The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

<i>Cosmos</i>: Too Well Designed for Creationists?

Posted 5 May 2014 by Matt Young

By Steven Mahone. Mr. Mahone tells us that he "had the day off and made the mistake of perusing the [Discovery Institute]'s website." Mistake or not, the perusal inspired him to write the following interesting response, in which he argues that it makes no difference whether or not the Cosmos is all there is. The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin says a lot more about his organization than he probably realizes with his latest article, which damns with faint praise the Cosmos series currently running on the Fox Network. On the one hand, Luskin claims that he is "glued to the screen" because of the fascinating science being presented by host Neil deGrasse Tyson, yet (there's always a "yet"!) he is simply unable to contain his personal vendetta against anything that doesn't explicitly acknowledge his intelligent-design agenda by asking, "But is that all?" Perhaps it's just me, but isn't Luskin really missing something here? He sort of reminds me of the story where a crusty old talent agent watches a potential client re-enact Moses at the Red Sea by parting the waters of a swimming pool on stage in full view of the audience. Through his chomped cigar, the unimpressed agent yells, "It's been done. Next!" There is a strength that comes from the knowledge and enlightenment that Cosmos is sharing with all of us on Sunday nights. Luskin wants to weaken that strength by claiming that the evidence must point to something more and that we can't just be star-stuff, as Tyson claims, simply because we're here to challenge such an assertion. In a nutshell, the crux of his organization's argument is that some hydrogen atoms have attained a greater privilege than others, so we must be here by design. Apparently, the fellows over at the DI feel better served by appearing on The 700 Club to promote their ideas than they do by engaging cutting edge science or philosophy. The problem, of course, is that Luskin (or anyone else, for that matter) can pretty much assert whatever he wants – right up until we detect an asteroid with our name on it and then suddenly the whole "privileged planet" thing is not so much after all. Not to mention the trillions of bacteria and viruses that are under no obligation whatsoever to not mutate this evening and ruin our wishful thinking for this summer's vacation. Luskin desperately wants to take Tyson to task for telling us straight-up that the universe is unconcerned for anyone or anything. It's nothing more than the old game of "blame the messenger"! Neil deGrasse Tyson knows very well what science has to say about a hydrogen atom that's contained in the tear of a newborn as well as one that's at the core of a main sequence star. He also knows that our humanity has much to say about this as well. What Luskin fails to acknowledge is that the miraculous and the ordinary are equally indifferent to us, whether his designer is real or imagined, because that's what the evidence shows and that is precisely what Tyson is trying to get across to his viewers. Not only is Tyson almost certainly correct, it turns out that this is the best situation possible because it means that the hopefulness and purpose that we seek is right there in front of us. Nothing is more or less privileged than anything else in the Cosmos. If Luskin were to put down his chomped cigar and stop worrying about whether that's all there is, then he might come to the realization that what's here is more than enough. Steven Mahone is an engineering professional and founding member of Colorado Citizens for Science.

70 Comments

DS · 5 May 2014

Well just as soon as Luskin has some evidence, he can produce a slick science program for the masses. Until then he will be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas that never panned out. Reap it Luskin. You are going to have to learn sooner or later that people are interested in real science, not in your baseless theological musings. Your science envy is showing again.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

Clearly the whole universe, along with humans, was designed for amoebas. Amoebic dysentery fully demonstrates this. Or does Luskin have evidence of another aim of the Privileged Planet?
I'm sorry, but supernova explosions don't produce -- in any way, shape or form -- the conditions necessary for generating the complex and specified language-based code that underlies all life on Earth.
Apart from the made-up "language-based code," am I to believe that supernovas don't scatter nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphorous? Oh, that's what the "language-based" BS was about, that if language was required first, then the means necessary to store information wouldn't evolve. Of course not, but IDiocy hadn't been invented either, and evidence shows that DNA has been evolving for a very long time, with some evidence of the evolution of the code itself remaining. Does Luskin think that the evidence would allow us to indict and convict God for gross indifference to human life, should God make himself available for those procedures? If he does, why can't he make a case for it in his articles, he being a lawyer and all? Glen Davidson

eric · 5 May 2014

Glen - that is one really stupid Luskin quote. Of course supernovae don't create the conditions needed for life. They don't even create the "conditions necessary" for planets! In both cases, other things are needed afterwards: clouds of gas or liquid mixtures of organics, etc....

Doc Bill · 5 May 2014

Do not forget that Luskin's paycheck depends solely on the Flim and Flam he sells. If he embraced Science he would be out of a job.

Helena Constantine · 5 May 2014

No! No! I won't have that! I will not believe that the loathsome Luskin has the civilized sophistication necessary to appreciate cigars unless I see evidence!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

What if they were $3 Hamster Cigars?

Glen Davidson

ksplawn · 5 May 2014

Helena Constantine said: No! No! I won't have that! I will not believe that the loathsome Luskin has the civilized sophistication necessary to appreciate cigars unless I see evidence!
Well, we know what Mark Twain thought about cigar snobbery.

