for life to have evolved to its present level of complexity.
Stockbridge RB, Lewis CA, Yuan Y, Wolfenden R (2010) Impact of temperature on the time required for the establishment of primordial biochemistry, and for the evolution of enzymes. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1013647107.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Hairhead
|
December 8, 2010 10:27 PM
The way these people abuse the Scientific Method, the only possible appropriate counter-argument is the Punch in the Face. That is, the Punch in the Face has as much to do with reasoned debate as the Discovery Institute has to do with the Scientific Method.
I am also reminded of Dave Barry's suggestions of what to do with the Tobacco Institute "scientists". One suggestion was they could genuinely contribute to science and make up for the appalling immorality of their previous work by testing defective parachutes.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
December 8, 2010 10:37 PM
I second the defective parachute testing.
Posted by: Nij
|
December 8, 2010 10:49 PM
Well, can't say I'm surprised. Absolutely not amazed at all.
You can only show them the fucking text of the book, where {insert scientist's name here} solves the very problem they trumpet as a resounding rebuttal of evolution, so many times before you have to realise something: they don't really care what the science actually says. Either it agrees with the Babble/Korantcake/holy text, in which case it's unnecessary, or it disagrees, in which case it is wrong by definition.
Their belief is founded on irrationality. Trying to use evidence and reason to get them out of it simply will not work on a True Believer™.
Sadly, that doesn't make their belief any less of a guide to their actions. The best we can do is spread the ideas of rationalism and critical thinking, and hope that people will accept them.
Posted by: Nij
|
December 8, 2010 10:51 PM
Fuck. HTML fail, sorry.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
December 8, 2010 10:53 PM
I wish it were only the DI. My JW visitors returned for a third time last weekend, and I asked whether they had, themselves, read the pamphlet they gave me. They had. What did they think of it? Very provocative and interesting, of course. I asked them what they thought of a pamphlet, in their name, that misrepresented and lied about what people said... Apparently, that's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. I asked whether they had read Origin as they had promised, and they pulled out another pamphlet that served as their guide to Darwin. I forgot to ask whether they were actually even *allowed* to read the original.
I asked them not to come back. Too bad; it was actually kind of fun.
Posted by: harold
|
December 8, 2010 10:59 PM
Of course, even if they had the capacity to come up with an intelligent critique of current OOL research, which is not all that difficult to do, it would just be desperate defensiveness.
They literally won't offer a single testable proposal of their own. They can't - putting aside the fact that if it were testable, it would fail, to do so would be either to outright admit being YEC (they may eventually, but they haven't yet), or worse, to outright deny YEC. (It's worth noticing that this latest thing follows the "maybe we're YEC but it's plausibly deniable" strategy.) They can't openly say who they think the designer was, what they think the designer did, how they think the designer did it, or when they think the designer did it.
So all they can do is rant and rave that every honest model or proposal is "impossible".
A desperate and constant defense is not an offense.
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 8, 2010 11:15 PM
I read the DI posting, and I think that you may not have read it correctly, PZ. The title is actually a pun on the paper's subject, which is using heat to increase reaction rates. The DI article contrasts this theory with the "cold origin" theory (hence the post title). And the post does indeed lay out what the article's claims are, such as:
The postings arguments against those claims are silly, but it is simply wrong to say that substantially misrepresents the piece just because of the title, which is clearly just a play on words that you've missed.
I'd strongly suggest having another read of the posting.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
December 8, 2010 11:16 PM
LOL.
Looking for scientific insight from the Discovery Institute is like asking an eight-year-old why they don't like a wonderful red wine.
It's terrifying at first, one needs multiple exposures to get used to it, and it has depths which only become apparent with repeated exposure.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 8, 2010 11:18 PM
Ferpectly right! And that is what early religious training excels at: teaches people--children with pliable, impressionable minds, especially--to ignore the evidence of reason and their own senses in order to defer to an authority figure.
