Unexpected consequences

Let me clarify what I think is real implication: Darwin's (unscientific) part of his theory, which through intellectual-exchange down the ages picked up by Darwin, snuck in total randomness in matter and an exclusion of any interacting God in nature. These might not be the "true" implications of his theory---as you suggest because it's "news to you"---but they are the ones Darwin intended and people picked up one.

— Benz

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

— Darwin

"It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

Re "Where do these people get their information anyway?"

Maybe from each other, in a sort of positive feedback loop?

Where do they get their information? Easy! Next time you go to the bathroom....

Benz wrote: Let me clarify what I think is real implication: Darwin's (unscientific) part of his theory, which through intellectual-exchange down the ages picked up by Darwin, snuck in total randomness in matter and an exclusion of any interacting God in nature. These might not be the "true" implications of his theory---as you suggest because it's "news to you"---but they are the ones Darwin intended and people picked up one.

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.

Leaving aside the randomness of Benz's English, we might note that Darwin actually was trying to show how nature is not random, or the mere whim of a god or gods (which is why his theory does have some appeal to those whose God is a god of order). ID, unfortunately, does not explain things according to order, "laws", or regularity. Dembski specifically means to exclude "regularity" as well as "accident" to get to what he imagines is the default of those two, "design". There is something more than a little bizarre and counter-intuitive about concluding "design" due to a lack of regularity, but so it goes in ID.

No, it's Dembski who denies the regularity that we are concerned about using, and having taught in schools. What he does to appeal to the ignorance of the many is to treat evolution as if it were a random search through possibilities, and he limits these possibilities much more than is warranted, as well.

But again, the greatest problem with ID is that it recognizes no regularities (aside from the physical parameters), even denying that "good design" (or rational design) is the mark of the designer whose abilities far exceed our own at the present time. By contrast, when we identify "designers", such as humans or animals, we are interested in the regularities---the rationality and the psychologies behind them---that appear in the causes and effects of their respective designs. Crucially, evolution explains both good and bad "designs", and more importantly, it explains how both arise causally.

Unfortunately, Dembski's depictions of evolution as "random" are what are noticed by many naive folk, while his denial of regularity in origins is welcomed by the same folk (it's all gussied up with jargon they don't understand, but it's all true so long as it disproves "godless" evolution). The false claim of the randomness of evolution is held against the latter, while the true lack of regularity in ID is held to be a virtue (in short, this owes much to the fact that these people don't understand the regularity of evolution (for various reasons), and want order to be dictated by God). It is the inversion of reality, and even of their own proclaimed values, as they reject order and proclaim the superior science of whimsy.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Where do these people get their information anyway?

Some negative outcomes of groupthink include: * Examining few alternatives * Not being critical of each other's ideas * Not examining early alternatives * Not seeking expert opinion * Being highly selective in gathering information * Not having contingency plans

Misrepresenting a scientist's dissent from some aspect of evolutionary theory as being more than it is, happens quite frequently over at Uncommonly Dense. Here's Denyse, kind of arguing that Larry Moran isn't really a Darwinist, or something. I'm not quite sure what the hell she's saying, actually.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1719#more-1719

Maybe from each other, in a sort of positive feedback loop?

It's the lesser known but not rare enough negative feedback loop.

Sometimes it seems ID takes the Brylcreem approach to quotations, just "A Little Dab'll Do Ya!" A short quote taken out of context much to the chagrin of the original author. This gives ID that greasy appearance in its attempts to repopularize an old fad.

BHT, Butylated hydroxytoluene, an ingredient in Brylcreem is also found in embalming fluid and seems to be ideal agent for ID. It helps preserve those tired worn out arguments for recycling.

The resurgence of pomades and hair creams since the late 1990's correlates well with the output of material from the proponents of ID beginning in 1996 with Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and then Dembski's "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities" in 1998. Could it be that one of the unintended consequences of ID is the resurgence of pomande usage world wide?

Bruce Thompson
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Re "It's the lesser known but not rare enough negative feedback loop."

That doesn't sound right. Negative feedback is where two or more things successively reduce, suppress and/or diminish each other. Positive feedback is where they successively increase, strengthen, or encourage each other.

This may be somewhat off topic but MacNeil's statements actually irritated me more than those of the other posters on UD. As entertaining as it might be to make sport of the responses to MacNeil I believe that his rhetoric is equally open to criticism. Here is the key statement from his response that allowed the IDers to use his work in the first place.

"What is "dead" is the core doctrine of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success."

He then goes on to cite a number of developments in evolutionary biology since the synthesis that have putatively led to its downfall including the development of kin selection and neutral theory, endosymbiosis, punctuated equilbria, constraints on evolution, and evo-devo. Some of these developments are direct developments from the modern synthesis and others are orthogonal to it rather than in opposition.