Matt Young · 5 May 2014

I had no idea what Mark Twain said, but I have just learned that Freud probably did not say Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though the Psychoanalytic Association seems to think that he did.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

Matt Young said: I had no idea what Mark Twain said, but I have just learned that Freud probably did not say Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though the Psychoanalytic Association seems to think that he did.
He only said it sometimes. Glen Davidson

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 5 May 2014

Matt Young said: I had no idea what Mark Twain said, but I have just learned that Freud probably did not say Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though the Psychoanalytic Association seems to think that he did.
Speaking of Freud, I would recommend a visit to his house if ever in London. In the end, cigars were not his friend.

bigdakine · 5 May 2014

Matt Young said: I had no idea what Mark Twain said, but I have just learned that Freud probably did not say Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though the Psychoanalytic Association seems to think that he did.
I thought that was Bill Clinton. Sorry.

logicman · 5 May 2014

Oh, now I understand ... you rehearse your "theory" at Sunday School, have it published by The DI, peer review via The 700 Club. Next stop Stockholm! Man, I've really been doing it wrong.

Doc Bill · 5 May 2014

Apparently, Cosmos has totally stunned the Disco Tute because they've pulled out the lightest of lightweights, the most obscure of the obscure, the only Tooter with a haircut worse than Meyer's, a crackpot who makes Paul Nelson look like a freaking genius, none other than Jay Richards! Yea, Jay!

Jay says essentially nothing other than he thinks Sean MacFarlane is a poopy head, and doesn't address any of the science points, because he doesn't understand any of the science points.

It's a wonder how Richards maintains a staff position at the Disco Tute considering the quality and quantity of his non-output. I suspect he has pictures of Luskin and Klingy doing the "hamster" in the office. It's the only explanation.

But I be too harsh on old JR, after all he did get this part right:

"And did you know that the common ancestor of all mammals was from New Jersey? "

New Joisey! I knew it!

Carl Drews · 5 May 2014

I wanted to cry when I saw the episode about star composition. To review, Cecilia Payne discovered during her thesis research that stars are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium. But Professor Russell at Princeton strongly disagreed with her conclusion, and somehow Payne was compelled to change her thesis. Cecilia Payne and the Composition of the Stars
Most of the mass of the visible universe is hydrogen, the lightest element, and not the heavier elements that are more prominent in the spectra of the stars! This was indeed a revolutionary discovery. Shapley sent Payne’s thesis to Professor Russell at Princeton, who informed her that the result was “clearly impossible.” To protect her career, Payne inserted a statement in her thesis that the calculated abundances of hydrogen and helium were “almost certainly not real.” She then converted her thesis into the book Stellar Atmospheres, which was well-received by astronomers. Within a few years it was clear to everyone that her results were both fundamental and correct. Cecilia Payne had showed for the first time how to “read” the surface temperature of any star from its spectrum. She showed that Cannon’s ordering of the stellar spectral classes was indeed a sequence of decreasing temperatures and she was able to calculate the temperatures. The so-called Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, a plot of luminosity versus spectral class of the stars, could now be properly interpreted, and it became by far the most powerful analytical tool in stellar astrophysics.
(Emphasis added.) According to Cosmos Cecilia Payne inserted the fateful (and incorrect) sentence under pressure. She made a hard bargain to graduate on time and avoid a lengthy dispute with her thesis committee. To his credit, Russell acknowledged that Payne was correct about four years later. But still we have the spectre of the powerful coercing the brilliant early-career researcher to drastically modify a conclusion. That makes me sad.

fnxtr · 5 May 2014

I thought the show intro looked familiar (and Wwaaaaayyyy too long), then I saw "produced by Brannon Braga". It all makes sense now.

gnome de net · 5 May 2014

Carl Drews said: [W]e have the spectre of the powerful coercing the brilliant early-career researcher to drastically modify a conclusion. That makes me sad.
But it makes the Creationists happier than pigs in mud because they identify with the coerced brilliant researcher. Which is sadder still.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

gnome de net said:
Carl Drews said: [W]e have the spectre of the powerful coercing the brilliant early-career researcher to drastically modify a conclusion. That makes me sad.
But it makes the Creationists happier than pigs in mud because they identify with the coerced brilliant researcher. Which is sadder still.
It makes sense, you know, except for the lack of research or reasonable inferences from the data. Other than that it's a close match. Glen Davidson

DS · 5 May 2014

gnome de net said:
Carl Drews said: [W]e have the spectre of the powerful coercing the brilliant early-career researcher to drastically modify a conclusion. That makes me sad.
But it makes the Creationists happier than pigs in mud because they identify with the coerced brilliant researcher. Which is sadder still.
Once again, all it took to convince the entire scientific establishment, including those who were originally opposed to the idea, was evidence. That's it. You would think that they would eventually get the idea. You would think that they would eventually at least try to look for some evidence. But they don't even pretend to try. Now why do you suppose that is?

Just Bob · 5 May 2014

But, you know, we only have one side of the story. Might it be a situation like Wegener's? Perhaps when Russell disputed her findings, he was informed by the best thinking on stellar physics available at the time. Something--we are not told what--changed his mind 4 years later. Perhaps further data? A better understanding by the astrophysics community of stellar physics?