I would be a lot less hostile towards religion if they would agree to lay off teaching children until age 13 or so. The "adult, sophisticated," nebulous version of God & religious beliefs is not something children are really prepared to comprehend. But that's a poor excuse for teaching them the concrete, cartoonish, big daddy with a white bear in the sky sort of deity that the more moderate ones wish to eschew.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 8, 2010 11:21 PM
Heh. That should be "beard" of course, though it may as well be an old man on a white bear in the sky.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 8, 2010 11:30 PM
Creationists being dishonest through quotemining? It can't be... Next you're going to say that evolution obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that there really are transitional forms!
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
December 8, 2010 11:34 PM
I don't know PZ, according to your latest blog post regarding the Discovery Institute you were quoted as saying "There is nothing I detest", thus heralding your firm support for their findings and their overall high level of scientific excellence.
Seriously, though, it seems to be the right-wing's favorite tactic lately to present fragments of paragraphs in order to make things seem like exact opposite. It's the DI's basic modus operandi, the anti-gay hate groups have been doing it for awhile with regards to the available science, and of course, it was used in the ugly Sherrod incident.
I suspect it's the style of Christianity we've got right now. They're treating any quote like they treat their Bible, something to pick and choose through to find something to support what they already believe and with no regard to the flow of the text or what over-arching themes are being raised or dealt with.
It's find a verse that says what you want to and use it.
Paragraphs, narrative arc? What are they. All that matters is that Abstract 1:1-3 gives them a good sound bite.
Posted by: James F
|
December 8, 2010 11:47 PM
WHAT? What's all this millions and billions of years nonsense? Now get back to the Ark Experience blueprints!
Posted by: H.H.
|
December 8, 2010 11:50 PM
The unintended irony of this typo made me chuckle.
Yeah, a lot of people think religion instills morality or goodness in people. But what it really instills is obedience, which some people often mistake for good behavior, especially in the young. Faith is a gesture of submission to authority. A relinquishing of one's autonomy. Suspending personal judgment and relying upon the judgment another. It's similar to brainwashing. A person in this state will swear the Earth is flat even if they know it's round. They'll believe a cracker isn't a cracker, but flesh; and that wine is really blood. They'll even believe reality itself isn't real, but that blurry visions of a vague celestial paradise are. And they'll kill if they feel it is their divine duty, even themselves if ordered. Religion is powerful in how it robs individuals of their ability to think for themselves. Some find this quality desirous or useful. I find it hideously dangerous.Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
December 9, 2010 12:12 AM
Tulse @7 - Yep, you're right. My guess is that they deliberately write it to make the beginning sound like its a big problem, so people who don't read all the way through think that the original paper admits it (especially with the headline); but then report it more or less honestly (surprisingly enough) down below, to give themselves cover. Perhaps PZ got caught by it as well? There is some wishy-washy bits at the end about how other scenarios for chemical stability require cool temperatures, but it actually doesn't seem like they put up much of a defense.
Posted by: zzubzzub
|
December 9, 2010 12:20 AM
Arrhenius equation FTW.
Science, to them, is like a buffet. They get to pick and choose their tastiest items and leave out what they don't like.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
December 9, 2010 12:30 AM
I say the DI has done a very good job of damning with faint praise. If you skim the article with extreme prejudice, it seems to be blackguarding evolution, as is their wont and their intention. But if you took it to court, they'd be able to say it is just a critical review of the paper. It is slick.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 9, 2010 12:57 AM
It's not the worst of their articles. They do actually deal with the speed-up of reactions in a half-hearted fashion, without paying much attention to the authors' main point, however.
Really, what we have is the monotony of the idiots here, primarily. Someone does some actual work, and they say just how unlikely it seems to their prejudiced and ignorant selves. Ergo, God did it, etc.
Boring IDiots, above all.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
December 9, 2010 1:02 AM
Well said, H.H.
Posted by: Rambling thru da Fizzicz!!
|
December 9, 2010 1:28 AM
I thought our little backwater was immune, then I ran into "hydrosphere". In rural NZ for Om's sake. Darn the internets to heck, if creatards can use it to spread the lies. (It was better when they had to send pamphlets round.) Maybe we could get a bishop or something to declare the interwebs evil, so they all piss off.