How is Hamilton's work or Kimura's in any way a challenge to this 'core doctrine'? Both are explicitly based on the population genetic framework created by Fisher, Haldane, and Wright. They rely on allele changes due to differential reproductive success (drift is based on differential reproductive success, just like selection - it just isn't linked to a phenotype).

Endosymbiosis theory and the explosion of work in evo-devo have both enormously enhanced our understanding of evolution. I fail to see how either of these is an assault on the modern synthesis. No matter where they are and no matter what they do genes still have variants (i.e. alleles) and drift, selection, etc. will still cause or prevent changes in allele frequencies.

The enthusiastic endorsements of stasis and constraints as alternatives to the modern synthesis (as in PE and the Spandrels paper) seem to indicate a complete lack of understanding of selection as a stabilizing force. Note - I'm not acccusing Lewontin of not understanding basic evolutionary theory - I think that the Spandrels paper was a good antidote to pan-adaptationism but hardy a refutation of the modern synthesis as MacNeil claims.

I think there is widespread confusion between the population level processes driving or restraining evolutionary phenotypic change and the organismal/cellular/molecular mechanisms that facilitate the observed phenotype. Very little was known about those mechanisms at the time of the synthesis. We know a lot more now. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the fundamental processes of evolutionary change have been cast into doubt by the discovery of any of these mechanisms.

My complaint is this - people who make important advancements in evolutionary biology seem to be given to hyperbole - claiming that phenomenon X has revolutionized evolutionary biology and overthrown the modern synthesis. Aside from providing ammunition to anti-evolutionists I think it confuses well-intentioned, curious bystanders.

Right, Kevin. I think of the 'modern synthesis' as being dead like Homo erectus is dead. It's true in one sense, but it's rather partial to simply say that H. erectus is dead without noting that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus---and in an important sense is H. erectus in modified form.

Unless the architects of the modern synthesis declared that their work would be untouchable and unquestioned dogma---which I believe is only an ID/creo delusion---the evolution of the modern synthesis into today's theory might be considered as the triumph of the synthesis. The modifications have been substantial, but the progress is characterized more by gradualism than by saltations.

But saying that the modern synthesis is dead gets rather more attention than does delineating the successes of the theory in allowing for evolutionary modifications.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

My complaint is this - people who make important advancements in evolutionary biology seem to be given to hyperbole -

— KevinD

Too bad Kuhn isn't dead. This idea of science proceeding by revolutions is responsible for a lot of mischief.

Who is Allen MacNeill anyway to criticize the work of me and my (admittedly sometimes confused) colleagues like Professor Wright? Up here in heaven I have access to Web of Science, but I cannot seem to locate the man's work.

"That doesn't sound right."

I think it was meant as a joke.

"Negative feedback is where two or more things successively reduce, suppress and/or diminish each other. Positive feedback is where they successively increase, strengthen, or encourage each other."

In systems theory or applications such as electronics feedback is when the output of a system (a "thing") adds to the input, with or without inversion and/or amplification. If it subtracts it is negative, if it adds it is positive.

I was amazed that they would try to use MacNeill in their quote mine, since he famously does visit, and comment on, UD. Is Cordova really so befuddled that he doesn't know how badly he takes these things out of context, that he does it right in front of the author?

As entertaining as it might be to make sport of the responses to MacNeil I believe that his rhetoric is equally open to criticism

Too bad Kuhn isn't dead.

— Chip Poirot

Sir TJ --- Almost surely yes.

Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the "modern synthesis" its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the "modern synthesis" was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

Waterloo !!!!! Waterloo !!!!!! Waterloo !!!!!!

(snicker) (giggle)

Allen MacNeill earned a BS in biology from Cornell in 1974 and an MA in science education from Cornell in 1977, and has taught the support course for introductory biology at Cornell University since 1976. As a senior lecturer for the Learning Strategies Center, Allen works with students taking both majors and non-majors introductory biology. In addition, he organizes and carries out in-service training for teaching assistants in biology and related fields. Allen also teaches evolution for the Cornell Summer Session, and has taught the introductory evolution course for non-majors at Cornell. He has served as a Faculty Fellow at Ecology House and as an honorary member and faculty advisor for the Cornell chapter of the Golden Key International Honour Society. He has served on numerous advisory committees and editorial boards at Cornell and in the Ithaca community.

It might help to realize that Allen's speaking very narrowly when he speaks of the "modern synthesis" as being dead

— Dhogaza

In Britain, a senior lecturer is 'tenured', being equivalent, approximately, to associate professor. Don't know what it means at Cornell, tho'...