Wegener's conjecture was rightly rejected (or at least put on the back burner) at the time, because no plausible mechanism (seafloor spreading) was known. Maybe doubting Payne's thesis was appropriate at the time she first proposed it, because there was good reason to doubt it, and confirmatory data was not available, which was available by 4 years later.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

Just Bob said: But, you know, we only have one side of the story. Might it be a situation like Wegener's? Perhaps when Russell disputed her findings, he was informed by the best thinking on stellar physics available at the time. Something--we are not told what--changed his mind 4 years later. Perhaps further data? A better understanding by the astrophysics community of stellar physics? Wegener's conjecture was rightly rejected (or at least put on the back burner) at the time, because no plausible mechanism (seafloor spreading) was known. Maybe doubting Payne's thesis was appropriate at the time she first proposed it, because there was good reason to doubt it, and confirmatory data was not available, which was available by 4 years later.
The story does look rather suspicious with some checking. I wouldn't say that Russell had good reason to doubt, but then it just seemed strange that hydrogen and helium would deviate so strongly, to his mind (note that other elemental abundances were not so far from that inferred for the whole earth--so why should hydrogen and helium differ so greatly?)--and, apparently, she was convinced by Russell, rather than the "coercion" BS trumpeted by the political hacks babbling about it now. Anyway, this is from a review of Payne's autobiography:
I must now pass on to what was in retrospect the greatest achievement of her monograph on stellar atmospheres — but was not recognized at the time, even by herself. A section of part 3 of Stellar Atmospheres contains a discussion of the abundances of elements derived from the marginal appearance of spectral lines. As previously, this is based upon the concept of the reversing layer and is prior to the emergence of the curve-of-growth method. It is expressed by her as follows: “At marginal appearance the number of suitable atoms is only a small fraction of the total amount of the corresponding element that is present in the reversing layer, and this fraction is precisely the ‘fractional concentration’ evaluated by Fowler and Milne. If then it be assumed that the number of atoms required for marginal appearance is the same for all elements, the reciprocals of the computed fractional concentrations at marginal appearance should give directly the relative abundances of the atoms.” She finds that for the most abundant stellar elements, among those for which she is able to obtain a result, their relative abundances in the Earth are roughly similar and she regards her results as “trustworthy in order of magnitude”. There are, however, large discrepancies in the cases of hydrogen and of helium — up by a factor of 1000 or so in number-count of atoms. She states: “The enormous abundances derived for those elements in the stellar atmosphere are almost certainly not real. Probably the result may be considered, for hydrogen, as another aspect of its abnormal behaviour … and helium … possibly deviates for similar reasons. The lines of both atoms appear to be far more persistent, at high and low temperatures, than those of any other element.” It is unfortunate that, conforming to Russell's judgment, she regarded the estimates of H and He abundances that she derived as spurious, whereas by hindsight we can judge that she made a remarkable discovery that was only confirmed generally following further work by Russell around 1930, and confirmed especially by Stromgren in 1932.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/1.27.full That is to say, there was no explanation for why other stellar element abundances would be close to those of earth's, while hydrogen and helium would be so very much more common. So what do you do with outliers? Are they junk data, or do they tell us something surprising? Russell thought they were probably junk, and persuaded Payne that they likely were as well. I'd note that the first UV readings in Antarctica during the ozone hole period were also thought to be wrong--because they were so far out of expected readings--but were followed up and found to be correct--and important. That was what happened over time with Payne's data. Anyway, that seems a fair interpretation of those matters covered in that review, which presumably should be pretty good, but could possibly not be. I didn't see the Cosmo episode, but I take it that it hardly covered the whole matter very honestly, assuming that the review of her autobiography is tolerably correct. Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

By the way, I wouldn't excuse the response to Wegener's ideas in the Anglo-American world, at least. In continental Europe the response may have been reasonable enough. Wegener did have good arguments, and there was a plausible mechanism, convection currents due to heat in the earth that Wegener mentioned once or twice (others had more to say on it, as he seems to have been derivative of them).

It did require time to work out, of course, with World War II not helping. Simply adopting it based on "plausible mechanisms" wasn't going to do much good. Not working on it at all, the common response in England and America, also wasn't going to do much good.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 May 2014

I have watched the parts of the Cosmos episode relevant to Payne-Gaposchkin now, and it's fairly bizarre. She's shown as being in disagreement with Russell's statements when given in a lecture, as if she were more than ready to buck authority, then she gives in to authority later on. Just authority, not caveats about hydrogen's "abnormal behavior," and possibly helium's (presumably not too well known then) that she actually included at the time (did she mean it? Who's to know?). That seems to be her explanation as well, and no doubt it's a large factor, but surely the outliers must make anyone wonder.

And oh, Tyson knowingly asks why we haven't heard of people like Annie Jump Cannon and Henrietta Leavitt. Good lord, like we've heard of Russell, or the original spectrometers of the sun and the stars. Probably the first to take a spectrograph is mentioned in many references, but to claim that many have ever heard of him would be bizarre--oh, and why didn't Tyson bring him up?