Posted by: Rambling thru da Fizzicz!!
|
December 9, 2010 1:50 AM
Proof for ID
see more Very Demotivational
Posted by: mck9
|
December 9, 2010 1:55 AM
This will not endear me to PZ's fan club, but I agree with Tulsa # 7: the DI article is not as dishonest as PZ makes it out to be.
The DI article acknowledges and purports to summarize the Stockbridge et al. findings about the temperature-dependence of reaction rates. It does not, in my reading, argue that the slow reaction rates at ordinary temperatures, in the absence of catalysts, make abiogenesis too slow to be feasible. It points out that the slowness of such reactions is a problem that any theory of abiogenesis must overcome -- a reasonable point, it seems to me -- and notes that the PNAS paper proposes a way to overcome it.
The DI article seems to have two main objections. One is that the PNAS paper doesn't specify a detailed sequence of specific reactions:
This sort of objection is just silly. It's like criticizing a biography of Abraham Lincoln for not discussing the details of Stephen Douglas' childhood. It may be an interesting topic, but it's not the topic at hand.
The other main objection, perhaps more accurately described as innuendo, contrasts the PNAS paper (reactions go faster in hot water) with another recent paper (biological molecules could form in concentrated liquid domains trapped in ice). In effect, the DI is saying: "Come on, guys, which is it? Hot water or cold?" The DI does not explain why it is necessary to pick one.
It also sniffs:
My initial thought was that the choice of reactions doesn't matter much; the authors are making a general argument about reaction kinetics that would apply to a wide range of reactions.
On second thought, I noticed that almost all the reactions cited (by the DI, at least; I haven't read the PNAS paper) involve breaking molecules up into smaller molecules. They are in some sense reactions of degradation. The exception is the hydrolysis of urea, since urea is pretty small to begin with.
For abiogenesis, the more interesting problem is the reverse: joining small molecules into big ones, such as nucleic acids, peptides, and polysaccharides. It would be interesting to know how well the arguments of Stockbridge et al. apply to those sorts of reactions.
The most dishonest part of the DI paper is when it says:
Yes, present-day catalysts for many biological reactions are complex and specific. It does not follow that simple and non-specific catalysts could not have played a role in abiogenesis.
Posted by: Scrawny Kayaker
|
December 9, 2010 1:59 AM
Another Dave Barryism that could be useful here: He fantasized about having his own airline, Air Dave. "Anyone requesting a light beer would be ejected over Utah." Seems like an appropriate fate for the DI liars.
I can understand oral bullshitters like Faux talking heads or
bad stand-up comediansmega-church preachers quote-mining this sloppily, since they know less than 0.001% of their listeners will ever look up the source and they don't care anyway if they get caught, but the DI are writers. They presumably think of themselves as intellectuals! They have endnotes. Don't they realize that the REASON you put the citation in there is because you expect to persuade your readers that this is an important idea, and they might want to go to the source themselves for more details? And your readers can, you know, READ? Whiskey Tango Fuck???Posted by: John Morales
|
December 9, 2010 2:42 AM
mck9:
What doesn't endear you to me is your first phrase, because it betrays your misperception.
If PZ is wrong, he's wrong. It happens, he gets called on it by his "fans", to use your idiom.
(I haven't bothered to follow-through on the link, so I have no opinion regarding the level of dishonesty of the DI piece.)
Posted by: Leel
|
December 9, 2010 3:47 AM
Seriously, aren't scientists these days learning to write their papers accurately and soberly, and yet still in a non-ambiguous, non-rhetorical way that will give NO help or encouragement to the wackos? In any field with a connection to evolution it is becoming essential.
At least one of one's colleagues proofreading a sensitive article for submission should be prepared to go through it with a creatard's eye, to try to pick out the bits they will find fault with or quotemine for lies, so that unnecessary expressions of doubt can be removed and definite conclusions can be strengthened. The result can only be a stronger paper overall, if yet one more source of attack is headed off as much as possible.
Yes, I know it should not be necessary for scientists writing papers to have to proof them against lies, distortion, quotemining etc. I know it's also not good practice to make bald statements when caution is required by the data and by convention.
