Darwin Day Approaches!

Pseudomathematics in Anti-Evolutionist Literature, eh? If there's a summary of your talk that could be posted online somewhere later on I would be interested in reading it.

Are you familiar with the writings of Olle Haggstrom on the no free lunch theorems? He demolishes the way creationists appeal to these theorems but he also explains why they are fairly trivial results in of themselves. The latter point has occasionally been overlooked by people who defend the theory of evolution.

Since I'm, literally, in spitting distance from UMBC, I don't think I can miss these. It'll be nice to see how many names I recognize on the fourth floor.

I'd be interested in seeing here one of your best examples of “Pseudomathematics in Anti-Evolutionist Literature.”

I've updated the post to include links to my UMBC talks. Notice that the times have changed from my original post. The evolution talk will be at 11:00, while the Monty Hall talk is at noon.

Jr--

Could you provide a link or a reference to Haggstrom's writing? I'd be interested to see what he says.

tgt--

Well, I'll look forward to meeting you.

To Jason Rosenhouse:
I was looking through your paper which deals in part with what you call pseudomathematics http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf
and noticed you talked some about sex. Like most people, I’m interested in sex but was wondering if you had any facts on the origin of sexual reproduction. I’m especially interested in what the reproductive system was of the organism which “gave birth” to the first organism that sported gender and the new sexual reproductive system.

Häggström has a couple of papers on the topic, which can be found on his homepage http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/papers.html (Search for Dembski on the page and you will find it.)

One version was published as "Intelligent Design and the NFL theorems" in Biology and Philosophy 22 (2007), pp 217-230

Thanks, Jr. I seem to recall reading the Biology and Philoophy paper back when it was published, but this would definitely be a good time to give it a second look.

@6: start here.

Also note that there are species that practice heterogamy, i.e, both asexual and sexual reproduction, depending on environmental circumstances.

So probably, a whole variety of different reproductive mechanisms evolved in early single-celled organisms. One of those mechanisms involved gene exchange with another organisms. Many of these single-celled organisms evolved in a way that allowed them to continue to use several different reproductive mechanisms, and they still exist today. Other organisms evolved to specialize in one, and they still exist today too. All eukaryotes evolved from a single-celled organism that evolved to use sexual excahnge of genes almost exclusively.

Short answer: a long time ago, while everything was still single-celled. Sex as a mechanism evolved before things like sexual organs or even organs.

What better way to celebrate Darwin Day than to notice that the finches that bear his name...are still just finches.

After 40 years of intense observation:

" "The most important take-home message may be that species are not fixed, shut off from other species by inability to interbreed. On the contrary, for a long time, millions of years in some cases, they are capable of exchanging genes," the Grants wrote in an e-mail."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150211-evolution-darwin…

To eric #9:

“Also note that there are species that practice heterogamy, i.e, both asexual and sexual reproduction, depending on environmental circumstances.”

To me, this sounds like expression instead of origination. That is, both types of reproductive methods are present in the organism at the same time but only one is used (“expressed”) at a given time. The use/expression of the already extant system may be random or perhaps due to environmental circumstances. [Similar to expression of genetic traits in a family (e.g. red haired and blond haired children).]

I appreciate your providing the wiki link and the other info, but I was looking for more. I had asked JR for “FACTS on the ORIGIN of sexual reproduction”. Instead, I read things like your “So PROBABLY… mechanisms EVOLVED”, and wiki’s “It SEEMS that a sexual cycle is maintained because… ONE OF the leading theories explaining the origin…”

Jason – please forgive me for going a bit off topic, and using your blog to make an appeal on behalf of us beleaguered Brits who, having been until recently relatively immune from creationist garbage (especially as exported by the USA), now find ourselves under something of an assault, which I feel we should resist vigorously. You may be aware of “The Encyclopedia of American loons” site, which has just completed its 2nd run through the alphabet, and is considering doing a 3rd. I have attempted to upload the comment below to that site, in the hope that the author may consider my suggestions, but I keep getting message “URL contains illegal characters”, and my computer savvy is insufficient to overcome this. Might I perhaps appeal to you, or one of your regulars, in the attempt to overcome this obstacle and get my comment posted onto the The Encyclopedia of American loons? Having said I’ve gone “off topic”, I think I might actually claim that the matters referred to below could be considered as fit material for celebrating Darwin day. Hope you don’t mind, my attempted post was as follows:-

