Who do you think the brilliant minds at the Discovery Institute would recruit to review Sean Carroll's new book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)? Somebody with some knowledge of biology, perhaps, some faint whiff of respectable biological credentials, who might be able to actually assess (and in the DI's case, cunningly distort) the science in the book? They've got so many legitimate scientists to choose from!
So of course, the duty falls on Casey Luskin's slender, slippery, snake-like shoulders.
Oh, man, it is an awful review. It goes on for a tedious 15 pages, carps on Darwin and Darwinism 47 times, and right from the starting gate is one long whine that Carroll is preaching Darwinism as a religion (here's a wonderfully representative example of the kind of evidence Luskin uses: Carroll 'interestingly always capitalizes the term "Nature"' [emphasis in original]. Damned by a convention of the English1 language!), all in the most plodding prose. These are words that must be read in a nasal monotone for their full impact, I suspect.
The whole gemisch is a fabulous mine of creationist banalities, if only one could bear to read it. I skimmed it in short sessions punctuated with bouts of whimpering, eye drops, and obsessive hand-washing; you'll have to forgive me if I don't attempt a thorough dissection. You'll have to settle for one paragraph, one tiny lump gingerly picked out of the bucket of vomit. Here, have a taste:
One type of alleged junk-DNA he discusses extensively is the "pseudogene." Carroll's rule of thumb is that when it comes to DNA, you "[u]se it or lose it." Carroll gives various examples of "pseudogenes," which he also calls "fossil genes"--claiming they are useless stretches of DNA that used to be functional genes but acquired deleterious mutations due to misuse that caused the original gene to stop working. He cites the bacterial pathogen that causes leprosy, Mycobacterium leprae, as having 1600 functional genes and 1100 "fossil genes." Carroll's explanation is that it can survive with the 1100 genes "fossilized" because it acts as a parasite, living off of its hosts, and no longer needs them. Perhaps Carroll is right and M. leprae's "fossil genes" really are just non-functional junk. But Carroll's "use it or lose it" rule also implies that if something has not been lost, perhaps it is still being used. Maybe the reason this bacteria species has not completely lost its "fossil genes" is because it's still using them for something. Indeed, he recounts one pseudogene in the coelacanth, a species which, from what paleontologists can tell, has remained unchanged for 360 million years.21 Could a pseudogene remain unerased for so long if it were truly non-functional? Instead of considering this possibility, Carroll always assumes that these "fossil genes" truly have no function.
21Id. at 119, 123. Of course Darwinists would contend the Coelacanth pseudogene may be a recent change in the Coelacanth species. But we have no way of knowing that apart from assuming that it is non-functional, and therefore must be recent or it would have been lost. Given that our only hard data is the stasis of the Coelacanth species from paleontological data, perhaps that is a questionable assumption indeed.
It's madness, I tell you. The whole thing reads like that.
Luskin loves the scare quotes. Be "prepared" to "trip" over them in almost every "sentence." He also loves the pseudo-scholarly liberal sprinkling of footnotes2—I preserved one of them in the quote above. They're almost always used either to point to a page in Carroll's text (and in the example above, misleadingly—never trust a creationist's citations), or to something he believes counters Carroll's argument, which is usually a Regnery publication. Oh, and note the "Id.", which I've rarely seen before—it's a lawyerly convention, which might be fine in a legal brief, but after seeing them all over the place in a purported review of a science book, begin to grate. The one above references Carroll's book, by the way, and I rather doubt that the book supports his claim.
Oh, and the science … Luskin doesn't know any. Why they've got him reviewing these kinds of books is utterly baffling. It's like having me review a text in economics or musicology — I'd have no background, no context, no understanding of the basic principles, and any attempt to explain the details would be laughable.
Luskin doesn't understand junk DNA or pseudogenes. We know that most pseudogenes are useless junk, because we can compare them directly with functional copies in other organisms. We can see stop codons in the middle of them, or frameshift errors, or deletions or insertions. I gave an example of a pseudogene equivalent in English text here — isn't it clear how we can look at the functional copy and the garbled copy and see the difference?
