by Douglas L. Theobald, Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, Brandeis University
Jeffrey Shallit pointed me to
a youtube video, in which David Berlinski makes the following remarkable claim: "... von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century, just laughed at Darwinian theory. He hooted at it."
For those even tangentially familiar with the Hungarian mathematician
John von Neumann, this will come as a shock. One may ask, however, with some justification: who cares what a non-biological mathematician thinks about evolutionary theory? After all, anyone speculating outside of their field of expertise is simply doing that, and their opinion should carry no more weight than anyone else who talks about something they know little about. John von Neumann, however, is not just any mathematician, and his seminal work on
self-replicating automata and
game theory has had important, fundamental implications for evolutionary biology (as have, more indirectly, his contributions to ergodic theory, numerical analysis, and statistics).
Von Neumann is something of a legend, one of those people whose name keeps showing up again and again in the citations of technical papers in very disparate fields (somewhat reminiscent of Sir Ronald Fisher, but even more intellectually promiscuous).
Von Neumann's very existence is even used as evidence for extra-terrestrials. Enrico Fermi once famously asked concerning the potential existence of aliens: "Where are they?" Fermi reckoned that, given the size and age of the universe, many technologically advanced civilizations must exist and that the odds are that they should have visited us by now---an argument dubbed the "Fermi Paradox". Leo Szilard supposedly provided an answer: "Maybe they're already here, and you just call them Hungarians." (Of course there are other stellar Hungarian mathematicians and physicists, like Erdos, Wigner, Polya, and Szilard himself, but Fermi and Szilard were both good friends of von Neumann, and of the same age).
So, Berlinski's pompous bit spurred me to do a bit of digging and jogging of the memory. I found that Berlinski's unsubstantiated claim is---yawn---preposterous. Von Neumann was demonstrably pro-evo, especially regarding the usual mut/sel/drift mechanisms, yet he may have been critical of abiogenesis hypotheses given his theoretical work with self-replicating automatons. Regardless, the creationists have apparently wrung certain statements out-of-context and/or conflated evolution with abiogenesis (no surprise there). Here are three bits of fact on the matter:
Statement 1
There is one misleading, yet eye-raising, quote from von Neumann that I've seen repeated on creationist/ID sites:
I shudder at the thought that highly purposive organizational elements, like the protein, should originate in a random process.
This may be the ultimate source of many of the claims that von Neumann was anti-evo. However, this is clearly a partially mangled, out-of-context quote. Here is the original source, from a personal letter written by von Neumann to
George Gamow in 1955:
I still somewhat shudder at the thought that highly efficient, purposive, organizational elements, like the proteins, should originate in a random process. Yet many efficient (?) and purposive (??) media, e.g., language, or the national economy, also look statistically controlled, when viewed from a suitably limited aspect. On balance, I would therefore say that your argument is quite strong.
von Neumann to Gamow, 25 July, 1955. Gamow fld., von Neumann papers, LC. Quoted in Lily E. Kay, Who Wrote the Book of Life?: A History of the Genetic Code, Stanford University Press, 2000, p 158.
The context was a discussion regarding the nature of the
genetic code, which at the time had not yet been solved. Gamow came up with some random model for the distribution of amino acids in proteins (for which I don't understand the rationale, and neither evidently did Francis Crick). Von Neumann gave an analytical solution for the model, and Gamow found that the observed distribution didn't match the theoretical one. From other considerations, Gamow concluded that the deviation from randomness must be due to a nonrandom distribution of nucleotide triplets in DNA, and he used this as support for his non-overlapping, triplet, combinatorial code hypothesis. Gamow made this argument to von Neumann, and von Neumann responded with the quote above. Gamow's specific hypothesis turned out to be wrong (particularly the combinatorial part)---but of course there
is a non-random distribution of nucleotides in codons (which are indeed triplet and non-overlapping).
So von Neumann's statement has nothing to do with protein evolution, but rather deals with how amino acids are coded for in the translation apparatus. Obviously neither the genetic code nor translation in general are predominantly random processes.
Statement 2
There are two other similar quotes I have seen recounted by creationists, one from Harold F. Blum's book
Times Arrow and Evolution (Harper 1962) and another from A.G. Cairns-Smith's book
Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. On page 178G Blum writes regarding abiogenesis theories:
As the late John von Neumann pointed out, a machine that replicates itself can, with some difficulty, be imagined; but such a machine that could originate itself offers a baffling problem which no one has yet solved.
Similarly, Cairns-Smith says on page 15:
Is it any wonder that Von Neumann himself, and many others, have found the origin of life to be utterly perplexing?
Both Blum and Cairns-Smith are respectable sources, and I don't doubt their word, but in neither case are references given. I have not seen anything specifically where von Neumann has criticized abiogenesis per se; however, the following source may be what Blum and Cairns-Smith refer to.
Statement 3
Here von Neumann shows without question his acceptance of evolutionary theory, though there are hints that he may have had trouble seeing how a self-replicating and evolvable machine (i.e. an organism) could arise de novo. I quote this at length as it may be of use in refuting creationist claims (and because it could easily be misunderstood or quote-mined when taken out-of-context).
In 1949 von Neumann gave a series of lectures at the University of Illinois on self-replicating machines. They were published posthumously in 1966 under the title
Theory and Organization of Complicated Automata. Much of this will sound very fuzzy from the lecture transcription, but von Neumann actually published several papers (and a posthumous book) where self-replicating automata were formalized (see
von Neumann cellular automata and
von Neumann universal constructor for more info).
From the fifth lecture, entitled "Re-evaluation of the problems of complicated automata---Problems of hierarchy and evolution":
Anybody who looks at living organisms knows perfectly well that they can produce other organisms like themselves. This is their normal function, they wouldn't exist if they didn't do this, and it's plausible that this is the reason why they abound in the world. In other words, living organisms are very complicated aggregations of elementary parts, and by any reasonable theory of probability or thermodynamics highly improbable. That they should occur in the world at all is a miracle of the first magnitude; the only thing which removes, or mitigates, this miracle is that they reproduce themselves. Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable. But a reasonable milieu is already a thermodynamically much less improbable thing. So, the operations of probability somehow leave a loophole at this point, and it is by the process of self-reproduction that they are pierced.
Furthermore, it's equally evident that what goes on is actually one degree better than self-reproduction, for organisms appear to have gotten more elaborate in the course of time. Today's organisms are phylogenetically descended from others which were vastly simpler than they are, so much simpler, in fact, that it's inconceivable how any kind of description of the later, complex organisms could have existed in the earlier one. It's not easy to imagine in what sense a gene, which is probably a low order affair, can contain a description of the human being which will come from it. But in this case you can say that since the gene has its effect only within another human organism, it probably need not contain a complete description of what is to happen, but only a few cues for a few alternatives. However, this is not so in phylogenetic evolution. That starts from simple entities, surrounded by an unliving amorphous milieu, and produces something more complicated. Evidently, these organisms have the ability to produce something more complicated than themselves.
The other line of argument, which leads to the opposite conclusion, arises from looking at artificial automata. Everyone knows that a machine tool is more complicated than the elements which can be made with it, and that, generally speaking, an automaton A, which can make an automaton B, must contain a complete description of B and also rules on how to behave while effecting the synthesis. So, one gets a very strong impression that complication, or productive potentiality in an organization, is degenerative, that an organization which synthesizes something is necessarily more complicated, of a higher order, than the organization it synthesizes. This conclusion, arrived at by considering artificial automata, is clearly opposite to our earlier conclusion, arrived at by considering living organisms.
