Note: Another guest post from Don Prothero. I have added links, and the references section, where I put some graphics so that readers can see what Prothero is describing. -- Nick Matzke
Update: Shermer's review is now online here, and the audio of the debate is here.
I guess
my interview with National Geographic News online last week, and
last Monday's debate with Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg must have really wounded them, because this week I'm the new bete noire of the IDists over at the
Discovery Institute. For two years, they completely ignored my 2007 book,
Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters even though it pulled no punches in criticizing them, has been on the best-seller list for most of that time, and greatly outsells Meyer's new book. (Incidentally, they bragged at the debate about how his book had won an award from the
Times Literary Supplement. This is false. It turns out that there was a favorable review by
Thomas Nagel, a maverick philosopher of morality, not an award by the
TLS. My book, on the other hand, DID
win the Outstanding Book in Earth Science Award for 2007 from the American Association of Publishers).
In any case, they've been attacking me with everything they have this week, with
Casey Luskin and
Jonathan Wells both weighing in. Normally, it is not worth dignifying their garbage with a response, but in case any of the readers of Pandasthumb.org want to get the straight facts (and not their distorted version), here's what you should know:
1. Multi-winged insects and Hox genes: when evo-devo came up in Monday's debate, Meyer and Sternberg began arguing with each other about reconstructions of a 12-winged dragonfly that I had published in my book. They tried to get a laugh by claiming that such a bug has never been found. As usual, they completely missed the point of that illustration, and failed to read any of the explanation or discussion in the caption or text. The text clearly points out that the 12-winged dragonfly is a thought experiment, an illustration to show that a simple change in
Hox genes allows the arthropods, with their modular body plan of adjustable numbers of segments and interchangeable appendages on each, to make huge evolutionary changes by simple modifications of regulatory genes. This is the aspect of evo/devo that should answer structuralist Sternberg's objections to Neo-Darwinism, if he only bothered to comprehend it, and solves much of the question over how macroevolutionary changes take place. And it's not as far-fetched as they tried to make it sound. Homeotic mutant flies with four wings are well documented [known since the early 1900s -- NM], and fossil insects with more than two pairs of wings are common as well (Kukalova-Peck, 1978; Raff, 1996).
In a related matter,
the post by Wells completely screws up its discussion of four-winged flies. Apparently, he didn't read the book very carefully either, because it is a well known fact in developmental biology circles that the halteres, the tiny knob-like organs behind the single pair of wings in Diptera, are simply modified wings that now function as balancing organs. The 4-winged homeotic mutants have changed the Hox mutation so that they atavistically recover the ancestral 4-winged insect condition, and never develop halteres. Apparently Wells doesn't realize that halteres ARE the developmental equivalent of the second pair of wings.
Finally, in the debate, Sternberg and Meyer also mocked the significance of the
antennipedia mutation, showing their complete lack of understanding of its significance. This mutation of the Hox genes that control appendage development causes legs to grow on the head of fruit flies where antennae should grow. This is not favorable to the fly, of course (as Meyer and Sternberg mockingly point out), but they missed the point entirely: the antennipaedia mutation demonstrates that arthropod appendages (legs, wings, halteres, pincers, mouthparts, antennae, etc.) are all modular and interchangeable, so a simple Hox mutation can rapidly transform an arthropod with one set of appendages into one with a different set, and make a macroevolutionary change with minimal point mutations required.
2. "Cambrian explosion": during the debate I pinned down Meyer with one of the blatant lies that creationists often spout: there are supposedly no "transitional fossils" before the "Cambrian explosion." I put up direct quotes from Meyer et al. (2003) and Meyer (2004) to that effect, then showed the incredibly diversity of pre-trilobite fossils from the Precambrian, from the prokaryotes 3.5 b.y. ago, to the Doushantuo fossils of China (600 m.y. ago) which include embryos of sponges, cnidarians, and several bilaterian groups (Chen et al. 2009), to the multicellular soft-bodied Ediacaran fauna (580-550 m.y. ago), which are clearly large (some over a meter in size) but possess no skeletonized tissues, to the "little shellies" of the first two stages of the Cambrian, which include clear examples of primitive mollusks, sponges, cnidarians, and other groups, but are minimally skeletonized. Only during the third stage of the Cambrian, the Atdabanian (520 m.y. ago) do we see abundantly skeletonized fossils like trilobites. With this preservational advantage of calcified skeletons, the diversity of fossils known begins to increase (mostly in a lot more species of trilobites). The origin of the early members of the major invertebrate phyla is spread between the Precambrian Doushantuo and the Cambrian Atdabanian, spanning 80 million years. Hardly an explosion! I prefer to use the term "Cambrian slow fuse" because that's how modern paleontologists and biologists understand the data that is now available -- but the creationists keep on using the outdated term "Cambrian explosion" because it suits their purposes.