I'm no expert at parsing acadamese (acadamesian?), but I would hazard that, generally speaking (snaps to attention), "lecturers" in our institutions of higher learning are not included among tenured faculty.

But I'll agree with David that that generality doesn't tell us much about the employment structure at Cornell.

Shoulda said, "American acadamese..."

the only reason i was thinking about it was that a lot of what Allen is doing might be considered a "tenure stunt" (i.e., actions intended to attract attention to promote tenure), but if he's been teaching at Cornell since 76, that seems extremely unlikely.

It was just idle curiosity, really. I have some concerns about some of the odd remarks and the work Allen thinks typical of evo psych, but that's totally OT for this thread.

the remark about what Allen now thinks of Salvador is not though, and I am actually kinda curious to see if Salvador's latest missive affects Allen's impression of him.

I'm sure he'll just sit Sal down and discuss the matter with him, politely and in a civil manner. Whereupon Sal will slap himself on the forehead, realize he was wrong, and apologize profusely.

(snicker) (giggle)

Sharp-eyed pandas have guessed correctly: I do not have a tenure-track appointment at Cornell. On the contrary, I have been a full-time lecturer (now senior lecturer) at Cornell for thirty years. In that position, I have taught introductory biology (for both majors and non-majors) and introductory evolution (for non-majors). As long as I keep doing a good job at those two tasks (you can check out how some of my students rate me at Rate-Your-Professor.com, and I have twice been nominated for the Clark Award for outstanding teaching at Cornell), my position will continue to be renewed every five years, as it has for the past thirty.

As a senior lecturer, I am not required to do research nor publish the results thereof. However, like many of my colleagues at Cornell who are lecturers and senior lecturers, I have done so anyway, on my own time and my own dime. My most recent publications are described at my website (http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/). I am also writing an introductory evolution textbook under contract with a major academic publisher and a lecture series on evolutionary psychology for The Teaching Company.

And yes, I do not have a PhD. When other people were getting theirs, I was already teaching full time at Cornell and raising my family (which continues to grow, as my wife and I have yet another Goonie on the way). Personally, I take consolation in the fact that Darwin didn't either; his only academic degree was a bachelor's degree in divinity from Cambridge University. He was therefore just "Charles" to his friends and "Mr. Darwin" to his supporters and detractors alike. If it was okay for him, it's okay for me.

And as to my opinion of Salvadore, I believe that we have "agreed to disagree." However, the fact that he and I have diametrically opposed ideas about evolution, science, and (perhaps) life in general does not lessen my respect for him as a person. We all do what we need to do to stay sane and live with ourselves, without necessarily attacking or denigrating other people. I have always tried to attack people's ideas, rather than themselves, knowing that I too am a fallible and easily offended person. Maybe it's my background as a Quaker, but I don't take pleasure in attacking people.

At the same time, I believe that as an academic, I have an absolute responsibility to defend my ideas with all of the evidence and rhetorical tools I can muster, and to attack ideas and positions that I feel are misguided, wrong, and especially pernicious. I have never in my interactons with Salvadore perceived that he was taking the positions he has taken for personal gain or invideous political reasons. I believe that he takes the positions that he does because his overriding commitment is to his religious beliefs, which constrain his ability to judge evidence or change his mind vis-a-vis evolution. I, on the other hand, have changed my mind about how I understand the workings of nature on numerous occasions, whenever the evidence has demanded it. And, since I do not in any find any contradiction between my personal "religious" beliefs (being a long-time Zen Buddhist and member of the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of Friends) and my scientific beliefs, I have not had to alter either one to accomodate the other. NOr do I think that this situation is likely to change, given what we understand about the nature of nature.

I believe that he takes the positions that he does because his overriding commitment is to his religious beliefs, which constrain his ability to judge evidence or change his mind vis-a-vis evolution.

In comment #140261, Sir Toejam asked:

"if you're going to say their behavior is intractable and to be expected, why do you even bother to debate them to begin with?"

It has been my experience as a teacher that, for every person who asks a question, there are about 10 people who have the same question in mind, but don't have the courage (or can't formulate the question well enough) to ask it. I believe this ratio is multiplied by an order of magnitude on the web. For every person who posts or comments, there are probably something like a hundred lurkers.

It is the lurkers whose minds are still open that I am primarily attempting to reach when I debate folks like Salvador Cordova or William Dembski. I have no illusions that either of those gentlemen will change their minds, as they appear to be committed to their particular viewpoints on the basis of religious orthodoxy, rather than scientific evidence. But in debating them, it often happens that their intransigence becomes obvious, and this makes a good lesson for the lurkers. In particular, I have found that acting always with as much "gentlemanliness" as possible tends to infuriate people like Dembski, who then display their lack of objectivity and intense hatred of anyone who disagrees with them in ways that can change the minds of the uncommitted.