I think that some relatively simple combinatorial discussions of artificial automata can contribute to mitigating this dilemma. Appealing to the organic, living world does not help us greatly, because we do not understand enough about how natural organisms function. We will stick to automata which we know completely because we made them, either actual artificial automata or paper automata described completely by some finite set of logical axioms. It is possible in this domain to describe automata which can reproduce themselves. So at least one can show that on the site where one would expect complication to be degenerative it is not necessarily degenerative at all, and, in fact, the production of a more complicated object from a less complicated object is possible.
The conclusion one should draw from this is that complication is degenerative below a certain minimum level. This conclusion is quite in harmony with other results in formal logics, to which I have referred a few times earlier during these lectures. . . . There is a minimum number of parts below which complication is degenerative, in the sense that if one automaton makes another the second is less complex than the first, but above which it is possible for an automaton to construct other automata of equal or higher complexity. . . .
There is thus this completely decisive property of complexity, that there exists a critical size below which the process of synthesis is degenerative, but above which the phenomenon of synthesis, if properly arranged, can become explosive, in other words, where synthesis of automata can proceed in such a manner that each automaton will produce other automata which are more complex and of higher potentialities than itself.
Reproduced in Papers of John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, W. Aspray and A. Burks, eds., MIT Press, pp 481-482
Von Neumann goes on to explain how automata can mutate, replicate, and inherit mutations. He obviously was convinced of both the power of natural selection and of the fact of phylogenetic evolution.
222 Comments
Wheels · 20 August 2008
Another stellar breakdown of quote-mining tactics. It seems that any time the word "random" turns up from their side it's either a straw-man by an anti-evolutionist, or a quote-mine hijacked to support the straw-man. I wonder of David Berlinski can safely be categorized as one of those misguided-and-ignorant types or the purposeful deceivers, as Jason Rosenhouse distinguished among the general Creationist population in his posts about the 6th ICC?
Hopefully the TalkOrigins.org archive will be freed from its crack-attacks soon so this can be added to the Quote Mine Project.
skyotter · 20 August 2008
i think the most ironic thing about IDers heralding Von Neumann is that the question of "who designed the designer?" leads directly and unerringly to a Catastrophe of Infinite Regress
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 August 2008
This is a significant mistake on Berlinski's part. While he isn't a mathematician, and has demonstrated so amply, he is IIRC a historian of mathematics and has published books on the subject. He shouldn't be out to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims here.
So pompous Berlinski is incompetent in all of his purported subjects. But ... wait, he is a creationist. Well then.
Zeno · 20 August 2008
There is indeed nothing new under the sun with these clowns. William Dembski earlier tried to claim Stan Ulam for the creationist cause because Ulam puzzled over problems of complexity (which Dembski thinks belongs to ID rather than to math or science). Now it's Von Neumann's turn to get kidnapped by the creationists, but Berlinski isn't equal to the task of making Von Neumann into an icon of ID. Let's all hoot at Berlinski like a pack of obstreperous simians, because his claim is hilarious.
When you have no great intellectuals of your own, you resort to trying to co-opt the geniuses of other disciplines. It's not going to work.
Glen Davidson · 20 August 2008
So I guess Berlinski's degenerated so far into solipsism that he only hears his own sneers and hoots, imagining them to come from others.
It's time we made posters modeled on anti-drug campaigns, where we show a Dembski, a Berlinski, a Behe, as the people they are, and ask if ID could possibly be worth it.
Just run from it screaming...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
stevaroni · 20 August 2008
DavidK · 20 August 2008
A creationist like Berlinski only has to execute a simple Google search on topics such as "von Neumann gene" or "von Neumann random" or similar topics to come up with tens of thousands of items from which they can readily exercise their quote-mining skills. And as we all know, the creationist will never seek out the truth regarding those quotes, nor will anyone else other than those who support truthfulness, which is obviously not Berlinski (or the Dishonesty Institute's) modus operandi.
Tupelo · 20 August 2008
The asshole who posted that seems to have disabled ratings and be monitoring comments, is that true?
And Creationists wonder why I have no patience and less respect for their deceptions?
Oh, and fuck Berliski. He is unworthy to teach on any subject except his own vanity.
Gary Hurd · 20 August 2008
Thanks Doug for an interesting read.
Michael · 20 August 2008
When I saw the video I was dubious but I was leaning more to the view of "shows that even great people can believe stupid things". Thanks for setting me straight!
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 20 August 2008
I would also like to thank Douglas Theobald, and add that I found an online copy of Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata.
slpage · 20 August 2008
I am still waiting for Berlinski to produce his list of 50,000 traits that differentiate whales from camels.
iml8 · 20 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 20 August 2008
raven · 20 August 2008
Zeno · 20 August 2008
Wheels · 20 August 2008
iml8 · 20 August 2008
James Downard · 20 August 2008
In my dealings with Berlinski over the years (including his curious and unsuccessful effort to get my anticreationism book "Troubles in Paradise" publised in truncated form as "Three Macroevolutionary Transitions") it has been clear that he has a limitless aptitude for not thinking about things he doesn't want to think about, and once he gets a notion in his head (von Neumann as antievolution eg) it is impossible to dislodge it. He simply cycles around the same drain (note his obsessions with Richard Dawkins).
Berlinski can be a vague nonreligious antievolutionist in exactly the same way British Mensa's Richard Milton can. Both are prone to superficial and limited reading combined with a vaulting certainty in the power of their own intellect. I have coined a term for the complex of cognition displayed here: Tortucans. From the Latin for turtle, it describes people who have a true affinity for not thinking about things they don't want to think about ("Matthew Harrison Brady Syndome" to be precise, in honor of the "Inherit the Wind" character) coupled with a desire to believe certain things to be true (or not) rather than only desiring to believe things that actually are true.
Only when the tortucan mind has a strong God Module need for religion would such minds map onto the body of specific religious beliefs. As it is Berlinski has tumbled part way there in his latest tome, "The Devil's Delusion" where he once again flails Richard Dawkins and blithely fails to apply his standards across the board to religion too. Given the depth and bredth of Berlinski's apparent tortucan ruts in his brain (zones of the cognitive landscape off limits to evaluation or rejection) it is unlikely he would ever turn his bleerily confident eye to discussing why Young Earth Creationism might be a might sillier (or more intellectually dangerous) than Dawkins' worldview.
snaxalotl · 20 August 2008
creationists are highly trained to interpret physical evidence according to their preconceptions ... in other words, they see their preconceptions given any evidence. So it's not surprising that this same talent allows them to read pretty much any opinion and see it as a powerful argument in their favor; deliberately so in the case of people not famed for supporting evolution, and accidentally tripped by their own falsehood in the case of supporters. (Pause for shudder that Gould is probably more often placed in the first group). cringeingly typical is the ability to see "one gets a very strong impression that complication, or productive potentiality in an organization, is degenerative", and the complete inability to see that it is followed by an explanation of why this intuition is misguided
James F · 20 August 2008
iml8 · 20 August 2008
Anthony · 20 August 2008
Whenever I hear an outlandish attack against the theory of evolution, I know that it is either a distortion of facts or an outright lie. The quote from Von Neumann was taken from computer science not biology, thus any attempt to equate it to biology could easily incorrectly applied. However, any concepts related to LOGIC is beyond the scope of those who argue against evolution. Theories in computer science more easily support the theory of evolution.