So, while the sexism was real, much of the PC crap on that show is just that. The real question would be why Tyson covered so many relatively minor figures, other than that they were women, except that there is no other answer. Payne-Gaposchkin actually did receive a fair amount of publicity, and her book was relatively well-read for a science text, when elemental abundances did become recognized, but of course the theoreticians are the ones who really get into history books, which she wasn't, nor were Cannon and Leavitt.

A very political episode, indeed.

Glen Davidson

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 5 May 2014

I’m sorry, but supernova explosions don’t produce – in any way, shape or form – the conditions necessary for generating the complex and specified language-based code that underlies all life on Earth.
Let's decipher this.
I’m sorry, but supernova explosions tornados don’t produce – in any way, shape or form – the conditions necessary for generating the complex and specified language-based code that underlies all life on Earth 747s.
Casey, I'm sorry, you are definitely a pony who needs a new trick.

eric · 6 May 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Anyway, that seems a fair interpretation of those matters covered in that review, which presumably should be pretty good, but could possibly not be. I didn't see the Cosmo episode, but I take it that it hardly covered the whole matter very honestly, assuming that the review of her autobiography is tolerably correct. Glen Davidson
The coverage of her discovery and thesis was about a 2-minute snippet, and while I agree it could've been more accurate, I'm not losing sleep over it. Laymen will still learn a lesson, albeit not the one the incident taught. Tyson's point (that a senior scientists' power and authority can sometimes bias data interpretation, so we should be cautious about giving too much weight to scientific authority figures) is a good one, just not a point supported by this particular anecdote. OTOH, the point that could have been made because it was supported by the anecdote is Feynman's famous "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

Carl Drews · 6 May 2014

I'll agree that Cecilia Payne getting her ideas well-accepted in four years is a lot better than Afred Wegener dying on the Greenland Ice Cap never knowing when or if his ideas would get accepted. Payne's story has a happy ending. She took the correct path: further research and scientific publication of evidence.

Scientific research operates on the edge of evidence. New hypotheses are not well-supported; that's why they are hypotheses. Every graduate thesis should push the envelope in some way, and some new ideas will inevitably turn out to be unsupported.

But I was kind of hoping that the expert would see the new idea and exclaim with a flash of insight, "Aha! She might be onto something here!"

Carl Drews · 6 May 2014

Max Planck played the role of the "Aha!" expert for Albert Einstein during the phase of his Annus Mirabilis papers (1905). Planck was an editor for Annalen der Physik, where Einstein published his extraordinary manuscripts. We all like happy stories, don't we?

david.starling.macmillan · 6 May 2014

Any time someone says "specified language-based code", I ask them what they mean by "specified", what an example of an "unspecified language-based code" would be, and inquire as to whether they believe a non-language-based code is possible.

Just Bob · 6 May 2014

And what, precisely, do they mean by 'language'? Is pure math a language? What organized system, with consistent internal rules (grammar), would not be a language, if any?

I suspect they want to use the word 'language' for damn near everything because it implies 'like human speech', which, of course, is what their very human god uses. So if it's a 'language', then it HAD to be created by their human-looking god.

Steve · 7 May 2014

It is utterly ironic and amusing at the same time that Steven Mahone is so confident in his intelligence to utter 'not only is Tyson almost certanly correct', but in the same breath, can claim that Man is no more special that mars, Andromeda, e.coli, or bark.

Hello Mahone, its not 'Are we special" but "What makes us special?".

FYI, counter-trend trading is not a wise move. There is plenty of supporting evidence that "The trend is your friend."

Stick to the trend. You won't go wrong. And the trend is and has always been that Man IS special. So special in fact that the list of human capability is light years ahead of any other organism and defies evolutionary explanations.

To the regulars here, why do you have this deep desire to argue around the obvious? What are you trying to accomplish by it?

phhht · 7 May 2014

Steve said: It is utterly ironic and amusing at the same time that Steven Mahone is so confident in his intelligence to utter 'not only is Tyson almost certanly correct', but in the same breath, can claim that Man is no more special that mars, Andromeda, e.coli, or bark. Hello Mahone, its not 'Are we special" but "What makes us special?". FYI, counter-trend trading is not a wise move. There is plenty of supporting evidence that "The trend is your friend." Stick to the trend. You won't go wrong. And the trend is and has always been that Man IS special. So special in fact that the list of human capability is light years ahead of any other organism and defies evolutionary explanations. To the regulars here, why do you have this deep desire to argue around the obvious? What are you trying to accomplish by it?
Do you mean to argue that man is special because Jesus, Steve?

Steve · 7 May 2014

phhht, leave Jesus out of this. He's busy writing endless pardons.

How about just using your noggin and digits to create a matrix. Line up any number of organisms on the y axis. Don't forget to stuff human somewhere at the bottom, bottom of the list. I know it will bring you comfort.

Then start listing out capabilities on the x axis.

OK, now start checking the boxes.

Finally, upon completion tally the results.

Ok, now report your findings.

Suggestion: plot the results on a graph and put into a PPT slide for easy communication.

Note: explain the gargantuan spike at the extreme end, you know the spot where you put human at.

phhht · 7 May 2014

Steve said: phhht, leave Jesus out of this.
I'll leave Jesus and the gods and the supernatural out of it entirely - if you will. Can you do that, Steve?