If it seems like the foregoing is a description of a certain kind of good-natured trollishness, so be it...

if you're[MacNeill] going to say their behavior is intractable and to be expected, why do you even bother to debate them to begin with?

determined to hold on to their intellectually challenged world views regardless of the rules of evidence and law

.....But in debating them, it often happens that their intransigence becomes obvious, and this makes a good lesson for the lurkers. In particular, I have found that acting always with as much "gentlemanliness" as possible tends to infuriate people like Dembski, who then display their lack of objectivity and intense hatred of anyone who disagrees with them in ways that can change the minds of the uncommitted.

"That doesn't sound right. Negative feedback is where two or more things successively reduce, suppress and/or diminish each other. Positive feedback is where they successively increase, strengthen, or encourage each other."

How 'bout "positively ignorant feedback loop"?

In biology, negative feedback loops are far more common than positive feedback loops. In my area of physiology, we tell students that negative feedback loops maintain homeostatic values - such as blood glucose levels, carbon dioxide levels, and so forth.

Positive feedback loops break homeostasis, since they increase the stimulus.

fusilier
James 2:24

I have lurked at UD and PT for some time. I recently sent an email to Allen MacNeill thanking him for posting to UD as I have learned much from him. It's hard to know on the internet just who to trust in their opinions. But you can get a sense of a person and their knowledge and trustworthiness by the manner of their presentation. I am one of those "in the crowd" who listens as various worldviews compete. I would urge all contributors at PT to consider his example and try to emulate it as it has worked for me. You many be able to accomplish only limited goals with the Christian theists that you encounter. You may not convert them to your worldview. But you could convert some to descent with modication(evolution)by your arguments and manner. You have to remember, your not after the folks you are opposing. You are seeking to convince those that you will never see or hear from in a forum. That's your goal. I have to say that the manner of some contributors on both UD and PT really turns my mind off toward their views. I have to ask, "are you serving yourself or trying to lead others to the truth?"

Now back to lurking

I have lurked at UD and PT for some time. I recently sent an email to Allen MacNeill thanking him for posting to UD as I have learned much from him. It's hard to know on the internet just who to trust in their opinions. But you can get a sense of a person and their knowledge and trustworthiness by the manner of their presentation. I am one of those "in the crowd" who listens as various worldviews compete. I would urge all contributors at PT to consider his example and try to emulate it as it has worked for me. You many be able to accomplish only limited goals with the Christian theists that you encounter. You may not convert them to your worldview. But you could convert some to descent with modication(evolution)by your arguments and manner. You have to remember, your not after the folks you are opposing. You are seeking to convince those that you will never see or hear from in a forum. That's your goal. I have to say that the manner of some contributors on both UD and PT really turns my mind off toward their views. I have to ask, "are you serving yourself or trying to lead others to the truth?"

— bj

Well, I'm also "impressed" by, and have nothing but respect for, Prof. MacNeill's longterm commitment to bio-evo education and his willingness to put his acquired erudition to good use in the service of science and science education.

But, like Sir TJ, and unlike Pim and Dr. MacNeill, I'm not convinced that we must always evince unswerving "respect" for the persons of the CreatIDists as we attack their psuedoscientific--and often outright fraudulent--claims.

I'm more a proponent of the "every dog gets one bite" theory (unless obviously hydrophobic at first glimpse): I'm willing to assume that a new (or "new," since on the Internet it's not always easy to tell...) commentator is genuinely ingenuous, baffled, curious, open-minded, etc.

Once arrant trollishness has been established, however, I see no reason to inflict unwarranted wear'n'tear on the kid gloves.

And to politely "pretend" that such beyond-stale comptrollers as Our Pal Sal and Slick Willy Dembski are anything but shuck'n'jive artistes is itself, in my view, a form of intellectual fraud. Or self-deception.

But we've had that discussion at length elsewhere.

Here's some proposed boilerplate, that should work in 95% or so of the most common circumstances:

"Sir, I respectfully suggest that your statements, while undoubtedly sincere and well-meant, are unfortunately at variance with thoroughly documented observation, with the rules of rational inference, and with several of your own prior statements. I'm sure a few moments' reflection will be sufficient for you to recognize and correct these minor complaints, so that our discussion can continue fruitfully."

the reason i asked Allen when he would and would not debate IDers or creationists, is that I tend to agree with the position the NAS took on the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt "hearings".

when you already know the stage is set, debate only gives legitimacy where there is none.