Caught in his lies, Meyer then tried to redefine what he meant by "Cambrian explosion" in 2003 and 2004 to mean ONLY the Atdabanian Stage, and argue about how there are no fossils with complex eyes and other structures before that time. If he actually had any relevant training in paleontology (he has no degree in paleontology or biology, yet insists on writing about the topic without the proper credentials), or if he even bothered to see the outcrops and collect them for himself (I have), he would understand the true situation. Unlike the Middle Cambrian, when we have extraordinarily well preserved fossils like those of the Burgess Shale in Canada, or the Chengxiang fossil in China, we have no similar locality with extraordinary preservation during the first two stages of the Cambrian. If we did, we might see a soft-bodied pre-trilobite arthropod with the precursor of the compound eye, as well as other transitional fossils. The apparent "explosion" that Meyer finds inexplicable is really an issue of preservation (a hit-or-miss proposition we cannot control) plus whatever environmental thresholds that were finally exceeded when the Atdabanian Stage began (most paleontologists and geochemists think it was the amount of oxygen needed to calcify large skeletons). It's an interesting problem on which hundreds of paleontologists and geologists are actively working and arguing about different hypotheses that might explain it, but certainly no mystery that requires divine intervention.
And the Discovery Institute further shows their inability to keep up with current scientific thinking when they attacked the problem on their site this week. All that Luskin could muster was two or three quotes out of context from almost 20 years ago, long before the Doushantuo and "little shelly" faunas were discovered and fully documented. Since they have no one properly trained in paleontology who actually knows something about fossils, they resort to the quote-mining tactics of the old-fashioned creationists instead.
None of these issues are scientific problems, only problems with creationists who cannot read or comprehend the basic science, or simply don't want to understand what they read. Judging by how "intelligent design" has faded from media attention since their huge loss in the Dover decision in 2005, and is no longer being pushed on school districts (they try the "teach the controversy" or "balanced treatment" approaches now), the Disco gang is becoming less and less relevant. But if you happen to get in an argument with them, you should know the truth. Meanwhile, we'll probably see the DI site get bored of attacking me, and back to pushing religious dogmas, attacking global warming, gay rights, stem-cell research, and other extreme right-wing causes that they are so fond of.
References and a few notes [added by NM]
Kukalova-Peck, Jarmila. (1978).
Origin and evolution of insect wings and
their relation to metamorphosis, as documented by the fossil record.
Journal of Morphology, 156: 53-125. doi:
10.1002/jmor.105156010
Raff, Rudolf A. (1998).
The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University Of Chicago Press, 1-544. Pages 404-417 discuss the evolution of insect wings.
Note: This is the figure from Prothero's book under discussion:
90%-plus of the
hundreds of other figures in Prothero's book are of transitional fossils -- but nevertheless Wells feels entitled to accuse Prothero of fraud. Says Wells: "
Need evidence for Darwinian evolution? Just make it up. That's the lesson of Donald Prothero's book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters."
Looking at the references mentioned above tells a different story than Wells. E.g., Figure 12.4, p. 409 of Raff 1998 shows us one of the (incredible!) ancient fossil insects with many pairs of wings (see Kukalova-Peck 1978 for more detailed drawings and references). (By the way, various fossils, and some modern examples, are known of insects showing a third pair of winglike structures, in front of the regular two pairs.)
Kukalova-Peck's (1978) original caption (Figure 28, Plate 7, p. 110) for the Paleozoic insect reads:
Typical Paleozoic mayfly, older nymph. Wings were curved backwards, articulated, and probably used for underwater rowing; prothoracic winglets were fused with protergum. Abdomen was equipped with nine pairs of veined wings. Legs were long, cursorial, with five tarsal segments. Protereismatidae; Lower Permian, Oklahoma. After Kukalova ('68). Original reconstruction from a complete specimen.
A
1985 publication by Kukalova-Peck (Figure 31, p. 946) gives this fossil the description: "
Kukalova americana Demoulin, 1970, older nymph", if people want to look it up.
Figure 12.6 and p. 412 of Raff (1998) gives a more detailed version of the argument made briefly in Prothero (2007):
See also e.g.
Figure 29 of Kirschner et al. 2005.
Cambrian
Chen, J.-Y., Bottjer, D.J., Li, G., Hadfield, M.G., Gao, F., Cameron,
A.R., Zhang, C.-Y., Xian, D.-C., Tafforeau, P., Liao, X., and Yin. Z.-J.
2009.
Complex embryos displaying bilaterian characters from Precambrian
Doushantuo phosphate deposits, Weng'an, Guizhou, China. PNAS v. 105, no.
45, pp. 19056-19060. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0904805106
For a good diagram of the various events and time periods in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian, see Figure 1, p. 358 of: Marshall, Charles R. (2006).
Explaining the Cambrian "Explosion" of Animals. 34: 355-384. doi:
10.1146/annurev.earth.33.031504.103001
Small version below:
Figure 1 Complex anatomy of the Cambrian "explosion." Dates from Grotzinger et al. (1995), Landing et al. (1998), Gradstein et al. (2004), and Condon et al. (2005). Neoproterozoic carbonate carbon isotope curve from Condon et al. (2005), Early Cambrian curve largely from Maloof et al. (2005) but also from Kirschvink & Raub (2003), and Middle and Late Cambrian from Montanez et al. (2000). Note the wide range of values in part of the Early Cambrian; this is partly due to geographic variation, but also to variation measured in Morocco. Disparity from Bowring et al. (1993). Diversity based on tabulation by Foote (2003) derived from Sepkoski's compendium of marine genera (Sepkoski 1997, 2002); all taxa found in the interval, as well as those that range through the interval, are counted. Short-term idiosyncrasies in the rock record can add noise to diversity curves, so to dampen that effect, taxa found in just one interval can be omitted (singletons omitted). Note that standing diversities were much lower than the values shown; many of the taxa found in a stratigraphic interval did not coexist. The boundary crosser curve (M. Foote, personal communication) gives the number of taxa that must have coexisted at the points shown; however, because traditional stratigraphic boundaries are based on times of unusual taxonomic turnover, these estimates may underestimate typical standing diversities.