What we observe fits with what we would expect, too. If a mutation planted a stop codon in a gene, for instance, we wouldn't expect the wreckage to magically disappear in the next generation. It would just sit there, accumulating further random changes that are not selected away, and would slowly erode away into the background noise. When Carroll says that a gene is lost, he does not mean that every last shred of its sequence is whisked away, but that it is no longer transcribed or no longer produces a transcript with any function. Luskin's attempt to imply that the presence of any sequence, no matter how garbled, means it is still being used somehow is invalid.
What about that coelacanth story (there was a reason I put that up yesterday)? First of all, it's nonsense to claim that coelacanth's have been unchanged for 360 million years; for one thing, there are two extant species that diverged an estimated 5 million years ago. I'm also baffled by his odd suggestion that the only possibility is that the pseudogene was generated 360 million years ago, and that either it has retained some function or it would have been completely erased. Obviously, molecular changes in the sequence of the coelacanth's genome have been ongoing and continuous.
And, well, the paleontological data, as well as the data on the existing coelacanth species, shows both a pattern of change and stasis. Luskin is once again exposing his profound cluelessness and unsuitability to be a competent reviewer of this book. That the DI would dip into that vast pool of talent that they have on tap and the best they could dredge up is a tyro lawyer with a demonstrated history of scientific ineptitude speaks volumes about that pool — that it's drained and stagnant, with perhaps a few clumps of slime clinging to the muck.
1Note that I capitalized "English". This, of course, implies that I am a reverent worshipper of a deity named English, and that this particular blog entry is a sacrament.
2I'm only using footnotes to make myself look as clever as Casey Luskin.
- Log in to post comments
vrybdy knws Drwnsm s nt rlgn.
t s dctrn, th dctrn f thsm...whch f crs s th rl rsn why PZ s s hytrcl bt t.
f y crtcz t, y crtcz hs fth tht thr hv bn ngh "lcky brks" (lv tht Dwknsm) t ccnt fr r xstnc.
ftr ll, ntrl slctn hd t hv smthng t slct frm, nw ddn't t? nd, s Snt Dwkns pnts t, w hv hd mr thn r "rtn f lck". (Tht s scntfc lw, y knw, lk "mms".)
Dm, fl lcky tdy. Thnk 'll g t th csn.
Your article illustrates one crucial point that we, as scientists have not yet taken aboard. Clearly there is not a war of evidence going on, Casey shows he can as much recognise a pseudogene as a pseudo science. I think we are showing them far too much respect. Don't bother argueing with them about science - it is all 'technobabble' to them. In fact that 'technobabble' parody is exactly the level we should aim for.
If they insist on being a joke then why not fight them purely on that level.
Damn! Who let Ann Coulter in here? Almost didn't recognize you without your blond wig, Annie!
These people are always going to try to find the last 'bastion' of negative evidence aren't they?
"Well how can you be sure it's a pseudogene??? You don't know! As long as we don't know everything, it may still have a function!!!"
And isn't Luskin sort of skirting with evolutionary theory in the first place by implying that it has 'remained' functional???
Orac had a pretty good idea. If they insist on calling evolution "Darwinism," maybe we should start calling IDiocy "Beheism." (Or Luskinism? Nahh.)
What faith? We've got math on our side: Mutation rate times illions of organisms times illions of generations over what, 3.5 billion (with a 'B') years? Sounds like more than enough raw material.
If I give them a dollar, can they buy a new argument?
Off-topic, and I know this is late, but...
http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001974.html
Happy 50th!
If you criticize it, you criticize his faith that there have been enough "lucky breaks" (love that Dawkinism) to account for our existence.
Faith? You may have confused science with religion.
PZ can test anything he says.
He can actually review studies that gave him that data and he could recreate them (we call that peer review).
His knowledge can grow and change over time.