Allen may think it valuable to debate the dishonest point by point, where I think it equally valuable simply to point out where they are being dishonest to begin with.

debate a quote miner? why? simply point out where and how they intend to mislead via the quotemine itself.

this too is quite effective, and I can show dozens of examples of where pointing out the lies and deceits of places like AIG has convinced "lurkers" as well.

bottom line, I worry about legitimizing the positions of those who crave legitimacy to begin with.

Allen --- It is the quality of thought and writing that matters. Academic degrees are just, well, degrees.

However, the fact that he and I have diametrically opposed ideas about evolution, science, and (perhaps) life in general does not lessen my respect for him as a person. We all do what we need to do to stay sane and live with ourselves, without necessarily attacking or denigrating other people. [emphasis mine]

Academic degrees are just, well, degrees.

Stevie --- You got it! There is no Intelligent Design bringing forth academic titles...

Where's Diogenes when we need him to find an honest ID'er?

I am not as nurturing if that's the right word as MacNeill when it comes to the dishonesty of ID proponents.

Sal Cordova was being deliberately dishonest when he tried to suggest that MacNeill declared that neo-Darwinism was dead. Deliberately. Dishonest.

I give Sal no passing grade for that. No curve. No partial credit. Sal's grade: F

MacNeill showed Sal to be a fool, but so what? Sal will be back with more dishonesty real soon now.

The challenge I throw out is to name an ID proponent who is not dishonest. Dembski? Behe? Wells? Meyer? Witt? Gonzalez? Chapman?

While there are thousands of real scientists working on real projects in biology, chemistry and medicine and making real progress, producing real results and real products, name one ID scientist working on one ID project that explains one thing about biology.

Simple. There aren't any. None.

Sorry, but I don't give these charlatans any more credence than I do the Nigerian Treasury Minister who needs my help to cash a $25 million check.

However, the fact that he and I have diametrically opposed ideas about evolution, science, and (perhaps) life in general does not lessen my respect for him as a person. We all do what we need to do to stay sane and live with ourselves, without necessarily attacking or denigrating other people.

Quote [Cordova on UD] "But I really don't think he's getting that much flak. I would bet the NCSE would have been thrilled at the reconciliation of Christianity and Darwinism which Collins offered this evening. I would not be surprised if the evolutionary community has been giving their whole-hearted blessings to such overtly Christian messages as long as Darwin's theory is treated as fact. No kidding, I really think the AAAS, NCSE, and the evolutionary community are so desperate to fight ID they'd hire Christian pastors and Evangelists to spread the news that "Darwin loves you (and has a wonderful plan for your life)!". Lest any one doubt my claim, see: NCSE faith project director. They would gladly concede a little ground to Christianity if it will keep Darwinism intact. I mean, look at the NCSE website and how much they try to promote themselves as Christ-friendly Darwinists of late. Eugenie gets her anti-ID book endorsed by a pastor. Remember, it was Eugenie who said that in the game of selling evolution, "One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists". " http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1722 See how it is? Darwinists are such intolerant bigots that they tolerate Collins's overtly Xian message. My God they're devious bastards! If you think we have trouble convincing these people, this is a classic example of why it is. It isn't Dawkins or some other red herring, it's that if you are intolerant (as some are) you are labeled as intolerant, and if you are completely tolerant toward Collins, Xianity, and theism in general, well that's just because you're an intolerant bigot who's trying to masquerade as something else. Salvador and his ilk are completely self-referenced and can't understand how we welcome Collins's message in biology primarily because he deals competently and unprejudicially with the evidence (not so in cosmological ID). Cordova thinks, however, that Collins must be on their side because he's Xian and makes no bones about it, and any acceptance of Collins on our side has to fit with his twisted beliefs about evolutionary atheists.

How can we as a whole gild such tendentious dishonesty about our side? The fact is that much of Cordova's and the rest of the ID bigshots' "message" is simply that we are too intolerant and close-minded even to consider ID, hence their side is relieved of all intellectual responsibilities to study and understand evolution (or iow, we are so biased that this legitimates their biases). There is no dialog possible between those who rely on lies about why evolution exists in the first place, and those of us who honestly follow the evidence.

MacNeill is in a special position (one that he has forged) where he must display a tolerance for IDist BS that would be unreasonable for the rest of us to adopt. That is to say, he is the good cop, who does not state just what happened or what the motives and intentions of the suspect. Well and good.

Could he be so effective without the bad cops, those of us who call out the quote-mining and prejudicial fictions written by Cordova? I doubt it. And since most of us have never been accorded the respect and deference that MacNeill receives, we are the ones who ought to be saying what MacNeill cannot say as the one who keeps a dialog going with IDists.