122 Comments
Mike Elzinga · 3 December 2009
It seems evident from the nit-picking these DI “Fellows” constantly engage in that they harp on details for a reason. Only a few real experts can be on top of every detail to effectively make IDiots look as uninformed and as wrong as they actually are.
I have occasionally wondered why these IDiots, whether from the ID crowd or from the YEC crowd, don’t often take on physics even though they are as egregiously wrong about that as they are about biology.
Biology is full of excruciating details about all kinds of examples, and one has to have an almost encyclopedic mind or be a specialist in order to keep track of such detail. That is not to say that biology and evolution don’t have overarching principles that tie all this detail together, but it is easier to get into the thickets of minutia (at least that is how it seems to this physicist).
In physics and chemistry (well, maybe not for organic chemistry), there are many fewer concepts to keep track of, and their basic structures are simpler and easier to remember. This makes it all the more remarkable that ID/creationists get these concepts wrong also.
Apparently, in order to not have to confront their misconceptions in physics, they have developed a sort of pseudo-physics in the form of “information theory” where they can invent words and concepts that look like they have their roots in physics, but have the newness of real information theory that they also screw up routinely.
And look at what they do with “philosophy.”
I think this all goes to what comes naturally to them; argue interminably about words and details that nobody can hold them accountable for. The more words and details available for them to play games with, the better they can impress the rubes who hang out on UD and in their churches.
DavidK · 3 December 2009
Dunno about the debate, whose audio hasn't been posted on the Dishonesty Institutes site (and likely won't be), but the Dishonesty Institute is filing whole bunches of lawsuits in regard to the cancellation of the ID propaganda film they scheduled for airing in California. Boy are they one pissed group of bozos, whiners, ad nauseum.
John Kwok · 3 December 2009
Nick and Don,
Thanks for posting this addendum, especially both figures. In particular the one on the "Cambrian Explosion" is well worth pondering by anyone who still thinks that there was a "Cambrian Explosion" (Am referring especially of course to delusional creos like Meyer.).
John Kwok · 3 December 2009
Nick and Don,
I just posted a link to this thread over at my Amazon.com review of "Signature in the Cell", urging people to take a close look at the Figure 1 pertaining to Cambrian stratigraphy.
For those of you who don't know my review is the most extensive, most comprehensive negative review of Meyer's mendacious intellectual pornography. As of this date, it is also the latest review, and is entitled, "Sterling Example of Mendacious Intellectual Pornography from Stephen Meyer".
Appreciatively yours,
John
WKM · 3 December 2009
Don,
Just to press a point a bit more: As you point out, Meyer has no degree in paleontology or biology, so even in the extremely unlikely (realistically zero-probability) event that he was to visit the sites you mention, he would not be able to understand the scientific significance of what he was looking at. He would simply interpret the evidence using his irrational creationist dogma.
Hector · 4 December 2009
"For two years, they completely ignored my 2007 book, Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters "
Wanna change "completely" with "largely"?
They have some warm words of praise here, from 2008:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4689
@DavidK: "Dunno about the debate, whose audio hasn’t been posted on the Dishonesty Institutes site (and likely won’t be),"
Well, EvolutionNews claims they're going to: "The debate video will be made available at some point by American Freedom Alliance, the sponsors of the debate, along with Center for Inquiry, The Skeptics Society and Discovery Institute." I wait with baited breath.
Dave Luckett · 4 December 2009
I can't imagine why the proposition as set out by the convenor at the start was accepted by the evolutionary side. It totally locks the affirmative into defending on any point the negative wants to choose, without the point being known in advance. This merely commits the affirmative to fighting solely on their opponent's prepared and chosen ground, without the opportunity to counter or prepare ground of its own, or even to know what grounds it would be fighting on.
The DI zeroed in on this fact from the start, and they were right to do so. After all, their opponents had blithely accommodated them and handed them a huge advantage. Why shouldn't they use it?
Allowing DI flacks to operate in this fashion simply preordains the result. They had a vast field from which to choose their point of attack. Paleontology, molecular biology, population genetics, you name it. No two people can be full experts on everything in those fields. Nothing surer than that the affirmative is not going to be fully informed on some point or other, if they can't know in advance what the point will be. The knowledge may simply not exist yet, or even may never exist. If all else fails, you can always deny their qualifications to comment, which is what was happening when Meyer told Prothero that he was a geologist (and hence couldn't comment on "junk DNA).
Notice, the DI doesn't have to provide an "adequate" explanation itself. It doesn't have to provide any explanation at all, and didn't. All it needs to do is to find some gap, any gap, exploit it, and trumpet "inadequate" for the win.
Which they did.
And I'm sorry to say this, but I think they were right to do that.
Robert Byers · 4 December 2009
The only thing this YEC can add is that the gap thing is a smoking gun.
When one thinks of all the great changes from a bug to a bull elephant that must of happened. then it must be tremendous evidence out there to fill in these gaps. Yet instead there is only pinpricks which are interpreted as intermediates. if evolution is not true then there would be no connecting lines. yec and others are confident there are not and address the few brought up.