Just Bob · 7 May 2014

Steve said: And the trend is and has always been that Man IS special. So special in fact that the list of human capability is light years ahead of any other organism and defies evolutionary explanations.
Uhh, sure. Then what's your explanation? And about that 'trend'... are you claiming that a larger percentage of the world population today rejects 'evolutionary explanations' than did in, say, 1800? Or 1900? Is this that 'trend' that gleefully predicts the imminent demise of evolution any day year century now?

Just Bob · 7 May 2014

Steve said: Then start listing out capabilities on the x axis.
Umm, OK. Acuteness of hearing Running speed Sharpness of vision Odor detection Swimming ability Natural flying ability Night vision Ability to digest grass stems Brachiation Jumping Natural production of venom Hibernation through cold seasons Bite strength Infrared and ultraviolet sight or detection Man, how long do you want that X axis? All those 'capabilities' you're touting, really amounts to ONE in which we humans exceed all other animals: intelligence.

phhht · 7 May 2014

phhht said:
Steve said: phhht, leave Jesus out of this.
I'll leave Jesus and the gods and the supernatural out of it entirely - if you will. Can you do that, Steve?
Well, Steve? Or do you have an agenda you'd prefer to keep hidden?

Steve · 8 May 2014

phhht, i have never put Jesus into it in the first place. You are confused.

It seems you have been spending an inordinate amount of time fighting a vocal, opinionated segment of the design population.

path of least resistance I guess.

Reasonable, pragmatic people understand the efficacy of going with the trend.

I guess only academic types understand the value of the "extra mileage" arguing around the obvious can provide.

Intelligence? capabilities? accomplishments? What accomplishments? I dont' see any accomplishments.

....Hello, I'm Bogged-down Bob. You can trust me when I say "Man is not Special". Don't let the satellites, MRI scanners, iphones, vaccines, music, art, physics, chemistry, el all fool you. They are just an illusion. All evolutionary innovations to trick our genes into copying more of themselves. Sure, humans are quirky. I'll give you that. But anteaters are quirky too. See, humans are not out there. Quirky is all.

Steve · 8 May 2014

Just Bob.

You missed the crucial part where once you list all organisms on the y axis and the list capabilities on the x axis, you the tick off what organisms possess what capabilities, then tally up the results for each organism, then contrast it to the total possessed by humans.

That is the purpose of the basic matrix; to present a clear picture of how humans measure up against each organism.

I guess you were trying to pull a "Euro" on me and create a basket of capabilities from the most outstanding organisms and weigh it against a single human organism's capabilities. Even if you did that, humans would still come out ahead. So stacking the deck doesn't help you here.

Rolf · 8 May 2014

Don’t let the satellites, MRI scanners, iphones, vaccines, music, art, physics, chemistry, el all fool you.
Tose things are not man. They are what we have been able to do because of our highly evolved brain. Brainpower is what does it. Familar with any of the reasons why we got that brain? In short, if you want to have opinions on the nature of man you have to study the evolutionary history of man. Are you prepared to do that? I belive there are some facts you have missed. To me, man looks like a modified chimpanzee. The transition from chimp to man is a fascintaing subject.

bigdakine · 8 May 2014

Carl Drews said: I'll agree that Cecilia Payne getting her ideas well-accepted in four years is a lot better than Afred Wegener dying on the Greenland Ice Cap never knowing when or if his ideas would get accepted. Payne's story has a happy ending. She took the correct path: further research and scientific publication of evidence. Scientific research operates on the edge of evidence. New hypotheses are not well-supported; that's why they are hypotheses. Every graduate thesis should push the envelope in some way, and some new ideas will inevitably turn out to be unsupported. But I was kind of hoping that the expert would see the new idea and exclaim with a flash of insight, "Aha! She might be onto something here!"
For the record, Wegner's "Continental Drift" is a failed hypothesis. Wegner certainly wasn't the first to suggest continents were mobile; the American geologist Frank Taylor did so years before ( he was referenced by Wegner). One big problem Wegner had, is that he in fact did not embrace the mechanism of thermal convection ( that was Sir Arthur Holme's idea) but rather pushed the idea that the continents were propelled around by the Eotvos force, a force arising on rotating oblate spheroids. Wegner went on to suggest that continental drift was primarily North-South as would be expected from propulsion by the Eotvos force. Wegner went further to suggest that the continents were mobile, but the rock substrate (which we now refer to as lithosphere) was not. Hence Wegner suggested the continents were moving through basalt ( which is what oceanic crust is ) propelled by the Eotvos force. These claims landed him in hot water. Because they were demonstrably false. What Wegner did succeed in doing was popularizing the idea that the Earth's surface was dynamic. Unfortunately the idea being popularized had some important problems and that contributed to the scientific community at large's rejection of his proposals. Wegner accumulated gobs of useful information, even if wasn't quite on the right track. However, his mistakes gave his opposition too much cannon fodder. I think there's a lesson here; if you going to start a scientific revolution don't saddle your pet hypothesis with stuff that is demonstrably wrong. Holmes had the right idea and foresaw the existence of subduction zones long before they were discovered.