But there must be a middle way - to stay within good scientific practice while eliminating rhetorical waffling that gives the morons a chance of attack. All it requires is greater awareness of another potential source of opposition, and better writing skills in expressing one's point in a water-tight, data-supported manner.
Once scientists are aware of the necessity, it should not be difficult to do this.
You guys are the smart ones, after all.
Posted by: Joe Bloe
|
December 9, 2010 4:52 AM
Religious leaders might be rewarded for their lies in this life, but they get their come-uppance in the afterlife - God gives them a real telling-off
Posted by: jmorgan1234533
|
December 9, 2010 4:54 AM
@#9
A white bear, eh?
And there's me thinking all along it was a pink unicorn.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn3yeqDAoctgwo6-DD2CLf7YxBquJvaSfc
|
December 9, 2010 5:03 AM
Leel @25:
You've got a point. If a writer's words can be twisted to mean something they didn't, that person must not be a good writer! Some scientists aren't as well trained in writing as their peers...
HJ Hornbeck
Posted by: Nij
|
December 9, 2010 5:16 AM
<sarc> Citation please? </sarc>Posted by: zike
|
December 9, 2010 5:34 AM
I'm not surprised that DI manipulates information. I don't want to generalize but I am laughing my ass out by watching Hovind and his "Dangers of evolution". So many flawed conclusions, so many partly-presented information. It seems that this is the way creationism works...
I am not an expert in the field to see if the same happens with DI, but according to what I know about creationism and ID, and what I read on their website, I don't give much weight to what they say. Now, call me biased...
Posted by: DLC
|
December 9, 2010 5:58 AM
evolutionary biologist to creationist:
"You'd be right if only you weren't so far wrong you can't even see right from there .. ."
Creationist quoting evolutionary biologist:
"You'd be right. . . "
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
December 9, 2010 6:06 AM
It is my opinion that the Death Penalty should be solely retained for those intellectual vandals who willfully lie about the fact of evolution.
Posted by: Beth B.
|
December 9, 2010 7:31 AM
Leel @25:
I don't see how even perfectly clear and unambiguous writing could get around the problem of creationists looking to willfully misunderstand. Any scientific paper will have to include a section stating the problem or question to be investigated, as necessary background information. If the gist of a paper is "Process A seems on first glance to present a problem for the origin of life; however, our results demonstrate that A is not in fact a problem," then if a reader can't get past the first clause of your argument there's not much else you can do.
Posted by: mo
|
December 9, 2010 7:42 AM
seems to me that this also increases the possibility for life on other planets, at least those which have been warm. Because it gives chemical evolution reactions more power and possible reactions in a short time than expected.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 9, 2010 7:46 AM
Your opinion is noted, and stupid.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
December 9, 2010 7:46 AM
I think it might even run a little deeper than that. With the true faith-head, the effect is something akin to Orwell's Crimestop - an almost unconscious inability to understand potentially heretical concepts. This is why Creationsists are not only immune to reasoned argument, they are also immune to data: they simply cannot/will not absorb it, because they instinctively grasp the potential threat to their worldview.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
December 9, 2010 7:49 AM
"Creation-cysts"? I quite like the sound of that!
Posted by: eduoardpernod
|
December 9, 2010 8:13 AM
The idiocy of the Discovery Institute is just absolutely staggering. I'm beginning to doubt whether any of them have even taken a proper biology course in their life. I remember in my Bio 100 lab in college, we did an experiment involving enzymes, where we incubated enzymes and their substrates at 0, 10, 24, 50 and 80 celsius, and then incubated control tubes containing everything but the enzymes at the same temperatures. Guess what? In the control tubes, at only 80 degrees celsius, products formed as if there were enzyme present, even though no enzyme was present, because temperature lowers the energy of activation for a given reaction. Furthermore, plenty of biological reactions happen WITHOUT enzymes at ROOM TEMPERATURE.
This has got to be one of the most easily falsifiable statements the "Discovery Institute" has made. They should change their name to "Imbecile Asylum".
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 9, 2010 8:14 AM
LOL!