Joseph Knecht · 20 August 2008
Berklinksi is not a creationist!! Can't you foolish atheists git it thru yer skulls?
A creationist is someone who thinks God created everything.
A IDer is someone who can't see how anything could have been created (unless God did it).
Do you not see the difference? 'God' is in parentheses for an IDer but right in the sentence itself for a creationist. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!
James Downard · 20 August 2008
White Rabbit said: "I think you have a different angle on Glenn Morton’s demon. I would say Morton’s read is a bit more compelling – he had the unenviable advantage of first-hand experience."
Under my working hypothesis of the Tortucan Model of the Mind (or How Do People Believe Things That Are Not True) Morton's gradual disengagement from his creationist upbringing would suggest he (like many of us) had only a mild propensity for generating insulating tortucan ruts in the first place. Odds are such people's curiosity will wear away at even those and the scaffolding of the belief system can then break down. The recognition that you'd been wrong is often painful, but non-tortucans take that in stride as they prefer getting things right over mere certainty. Richard Feynman or Arthur C. Clarke might be interesting likely instances of non-or-low tortucan minds.
If there is indeed a tortucan aspect of cognition, it should in principle be possible to investigate it, to find out what neuronal structures or genetic determinants play a role, or to what extent environmental factors encourage or impede their formation. It doesn't seem that strong tortucans are prone to change their minds, which puts up a cautionary warning on the limits of education.
iml8 · 20 August 2008
James Downard · 20 August 2008
I'm reminded of William James, who annoyingly thought about too many things ahead of everybody else. Anyway, he described Hegel back in 1879 as someone of the tortucan stripe. To paraphrase James, he said of Hegal that once you can see A and not-A as noncontradictory, there's no stopping your philosophy.
GuyeFaux · 21 August 2008
Darwin's Chihuahua · 21 August 2008
Here is a link to a mirror of this video without comment censoring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_u4jLHJKDw
The original poster TheJaredJammer is a known crackpot who allows comments but moderates them only allowing positive comments through (thus wasting the time of people who think that their comment is going to get posted). He also has at least one sock puppet account that he uses to comment on his own videos.
Amadán · 21 August 2008
Frank J · 21 August 2008
SLC · 21 August 2008
1. It should be pointed out that Dr. Berlinski is also a critic of the big bang theory of cosmology. His blathering about the big bang only proves that he his ignorance of physics is exceeded only by his ignorance of biology.
2. Dr. Berlinski has, in the past, also falsely given the impression that he has a PhD in Mathematics.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 August 2008
Frank J · 21 August 2008
RRains · 21 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2008
william e emba · 21 August 2008
Berlinski frequently claims to not be a creationist, nor even a cdesign proponentsists. Yet he blatantly avoids any actual criticism of anybody or anything inside the creationist/ID big tent. Like the time he obviously used a sock puppet to interview himself, while denying any such nonsense, he has zero credibility.
As for Berlinkski's doctoral thesis in philosophy, it was on Wittgenstein.
Mike · 21 August 2008
Clyde Scott-Higgins · 21 August 2008
Hello,
I'm very happy to have come across this site. I don't intend to argue anything to do with evolution, I just have some comments to make about von Neumann. von Neumann supposed that it wasn't "necessarilly unfavourable" to determine the 'meachanical elements' of molecules with a high mass. Beyond that, he had hunches and thereorised as to the parameters in which reproduction may occur in reference to either organic or artificial mechanical systems -- artificial mechanical systems, as we can read above, aiding the understanding of the process by which one may mathematicise the evolution of organic systems.
Unfortunately, his work on these topics was incomplete at the time of his death, and what does remain of many of his "computations", so to speak, remain: faulty, due to unchecked errors in early calculations of certain developmental structures of, I believe, crystaline forms used anaologously for reproduction; contingent on several 'incompatible' (non-universal) models; certain models being inoperable (or incomplete) within themselves; et al. Even regarding the observations that seem to suggest conflict, competition, what-have-you -- important for natural selection -- there still would be required 'extensive eloboration' for those observations to be relevant.
It is clear that he didn't "hoot" at Darwinian evolution, and was in fact cautiously optimistic that a mathematical model could be manifest to describe probablistically how an human brain could develop incrementally from, say, the nervous 'system' of cnidaria. (Personally, I agree with his hunch to focus on this point.) However, there were seemingly grave caveats, such as the requirement to reconcile the second theorem of thermodynamics with reproduction -- no easy task by any means. (Failing that, the requirement that cells should be different than they are -- ha,ha)
At any rate, von Neumann's levelheaded work on the subject is, to my mind, very thrilling, but not something one could adduce in their favour on either side of a debate between modern evolutionary theory and creationsim. That said, it has been implied to me by knowledagable persons that Darwin was well respected as a great mind by von Neumann.
As for myself, the thing I find incredibly odd is that any attention whatever is paid to creationism.
Thanks,
Clyde
Mike · 21 August 2008
Berlinski's obviously a mercenary with a keyboard. The DI pays him for his services. He comes from a generation of European Jewry who feels betrayed by God. He does have an ax to grind. The group he wants to get back at is the academia that spurned him and his great genius. His self promotion and lack of humility reminds me of Dawkins.
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2008
Mike · 21 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2008
Frank J · 21 August 2008
C. Renault · 21 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2008
Larry Boy · 21 August 2008
GuyeFaux · 21 August 2008
GuyeFaux · 21 August 2008
Jim Harrison · 21 August 2008
There's a starting configuration for Conway's cellular automaton LIFE that reproduces itself. So the critical threshold can't be any larger than that and may be smaller.
paolo · 21 August 2008
Clyde Scott-Higgins · 21 August 2008
Clyde Scott-Higgins · 21 August 2008
Jim Harrison · 21 August 2008
The self-replicating LIFE program was described in a 1970 Martin Gardner column in Scientific American. Since computer viruses exist and regularly reproduce themselves, I wouldn't think there was much of an issue about self-replicating programs.
Bill Gascoyne · 21 August 2008
Clyde,
FYI, if you hit the "reply" button, your text will appear in the input window even if there's a syntax error (which, in your case, there was; you had two <quote> flags and only one </quote> flag).
RBH · 21 August 2008
Marion Delgado · 22 August 2008
Notice the creationist community always gets everything done in "under 5 minutes." Word to the wise, ladies.
Marion Delgado · 22 August 2008
Mathematicians love the requisite appeals to Goedel's [first incompleteness] Theory. It can be misapplied to anything.
It actually provides for relatively easy expansions of any system that can do arithmetic to accommodate formally undecidable propositions (most of which aren't very important), to form a new system that has its own formally undecidable propositions, and so on.
And quantum physics has perturbation theory. And so on.
Incompleteness is not even a problem for formal systems, let alone empirical disciplines like physical and biological science. And those evolve, and theories within them evolve.
Busby SEO Challenge · 22 August 2008
Busby SEO Challenge
Great blog! Very interesting and educational...God bless and good luck!
RBH · 22 August 2008
This is way off topic, but for the last couple of hours Panda's Thumb and Antievolution.org are the only two sites on the whole intertoobs that I can reach (where "reach" = browse to, ping, or ftp to). Is anyone else able to see the rest of the world?
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 August 2008
Bobby · 22 August 2008
Would the posters here label Berlinski an 'IDiot'?
phantomreader42 · 22 August 2008
Thony C. · 22 August 2008
To be precise Berlinski's doctoral thesis is on Wittgenstein's Theory of Meaning and has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics or mathematical logic. Also his books on the history of mathematics and the history of mathematical logic are badly written, overblown prose and are full of both major and minor errors.