There cannot be, nor should there be, a single approach to dealing with IDists. MacNeill plays a role which I trust can be effective in the venue he has chosen. We, on the other hand, make the statements that can and should be written by those who have been summarily, and without cause, disrespected and censored by the ID bigots. MacNeill ought not be faulted for soft-pedaling the truth about Cordova, yet hardly should we be faulted for telling it like it is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"In biology, negative feedback loops are far more common than positive feedback loops."

I believe that is true in most fields - negative feedback is more useful and easier to control. (Though not always stable, it depends on the system Nyquist plot.) But positive feedback may have its uses. In electronics you can use Schmitt triggers, positive feedback devices that are threshold sensitive.

Feedforward is also an option, though I believe there are stability problems here too. Isn't many nerve signal paths in brains such? In electronics one may use it to adjust a simplified amplifier stage frequency characteristics depending on a time delayed signal. It enables higher and more efficient power output in mobile phone stations, IIRC.

I forgot to say that schmitt triggers are so useful and ubiqious little devices for signal conditioning and simple sensing, they nearly break the observation of negative feedback as most common. (I used to love them when I did constructions, they always solved some conditioning problem. What a nerd one can become!) Negative feedback is most common on larger parts of systems though.

Well put, Glen, and I'm behind you %1000, as Nixon said.

I guess I'm not as tolerant of the mendacity I see, and I wish MacNeill well in his approach. However, Allen is a missionary amongst cannibals, I fear and his fate is of his own making.

As for me, I won't give an inch.

I'm ready for the Discovery Institute to cross the border into Texas. Bring it on. Slack will not be cut here.

Feedforward is also an option, though I believe there are stability problems here too. Isn't many nerve signal paths in brains such?

I'd like to add my appreciation of MacNeil's willingness to wade into murky waters. This is a difficult issue and one that goes well beyond creationism. Knowing what to do when one's opponent does not hold to the rules of civilized debate is a difficult one. I will add an anecdote that for me has been very compelling.

My nephew (my wife's nephew really) is a young man with a high school education living in east Texas. He is quite intelligent but not at all academically inclined. A couple of years ago he told my wife and I that he came across a creation/evolution debate on TV and got 'real interested' in the question. However he was completely turned off by the personal attacks that both sides used. He is exactly the kind of person that pro-science people need to reach. If you are really interested in defeating anti-evolutionist forces then you should ask yourself - 'what is the best strategy for getting the uncommitted (or weakly committed) to think'?'

If you are really interested in defeating anti-evolutionist forces then you should ask yourself - 'what is the best strategy for getting the uncommitted (or weakly committed) to think'?'

I see the main problem to be not the concept of selection but rather the often abused and confused concept of random variation.

Even on UcD some can still be heard making the assertion that Darwinism offers no room for religion as it insists on randomness. It seems that few may appreciate how the term random is being used in the context of evolution, how randomness and evolvability relate and how Darwin used these terms.
Nevertheless, it should be easy to point out that random should not be confused with no purpose, as the latter one is a religious position.

Even on UcD some can still be heard making the assertion that Darwinism offers no room for religion as it insists on randomness.

Because as much as they don't understand EVILution, they really don't understand quantum mechanics. They don't even understand it enough to understand it's a threat to them. Ditto neurology, which has very little good to say about the traditional concept of the soul, but you'll never hear creationists gripe about it either.

Yeah, the beauty of evolution is that its most basic principles are very easy to grasp at an early level, as Flint said. Of course we know the evidence runs a lot deeper than that, but it requires slightly more technical knowledge to understand.

Creationists, however -- either from not being exposed any further, or from an unwillingness to learn -- think that the state of evolution research is still at the level where they last learned about it (4th grade "Life Sciences" class, apparently). It's easy to feel like an expert in a field which can be easily understood, even if the creationists still manage to get the details completely wrong.

I suppose it's why they can state so confidently that "there are no transitional fossils" (because they didn't bother to learn about any), or fill in the gaps in their knowledge with curious strawman versions of "what evolutionists believe".

Clearly the answer lies in obscurantism. We should teach all the technical aspects of evolution as soon as possible so the creationists will throw up their hands and look for an 'easier' science to parasitize.

"I see the main problem to be not the concept of selection but rather the often abused and confused concept of random variation.

Even on UcD some can still be heard making the assertion that Darwinism offers no room for religion as it insists on randomness."

Yes, but that description doesn't follow, it is the strawman. Selection means that the process isn't fully random. ("Shit happens, but shit is good for you.") If some randomness is a problem, they should have trouble with physics as well. ("Fundamentally everything is built on shit happening.")