KlausH · 8 May 2014

Steve said: Just Bob. You missed the crucial part where once you list all organisms on the y axis and the list capabilities on the x axis, you the tick off what organisms possess what capabilities, then tally up the results for each organism, then contrast it to the total possessed by humans. That is the purpose of the basic matrix; to present a clear picture of how humans measure up against each organism. I guess you were trying to pull a "Euro" on me and create a basket of capabilities from the most outstanding organisms and weigh it against a single human organism's capabilities. Even if you did that, humans would still come out ahead. So stacking the deck doesn't help you here.
Steve, it is you who is missing the point. Humans ONLY exceed other animals in intelligence. If you are comparing the number of abilities, rather than the quality, most birds would clearly come out ahead of humans. If you are comparing quality, many animals have several abilities, such as speed, sense of smell, and eyesight far beyond humans. The ONLY trait of humans that is superior to other known animals is intelligence. Many other mammals and birds have demonstrated complex problem solving abilities, including planning ahead, constructing and using tools. Some animals, like elephants, dolphins, and even White sharks, will work together to accomplish tasks too difficult for an individual. Why don't you clearly give examples of the capabilities of a single human that you are talking about. I suspect that they will simply reduce to intelligence, and possibly ignorance on your part.

Rolf · 8 May 2014

I'd like to add the observation that there are many "special" species. Being special is what makes species. An octopus can do things no man can. So what are Steve's reasons for putting man on a piedestal?

eric · 8 May 2014

Steve said: Note: explain the gargantuan spike at the extreme end, you know the spot where you put human at.
When I plot it, I get a giant spike at ducks. The duck's feathers, feet, and oil allows them to live in water ecosystems, land ecosystems, and fly. In ecosystem coverage, they beat us 3-1. But wait, I just found an even bigger spike! At the Mantis Shrimp. I invite other pandas to name an animal, and tell us the ways in which it kicks human butt in the capability department.

DS · 8 May 2014

Well some humans have intelligence anyway. Others not so much,. as Steve proves.

In any case, there are certainly animals that show much more intelligence than humans. Most don't pollute their environment until it is too degraded to live in any longer. There is even a species of owls that limit their reproduction so as not to exceed carrying capacity, something no human society has ever seemed to manage to do.

So Steve tell us, did humans evolve all of these "special" capabilities, or were they handed to us by an intelligent designer who chooses to remain hidden?

By the way, if this is Steve P, he has once again violated the rules of this site.

Henry J · 8 May 2014

bigdakine said: I think there's a lesson here; if you going to start a scientific revolution don't saddle your pet hypothesis with stuff that is demonstrably wrong.
Somebody should mention that to Gary...

phhht · 8 May 2014

Steve said: phhht, i have never put Jesus into it in the first place.
And you'll happily agree to leave Jesus, gods, the supernatural, and all other superstitions out of the conversation, right? Yeah, I thought not.

AltairIV · 8 May 2014

I'm still not quite clear on this whole x-axis thing. Are we supposed to rank the capabilities according to some kind of qualitative criteria? I mean, does "lays thousands of eggs" rank higher or lower on the axis than "carefully tends to one or two offspring", say?

Or is is just some kind of numerical thing, with the creatures that have the most capabilities of any sort being the "winners"?

And how do you define "capability" anyway? Is "lays thousands of eggs" to be considered the same or different from "lays hundreds of eggs", or "lays dozens of eggs"? Where and how are the dividing lines supposed to be placed? And do "bad" capabilities and behaviors count just as much as "good ones", e.g. "has a tendency towards cannibalism"? Or "cannot survive outside of a narrow temperature range"?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Just Bob · 8 May 2014

AltairIV said: I'm still not quite clear on this whole x-axis thing. Are we supposed to rank the capabilities according to some kind of qualitative criteria? I mean, does "lays thousands of eggs" rank higher or lower on the axis than "carefully tends to one or two offspring", say? Or is is just some kind of numerical thing, with the creatures that have the most capabilities of any sort being the "winners"? And how do you define "capability" anyway? Is "lays thousands of eggs" to be considered the same or different from "lays hundreds of eggs", or "lays dozens of eggs"? Where and how are the dividing lines supposed to be placed? And do "bad" capabilities and behaviors count just as much as "good ones", e.g. "has a tendency towards cannibalism"? Or "cannot survive outside of a narrow temperature range"? Inquiring minds want to know!
I would submit that the 'capability' that REALLY MATTERS is something like "has survived and prospered as a genus the longest, through various catastrophes, climate changes, geological traumas, whatever the Earth or other species can throw at them." That WON'T be Homo. Might be cockroaches or some bunch of benthic worms. More likely some bacteria, but I'm not sure how confident we can be about the genus affiliation of Precambrian bacteria.

Just Bob · 8 May 2014

...unless, of course, it's just a rigged word game, where we 'know' that humans have more and better 'capabilities' than anything and everything else, so we make up a chart that...guess what...shows that.

What do you want to bet Steve actually saw a bogus chart like that on some fundy site?