Well thanks for all that. As a Brit watching from a distance, I’ve enjoyed your 2 catalogues enormously, and have had many an occasion to sit back with open mouthed amazement and sheer wonderment at the capacity of our transatlantic cousins to produce a seemingly unending stream of the purest crackpottery. I’m sure you can manage a third attempt. For starters, we have recently had our attention over here drawn to a creationist crackpot called Ben Carson, who is apparently preparing a bid for the Republican nomination for President at the next election. He is said to be a neurosurgeon which, as a neurosurgeon myself I find simply horrifying, if only for the association. However, I do believe that your failure to include one of the looniest creationists of all (one Grady McMurtry) is a serious omission, which disappointed me when you got to “M”. Crazy website:- http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp - gives some sort of flavour. Perhaps he has a low profile in his own home country, but over here he has been latched onto by a miserably low grade fundy minority TV channel called “Revelation TV” which gives him a great deal of air time. The views expressed are truly bizarre, incorporating all the usual creationist nonsense, quote mines etc., most of Ham and Hovind, plus all sorts of crazy ideas about genetics, tectonic plate theory, radiometric dating, and other scientific matters about which he clearly knows nothing. As one blogger has stated – “he seems to bring a fresh bag of crazy to every topic”. A summary of his background, qualifications etc. can be found at “Gordon’s blog” - http://www.ecalpemos.org/2008/12/dr-grady-mcmurtry-what-are-his.html - Meanwhile, Revelation TV (worth googling in its own right) has recently hosted him on a nationwide lecture tour to promote its own peculiar brand of garbage, something he has done with relish. He is on the radar of the BCSE - http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2082 – (UK equivalent of your NCSE), but they don’t seem to keep a very close eye on him. Revelation TV are hugely impressed with his “intellectualism” and “intelligence”, being themselves self-confessed scientific ignoramuses, and he simply wallows in all the faux adoration and deference, whilst droning on in the most tedious and frankly nauseating and repetitive manner about all kinds of things he knows nothing about – whilst his scientifically uneducated audience seem to drink in all the nonsense. Argument from authority (in his case not even legitimate authority) and extensive quote mining (always out of context, of course) are two of his most trusty tools, though all manner of shady devices and logical fallacies are constantly popping up. On reflection, I think he is probably even worse than Hovind.
Fortunately we have far fewer such individuals over here than you guys do, and the religious fundy right is effectively non-existent as a political force. To express such views as to the actual reality of a global flood, Noah’s ark etc. over here would constitute electoral suicide. Even so, with people like McMurtry and others starting to come over here, there seems little room for complacency, and we certainly have our own brand of loons - indeed Jerry Coyne sought to warn us of this impending problem a few years back
Anyway, having said all that, back to the topic of your 3rd run. As noted, we cannot here in the UK possibly hope to compete with you guys on quantity. However, when it comes to quality we certainly have our fair share of seriously deluded loons, with no vestige of critical thinking ability in sight. It’s just pure selfishness on behalf of you Yankees to give the impression that you are the only guys in the world capable of producing high quality loonery. So, how about this for a solution for run No. 3? I understand the difficulty of an encyclopaedia in multi-language format, but an encyclopaedia of “Loons from the English Speaking World” should surely be a good compromise. That way you can include all the Canadians, plenty of good Aussie material (just think of John Mackay!), Kiwis, South Africans etc. as well, of course, as us Brits. I can reel off Richard Kent, Philip Bell, Andy McIntosh, Paul Taylor, and Melanie Phillips, just to name a few off the top of my head. I can certainly help you research and compile from the UK end if you want a bit of help. In turn, this just might go a small way to assist us in resisting this metastatic toxin with which we may be threatened. How about it?

To Phil B #12:
“In turn, this just might go a small way to assist us in resisting this metastatic toxin with which we may be threatened.”

Be not afraid, Phil B.
The truth cannot be proven false. The truth will always win, in the end.

To See Noevo #13:-

Oh dear. If by truth you mean observable reality - from which you seem to be so obstinately divorced - then of course, we have nothing to fear, and we (along with that truth) must win. In the meantime, as long as you insist on posting nonsensical items such as #11 above, then it would seem that current education techniques (or, at least, their availability) in methodologies aimed at arriving at truth have indeed got something to worry about.

"The truth cannot be proven false. The truth will always win, in the end."

Good, because liars like you seem to simply drone on and on and on.

Found a way to support your disbelief in quantum mechanics or modern cosmology yet?

To dean and Phil B:

Still, so much work to be done.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/climate-change-evolution-disagree/stor…

@16: Wow, you really are stupid. Nothing in that little article cast doubt on either evolution or climate change: it discussed reasons why people aren't persuaded.

One thing they didn't address was people who are willfully dishonest - like you, phil, and gordon.