Bobby · 22 August 2008
Bobby · 22 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 August 2008
Thony, thanks to you too! Then I guess I don't understand how Berlinski ever (seemingly) got to be "a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University" and teaching math.
(Shudder! There is a revealing description when Berlinski tries to 'teach' professional mathematicians the meaning of limits. Another creationist who shouldn't be let near young and innocent minds.)
Was he system manager for the department or cleaning test tubes in the biology lab? He reminds me of physics (string theory) critic Peter Woit, who IIRC seems to be doing the former in between teaching math. The difference is that Woit started out as a researcher in theoretical physics, and string theory isn't a validated theory, so his crankishness isn't fully unfounded (just overblown).
David Stanton · 22 August 2008
I suggest that no one respond to Booby and his childsh questions. Last time he posted dozens of nonsense posts and never once mentioned the topic of the thread. He demanded references and then steadfastly refused to read them. He used several different names and then demanded that others be forced to follow the rules. He trolled incessantly and then called everyone else a troll. He took posts that ridiculed him for copying and pasting and copied and pasted them - twice. He even ignored the rules that PvM established and then cried for PvM to protect him from people asking reasonable questions. He claimed that he didn't have time to respond to reasonable questions and then posted lots of gibberish and nonsense instead. He copied and pasted definitions from Wikipedia without attribution and then argued about the definitions without ever saying where they came from. All of his responses that were not cut and pasted were riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, almost as if he hadn't even taken a junior high english course yet.
In short, this is most likely a twelve year old who needs attention. I'm sure his mother will take away his computer priviledges when she finds out how he has been behaving. Until then, ignore or respond at your own risk. I for one certainly have nothing further to say to this useless twit.
Administration: please delete any and all cutting and pasting of this post by Booby.
Robin · 22 August 2008
Bobby · 22 August 2008
Shirley Knott · 22 August 2008
chuck · 22 August 2008
Wheels · 22 August 2008
phantomreader42 · 22 August 2008
David Stanton · 22 August 2008
Booby,
I don't respond to trolls.
bobby · 22 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 August 2008
Stanton · 22 August 2008
BobbyTroll, it is statements like this one that give us the accurate impression that you are nothing more than a maliciously stupid and maliciously dense troll.Shirley Knott · 22 August 2008
What else is there to learn from Wittgenstein other than how to write atrocious books? The man was a twit on his good days, and he didn't have many good days...
Admittedly, Berlinski goes him one better, for a rather large value of 'one'.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
wamba · 22 August 2008
I was hoping Berlinski would show up in the comments and lay down the evidence on which he based his comments about von Neumann's alleged derision of evolution. I'm sure he'll be around any minute now.
Bobby · 22 August 2008
chuck · 22 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 August 2008
Shirley Knott · 22 August 2008
Well, certainly neither exposure to nor comprehension of Wittgenstein is a pre-requisite to writing grandiose, or tawdry, books. Wittgentstein's contributions to literacy are, ahem, indirect at best.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
PvM · 22 August 2008
I will propose to the administrator to have Bobby added to our banned list for continued violations of the rules.
Dale Husband · 22 August 2008
robert · 22 August 2008
Bob,
you use my name, it is Robert (my name)by the way. Please don't. Worse still, you use that nauseating shortening, Bobbie, Bob, Bobb, or what ever.
From reading PT for a while it is apparent you have become a metastatic influence, but you never (just like cancer)produce anything useful,interesting,rewarding,fulfilling, or in any way wholesome. Is this what ID supplies, emptiness? A vacume that must be filled in any way.
Berlinski that somnambulistic dolt is in some way your hero? This can be understood Bob because your neutered responses, like his, are so devoid of content: Say something, or just fuck off.
Robert
Stanton · 22 August 2008
BobbyTroll sticks up for Berlinski not because Berlinski is one of his heroes (I bet that he can't even pronounce his name). He sticks up for Berlinski because he thinks that evolutionists are nasty and mean trolls, and ignores the fact that commenters in this thread are raking Berlinski over the coals (in effigy at least) specifically because Berlinski was quotemining from a corpse in order to steal illegitimate authority with which to sabotage Evolutionary Biology somehow.David · 23 August 2008
Berlinski once left an obnoxious message on my answering machine because of a letter I had published in a newspaper. When I confronted him, he denied he did it (his voice is pretty hard to mistake). I think I have the recording somewhere still. He's an asshole and a liar.
アットローン · 23 August 2008
I always see your blog.
I am looking forward to renewal of your blog.
Please take a look my site, if it's possible.
Dan · 23 August 2008
I am loath to ban anyone.
But I have just gotten a copy of the annual reminder concerning my College's Honor Code. It makes the point that plagiarism, taunting, name-calling, and irrelevancies are not only bad for the community, they are also bad for the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is not punished for such acts, he or she is likely to gain the misimpression that there's nothing wrong with them.
Bobby has engaged in all these reprehensible acts and more. If he were a student (or faculty member) at my institution, he would certainly be expelled (or dismissed).
As reluctant as I am to reach this conclusion, I find that banning Bobby would be good for the Panda's Thumb community and good for Bobby himself.
Dan · 23 August 2008
Science Avenger · 23 August 2008
David Stanton · 23 August 2008
Thank you for finally enforcing the rules. Just don't forget to ban all the aliases that this individual has been using as well. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from this person. There will probably be another reincarnation soon. As a wise man once said, youth is fleeting but immaturity can last a lifetime.
Paul Burnett · 23 August 2008
Les Lane · 23 August 2008
I suspect that Berlinski is like Michael Behe in that he's attracted to those who pay attention to him. Sadly neither Berlinski nor Behe have much to offer their respective intellectual communities.
chunkdz · 23 August 2008
Anthony · 23 August 2008
Have had a opportunity to what the video on YouTube featuring David Berlinski. The initial reaction was somewhat surprise hearing this person talk about evolution. It started to get interesting when he started to talk about a whale, then the rouse was exposed. He is a very eloquent as a speaker, but he seems more condescending.
Who ever David Berlinski quotes does not support his argument because his argument is illogical and unenlightening. His argument is based on instantaneous of an organism. His argument is about a cow evolving into a whale. First point cows can not evolving into a whale. Second point cows will not evolving into a whale. Final point it is impossible to predict given enough time what cows living near a water environment will evolve into.
Pure creationist none-sense. People reject the theory of evolution because of their religious views.
Stanton · 23 August 2008
Bobby · 24 August 2008
Stanton · 24 August 2008
Science Avenger · 24 August 2008
David Stanton · 24 August 2008
Booby the Goof Poe wrote:
"Would making false accusations be among those ‘reprehensible acts’??"
Actually, yes. Knowlingly making false accusations is quite repehensible as you well know. Of course that is not the main reason why you have been banned.
As for the accusations that I made, you didn't refute a single one and I have evidence to back up every single one. All you did was cry about someone making fun of your made-up name. Kind of a microcosom of your entire approach to reality, ignore all evidence and and blame others for everything.
You had your chance Booby. I tried in vain to have a decent conversation with you about the evdience but you refused to look at it. Well you still can. Just go to the thread about the Padian article and look at the section on whale evolution. Being banned doesn't prevent you from learning, if you are interested at all.