Of course, that's the appropriate response to comment 32.
Posted by: lykex
|
December 9, 2010 8:14 AM
@36
I'm reminded of this bit from Dawkins' The Greatests Show On Earth:
Posted by: Matt G
|
December 9, 2010 8:26 AM
I agree that there is a lot of sloppy writing out there by scientists, science journalists, etc. I especially hate it when scientists use words like "dogma" and "orthodoxy" - they're just begging to be quote-mined. Still, just like a bully can always pick a fight, the intellectually dishonest will always distort what someone else has written or said.
Concerning the paper (which I haven't read): are they talking about *global* temperatures? There are plenty of places where *local* temperatures are high (e.g., hydrothermal vents).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 9, 2010 8:36 AM
If we've learned anything from the dealings with creationists, we've learned that no matter how well written a paper on science is the creationists will find a way to misinterpret, distort, lie about, omit important facts from and all around shit on it.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 9, 2010 8:45 AM
You know, at times I almost feel sorry for the DI. I mean after all, the whole point of science is to cleave to the evidence and move in the direction it points you. So, if you are going to oppose science, then by definition, all you have are lies and (worse) bullshit.
Of course, when you already have spent your childhood believing in an unbelievable myth, I suppose that is pretty good training in how to lie to yourself...
Posted by: Mystyk
|
December 9, 2010 8:48 AM
Fixed that for you. Lest we forget that the entire enterprise of scientific exploration and discovery is under assault from wackos desiring to willfully misrepresent - when not outright denying - the findings.
Posted by: russellseitz
|
December 9, 2010 9:27 AM
George Gilder seems to be about as well seconded as the Creation Museum, which sent this in in reply to the kentucky Chiliastic Park tax break kerfuffle:
The Ph.D. scientists on our staff are scratching their heads over the comment made in Thursday's editorial that no “serious scientist” accepts creation and rejects evolution. Among others, our full-time staff includes: David Menton, who holds a Ph.D. in biology from an Ivy League school (Brown University) and was an award-winning professor at the Washington University School of Medicine; astrophysicist Jason Lisle (Ph.D., University of Colorado); Andrew Snelling (Ph.D. in geology), Georgia Purdom (Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State), and so on. In addition, we often rely on our adjunct faculty to write science articles, speak at our conferences, and vet our elaborate Creation Museum exhibits.
For example, our primary consultant for the museum earned his Ph.D. at Harvard under the famed evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, and is a creationist. Courier-Journal readers can check out the credentials of our full-time and adjunct staff by going to our website. If The Courier-Journal is so sure of the scientific validity of Darwinian evolution, perhaps it would consider hosting a public debate in Louisville so that people can hear both sides of this issue. Sadly, arguments against evolution are largely censored from our public schools and science museums, and are treated with disdain by most media outlets.
MARK LOOY
Chief Operating Officer
Creation Museum
Petersburg, Ky. 41042
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101206/OPINION02/312060014/1018/OPINION/Reader
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 9, 2010 9:33 AM
Are arguments against germ theory censored too?What about arguments against the theory of gravity?
What about arguments against the holocaust?
What about arguments against the moon landing?
The reason that "arguments" against evolution should be left out of the current curriculum is because they aren't scientific and are based on nothing but reverse engineering the bible and distorting science to fit your particular predetermined conclusion of biblical inerrancey.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 9, 2010 9:52 AM
The DI article seems to be written specifically so it can be quote-mined by creationists. It seems as if its intent is not to present an argument against the paper, but to present an argument which its readers might use in their own discourse. It doesn't matter how well-debunked this argument might be, even in the very DI article in which it is presented.
This is an argument that will come up along with the complexity of the eye, a 747 in a junkyard storm, the second law of thermodynamics, and the strong anthropic principle. No matter how well-debunked these myths might be, they come up again and again, and are convincing to the sorts of people who wish to be convinced.
In my opinion (and I could very well be wrong), it appears the DI is intentionally presenting the original research with all the sound-bites they wish were there. It seems the original paper did not contain enough material to take out of context, so they are providing that for their readers.