Not forgetting selection besides easily observable variation is fundamental when teaching. Fundies will never accept science anyway. If it isn't randomness, it will be back to that it isn't created.

"Nevertheless, it should be easy to point out that random should not be confused with no purpose, as the latter one is a religious position."

Right, if not confused with purpose. No purpose is the supportable scientific position AFAIK. For example, John Wilkins discuss adapted systems ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html ). It is another thing is that it is convenient to ascribe intelligent agents purposes. Aside from that 'purpose' is the religious position. What is the purpose of evolution?

Creationists, however --- either from not being exposed any further, or from an unwillingness to learn --- think that the state of evolution research is still at the level where they last learned about it (4th grade "Life Sciences" class, apparently).

I suppose it's why they can state so confidently that "there are no transitional fossils" (because they didn't bother to learn about any)

or fill in the gaps in their knowledge with curious strawman versions of "what evolutionists believe".

"Fundies will never accept science anyway."

Correction - most fundies. But are they real fundies then? :-) :-) :-)

It is the lurkers whose minds are still open that I am primarily attempting to reach when I debate folks like Salvador Cordova or William Dembski. I have no illusions that either of those gentlemen will change their minds, as they appear to be committed to their particular viewpoints on the basis of religious orthodoxy, rather than scientific evidence. But in debating them, it often happens that their intransigence becomes obvious, and this makes a good lesson for the lurkers. In particular, I have found that acting always with as much "gentlemanliness" as possible tends to infuriate people like Dembski, who then display their lack of objectivity and intense hatred of anyone who disagrees with them in ways that can change the minds of the uncommitted.

For what it's worth...
It seems obvious to me that there is no single best approach to countering the anti-science crowd. Lurkers, of course, are not a homogeneous group, and while some may be swayed by Allen, others may be swayed by Lenny, or Pim, or PZ, or...
Despite the occasional fights between these science defenders, they are all trying to achieve the same basic ends and are all steadfastly opposed to the ID proponents. Since this is a complicated scientific / political / cultural issue, a combined approach works way better than any single approach.
Keep it up!

I agree Mike. Our audience is not homogeneous, and neither are we. I lack the biological training of many here, so I can't begin to attack the IDers on the scientific nitty gritty in the way a PZ or Matzke can. But as an actuary, the minute they start talking probabilities, I'll nail their ass. I suspect the good cop/bad cop routine that Suttkus and Lenny apparently pull off is pretty convincing too.

That's the beauty of the IDers: they are wrong in so many different ways, we can all choose which part of the cat to skin.

I suspect the good cop/bad cop routine that Suttkus and Lenny apparently pull off is pretty convincing too.

Lenny, I think you are being too pessimistic and too optimistic at the same time:

1) The key word in your comment is "seen". The ones you persuade are the ones you never see. Don't shortchange yourself.

2) Beware of declaring ID dead. ID/creationism reminds me of the monsters in B-movies. Now is not the time to stop shooting, stand over its body, and peer into its face merely because it has stopped moving. It's liable to leap up and grab you by the throat. Empty your clip into it. Smash out it's brains (if you can find any). They are relentless, they will not stop, and they are recruiting new members all the time.

Lenny, I think you are being too pessimistic and too optimistic at the same time:

1) The key word in your comment is "seen". The ones you persuade are the ones you never see. Don't shortchange yourself.

2) Beware of declaring ID dead. ID/creationism reminds me of the monsters in B-movies. Now is not the time to stop shooting, stand over its body, and peer into its face merely because it has stopped moving. It's liable to leap up and grab you by the throat. Empty your clip into it. Smash out it's brains (if you can find any). They are relentless, they will not stop, and they are recruiting new members all the time.

2) Beware of declaring ID dead. ID/creationism reminds me of the monsters in B-movies. Now is not the time to stop shooting, stand over its body, and peer into its face merely because it has stopped moving. It's liable to leap up and grab you by the throat. Empty your clip into it. Smash out it's brains (if you can find any). They are relentless, they will not stop, and they are recruiting new members all the time.

1) The key word in your comment is "seen". The ones you persuade are the ones you never see. Don't shortchange yourself.

But ID, in its current incarnation, is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Even the IDers know it.

I'm not even sure that creationism is all that political (like ID).

It's more important to the church as a device for keeping the faithful in the fold.

Nonsense. Most churches think creationism is a load of crap.

I'm not so sure about that.

I am quite sure.

The latest statistics are that something like 50% of all americans believe in a literal creation at ~6000 years ago.

Actually, no. About 50% think goddidit. The percentage of YEC is quite a bit lower.