SLC · 24 August 2008
Many universities hire individuals with a title of lecturer to teach freshman calculus courses. These are non-tenure track faculty positions and a PhD in mathematics is not required. In fact, in many places, only having taken freshman/sophomore courses in calculus is sufficient. The reason for this is that most of the students in these courses are not math majors but are majoring in physics, engineering, chemistry, computer science, etc. The number of students majoring in mathematics, including graduate students, doesn't merit sufficient tenure track faculty positions to teach these courses.
Bobby · 24 August 2008
Stanton · 24 August 2008
BobbyTroll.Saij · 24 August 2008
It would be hard to find a Game Theorist who didn't believe in evolution. evolution is one of the most interesting topics in mathematical game theory and they fit together like thumb and bamboo ... well, better than that.
william e emba · 25 August 2008
Mark Germine · 25 August 2008
There is an enormous amount of information in the protein, when you combine the structure sequencing of amino acids and folding. My reading of the quotation from von Neumann is that this order might serve a purpose. There can be purpose in evolution - the two are not mutually exclusive. So pro-evolutionary views do not rule out purpose. It is quite a simple thing to say birds have wings so they can fly. This is obvious, even for a child. This scientific stance is outlined in The Science of God http://psychocience.com/scienceofgod.htm
PvM · 25 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 25 August 2008
Bobby · 26 August 2008
It would be hard to find a Game Theorist who didn’t believe in evolution. evolution is one of the most interesting topics in mathematical game theory
... can you go into more detail on that?
Robin · 26 August 2008
Mark Germine · 26 August 2008
There are several ways to determine the information expressed in a protein. Information is fundamentally order or negentropy. My point was that the ordered structure serves a purpose, which I think was what von Neumann was implying.
The commentary on birds having wings to fly is absolutely correct in that, in current evolutionary thinking, there would be no purpose to fly preceding the development of wings. One might say that the idea of purpose is a violation of causality, in that the effect precedes the cause. The idea of multiple purposes is just an evasion. Hypothetically, what if wings had only one purpose in birds? Could they have developed wings and then discovered they could fly?
Purpose is what Aristotle called final cause. The concept of final cause has been banished from science. Would you accuse Aristotle of not being logical? I think it was Wallace who noted that faculties are developed in evolution before they are needed.
PvM · 26 August 2008
PvM · 26 August 2008
Robin · 26 August 2008
David Stanton · 27 August 2008
Mark wrote:
"The idea of multiple purposes is just an evasion."
I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree. The concept of exapation is central to evolutionary theory. For examp;e, elephant ears most likely did not originally evolve for thermal regulation, but today they serve that function admirably.
As Robin pointed out wings may have originally evolved as a mechanism for therman regulation. There is also strong evidence to suggest that in the early stages of their evolution, wings also served the function of aiding inclined running. (I can provide the reference once I get into the office if anyone is interested).
Evolutin works by modification of preexisting genes and pathways. Variation passes through the crucible of selection ans we see what remains. No planning or purpose is required and there is no evidence that any exists.
Mark Germine · 27 August 2008
Getting back to von Neumann's original quotation, development of something like a protein, with the progressive increase in negentropy that we see in evolution, is fundamentally a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Natural selection does not expiate this violation.
The assumption that evolution is purposeless is just that, an assumption. The idea of purpose is not unscientific. Specifically, if, as per von Neumann, we have a fundamentally consciousness-created reality, then consciousness can give direction of evolution.
phantomreader42 · 27 August 2008
David Stanton · 27 August 2008
Mark wrote:
"The assumption that evolution is purposeless is just that, an assumption. The idea of purpose is not unscientific. Specifically, if, as per von Neumann, we have a fundamentally consciousness-created reality, then consciousness can give direction of evolution."
What is the purpose of evolution? Whose consciousness created reality? How did that consciousness gave direction to evolution? Why is there no evidence whatsoever of any of this?
Mark Germine · 27 August 2008
I really got you going!! Now, now, a stupid liar? You must have better arguments than this. Negentropy is produced by actualization of very improbable states of systems, repeatedly, in the evolution of living things.
I am really not a creationist, in the usual sense of the word. Evolution is a fact, and the facts cannot be disputed. The mechanisms of evolution are open to discussion. They certainly include natural selection, and, more importantly, the principles of self-organizing systems. Stuart Kauffmann is much more instructive than Dawkins on this. Beyong this, however, evolution, in my opinion, is creative in that it can actualize the improbable.
PvM · 27 August 2008
PvM · 27 August 2008
PvM · 27 August 2008
ben · 27 August 2008
Henry J · 27 August 2008
What is "negentropy"? Does it have any meaning other than as an advertising slogan against evolution?
The splitting of a cell into two cells is a far greater local reduction of entropy than is a slight change in one of the genes in its DNA during its replication. So there's no way that the 2nd law could block evolution without blocking growth, and we know that living things grow.
Henry
fnxtr · 27 August 2008
fnxtr · 27 August 2008
Hmm... why do I get the feeling Mark is going to expound on a Theory of Increasing Complexity or something similar. What was that clown's name again?
Mike Elzinga · 27 August 2008
ben · 27 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 27 August 2008
Mark Germine · 27 August 2008
Punctuated equilibrium overthrew gradualism a long time ago, so I do know where we get these big ideas that our theories of the mechanisms of evolution are proven. A gene cannot be selfish, because it does not have a self. This is just an idea that fits a certain style of philosophy. Where is the proof of evolution be natural selection? Altered gene pools, yes, this is proven, but its not exactly evolution in the grand scheme.
Who is it that is conscious? It is, of course, every one of us. Consciousness has actualized, and continues to actualize, its own evolution, this is what I propose.
GuyeFaux · 27 August 2008
Mark Germine · 27 August 2008
There's a beautiful little example from evolution of purpose and entropy. The blind cave fish evolved from fish with eyes. After many generations of life in the dark, these eyes disappeared. Here, as I understand it, the entropy in the gene pool lead to loss of eyes when they served no purpose. There may be other explanations.
Mike Elzinga · 27 August 2008
fnxtr · 27 August 2008
David Stanton · 27 August 2008
Mark wrote:
"Who is it that is conscious? It is, of course, every one of us."
So then, modern human beings have influenced the last 1 - 200,000 years of evolution at most and all the rest of the 3.5 billion years was undirected and purposeless. Got it.
Now, if every one of us gives purpose to evolution, then surely you should be able to say what that purpose is. Do we all agree on the same purpose? What happens if we disagree? Who decides? When will the purpose be achieved? How will we know? Who cares?
"Here, as I understand it, the entropy in the gene pool lead to loss of eyes when they served no purpose."
No, there is no such thing as "genetic entropy". Relaxed selection was responsible and it recognizes no consciousness and no purpose. You have failed to do anything but make unsubstantiated assertations and these are completely worthless. Believe what you will, no one will ever be convinced without evidence and you don't have any.
Stanton · 27 August 2008
Henry J · 27 August 2008
Robin · 28 August 2008
Robin · 28 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 28 August 2008
Flint · 28 August 2008
I miss Lenny · 28 August 2008
Sean Carroll's recent book "The Making of the Fittest" has an in depth discussion on fish which lose their eyes.
From an Evo Devo perspective, because the eyes no longer provide any form of advantage in a dark environment, they are no longer selected for and random mutations slowly accumulate in the DNA which would otherwise have been protected from mutation.
This, and every other explanation above is both more useful, correct, and genuinely interesting, than the fake and unexplained 'idea' of genetic entropy.
Try again buddy.
David Stanton · 28 August 2008
I miss lenny worte:
"From an Evo Devo perspective, because the eyes no longer provide any form of advantage in a dark environment, they are no longer selected for and random mutations slowly accumulate in the DNA which would otherwise have been protected from mutation."
