See, Larry Moran approves of my column in Seed — I'll mention when it is available online, but you'd have it already if you subscribed…and this is also the perfect time to give a gift subscription.
(I know, I'm such a shameless pitchman.)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
My last Seed column is online, which reminds me (as if I weren't uncomfortably aware already) that I have to finish up the next one today, which actually isn't the next one, which is already done and submitted, but the one after that. These long leading deadlines force one to live a few months in…
This weekend, Seed Media, our benevolent and beloved corporate overlords, sponsored a Scibling gathering: ScienceBloggers from all over the country (and outside) all gathered in New York, ate, drank, and partied.
It made for quite an interesting weekend. I didn't end up being able to hang around…
You already know that we're working with DonorsChoose to raise some money for public school teachers who are trying to give their students the engaging educational experiences they deserve. You also know that our benevolent overlords at Seed will be randomly selecting some donors to receive nifty…
My latest column for Seed, Variant Genes-in-Waiting, is now online. If you subscribed, you would have already read it earlier this week.
By the way, my mom subscribes, too, and she gives it a thumbs up. I'll have to find out what she thinks about my next column, which is all about beetle testes (…
PZ,
I just found some really great ID posters made by a fellow named "Touchstone" that I thought you'd enjoy; I'm sure they will serve as great PZ-inspired gift ideas for Xmas. You can check them out for yourself:
http://banninated.blogspot.com/2007/12/welcome-to-inspired-designs.html
He calls them "Inspired Designs"...
Excellent. Soon the overlords will be umm... overlording or something. w00t!
I get Seed and I noticed your article (while I was looking for "On My Mind: Seth Lloyd"). Do those of us with Seed subscriptions get to have it available online early (by entering the serial barcode numbers), or do we have to wait like everyone else? :P
Creationosts seek to train educators. (www.statesman.com)
The Institution for Creation Research is moving from Santee CA to the Dallas TX area. They're trying some sort of accreditation scheme whereby they teach real science PLUS+ at their fruit & nut orchard.
I'm ashamed to report I'll be one of those horrible people who read your article at the newsstand. I just don't "do" dead tree-ware any more. Unless it's published in the UK and comes with a free CD of pop songs - perhaps you could persuade the management of Seed to put Amy Winehouse on the cover next month?
You're right, but for the wrong reason. What's missing here is natural selection. It's not random. You might want to read up on it some.
But, wow--the eye! You really stumped me there. Why the heck did no one think of this devastating counterexample before you did, just now? I mean, Chas. Darwin was a pretty smart guy, but he never even thought about the organization of the eye!
oh...wait...
oh...wait...
I'm glad Mark is having some success with his book.
Unfortunately, just giving an answer does not mean the question has been adequately addressed.
Darwin talks about "gradations". He's referring to linear progressions.
He never once (nor does Mark) addresses the problem of achieving integration of structure and function in the eye nor does he address the issue of organization.
Uhg.
Oh boy, I see this one shooting up to 100 comments.
Cowboy, I'm just a lay person and I still see the flaw in your argument. At first, creationists used what you call "organization" as "complexity", and said it is not achievable by random. When they were explained exactly how "complexity" is achieved, by natural selection and other means, which are non-random, they just kept going.
Don't you realize you're making the same argument, but just using other words? Is that a new tactic of the creationists? "Organization" can be achieved simply and with rather beautiful ends by natural selection, even I understand that. What scientists are debating now is what other processes might contribute, and how much. It is just details. Creationists are just making noise and wasting everyone's time. If creationists wanna believe whatever, then they should do it in their churches.
Random exercises in change fail unless they serve the ends of survival and reproduction of an existing clade. When they do they are integrated into the existing organization of the clade adjusting existing structures. The progeny of the organism perpetuates the adaptive trait. The natural process has plenty of time if something doesn't find it a tasty morsel in infancy.
That's why I said "they". I don't know if you are or not, but it doesn't depend on what you or I say. If you believe there's a creator because "complexity" or "organization" or whatever can't be explained otherwise, then you are a creationist. If you don't, then you should know that there's no credible case whatsoever for a designer.
You're not a shameless pitchman -- you're just an obscure professor, at an obscure school wasting your time on a boring blog.
Nobody reads Seed Magazine. You idiots have wrecked science, because you never falsify your hypotheses.