Indeed, most of the plaintiffs in the Arkansas and Louisiana cases were, uh, church representatives, who argued (successfully) that teaching creationism in schools gives government support to a particular religious view (fundamentalist literalism) that their churches did not share.

And indeed, worldwide, fundamentalism is just a tiny minority of Christians.

If 42% of americans are YEC's, then a much higher percentage of christians must be YEC's.

It's more important to the church as a device for keeping the faithful in the fold.

True, the problem is mostly in the usa.

As I noted before, most churches think creationism is a crock of cow crap.

Creationism has next to nothing to do with keeping anyone in the fold. It is a political method to force others INTO the fold.

I'm more than a little skeptical.

Show me a link on the web where Baptist, Methodist, or Seventh Day Adventist leadership condemns YEC.

By the way, lest anyone get their anti-theist panties all in a bunch, I should perhaps point out (again) that I am not a Christian, and I do not assert, or accept, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or any other supernatural entity whatsoever.

I'm more than a little skeptical. Show me a link on the web where Baptist, Methodist, or Seventh Day Adventist leadership condemns YEC.

Discussion on intelligent design and creationism can take place, not in the science classroom but in humanities and social science classrooms, says Roger Willer, associate director for studies, ELCA Church in Society.

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. "The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge," he says. "They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God's creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. ... Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up."

Furthermore, I think the paleontological and genetic/developmental evidence is sufficiently robust at the present time to assert that macroevolution cannot be simply reduced to microevolutionary processes working over longer periods of time. There appear to be macroevolutionary mechanisms that operate somewhat differently that those traditionally placed under the heading of microevolution. One of the most important of these macroevolutionary mechanisms is the process known as "adaptive radiation", in which a population of organisms of relatively restricted phenotype rapidly diverge into many phenotypically distinct forms in a relatively brief period of time (i.e. under a million years). An example of this phenomenon is the fantastic diversification of the cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria, which apparently diversified into hundreds of distinct "species" in less than 13,000 years. As I will explain in my forthcoming textbook, I believe that adaptive radiation is based on the exact opposite process as natural selection: that is, rapid diversification of phenotypic forms occurs most rapidly when selection is relaxed, rather than intensified.

Directional selection has shaped the oral jaws of Lake Malawi cichlid fishes East African cichlid fishes represent one of the most striking examples of rapid and convergent evolutionary radiation among vertebrates. Models of ecological speciation would suggest that functional divergence in feeding morphology has contributed to the origin and maintenance of cichlid species diversity. However, definitive evidence for the action of natural selection has been missing. Here we use quantitative genetics to identify regions of the cichlid genome responsible for functionally important shape differences in the oral jaw apparatus. The consistent direction of effects for individual quantitative trait loci suggest that cichlid jaws and teeth evolved in response to strong, divergent selection. Moreover, several chromosomal regions contain a disproportionate number of quantitative trait loci, indicating a prominent role for pleiotropy or genetic linkage in the divergence of this character complex. Of particular interest are genomic intervals with concerted effects on both the length and height of the lower jaw. Coordinated changes in this area of the oral jaw apparatus are predicted to have direct consequences for the speed and strength of jaw movement. Taken together, our results imply that the rapid and replicative nature of cichlid trophic evolution is the result of directional selection on chromosomal packages that encode functionally linked aspects of the craniofacial skeleton.

Lutherans OK? http://www.thelutheran.org/blog/comments.cfm?blo...

Then ask them. You have a phone book? You have a phone?

You might also want to check out the Clergy Project, which has so far gathered over 10,000 signatures of religious representatives in the US opposing ID/creationism and endorsing evolution: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_projec... The idea that most churches in the US support ID/creationism, is simply wrong. As I said, most churches in the US think the fundies are nuts.

I shouldn't have to.

Particularly when anyone with a phone can check for themselves and see what's what.

Of the cichlids specifically, what about sexual selection? And attributing the diversification solely to relaxation of selection does not jive with accounts such as this:

I haven't seen the whole of what Allen's thinking is here, but the quoted bit seems quite at odds with just about everybody who actually does work on those Cichlids. I should know, I spent three years in one of the labs at Berkeley that was in fact trying to test various aspects of Malawi and Tanganyika cichlids. I think he's barking up the wrong tree, literally.

But many of the suggestions for such processes seem a bit vague.

Re "macroevolutionary processes"

Would diversification of separate lineages be considered a "process", or would it just be considered as several instances of repeated microevolution?

Henry

Would diversification of separate lineages be considered a "process", or would it just be considered as several instances of repeated microevolution?

Depends, see for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#microevolution