I find this even more abhorrent than simply mis-representing the paper.
Posted by: greame
|
December 9, 2010 9:56 AM
Here in Toronto they have bus ads by "Bus Stop Bible Study" or BS-BS as I like to call them. I saw this one yesterday that says
"If the scientific definition of 'life' is 'the ability to grow and reproduce' then the very first organisms must have [suddenly] originated out of mineral matter and appeared with both digestive and reproductive systems in place. Does this seem like a reasonable theory into which you place your faith?"
This is absolute nonsense! I doubt that this is a misunderstanding of the scientific view of the origins of life, and am pretty confident it's a bold faced lie. Isn't it the BIBLE that says things "suddenly" come into being? Like 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms of rock and metal popping into existance in one day? I absolutely hate that they use words like "reasonable" to describe thier deluded fantasies.
I've already donated to Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence campagn for Toronto busses and subways, and I can not WAIT until they get it up and running.
Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death
|
December 9, 2010 10:56 AM
He left out the "N" in his last name.
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
December 9, 2010 10:59 AM
"Yet life is believed to have taken hold within the first 25% of Earth's history. How could cellular chemistry and the enzymes that make life possible, have arisen so quickly?"
Anyone that could refer to the passage of a billion years as 'quickly', even in a cosmological sense, is clearly either a) not thinking rationally or b) god.
Posted by: Scrawny Kayaker
|
December 9, 2010 11:30 AM
Thanks David @39. I'm a tiny bit proud of that joke. Unfortunately, it's fairly obscure.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
December 9, 2010 11:44 AM
At first I was in agreement with those who commented that perhaps PZ was being too harsh, as the article seemed to present the paper fairly objectively. However, as I read on it was apparent that the DI article began to interject straw man arguments into the discussion:
Here we get to the real DI article and their modus operandi - pump up the real science then shotgun it with bullshit.
A good DI article wouldn't be complete, however, without an exercise in irony which they achieve by quoting from Dembski and Wells' book Design of Life (2008):
Now that is the pot calling the kettle black.
In the end, PZ is right. The DI likes to appear fair and balanced but in reality they put a load of crap between slices of ersatz objectivity. The DI is slicker than snot when it comes to playing the public relations game so you have to look past the outer objective crust if you want to see the shit they are feeding the public.
Posted by: Leel
|
December 9, 2010 11:48 AM
Beth @33:
Agreed; it is an uphill battle and the anti-science wackos will lie, distort and misquote if they think they can get away with it, and also if they can't. But for heaven's sake don't hand them freebies! Make it as hard as possible for them to chop and paraphrase to get the distortions they want. It makes their duplicity all the more obvious when the original text is presented, and may help convince a few of just how much the fundies are lying through their teeth.
Compare these presentations:
"(Describes very slow enzyme activity at low temperatures, says that if true then there was not enough time in Earth's early history for catalysed reactions to occur naturally).
This seems be an insurmountable problem for the initial development of life.
In this paper, however, we aim to show that enzyme-catalysed reactions can proceed much faster at higher temperatures."
Your version is better:
"Process A seems on first glance to present a problem for the origin of life; however, our results demonstrate that A is not in fact a problem."
or better still:
'While very slow enzyme activity at low temperatures might appear to present difficulties to the development of organic reactions required for early life, we demonstrate in this paper that at higher temperatures as have been shown to occur in the early Earth's environment(1-4), enzyme-catalysed reactions proceed at a much faster rate, affording ample time for life to develop."
The last needs refining, but it leaves fewer directly accessible damning-looking quotes for the fundie liars to latch on to. Getting it quoted directly in a public forum won't be easy, but it can almost function by itself as a refutation of anything the liars could twist out of it. That's way better than a scientist being put on the defensive over a significant finding presented in dubious, careless language which simply lends itself to misquoting. Like the first presentation - that's just asking for it.
Any researcher who ends up crying 'No! That's not what I meant at all!' when the liars lie about their findings should give some thought to writing exactly what they meant.
And Mystyk @44 is right too; this does apply to all of science. As bizarre as it seems in this day and age, the war for science has not quite yet been won against the wilfully backwards and dishonest.