If you apply the criteria that he bases his knowledge on to religion, religion would quickly fall apart and disappear.
Why do you need a spook in the sky to account for your existance? I understand that life is confusing, but why are you trying to make science look like goofy religions? Oh, wedge, ok, good luck with that because in the end, you do understand that religion does not have a leg to stand on and if the church could not control the middle ages when they could just have scientists put to death, how would you expect this to really work now?
I smell the desperation of science illiterate religious fundies who sense an attack at the heart of their favourite delusion.
Unfortunately, to believe in a god is, for the majority of the world's population, easier and less intellectually taxing than understanding science.
My guess is the reason the Dismayed Institute chose Luskin to write the review is because all of their (relatively) erudite club members are busy writing buzz phrases to adorn Starbucks coffee cups.
Poor Bronstein fails to explain the appeal of atheistic doctrine to many, many religious people. Perhaps the appeal lies in knowing how things work, rather than merely existing in intellectual darkness.
Off topic, but how about that Pete Stark?
Luskin doesnt read my blog either. Im so sad.
:(
He doth not care what you haveth to say, PZ.
He's off in his little God-filled Un-Darwinian world.
He has immunized himself to all criticism through his belief in God. God makes all things right for Casey. God loves Casey.
Only a God-intoxicated nut could write that crap and not be embarrassed, mortified, or hiding in a hole somewhere for shame.
I certainly hope you worship English, PZ! ;-)
Could a pseudogene remain unerased for so long if it were truly non-functional? Instead of considering this possibility, Carroll always assumes that these "fossil genes" truly have no function.
I should think that anything Luskin writes is a perfect refutation on his own point, as an example of how nonfunctioning writing is not erased.
So get out that eraser, Luskin, and show us how it's done.
Then you can start on Dembski's and Behe's work, too.
"Paleyism". It emphasises that the whole notion is 200 years out of date.
What's with how he dates his review?
March 5, 2007. Version 1.0.
If some new stupidity occurs to Luskin (which no doubt will happen), does he expect people to re-read his idiotic ramblings?
Casey, in version 1.0.1, I recommend excising this foolishness:
...he [Carroll] appears extremely confident that the entire future of the world depends on accepting all his arguments.
I'm pretty certain you lost most people right there.
Also, please insert some page numbers, you doofus. Or does God not approve of page numbers?
I still don't get what these IDiots find so offensive about Darwinian evolution, or why they feel compelled to make a career out of writing bad book reviews and launching silly attacks like this.
What a waste of energy.
Maybe they should explain their mission a little more clearly. Is it to muddy the waters? Save the world for God? What?
I don't get it! It's so patently dumb. Why don't they see it?
Criminy, not the "it doesn't look like a tree" argument again.
English translation: Microbial gene exchange and endosymbiosis mean that, unlike a tree, evolutionary - or at least gene-inheritance - "branches" can merge. ID folks think the fact that the tree metaphor doesn't describe evolution with complete accuracy is supposed to be a problem. Why, I haven't the foggiest idea. The only sort of person I can think of who would be at all troubled by this is a popular science writer too lazy to think of a better metaphor.
Luskin spewed: ...they are useless stretches of DNA that used to be functional genes but acquired deleterious mutations due to misuse that caused the original gene to stop working.
GAH! Is Luskin really implying that Carroll views deleterious mutations as some kind of punishment for "misuse" of a gene? WTF??? Does Luskin imagine that some organism does something naughty, and the magic sky daddy POOFs a frameshift into a naughty gene?
My brain hurts contemplating this idiocy.
PZ said: "Luskin doesn't understand junk DNA or pseudogenes. We know that most pseudogenes are useless junk, because we can compare them directly with functional copies in other organisms. We can see stop codons in the middle of them, or frameshift errors, or deletions or insertions. I gave an example of a pseudogene equivalent in English text here -- isn't it clear how we can look at the functional copy and the garbled copy and see the difference?"