Sylvilagus · 8 May 2014

Just Bob said: ...unless, of course, it's just a rigged word game, where we 'know' that humans have more and better 'capabilities' than anything and everything else, so we make up a chart that...guess what...shows that. What do you want to bet Steve actually saw a bogus chart like that on some fundy site?
But he uses sciencey-sounding terms like X and Y and axis! Surely, this can't just be word games? I'm impressed by his knowledge of data analysis and representation. I'm positive that if scientists would only make such a graph it would undermine evolutionary theory.

Just Bob · 8 May 2014

Sylvilagus said:
Just Bob said: ...unless, of course, it's just a rigged word game, where we 'know' that humans have more and better 'capabilities' than anything and everything else, so we make up a chart that...guess what...shows that. What do you want to bet Steve actually saw a bogus chart like that on some fundy site?
But he uses sciencey-sounding terms like X and Y and axis! Surely, this can't just be word games? I'm impressed by his knowledge of data analysis and representation. I'm positive that if scientists would only make such a graph it would undermine evolutionary theory.
Perhaps Steve (P) will deign to show us one?

Dave Luckett · 8 May 2014

DS said: There is even a species of owls that limit their reproduction so as not to exceed carrying capacity, something no human society has ever seemed to manage to do.
A minor quibble: I know of at least one human society that managed to do just that - traditional Australian Aboriginals. Their society evolved a range of culturally-mandated behaviours and customs that strongly limited their reproduction, in response to an environment that was not merely sparse, but swung wildly through long cycles of plenty and dearth. These measures included assymmetric-age marriage, use of abortofacient herbs, very long lactation, limited pool of marital partners (by way of a very strictly enforced moiety system) as well as more unpleasant means, including infanticide. But the effect was strongly to limit population growth in good times so as not to have starvation in bad.

DS · 9 May 2014

Dave Luckett said:
DS said: There is even a species of owls that limit their reproduction so as not to exceed carrying capacity, something no human society has ever seemed to manage to do.
A minor quibble: I know of at least one human society that managed to do just that - traditional Australian Aboriginals. Their society evolved a range of culturally-mandated behaviours and customs that strongly limited their reproduction, in response to an environment that was not merely sparse, but swung wildly through long cycles of plenty and dearth. These measures included assymmetric-age marriage, use of abortofacient herbs, very long lactation, limited pool of marital partners (by way of a very strictly enforced moiety system) as well as more unpleasant means, including infanticide. But the effect was strongly to limit population growth in good times so as not to have starvation in bad.
Thanks Dave, I stand corrected. But in general, It think the owls are still wiser.

eric · 9 May 2014

Just Bob said: I would submit that the 'capability' that REALLY MATTERS is something like "has survived and prospered as a genus the longest, through various catastrophes, climate changes, geological traumas, whatever the Earth or other species can throw at them." That WON'T be Homo.
Well, you still run into the problem of their being multiple ways to define "success." Do you want to measure success as genus time on planet, or current # of individuals in genus, or current biomass of the genus? Genus is also a somewhat arbitrary unit on the range of how we view life. We could just as reasonably user broader units ("are mammals the most successful class?"), or finer units (what gene or allele is most successful, i.e. occurs on the planet the most?).

TomS · 9 May 2014

eric said:
Steve said: Note: explain the gargantuan spike at the extreme end, you know the spot where you put human at.
When I plot it, I get a giant spike at ducks. The duck's feathers, feet, and oil allows them to live in water ecosystems, land ecosystems, and fly. In ecosystem coverage, they beat us 3-1. But wait, I just found an even bigger spike! At the Mantis Shrimp. I invite other pandas to name an animal, and tell us the ways in which it kicks human butt in the capability department.
Tardigrade (water bear), according to Wikipedia
tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Just Bob · 9 May 2014

TomS said:
Tardigrade (water bear), according to Wikipedia
tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.
And they successfully hidden below most humans' awareness or (I suspect) taught us to ignore them. A human-dominated planet? Hah!

DS · 9 May 2014

eric said:
Just Bob said: I would submit that the 'capability' that REALLY MATTERS is something like "has survived and prospered as a genus the longest, through various catastrophes, climate changes, geological traumas, whatever the Earth or other species can throw at them." That WON'T be Homo.
Well, you still run into the problem of their being multiple ways to define "success." Do you want to measure success as genus time on planet, or current # of individuals in genus, or current biomass of the genus? Genus is also a somewhat arbitrary unit on the range of how we view life. We could just as reasonably user broader units ("are mammals the most successful class?"), or finer units (what gene or allele is most successful, i.e. occurs on the planet the most?).
GIve it up dude. Any way you cut it, ants still win. Humans aren't even in the running.

eric · 9 May 2014

DS said: GIve it up dude. Any way you cut it, ants still win. Humans aren't even in the running.
Bah, a tiny branch of the eukaryota found only near the surface of dry land. Even if I give you a couple miles underground, it's still bacteria ftw. :)

Henry J · 9 May 2014

Thanks Dave, I stand corrected. But in general, It think the owls are still wiser.

I dunno. The one that crashed into a window a few years ago (at the building where I work) didn't seem all that bright. (It's outline was visible on that window for a few weeks afterward.) Henry

TomS · 10 May 2014

Wasn't the challenge stated in terms of animals?