Write defensively - write smart!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 9, 2010 11:51 AM
Just like Fox news.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 9, 2010 11:51 AM
@ H.H., #14:
It was actually not a typo, so the irony was fully intended. It was a reference to (Europeans and Europhiles should recognize this) Asterix and the Laurel Wreath, wherein our heroes, Aterix and Obelix, whilst adventuring far from their Gaulish home, get frequently drunk on Roman wine, and mix up their syllables, shouting “Ferpectly right!” and “Zigackly!” (instead of “exactly”) throughout the comic episode.Aside from that, however, your comment was absolutely spot on. Zigackly!
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 9, 2010 12:00 PM
Sorry, the link got garbled. Here it is: http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3303/zigackly.jpg
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 9, 2010 12:04 PM
In the end, perhaps, but not in his characterization of this posting. I completely agree that the DI post is weaselly, but it most certainly does not misrepresent the original article in the extreme manner that PZ suggests. Contrary to his claims, the DI piece really does lay out the arguments presented in the original paper.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
December 9, 2010 12:15 PM
The only thing the Discovery Institute has discovered is how to bilk the credulous.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
December 9, 2010 12:53 PM
IANAS, but doesn't "half-life" describe changes in a quantity of a given material, rather than an individual reaction?
This reads to me as if the Discodroids were talking about the pressure of a single molecule, or the neurological reflex of a population.
Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death
|
December 9, 2010 12:59 PM
Well, once you find out what you are good at, it makes sense to concentrate on that aspect.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
December 9, 2010 1:02 PM
@ Tulse #57:
Yes, they lay out the arguments but it's the conclusions that matter and are misrepresented. PZ's comment was that the DI misrepresented the "sense" of the paper. Perhaps a poor choice of words but essentially correct. He lambasts their conclusion without lauding their description of the paper (and given his history with the DI you can understand why). It's akin to saying the Iliad is a story about a Greek king's travels through the Mediterranean and his longing for the open sea. The plot is essentially correct but the conclusion is flat wrong.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 9, 2010 1:18 PM
IANAS, but doesn't "half-life" describe changes in a quantity of a given material, rather than an individual reaction?
That's a quotation from the paper the article is about, and they are talking about a quantity. The half-life of a reaction is the time it takes for half of the reactant (however much there is) to be depleted by the reaction.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
December 9, 2010 1:33 PM
CJO @ # 62 - Thanks for clarifying that.
Gotta say, the terminology seems a bit sloppy in this case. Maybe working scientists need some help from Professional Communication Specialists in getting their messages out to the public.
* Ducks 'n' Runs *
Posted by: CatherineCanny
|
December 9, 2010 1:52 PM
Mark from the DI, thank you for your response to PZ's post. Even a brief examination could show that many prominent scientists are in fact creationists, even former students of prominent evolutionists.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 9, 2010 2:09 PM
Mark from the DI, thank you for your response to PZ's post.
That was someone else's copy and paste of a Creation Museum representative's response to the Louisville newspaper's editorial about the Creationist theme park. It was not anyone from the DI, and it wasn't written in response to anything PZ wrote. Idiot.
Even a brief examination could show that many prominent scientists are in fact creationists, even former students of prominent evolutionists.
And an in-depth examination would show that you're lying. There are a few of your fellow liars for Jesus with PhD's in relevant fields, but none of them are "prominent" in those fields by any reasonable definition, and to the limited extent that any of them publish original research, it is uniformly tangentially related to evolutionary theory and does not provide any support for any form of creationism. Mainly they're just kept on as staff or "advisors" of various propaganda outfits like the DI to provide a thin veneer of respectability.
Posted by: harold
|
December 9, 2010 2:44 PM
#59
I see someone else already picked this up, but here is the first sentence of the link you, yourself provided.
"Half-life is the period of time it takes for a substance undergoing decay to decrease by half."
As the other commenter noted, although the term "decay" is used here, because nuclear decay is a classic example of a reaction with mathematically simple kinetics, the term can be used for any type of reaction.
Half-life is a period of time.