For such great claims of evolution from this to that there must be in the fossil record great evidence for connections.
I would add by the way the fossil record itself is based on false concepts in geology of long time accumulation.
The error of evolution has not just been biological but relying on geological presumptions. This is unlike physics or dentistry.
Reinard · 4 December 2009
Creationists are the only people in the world who could simultaneously think that 6000 years is the entire history of the universe but that the 70 million years of the Cambrian Explosion is "sudden".
Mark2 · 4 December 2009
Reinard, though your comment is funny, it ignores the fact that creationists are saying the 70 million years (/assuming/, in their minds, that they occurred/) would be sudden as far as /unguided/ evolution is concerned. There are much better ways to knock creationists.
harold · 4 December 2009
Robert Byers -
I never got an answer to my question for you. I'll repeat it. It's simple.
If every Christian has to accept your literal reading of Genesis or be damned to Hell, then anyone who accepts mainstream science is damned to Hell, but so is anyone who accepts any version of ID/creationism that isn't explicitly, overtly YEC, and the theory of evolution is no worse than ID. If considering Genesis to be partly symbolic or metaphorical is not a cause of damnation, then accepting mainstream science is not an obstacle to salvation.
In either case, there is no reason for you to favor ID and dispute the theory of evolution, so why do you do it?
Venus Mousetrap · 4 December 2009
Robert: understand first. Criticise second.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 4 December 2009
John Kwok · 4 December 2009
eric · 4 December 2009
phantomreader42 · 4 December 2009
John Kwok · 4 December 2009
Edwin Hensley · 4 December 2009
Don, I ordered your book from amazon.com yesterday. I look forward to reading it!
afarensis, FCD · 4 December 2009
You can find audio of the debate here
David B. · 4 December 2009
harold · 4 December 2009
harold · 4 December 2009
Oops, cut-off - Note that I agree with the fact that some self-educated people lacking formal credentials can make contributions to scholarly fields, but credentials still usually matter.
dNorrisM · 4 December 2009
If you squint your eyes just right at the bug pictures, you can see the fishhooks on their abdomens.
FastEddie · 4 December 2009
John Kwok · 4 December 2009
Am sorry David B., but credentials do matter (Unless, for example, you are Jack Horner - who has no college or Ph. D. degrees - but nonetheless has established himself as serious, quite credible, scientific researcher in vertebrate paleobiology.). It especially matters to "scientific" creationists like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski (who has TWO Ph. D. degrees), Jonathan Wells, Dean Kenyon, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, and others of their ilk, as though having the credential itself was of utmost importance in defining a person's character and ability.
I am especially mindful of this since I heard Don Prothero talk about creos and his book, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" back in January here in New York City, where he was a guest speaker for one of the local skeptics/atheist groups. Don told the audience that he wants to be known as Dr. Prothero only when he is working as a professional geologist and vertebrate paleobiologist. Otherwise, in every other "civilian" capacity, he prefers to be known as Mr. Prothero.
@ Edwin Hensley -
You're in for a real treat. Don's superb book is the best I have encountered so far which emphasizes the importance of the fossil record in providing ample proof for the reality of evolution. While it is not perfect - it doesn't really discuss mass extinctions and have brought this to Don's attention - it is both an exceptional piece of scholarship (including a brief, but excellent, overview of creationism and its relationship to Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity here in the United States) and a very fine piece of scientific writing (Have no doubt that if Stephen Jay Gould was still alive, he'd give this book - written by both a younger friend and colleague - his highest, most eloquent, praise.
John Kwok · 4 December 2009
There are creationist paleontologists who do actual field work, of whom the most notorious example is invertebrate paleontologist Kurt Wise, who earned his Ph. D. at Harvard University under the supervision of none other than Stephen Jay Gould. However you are correct in the sense that most creationists wouldn't think of looking at field sections of relevant biostratigraphy, trying to discern some useful information on taxonomic diversity, originations ("speciation") and extinctions within the fossil record.
John Harshman · 4 December 2009
JLT · 4 December 2009
I've listened to most of the debate and I think that that might be a response to something Meyer said during the debate (approx. 3/4 of the audio) - Meyer wanted to cut short Prothero's response to Meyer's blatherings about junk DNA with the argument that Prothero wasn't qualified to talk about DNA.
BTW, in my opinion that segment of the debate highlights why scientists shouldn't debate with creationists.
Meyer proclaimed that ID "theorists" predicted that there is no junk DNA which in his opinion is now shown to be true.
Prothero brought all the relevant counter-arguments which boil down to "BS, of course there's junk DNA".
Sternberg obfuscated by citing examples of instances were single "junk DNA elements" gained function, without saying that those are actually single instances that don't mean that ALL those elements have a function.
A rebuttal wasn't allowed, so to everyone without knowledge in that area it looked like Prothero didn't know relevant literature.fnxtr · 4 December 2009
Robert Byers:
Look, I know your command of English is a bit shaky, but please learn this syntax:
must have
would have
could have
should have
Not "of", have.
You will read as slightly less ignorant. Not a lot, but slightly.
Thank you.
Karen S. · 4 December 2009
John Kwok · 4 December 2009
FtK · 4 December 2009
In your face evo boys....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/avi_davis_responds_to_donald_p.html
There's your audio of the debate...straight from the Discovery Institute.