Minor nitpick. Actually mutations most likely occur randomly in both populations. In the case of the blind fish they simply weren't selected against. In the case of other fish they probably also occured but were selected against and removed from the population. The point is that no planning, foresight or purpose need be invoked in order to explain the observed pattern.
I also miss Lenny, but you can still have his pizza guy deliver.
Robin · 29 August 2008
Henry J · 29 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 August 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 August 2008
BlastfromthePast · 10 September 2008
I'm sorry to be posting this so late in the game, but I just ran across it, and I had to spend some time tracking down von Neumann's comments.
A couple of things:
(1) While von Neumann mentions mutations, replications, and such, this does not necessarily mean that von Neumann believed in Darwinism. He may have been simply comparing his model(s) for self-replicating autmata with what is seen in life. Remember, he said that for a self-replicating automata, i.e., life, to exist is a "miracle of the first magnitude". Yet, they nevertheless exist.
OTOH, he might very well have been likening his model(s) to Darwinian evolution. It is not completely clear.
(2) However, let's remember that von Neumann is using a mathematical model to describe something that can mutate, survive, and replicate. So, if von Neumann's model(s) are meant to imitate Darwinian models, then isn't that to say that someone could "design" a replicating system that would 'mutate, survive, and replicate'? IOW, a Designer designs self-replicating automata, and, in such a way that these self-replicating automata can change over time. This, I believe, was Darwin's first way of thinking. This was certainly how Asa Gray looked at Darwinism.
Bottom line, then, von Neumann's comments about a "miracle", and his model(s) for self-replicating automata, seem to presuppose a Designer. (von Neumann was, after all, the 'designer' of the models for SRautomata.)
Tatarize · 17 November 2008
"As the late John von Neumann pointed out, a machine that replicates itself can, with some difficulty, be imagined; but such a machine that could originate itself offers a baffling problem which no one has yet solved."
Von Neumann actually does touch on the topic of abiogenesis when dealing with the question of self-replicating automata and makes the point that you don't want to choose parts which are two large and thus already analogous to life and elements which are too small such as atoms or molecules. In the first you have defined away the question the latter you've made it far too complex. He suggests that we should take some middle-ground elements to build the automata even though at this level we ignore "the most intriguing, exciting, and important questions."
Page 77, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata
http://www.walenz.org/vonNeumann/page0095.html
"By axiomatizing automata in this manner, one has thrown half of the problem out the window, and it may be the more imporant half. One has resigned oneself not to explain how these parts are made up of real things, specifically, how these parts are made up of actual elementary particles, or even of higher chemical molecules. One does not ask the most intriguing, exciting, and importatn question of why the molecules or aggregates which in nature really occur in these parts are the sort of things they are, why they are essentially very large molecules in some cases but large aggregations in other cases, why they always lie in a rage beginning at a few microns and ending at a few decimeters. This is a very peculiar range for an elementary object, since it is, even on a linear scale, at least five powers of ten away from the sizes of really elementary entities."
He, for his purposes, ignored the important abiogenesis questions and instead focused on his goal. He didn't say it couldn't be answered or was an astounding mystery that could never be solved. He resigned himself to his task and just to "assume that elementary parts with certain properties exist." If this isn't the part misread above, at the very least, it should suggest that Von Neumann didn't see abiogenesis as intractable but rather more fascinating than his work with automata.
Mike · 10 September 2009
Berlinski said that Von Neumann 'hooted' at Darwinian theory. He never said that Von Neumann laughed at evolution. Darwinian theory is 'a' (indeed, the dominant) theory of evolution; there are others. Perhaps Berlinski is claiming, rightly or wrongly, that Von Neumann didn't think that the neo-darwinian synthesis worked.
claudio ianora · 23 October 2009
something simpler, like: "Why did God put tits on Adam?" may be more challenging to ID.
claudio ianora · 23 October 2009
I would really appreciate some suggestions... anything.
Peter · 2 December 2009
Why do obviously intelligent people still find the fact of evolution so hard to digest 150 years after Darwin.
Ignorant socrates · 1 January 2010
I would preffer to ask Pro evolutionists here as to weather it was possible for the natural governing laws of the universe to inherently allow self replicating organisms to arrive automatially, through random arragements combinations and permutations of molecules(the sheer fact exists, that for such a mammoth task to be achieved we are essentially considering a self replicating automata that can be considered a perpetual motion machine, and not only any perpetual motion machine , a machine that essentially has the ability to gather and store variable amounts of energy or concentrations of energy in different forms, as well as the ability to organize matter, one must consider that doing both of these tasks simultanously disobeys all known laws of physics). however it is possible for a machine to do so, only when several artificial constraints are imposed upon it, firstly it must have an innitially fully formed structure that allows it to function, this structure like any structure is composed of several complex portions and is a compound of several smaller machine like structures, each one specifically adept at a certain task, independent of the functioning of the other machines yet afeeced by their operational consequences. How these structures should arise in the first place is a matter of great complexity, how they should perform their functions without any innitial programming is confusing, (in extrememly simple terms, we are confronted with a dilemma, evolution however it is defined seeks to explain why a sword should sharpen itself if necessity dictates, however why the sword should arrive as a tool for cutting and how does the universe'matter and energy' know that it is a tool for is cutting and thus will require sharpening again impossile to identify). let us leave that alone for a while and ask ourselves why and how and the random laws of physics should give rise to a perpetual motion machine. A machine that the human race with its combined intellect has been unable to produce. If we beleive the universe has done so, which believers in evolution do then you aspire to a concept that the universe itsefe has inherent laws for producing order out of chaos , one esentially must believe that the universe itelf is god, however an unintelligent god, a god that does not know what it is doing, simply followng a latnt potential for producing complex intelligent structures from unitelligent ones, and this is precisely where even athiests must believe in a creative potential.
Mike Elzinga · 1 January 2010
DS · 1 January 2010
Ignorant wrote:
"I would preffer to ask Pro evolutionists here as to weather it was possible for the natural governing laws of the universe to inherently allow self replicating organisms to arrive automatially, through random arragements combinations and permutations of molecules..."
And I would prefer that you asked real scientists rather than pro anythings. I would prefer this weather or not you know the proper word for weather or not. In any event, the answer is apparently yes.
As for your contention of a perpetual motion machine, no that doesn't follow. As for your contention that all of the parts had to come together already fully formed, no that doesn't follow either. As for your contention that the first early replicator must have been able to use energy and organize matter, that is probably true, However, that is why the RNA World hypothesis was proposed. RNA can store information, replicate and catalyze other chemical reactions. It might have been the first genetic system and the first enzyme in the first metabolic pathway. I suggest you become familiar with this hypothesis before you ask pros anything else.
We are still learning about abiogenesis. This does not however call into question any aspect of evolutionary theory. The only reason to question our knowledge in that area seems to be the mistaken belief that scientists are committed to atheism. Since that is demonstrably not the case, the field of abiogenesis represents nothing more than another scientific endeavor.
Dave Luckett · 1 January 2010
Lee · 16 August 2010
Lee · 16 August 2010
Henry J · 16 August 2010
The exact percentage quotes depends on what is being counted - number of genes with any difference, number of base pairs that differ, only genes present in both species or include those present in only one, and maybe some other criteria.