I found the DI article to be extremely weasel-worded, clearly an example of trying to mischaracterize the views of someone who proposes solutions to a problem, by focusing on their statement of the problem (and thus implying that they are stumped by it, consider insoluble, or whatever).
I also found that it snuck in a little weaselly dog whistle to the YEC crowd. Try pretending to be a YEC and reading "these reactions are too slow for life to have arisen in the first quarter of earth's history" (my paraphrase).
People who did not catch these features of the DI article need to read more critically, with an eye to insinuations and subtle distortions.
Posted by: Kevin
|
December 9, 2010 3:10 PM
@65 re 64:
I'll go one important step further.
NO prominent scientist is a creationist.
They may be famous (ie, Behe), but they are most definitely not "prominent" in the important sense of being "eminent". Merely being conspicuous (another definition for "prominent" that is ultimately meaningless) hardly qualifies one as being an important personage in their field.
All one has to do is look at the Lehigh U web site and their disclaimer of Dr. Behe to discover the distinction.
But, of course, this is what creationists do; use language to distort. I'm sure Canny was all fired up to conflate a meaningless, non-important definition of "prominent" in order to further roil the waters.
And since I rarely feed trolls like Canny, that's all I'll say.
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 9, 2010 3:40 PM
As a reminder, here is what PZ said:
They have a ghastly little article up on their website, "Is origin of life in hot water?", which cites a recent paper in PNAS to argue that life couldn't have evolved without the enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.
They quote the first three sentences of the paper, and leave off the rest of the paragraph.
the creationists only ever quote the part where the problem is laid out, and pretend the answer was missing. That's exactly what the creationists have done to this paper by Stockbridge et al. — they've pulled out just the few sentences at the beginning where the authors explain why this is an important problem, and then gloss over the whole point of the paper, which is to solve the problem.
I'd argue that completely misrepresents the post. The authors are very clear about the paper's argument:
and
So no, contrary to PZ's claim, they don't just quote-mine to point out a problem without noting that the authors provide a potential solution. They argue (rather ineffectually) against the proposed solution, but they are very clear that one is offered.
I think PZ rocks, but I think that this time he is dead wrong.
Posted by: BigKnuckleDraggingJarhead
|
December 9, 2010 7:22 PM
this seems appropriate, and is, quite fittingly, done using Comic Sans...
http://thewaronfaith.org/files/TheWarOnFaith-Cartoons-ILikeTotallyRocked.jpg
Posted by: BigKnuckleDraggingJarhead
|
December 9, 2010 7:41 PM
...aaaaaaaaaaaand while I'm at it...
http://thewaronfaith.org/files/TheWarOnFaith-Cartoons-PullingFactsOutOfYourAssDegreeFromGlenBeckUniversity.jpg
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
December 9, 2010 9:31 PM
Tulse, if you are quoting the DI article correctly, they are dead wrong in saying that reaction rates decrease with an increase of temperature. The paper actually says that reaction rates increase as much as 10 million times faster.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
December 9, 2010 9:49 PM
The rates do not DECREASE with temperature. The rates INCREASE.
The sky is blue. Grass is green. Creationists lie.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 9, 2010 9:58 PM
wait
What?
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 9, 2010 11:12 PM
Is there any reason not to just read it yourself? You're correct that the quoted section confuses decreasing rate with decreasing difficulty of reaction, but the rest of the post makes very clear that they do indeed understand the argument being made, and aren't grossly misrepresenting it. Seriously, just read the post for yourself and see if that isn't the case.Posted by: The Sailor
|
December 10, 2010 5:44 PM
"Is origin of life in hot water?"
Why yes, yes it is.
This harks me back to why PZ complained that science journal articles should not start with stupid headlines where the answer is 'No.'
Chemical reactions take place faster where temp is higher than the control.
DI reactions take place when they feel chilled by actual science. (And no, I don't have measurements to confirm that;-)
Posted by: Uglyhip
|
December 14, 2010 6:03 PM
Clearly, we need to find and eviscerate the latest DI paper that details an origin of life hypothesis and evaluates its plausibility.
Oh wait…