Your sorry theory will be going down the toilet soon enough...first we'll wait until global warming has been completely flushed. YOUR NEXT....
eric · 4 December 2009
tresmal · 4 December 2009
Our next WHAT!?
Karen S. · 4 December 2009
phantomreader42 · 4 December 2009
DavidK · 4 December 2009
FastEddie · 4 December 2009
Doc Bill · 4 December 2009
I listened to the entire audio file last night and it was like four different subjects being discussed!
Meyer argued that he wasn't there to discuss "intelligent design" but he'd be delighted to at another debate and, by the way, buy my book which discusses "intelligent design." Meyer wouldn't discuss "intelligent design," although he quoted from his book, on sale in the lobby, frequently.
Sternberg had a whale of a time. He's not a YEC or an OEC or a YEEEECCCH, rather he's a "structuralist." I'll sleep better knowing that. Based on Sternberg's calculations (and they sound suspiciously like what Berlinski tried to pull claiming to have tried to enumerate all the changes that would have to be made to re-engineer a cow into a whale and gave up after identifying over 50,000, which he's never revealed), it would take over 200 million years for whales to evolve. Well, at least he admits they could evolve! So, Sternberg accepts the fossil record, accepts that whales could evolve and did evolve but he rejects the modern theory of evolution as being able to describe the mechanism adequately. Not exactly the debate topic, but close, I guess. However, Sternberg sounded a bit like Behe in that no amount of evidence would convince him as he deflected Prothero's evo-devo suggestion and counter-arguments.
Shermer did a nice job of calling a spade a spade, or as we say, an ID a fraud and made a solid point that ID proponents can't simply wave away that "ID doesn't depend on the nature of the designer" when the term "intelligent cause" is right in their definition! Shermer pointed out that the opposition only presented a negative argument against evolution but considering the debate title that was, in fact, the argument: evolution is not adequate.
I thought Prothero did a fine job of tit-for-tat with Sternberg and Meyer even in the face of arguments by assertion. For example, Meyer claimed that pre-Cambrian geological deposits (after all Meyer is TRAINED in geology, so he said) were just fine for preserving fossils and the fact that Cambrian precursor fauna have not been found means they don't exist. Considering Meyer's panic in discussing the Cambrian it's apparent that the "explosion" is the linchpin of ID. Not that they have much, but remove the "explosion" and ID has nothing; no point in time where they can confidently say "the Designer was here." Prothero also did a nice job of demolishing Sternberg's ridiculous "dog tail" argument about the whale fluke by pointing out that the mammalian body was already constructed for up and down (rather than sideways) motion. Don't know why Sternberg brought that up.
In conclusion, Doc Bill will give the Golden Behe Award to: Sternberg. For sticking to his script and hammering his one point, relentlessly. Of course, Sternberg did not demonstrate his calculations and fortunately for him he wasn't asked where he had published his conclusions. But, Sternberg would not be drawn off message and stuck to his script. Well done, Dick!
Rolf Aalberg · 4 December 2009
Jose Fly · 4 December 2009
Listening to the debate right now.
Right off the bat, it seems Meyer and Sternberg were given about twice the amount of time as the good guys. Was that because of moderation, or did Shermer and Prothero just not use up all their time?
Also, Sterberg gave away the whole con behind his whale argument right away. He clearly stated up front that he limited his estimates to "only adaptive mutations" and specified that by "adaptive mutations" he meant "a mutation that doesn't just slightly affect a trait in a positive way, but affects a number of traits in a positive way".
So he's deliberately and arbitrarily rigged the game to not factor in exactly what we see in the whale fossil record, i.e. slight changes over time. The migration of the blow hole is a good example.
IOW, he's set up that standard creationist straw man of "evolution means only a bunch of big changes all at once".
Jason F. · 4 December 2009
Now I'm listening to Meyer's "functional to non-functional sequences" and "mutations degrade, not add information" argument.
How easy is that to refute?
Both ID creationists stated that they agree with the age of the earth and the fossil record. So they agree humans have been around for at least 130,000 years. Research has shown that humans have between 100 and 200 mutations per zygote. So how is it that at that rate, over that long a period of time (and given their denial of "junk DNA") our genome hasn't degraded into almost total non-function? IOW, how the hell do we still exist?
Jason F. · 4 December 2009
Did Meyer just say "body plans are dependent on information that is not encoded in DNA"?
I seriously doubt he's talking about epigenetics, so given that we all have "body plans", where exactly is this information?
Jose Fly · 4 December 2009
On to the dragonfly debate...
So Sternberg concedes that you can get "dramatic body changes" from small mutation events, but he argues that "most of them are negative".
Well....isn't that where natural selection kicks in?
Nice little game he's playing, i.e. isolating each mechanism and saying "This can't do it all by itself" and thinking he's refuted evolutionary theory.
Jose Fly · 4 December 2009
Just noticed that some of my comments are under "Jose Fly" and others are "Jason F.". Same person...:-)
Jose Fly · 4 December 2009
LOL! Sternberg's dodge on "How do you think this intelligence caused these changes" is absolutely hilarious!
"I didn't come here to talk about that." How convenient.
Then Meyer jumps in and says the mechanism is "an intelligent agent--even a deity--infused information". Um, that's not a mechanism, that's a circular assertion.
How do you think an intelligence caused these changes?
"By intelligence."