Those who really want to understand biology will go first to the shared conclusions of biologists, and not to the claims of those who accuse biologists of a group of ignoring evidence (and especially if they're accusing biologists of all ignoring the same evidence in the same way). Such an accusation also implies that their clients or employers are also missing something basic, and again all in the same way.
Does that answer the question regarding who the fool is now?
Ichthyic · 16 August 2010
But nobody batted an eye at this massive change. All of the areas of research remained in sync
massive change or remained in sync?
which is it?
Stanton · 16 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 17 August 2010
Dave Luckett · 17 August 2010
I'm not at all sure what Lee is saying. On the face of it, he appears to be saying that the evidence is that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor, and that their ancestry diverged about six million years ago. He seems to say that only a fool would deny this.
On the other hand, he says that this figure - six million years - has been pushed back a great deal by DNA evidence, which he's not sure about, but he seems to imply that you'd be a fool to accept this.
In the first place, the figures I've seen since the 1970's have been three to six million years, hedged about with many caveats. More recent research has favoured the higher value. I don't regard this as very much of a revolutionary change.
In the second place, if it had been a revolutionary change, it would be caused by new biochemical research that actually cast light directly on the lineage and the rate of mutation and evolutionary change, rather than on estimates from changes in morphology operating on a very limited selection of fossil data. The fossil data has enormously increased, too, since the 70's.
What Lee appears to be saying is that science cannot refine, improve and sharpen its figures without being accused of malicious fraud by fools. Well, he might be right, at that. The question is, who are the fools?
hoary puccoon · 17 August 2010
Until the 1960's, when Vincent Sarich and Sherwin Washburn strongly pushed the use of DNA divergence to shed light on the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, estimates of the time of split were as long as 25 to 30 million years. Since then, the figure has tended to hover around 6 million years.
I can't imagine what Lee is talking about when he claims, "our common ancestor has moved millions of years back in time." My best guess would be he's been misled by creationist pitchmen, who routinely quote outdated sources without mentioning the date of publication. Recently, I say a video of a creationist quoting Arthur Keith as if he were a current researcher. Keith was a well known, active researcher-- a hundred years ago!
MrG · 17 August 2010
Last night I was thinking: "Are the Pandas FOR ONCE going to ignore a troll?"
"Not gonna bet on it." Alas the incoherent call of the wild troll leads to an instinctive territorial response.
Now that the threshold has been broken, I do have to add myself to the Lee Troll: what metric one uses to calculate the percentage genetic difference between human and chimp makes no real difference -- humans and chimps are still clearly more similar than chimp and gorilla, well more than chimp and orangutan, and vastly more than chimp and monkey.
Lee · 17 August 2010
I guess my humor was lost on you all.
Based on many conversations, I know those who carry Darwin’s flag believe that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. I was offered the research of paleoanthropologist, molecular geneticists, and cladists as proof. This research fits together quite well, they say. This is rigorous science, they say, so only a fool wouldn’t accept it, they say.
I think my experience in this is common.
But when one looks “behind the curtains,” one sees a little man pulling furiously at levers and screaming into a microphone “Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz!”
My peek behind the curtain occurred about a year ago while reading a study concerning the estimation of human mutation rates, which was arrived at by contrasting human and chimpanzee DNA (instead of using the observed mutation rates i.e., empirical data). This was just one of many similar studies, all of which (rigorously) came to different conclusions about how dissimilar we are from chimps, and therefore how distantly our supposed common ancestor lived.
Obviously, the sequencing of genomes had sparked a revolution. But there was just one problem. The claim that all research “fits together quite well” is absurd when one considers that all other research corroborates this research no matter whether this research concludes the common ancestor lived 4 million years ago, or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8.
Apparently, evolution research in disparate fields of study can be said to corroborate one another no matter what the underlying data, or conclusions, are. Evolution research displays miraculous plasticity.
I was told this is rigorous science. I was obviously misled.
P.S. I know the different estimations are based on what is being counted. You completely miss the point. There are thousands of paleoanthropologists out there who believed the 99% similarity claim corroborated their research, and in fact everything they knew about evolution. And they continued to believe when the estimate changed to 98%. Ditto 97%. Ditto 96%. Ditto 95%. Etc. etc. etc.
The actual DATA is meaningless and so has no effect on the theory.
It’s called “crap science”. It’s called “willful blindness”.
Flint · 17 August 2010
Ah, I think I understand. Lee is saying that since there are various methods of peering into the very distant biological past, and different interpretations of the findings might cause variations in estimates of up to 20%, THEREFORE we know absolutely nothing, and all efforts to improve our understanding are blindness and crap.
But as we've all learned repeatedly, Lee and those like him start with foregone conclusions and grasp at anything they can stretch into supporting their case, whether the stretching is valid or relevant notwithstanding. So we see a combination of creationist arguments here: that if we don't know everything we don't know anything, that if there are minor difference of opinion about details the major agreements about evolution don't exist. That every time we learn more, this shows that we are completely wrong about everything we used to think we know. That when new methods of measurement are devised and don't agree precisely with the prior methods the new methods IMPROVE on, therefore all methods are nonsense and all measurements are bogus.
And this satisfies him that he's right, and all scientists are wrong. Praise Jesus!
Stanton · 17 August 2010
Dave Luckett · 17 August 2010
Oh.
You think that the conclusion of common descent is challenged by slightly different estimates of how long ago lineages divided. These estimates are from varying lines of evidence, all of which point to common descent.
Well, that's pretty funny. Will you be here all week?
Lee · 17 August 2010
Lee · 17 August 2010
Ichthyic · 17 August 2010
One day they will say of Evolution Theory, “It wasn’t even Science”.
OOOH OOOH!
let me be the first to say it!
WATERLOOOOOOOO!
*yawn*
Lee · 17 August 2010
Flint · 17 August 2010
Flint · 17 August 2010
What never fails to amuse me is when someone trots in with Yet Another Misrepresentation, and starts arguing that tens of thousands of specialists, all of whom have devoted their lives to these matters and all of whom know several orders of magnitude more about them than the ranting nitwit, are ALL wrong.
What's ironic is, there actually IS a Grand Conspiracy against such nitwits. And in fact, it's an essentially religious conspiracy.
Lee · 17 August 2010
Lee · 17 August 2010
Lee · 17 August 2010
I have to leave now, so maybe now you have a chance to win an argument, with your self.
Ichthyic · 17 August 2010
I see that you are very fond of building straw men.
we see you are very fond of misusing terms of logic.
it will be claimed to fit nicely with research in every other field
this is the part of your claim that is preposterous.
again, it goes back to your very first confusion, which I noted:
massive change or remained in sync?
which is it?
because it can't be both.
either the scientific community admits change in how we determine ancestry based on new information, or it doesn't.
you're claiming both that science recognizes new information, and that it doesn't.
you simply can't have it both ways.
changing the dates we consider when a specific fossil came from, a specific evolutionary split happened, etc., do not bear on the overall theory of evolution, on the specifics of the very things we are looking at.
another example:
We've determined that selection does not apply in the evolution of many (but certainly not ALL) traits in some populations, but rather that drift or other factors outweigh selection.
does that mean we have abandoned selection as a mechanism withing the ToE?
of course fucking not! it's still a well supported mechanism in other cases.
you seem to have the illusion that science works on some fundamental uniformity that simply not only doesn't exist, it would defeat the very power and predictive aspects of the scientific method if it did!
In short, you couldn't be more mistaken about how science works if you tried.
oh wait, you DID try.
sucks to be you.