Heh, if one were doing science, it would be clear. However, if one were searching for steganographic messages cunningly left by the Great Designer, virtually any sequence, though entirely useless from a functional point of view, might actually say in secret code, "Body by Jeebus."
PZ can you prove their have been enough beneficial mutations in the last 500 million years to account for our development.
Sure, there have been lots of mutations, but most are neutral or end up being harmful. "Most" of course, is a relative term...the overwhelming majority would be more accurate.
Anyway, just proceed to prove it.
Please cite 25 examples of mutations in the human species that have been beneficial in the last 100.000 years.
That would show 'em!!!
I still don't get what these IDiots find so offensive about Darwinian evolution, or why they feel compelled to make a career out of writing bad book reviews and launching silly attacks like this. What a waste of energy.
CalGeorge, have you seen the "suck up to Darwin" po-wetry contest currently up at Uncommon Descent? The only thing funny about it is their idea of humor - man, the "poetry" would still suck even if they were lampooning someone I couldn't stand. Their ID "art" blows big chunks, too. (Come to my blog for the stinky linky. What is it with fundamentalism and bad pop music/art/poetry?)
The big problem with these folks, as evidenced by the recent comments at UD, is their sense of "meaninglessness." There has to be an afterlife! Otherwise life is meaningless! Things (kinds, what-have-you) have to last forever! Otherwise we have no purpose! Etc.! One of the commenters launched into a tirade about, "Haven't you ever built a sandcastle and watched it melt, and felt how you wasted your time, and can't we extrapolate this onto life itself, and how isn't life a waste of time if it doesn't last forever," sob, whine. Geez, people, I wrote a novel about surrealist poets who used to write (good) poetry and then burn it, or throw it out of windows!
The irony is, if you haven't already discerned it, is that it is the IDists who are WASTING THEIR TIME ON THIS CRAP, since ID will eventually be thrown into the trash can of bad ideas, and they are the ones who will have to answer their own question, If it doesn't last forever, what good is [was] it?
;-)
If you want to see my snarky take on this whole issue of why they do what they do, go here, here, and here.
After reading all this, I am shocked by one thing: you called someone else's writing 'tedious'.
For those like me who were confused:
Sean B. Carroll wrote this book.
Sean M. Carroll writes at Cosmic Variance.
"Jack" Meinhoff
Could you show anyone an example of something "poofing" into existence? Anything?
Yeah, just like they gave up on IC after being shown again and again that their irreducibly complex structures weren't.
Nope. Didn't work. May I suggest a prefrontal lobotomy is you really want to do the job right.
And the evidence for this claim is...?
From this review:
When this gene's complexity is considered realistically, it is clear that the just-so story Carroll tells is woefully inadequate to explain how this gene evolved.
Jebus, this has been going on for more than two centuries!
The idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was advanced centuries before Charles Darwin was born. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Time has stood still at 1802 for these creationist nutcases.
Luskin:
What is most revealing about all of this is that while Carroll claims ID is wrong, he treats it as if it is a testable hypothesis. For all of the talk about ID lacking a model, Carroll most certainly treats the "pre-formed" gene hypothesis like it is a testable ID-model. Unfortunately, Carroll then contradicts himself by later suggesting that ID is "not science." I suppose ID just doesn't fit with his gospel message.
I'm ready to join the IDists. In the last few minutes, I have developed my carefully-considered theory. I hope no one has thought of this before.
The entire human organism - a miniature homuncular me - is contained in my sperm. My right testicle produces male offspring. My left, due to insufficient blood flow, produces females.
Proof of this comes from the madrake, which grows where human sperm has fallen and whose roots resemble the human form!
http://www.avramdavidson.org/mandrake.jpg
What do you say to that?
If you don't agree with me, perhaps it's because you have a bilious humour. I suggest a good two-hour leeching.
Casey, take me on, I'm ready to be part of the movement!