DS · 4 December 2009
Meyer and Sternberg said:
"So they agree humans have been around for at least 130,000 years. Research has shown that humans have between 100 and 200 mutations per zygote. So how is it that at that rate, over that long a period of time (and given their denial of “junk DNA”) our genome hasn’t degraded into almost total non-function? IOW, how the hell do we still exist?"
Well that's easy, that would amount to a mere 1.3 million mutations, tops. With three billion bases in the human genome, that's but a scratch.
Of course that is assuming, as these guys apparently do, that all of the mutations occurred in a single individual who only reproduced asexually and that no one ever died because of selection. Gee, that sounds like a pretty accurate description of evolutionary biology!
What fools these mortals be. Is there anyone stupid enough to be fooled by these fools?
veritas36 · 4 December 2009
Just ask an ID:
Do you know almost all of the food you can eat is evolved by people?
So if people can do it, how do you deny that God can?
Dave Luckett · 4 December 2009
Paul Burnett · 4 December 2009
Kristine · 4 December 2009
Your sorry theory will be going down the toilet soon enough…first we’ll wait until global warming has been completely flushed. YOUR NEXT.…
(My next what? It's "you're." Looks like spelling will be flushed first.) When? I already have a countdown at my blog based upon a stupid "Evolution dead in ten years" interview that Dembski gave a newspaper in Kentucky. Care you give your own prediction, creo gal? It ain't sciency without a timeline, ducks.
[Walks like a duck - induction! Quack, quack!]
BTW I hope you're not confusing temperature proxy artifacts with real, global average temperatures, or else your coffee can only get cooler in the microwave. Just putting that out there.
MPW · 5 December 2009
386sx · 5 December 2009
Midnight Rambler · 5 December 2009
Just a note on the drawings - those are kind of misleading, because insect wings are not, in fact, appendages. They are outgrowths of the exoskeleton, with no internal muscle attachments. The structures shown in the first drawing along the abdomen are gills, not abdominal "wings". While older insects had small winglets on the first thoracic segment, there have never been insects with winglets on the abdomen; it simply can't happen, because of the difference between the structure of the abdominal and thoracic segments. In fact, I would wager that sufficient change has occurred that it would be impossible to insects to re-evolve true abdominal legs by reactivating developmental genes for them a la antennapedia.
Also, FWIW, Kukalova-Peck is somewhat "out there" in entomology - she can't be immediately dismissed because she has contributed some important things, but she also promotes a lot of strange stuff as well. So anything from here should get some extra scrutiny. She's an interesting person as well - at an EntSoc meeting I was at a few years ago she literally had to be dragged away from the podium after going over-time on her talk.
Rolf Aalberg · 5 December 2009
michael j · 5 December 2009
FTK is back! If I was her, I wouldn't hold my breath about the AGW issues at the moment. I think that it will blow back in the denier's faces. At the moment most media see AGW as a debate between two sets of scientists but like Dover the spotlight will be on just who is and who isn't honest.
mharri · 5 December 2009
I think a big part of the problem is that ID supporters don't understand metaphor. They see the linguistic shorthand of anthropomorphization (e.g., "The action principle means Nature wants to optimize") and interpret it literally. And given the crowd in question, this behavior is what should be expected.
John Kwok · 5 December 2009
Jose Fly · 5 December 2009
Jose Fly · 5 December 2009
Dave Luckett,
I agree with your assessment. The ID creationists rigged the format of the debate at the last minute. Under those circumstances, Shermer and Prothero should have insisted that either the subject change back to what it was originally, or they would not participate. And do so with a good paper trail so they can document the chicanery.
Of course that's easy to say after-the-fact over the internet, but the creationists do this often enough that experienced debaters should be prepared for it.
I also agree with your assessment of the creationist habit of picking at gaps in our knowledge. My response upon encountering this tactic is to sarcastically exclaim, "What? You mean we haven't figured out the origin and step-by-step pathway for every trait that's existed in the 3+ billion year history of life on earth? GASP!!!"
With that said, my honest opinion after listening to the full debate was that Shermer and Prothero didn't do as well as they claimed. They didn't do poorly or anything like that, but I didn't hear any signs of the ID creationists being "rattled", "shook up", or having their skin gotten under. Perhaps video will show otherwise.
The ID creationists seemed to dominate the time and were free to interrupt at will. It also seemed like Shermer and Prothero and the ID creationists were friends and colleagues who just happen to have a disagreement. While I understand how going over the top and rude is counter-productive, there are consequences to going the other way as well.
But overall, IMO Shermer and Prothero did probably about as well as can be expected. The terms were stacked against them, the crowd was mostly pro-creationism, and as usual the creationist side put us on the defensive. Also, as I pointed out in my comments, the ID creationists made some really bizarre assertions and arguments (still scratching my head over that "the information for body plans isn't in DNA" thing) that hopefully a few objective observers noticed.
I'd bet very, very few people who attended or listened changed their minds or that any fence-sitters got enough out of this to make a decision. In all, there was probably enough in there for both sides to claim victory, which tactically speaking is kind of a loss for our side.
Nick (Matzke) · 5 December 2009
Nick (Matzke) · 5 December 2009
This reviews some of gliding-down vs. water-up debate...