Ichthyic · 17 August 2010
do not bear on the overall theory of evolution, [only] on the specifics of the very things we are looking at.
missed a word there.
Dave Luckett · 17 August 2010
Well, I did some googling on estimates of the age of last common ancestor of chimpanzee and human. That estimate has drifted about since the 1970's, it's true. Sarich in 1974 thought less than eight million years. By the late nineties, five to six million years was thought reasonable, on the Ardipithecus data. White et al in 2009 went back to 7-10 million years.
Earlier than the 70's it was all over the shop, sometimes out to as much as 15 million years, but that was going on a seat-of-the-pants estimate of morphological differences versus mutation rates, and nobody thought it was rigorous. It was the best they could do at the time.
So Lee's values of "100% different, 200% different, 300% different" are simply garbage. For forty years now the usual estimates of the age of the last common human/chimpanzee ancestor have been in the 5 to 8 million year range - a variation of 60%, to be sure, and with some outliers, but there's been broad consensus on it. And of course, there has never during this entire process been anything in the nature of a challenge to the basic fact that there was such an ancestor.
Dale Husband · 18 August 2010
Ichthyic · 18 August 2010
Ad hominem and appeals to authority are not valid arguments.
...says the man who bizarrely thrust Popper at us as an authority.
this is an insult:
Lee is a deranged twit.
this is an ad-hominem:
Lee is a deranged twit, and nothing he ever says will make any sense.
but, it's only an ad-hominem if it's incorrect.
Jury is still out on that.
Stanton · 18 August 2010
Anyone notice that Lee has not actually provided any evidence that evolution is wrong beyond him whining about how he can not and will not understand science, and how the fact that scientists refine and accumulate more and more data every day infuriates and confuses him?
It's sad and pathetic that the only way Lee tries to make us take him seriously is whining about how we're pointing out that he's an idiot.
Lee · 18 August 2010
Lee · 18 August 2010
I said: It will be claimed to fit nicely with research in every other field
Ichthyic said: this is the part of your claim that is preposterous.
The research effort into this has been massive. Are you saying that you do not accept the claims that their conclusions fit nicely and corroborate every other area of research into our common ancestor? Or maybe you can explain what you think is "preposterous".
Ichthyic said: massive change or remained in sync? which is it? because it cant be both
You are correct, and that is my point.
If this research corroborated research in the fields of Paleoanthropology and Cladistics when they claimed there was 1% difference, how could it possibly corroborate the other areas of study when the difference is said to be 6%?
The answer is that it never actually corroborated other research at 1% anymore than it does now.
Ichthyic said: either the scientific community admits change in how we determine ancestry based on new information, or it doesn't.
It's not a question of accepting change or how science advances. It's about deception.
The rest of your post is piffle.
Dave Luckett · 18 August 2010
Ah. Well, that's what your problem is with science. You're doing it wrong. (In fact, I think it very unlikely that you're doing it at all, but let's not be unkind.)
Science is not made up of "rigorously testable, mathematically based hypotheses" unless you think that pure theoretical physics is the only science. (If you do, what are you doing here?)
Most science is made up of observations that are, to be sure, measured and described in mathematical ways where possible, from which hypotheses are derived which are then tested against other observations obtained, if possible but not invariably, by experiment - ie by excluding other variables.
Science does not pretend to arrive at mathematically provable theorems by this process. It is at heart a series of successive approximations. Nevertheless, it derives truth statements about the Universe.
One of these is that where organisms self-replicate with hereditable variation, and their population potentially increases beyond the resources of their environment, the survivors will mostly be those best adapted to that environment. Those survivors will then pass those adaptations to their descendants, and so on.
But most environments themselves change over deep time. Therefore, slow change in the forms of most self-replicating organisms should be observed. This is in fact observed.
Further observation has well established that earlier features are generally retained or only gradually disappear. The obvious and only real explanation for this observation is common descent of all life.
Those are the facts. The rest is corroboration. Deal with it.
Mike Elzinga · 18 August 2010
MrG · 18 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 August 2010
John Kwok · 18 August 2010
Lee · 18 August 2010
Berlinski was correct when he said that Biology is hundreds of years away from becoming a hard science.
You guys are so deep in this mysticism that you can only think in fallacies. Hard science is not unworkable or impractical. And how sad that the practitioners of pseudo science call hard science unworkable pseudo science.
Lee · 18 August 2010
Explain how independent, random changes in DNA accounts for the emergence of sophisticated new cellular machinery that can (while maintaining data compression and error correction within the DNA code) construct and repair new macro biological structures the utility of which often ludicrously supersedes the mere need to survive and reproduce on this planet.
And explain how such independent and random events could simultaneously evolve identical structures in different species living in different habitats on different continents.
Mike Elzinga · 18 August 2010
John Kwok · 18 August 2010
Dave Luckett · 18 August 2010
Easy. One: The changes that work are retained. Those that don't are lost. In general - not invariably - this results in greater complexity, which builds up over deep time. Such changes do not exceed the "mere need to survive and reproduce". You neglect the obvious fact that the main competition for resources to do so consists of other members of the organism's own species.
Two: In most such cases, the structures didn't independently evolve, but are evidence for common descent. Where they independently evolved it is because selection has converged on similar solutions for similar environmental factors, which is also only to be expected.
John Kwok · 18 August 2010
Lee · 18 August 2010
Elzinga,
Your defense of this specific example of tautology marks you as a fool.
The assumption that evolution is true becomes the assumption that common descent is true, which they then use to prove that evolution is true.
And you defend this perfectly good science.
You are a fool.
John Kwok · 18 August 2010
John Kwok · 18 August 2010
Lee · 18 August 2010
Dave,
Your "easy" answer falls ridiculously short of answering the question, just as the Theory does.
This is absurd.
Lee · 18 August 2010
Kwok,
"it takes one to know one"? Are you twelve years old?
Rob · 18 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 19 August 2010
Ichthyic · 19 August 2010
It’s not a question of accepting change or how science advances. It’s about deception.
indeed.
yours.
...and it's rather obvious, and pathetic.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 19 August 2010
Dale Husband · 19 August 2010
Cubist · 19 August 2010
"Common design", in and of itself, is an utterly vacuous term. Anyone who wants to actually, like, mean something when they invoke "common design" as an honest-to-god explanation for one or another feature of Earth's living things, had better pony up some details about this alleged "design" to which they refer. Such as: What, exactly, is this "design" which you're claiming is in "common" -- and what other critters also have it? Also -- if whatever-it-is realio, trulio, is the result of "common design", how can you tell? What's the difference between "common descent" and "common design", such that you can actually tell whether or not any given shared feature is due to the former rather than to the latter? Because if all you've got is "common DESCENT cannot account for it, therefore it's common DESIGN", well, you ain't got squat. Even granting, for the sake of argument, the premise that common descent is genuinely unable to account for whatewver-it-is, you still need to make an evidence-based case for common design!
So how about it, Lee? You up for presenting an argument for your position which doesn't boil down to your side's wrong so my side MUST be right ? Hmm?
eric · 19 August 2010
MrG · 19 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 19 August 2010
eric · 19 August 2010
Dave Luckett · 19 August 2010
It isn't only that. This loon demanded an answer to two questions he thought couldn't be answered. He received one. His reaction? To sneer that the answer wasn't an answer, although it was.
It was the classic denialism that got me: "This doesn't satisfy me, although I can't and won't say exactly why, and I don't believe it. Therefore it isn't true." It was as threadbare and as blatant as that.
Reed A. Cartwright · 19 August 2010
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!