I came across this example of human evolution this weekend and I'll use Meinhoff @#21 to lead into this article: "A new genetic analysis of ancient human remains proves that humans were unable to digest milk prior to the spread of agriculture and dairy farming within the last 8,000 years."
Find it at http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1067.
Oooh, I like that image. And it may be closer to the truth. I suspect they don't have a gatekeeper there, no one to ride herd on the cats. If someone feels like doing something, they do it.
Unintelligent design, in other words -- random arguments, let the media sort 'em out (a form of journalistic natural selection).
You see, in the real world, DI can't get away from natural selection and its power to advance things, even when they intelligently scheme to do so. In Greek, "Discovery Institute" means "Sisyphus."
"May I suggest a prefrontal lobotomy is you really want to do the job right.
Posted by: John Pieret"
Pre-frontal? Why go for half measures? Extirpate the whole kit 'n kaboodle; do the job right the first time. It's non-functional, anyhow.
"Maybe the reason this bacteria species has not completely lost its "fossil genes" is because it's still using them for something."
Good thinking. And maybe the reason why the rotting old cars in junkheaps have not disappeared yet is that they are still being used.
Oops!
Upon re-reading, I see that I didn't make it clear; I am saying that it's Luskin's brain that is non-functional. Not PZ's.
Coffee! I need coffee!
So how do the IDiots understand these "junk genes"? What use do they think they serve? Because if they DON'T carry useful information, why do they think (or how could they think) God designed them? or... wait... perhaps they believe scientists FINALLY discerned the gene that carries the Image and Likeness of God?
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
I'm sorry, it's just what pops into my mind whenever I think of lobotomies (surprisingly rarely).
The day when I can play T.H. in opposition to Luskin's 'Soapy Sam' can not come soon enough.
If a mutation planted a stop codon in a gene, for instance, we wouldn't expect the wreckage to magically disappear in the next generation.
The fun thing is, if it would magically disappear, that'd be god's gift to the DI folks, and they wouldn't even notice.
Lago #7: If I give them a dollar, can they buy a new argument?
"It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten."
So how do the IDiots understand these "junk genes"? What use do they think they serve?
I'm guessing that to IDiots, God put them there for the same reason he created fossils.
PZ: Skimming through MY copy of Carroll's book, in the final chapter ("The Palm Trees of Wyoming") I found:
(1) one instance of 'Nature' capitalized
(2) two instances of 'nature' not capitalized
All three examples appeared on the SAME PAGE (pg. 267 in the Norton hardback) and there seems to be little difference in the sense of the word as used. Clearly, Luskin's claim as stated is (surprise!) FALSE.
Luskin, if you're reading, you better crank out vs. 1.1 of your screed PDQ, or else I feel justified in calling you a liar.....SH
You can find more examples of the big "Nature" not being capitalized controversy over at google books. (intitle:"Endless Forms Most Beautiful")
Anyways, technically Mr. Luskin is correct. He does always capitalize the term "Nature", and he always does not capitalize the term "nature", just like everybody else. :-)
I was impressed by Caroll's MAKING OF THE FITTEST,
and when I ran across Luskin's review I looked it
over. It was kind of tedious and I didn't
dig into it -- except it caught my eye when he
started talking about pseudogenes in the primate
olfactry system.
Luskin pointed out that there were broken
olfactry genes in all primates, and so concluded
that they had always been there. It was like
somehow he didn't notice Carroll's argument was
along the lines of: some genes broken in monkeys,
more broken in apes, a whole lot broken in humans
-- who have the worst sense of smell of all
primates.
I admit that Carroll sometimes doesn't back up some
of his assertions thoroughly enough -- it's a sad
fact of life that writings on Evo have to be very
carefully written, far more than writings on almost
any other branch of science. On the other side of
the coin, if Luskin could garble Carroll's arguments
that badly, any better care in writing would be
lost on him.
In any case, once I saw that item in Luskin's
review, his "bozo bit" flipped and my eyes
promptly glazed over at the rest of it.