Nick (Matzke) · 5 December 2009
Oops I meant to add:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/03/how-did-insects-get-their-wing.html
Here's the water-up model:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jim+Marden%2C+origin+insect+wings&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on
Karen S. · 6 December 2009
I listened to the audio-- it was interesting to say the least! The terms of the debate seemed to put the ball squarely in their court, since ID is simply (what they see as) the failure or evolution to account for the diversity of life on earth. They didn't have to put forth any positive arguments for ID, just play with the data, luckily for them.
The ID people hate to be pinned down, but they should be willing to admit that there was one or more acts of special creation in the time period of every gap they point to where they claim evolution can't cut it. It's no different than Progressive Creation, is it? And as for the whale lineage, they should admit that the designer's motivation was probably to create a better whale and hopefully do it correctly this time, because the old model was a failure.
Do they anticipate any future acts of special creation?
Mike Elzinga · 6 December 2009
Chayanov · 6 December 2009
Debating is nothing more than civilized duelling. "Winning" has nothing to do with the correctness of one's position and everything to do with rhetorical skill. Besides, debating creationists is just meeting them on their battlefield, on their terms. If they really want a voice in science, they can do science like the rest of us. Scientists can (and should) engage with the greater public, but we can do it without involving creationists.
Karen S. · 6 December 2009
I think scientists should choose their battles carefully. They are usually too busy doing real science to become slick debaters, and they're too honest to tap-dance around any issues that are raised. Take on the creationists, but make sure the audience has a chance to hear the scientific side of things. This isn't really possibly in the confines of a structured debate. Perhaps you could refer the audience to a web site where any pseudo-science put forward by the creationists can be thoroughly dealt with?
John Kwok · 6 December 2009
Ichthyic · 6 December 2009
Wings are thought to have evolved from gills, IIRC
It's time to embrace your inner fish, if you haven't done so already.
Karen S. · 6 December 2009
Michael wrote another review of the debate for the Huffington Post:
The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
Amazon.com has demonstrated to me its implicit sympathies towards creos, especially those from the Dishonesty Institute, by holding up Don Prothero's terse, but excellent, review condemning Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". I would encourage those of us opposing the Dishonesty Institute to go to the Amazon.com product page for Meyer's latest pathetic example of mendacious intellectual pornography and vote favorably for both Don's review and mine (Mine of course is the one which refers to Meyer's book as mendacious intellectual pornography.).
Karen S. · 7 December 2009
John, I already voted favorably for your review. I'll go check out the others.
Karen S. · 7 December 2009
I'm back, and I saw that Don's review was voted the most helpful critical review.
With regard to the Cambrian, I suppose the ID crowd can claim it's a long string of special creation events, instead of 1 big bash.
Matt · 7 December 2009
Holy cow, you guys actually believe yourselves!
Now I know what the ID'ers are talking about.
You are lost in your own imaginations, not science.
Matt
Karen S. · 7 December 2009
raven · 7 December 2009
Stanton · 7 December 2009
FtK · 7 December 2009
Another article from the DI for you folks..just in case you might have missed it..:)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/how_to_make_eighteen_equal_twe.html#more
ben · 7 December 2009
Mike Elzinga · 7 December 2009
DS · 7 December 2009
So Matt, you are claiming that over one million articles published in peer reviewed journals isn't good enough to inform our opinions? Great. Then we will hold the ID crowd to the same standard. As soon as they have over one million real publications, then maybe someone will take them seriously. Until then, as you say, all their ideas should be considered mere imaginiation.
Let's see how they are doing so far: (1) no that one was retracted. (2) no that one was proven to be dead wrong. (3) no that one didn't actually prove anything.
Ok, so only one million more to go. We'll be waitiing.
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
Stanton · 7 December 2009
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
Stanton,
Although I think Ben is understanding this, allow me to give him the really short version:
1) The Dishonesty Institute doesn't believe in doing any real scientific work on behalf of ID. If it did, it would have done so when it was founded back in 1995, but it hasn't tried at all, period.
2) Instead it sees ID as a tool that will lead the USA to the "promise land" of religious theocracy, pretending to be democratic.
3) The Dishonesty Institute calls its "researchers" Fellows and Senior Fellows, but they should be called instead, mendacious intellectual pornographers. They will resort to every tactic possible to disseminate their mendacious intellectual porn, ranging from lying about their intentions and their critics, to grossly distorting (or omitting) published scientific data contrary to their beliefs, and last, but not least, even censorship and outright theft (in the case of Dembski's self-admitted act of larceny against Harvard University).
Alexandra · 7 December 2009
I was (and still am) looking forward to buying Mr. Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters when I get back from the winter holiday.
However, Jonathan Wells at the Discovery Institute annoyed me like hell with this article. While I cannot yet comment on the actual contents of the book that he is referring to, nor to the captions under the pictures, what I can do is to notice the blinding ignorance of comparing a thought experiment (it seems he cannot comprehend what that means) with the well known "division by zero" mathematical fallacy.
If that is what Wells defines as 'humorous', I have to confess that it utterly fails to pass as amusing in my books.
Karen S. · 7 December 2009
John,
You might be right about holding up Don's review. Amazon is in the book selling business, and they don't want to scare anyone off right away. Once the book's reputation with favorable readers is established they are free to create a controversy. And it works, but has nothing to do with science.
Donald Prothero · 7 December 2009
Mike Elzinga · 7 December 2009
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
Karen S. · 7 December 2009
Okay, then, things are worse than I thought. btw, what is the "stupid Cambrian explosion movie" Don referred to?
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
John Kwok · 7 December 2009
James F · 7 December 2009
plate tectonics
gravity
relativity
atomic theory
It's almost as fun as watching this.Dave Lovell · 8 December 2009
John Kwok · 8 December 2009
Karen S. · 8 December 2009
Dave Lovell · 8 December 2009
John Kwok · 8 December 2009
John Kwok · 8 December 2009
eric · 8 December 2009
Frank J · 9 December 2009
Frank J · 9 December 2009
Kattarin98 · 9 December 2009
GvlGeologist, FCD · 9 December 2009
Rolf Aalberg · 9 December 2009
Kattarina98 · 9 December 2009
I found the context - it was not a comment but a quote from Dembski:
http://tinyurl.com/yl56m65
John Kwok · 9 December 2009
Frank J · 9 December 2009
Karen S. · 9 December 2009
Dan · 9 December 2009
John Kwok · 9 December 2009
I just got the latest missive of mendacious intellectual pornography from the Dishonesty Institute (their NotaBene e-mail newsletter) encouraging people to write positive reviews of Meyer's latest pathetic example of mendacious intellectual pornography "Signature in the Cell") and to vote NO on the negative "Darwinist" reviews. The Dishonesty Institute is sending its online goons to go after mine and Don Prothero's reviews. Please ask your family, friends and acquaintances to vote yea on mine and Don's reviews and vote no on the latest musings by the Dishonesty Institute and its Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.
Karen S. · 9 December 2009
John Kwok · 10 December 2009
Here's the text of the Dishonesty Institute's appeal to its intellectually-challenged audience to write as many positive Amazon.com reviews of Meyer's mendacious intellectual porn while dealing with the reviews of Meyer's "evil Darwinist" opposition. Again, I urge you to vote yea on mine and Donald Prothero's reviews (and on the other one star reviews) and vote no on the positive reviews that have been posted at a most frantic pace at Amazon.com since the Dishonesty Institute sent its online e-mail appeal yesterday:
Dear John ,
Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell is gaining momentum, and now the Darwinists are fighting back. After Dr. Meyer and Dr. Sternberg trounced Darwinists Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero in last week's debate, desperate Darwinists are lashing out at Dr. Meyer, trashing his book at Amazon.com. They can't afford for more people to be exposed to the arguments that Meyer is making, so they have resorted to trying to ruin the book's reputation.
If you have read Signature in the Cell, we need your help! Please write a review at Amazon.com (they need not be long, just honest). This is a book that has earned its place in the top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon, the book that made the Times Literary Supplement's Top Books of 2009, and an author who was named "Daniel of the Year" for his work. Please take a moment and defend Dr. Meyer and his groundbreaking book.
Sincerely,
Anika M. Smith
Dave Luckett · 10 December 2009
John Kwok's right. Have you seen the reviews for Meyer's book on Amazon? At the present the average rating for it is 4.5 stars, and only 15 out of well over a hundred reviews are negative. And this for a spurious philosophical essay that mainly rehashes Paley on apparently purposeful complexity, with a side-order of phoney Behean statistics and the argument from ignorance.
This is the first time I have ever felt the cold touch of despair. The people writing glowing reviews are mostly not morons, yet they seriously believe that Meyer, who presents no actual empirical evidence at all for intelligent design, has overturned a century and a half of corroboration of evolution by describing complexity and philosophising about it. Honestly!
John Kwok · 10 December 2009
Karen S. · 10 December 2009
John,
Do you think Ken Miller will review this book? That's what I'm hoping for.
John Kwok · 10 December 2009
OgreMkV · 11 December 2009
John are you sillysillysilly?
Ray Bohlin · 11 December 2009
Wesley Ellsberry said,
"This is precisely why when Southern Methodist University was setting up a debate in 2006, I insisted on a public policy debate topic with the IDC advocate, Ray Bohlin, taking the affirmative. Bohlin conceded that he could not defend the affirmative statement in his opening remarks. Not only did the Discovery Institute fail to brag about how well Bohlin did, they tried to act like it had never happened just a year later."
For a little perspective, the SMU debate Wesley speaks of, was put on by the SMU Political Science department as part of their annual undergraduate student run debate series.
Therefore I was not the least bit concerned when informed about the public policy slant to the debate. The actual debate question, as I recall, revolved around whether Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classrooms. As a good DI fellow I answered early on, of course not, as Wesley has already observed. At that time, no one at DI, including myself was advocating ID be taught in public school science classrooms. As I explained that night ID is a fledgling science and needs significant support from the published literature as a working scientific theory before it should ever make its way into science textbooks. That was and still is DIs official position as best I know. So that should have been a win win proposition for Wesley. He could attack and knew I wouldn't defend.
But I also remember that in my closing remarks I stated that when ID is able to make those strides forward it should be allowed its place in science textbooks. Then to my surprise, Wesley agreed and basically agreed with my closing as his own closing. What that told me is that Wesley conceded that ID COULD be science. He certainly didn't say or admit that it was science, but left the door open to its possible admission as science.
As far as DI not bragging on my performance, I don't think it was because they were somehow embarrased by my performance but as far as I know there was no one else from DI there to issue a report as it was in Dallas and I don't recall if a recording was even made. I don't think so. I tend not to do my own reporting.
Respectfully,
Ray Bohlin
watch tv and movies · 10 March 2010
This was awesome