If not, then I vote for Prochlorococcus marinus. According to Wikipedia, "It is possibly the most plentiful species on Earth: a single millilitre of surface seawater may contain 100,000 cells or more. Worldwide, the average yearly abundance is between 2.8 and 3.0 octillion (~1027) individuals."

harold · 10 May 2014

Dave Luckett said:
DS said: There is even a species of owls that limit their reproduction so as not to exceed carrying capacity, something no human society has ever seemed to manage to do.
A minor quibble: I know of at least one human society that managed to do just that - traditional Australian Aboriginals. Their society evolved a range of culturally-mandated behaviours and customs that strongly limited their reproduction, in response to an environment that was not merely sparse, but swung wildly through long cycles of plenty and dearth. These measures included assymmetric-age marriage, use of abortofacient herbs, very long lactation, limited pool of marital partners (by way of a very strictly enforced moiety system) as well as more unpleasant means, including infanticide. But the effect was strongly to limit population growth in good times so as not to have starvation in bad.
This is commonplace in hunter gatherer societies. It's also the practice in affluent societies. In fact virtually all Australians, regardless of ethnic origin, make use of birth control and family planning. While some concern about overpopulation is highly valid, we should also remember that excess talk about overpopulation is sometimes grounded in racism, misanthropy, or both. Much of it is simply a veiled objection to emergency relief of populations experiencing famine and the like. I'm not very old, but old enough to remember when concerns that "they" would reproduce to much if we "fed" them instead of letting them starve were more frankly stated. Currently, the major threats to common environment are due to excess wasteful use of energy by affluent societies, and not due to overpopulation in poor countries. In short, the very societies that DO limit their "carry capacity" are, nevertheless, the ones that are threatening the future environment. In agricultural societies with high rates of childhood mortality, humans tend to have large families. That cycle is broken by reducing childhood mortality. If people obsessed with "overpopulation" are non-racist and non-misanthrope, they should be advocating aggressively for children's health.

Just Bob · 10 May 2014

harold said: If people obsessed with "overpopulation" are non-racist and non-misanthrope, they should be advocating aggressively for children's health.
And BIRTH CONTROL, and EDUCATION, particularly of women.

ksplawn · 10 May 2014

TomS said: Wasn't the challenge stated in terms of animals? If not, then I vote for Prochlorococcus marinus. According to Wikipedia, "It is possibly the most plentiful species on Earth: a single millilitre of surface seawater may contain 100,000 cells or more. Worldwide, the average yearly abundance is between 2.8 and 3.0 octillion (~1027) individuals."
That would be a few orders of magnitude more than the number of stars in the observable Universe.

harold · 11 May 2014

Just Bob said:
harold said: If people obsessed with "overpopulation" are non-racist and non-misanthrope, they should be advocating aggressively for children's health.
And BIRTH CONTROL, and EDUCATION, particularly of women.
Agreed, although it does tend to sell itself. Across numerous societies, including some where having a lot of children was traditionally prestigious, including some where traditional religion has discouraged sex except for reproduction - in our society, both of those conditions existed - people control family size as soon as they figure out that the kids are all probably going to live. Whether this is conscious or unconscious I don't know, but it is very consistent. From Japan to Jamaica, family size and population growth go down when you decrease childhood morbidity and mortality.

Scott F · 22 May 2014

Salon has a nice, but short piece about Cosmos : Why Neil deGrasse Tyson has creationists so thoroughly petrified

Yet we can also rest assured that creationists around the world will take issue with anything Tyson says, because the biggest enemies of a creationist’s beliefs are rational thought and evidence.

Henry J · 23 May 2014

And here too: Creationists now losing their minds because Neil deGrasse Tyson explained electricity

Shocking!

Scott F · 14 June 2014

Salon has another nice piece summarizing the mini series, and touching on the creationists beef with the show: "All of science is wrong and all scientists are liars, because… Bible". Nothing that isn't already familiar to everyone here, but nice to see in the "general" press.

DS · 15 June 2014

Scott F said: Salon has another nice piece summarizing the mini series, and touching on the creationists beef with the show: "All of science is wrong and all scientists are liars, because… Bible". Nothing that isn't already familiar to everyone here, but nice to see in the "general" press.
So then they are all Amish? They reject all science and all technology? No? Then they are just hypocrites. Seriously, any argument that starts with any form of "all scientists are ..." is automatically wrong. Science is not some monolithic conspiracy by some zealots sworn to a common ideology. That's just projection, pure and simple. Ideally, science is just the sincere quest to understand nature, based on the evidence. It has provided us with the modern lifestyle and lifespan we enjoy. You don't like science,? Fine, do without, nobody cares. You can always choose to have a short, painful life. But don't be too surprised if this is the only chance you get. The bible can coexist with science just fine, as long as you follow the advice in the bible and don't try to steal that which rightfully belongs to Caesar. Why is it that the people who cry the most about following the bible are invariably the ones who choose to ignore it?

Scott F · 15 June 2014

DS said:
Scott F said: Salon has another nice piece summarizing the mini series, and touching on the creationists beef with the show: "All of science is wrong and all scientists are liars, because… Bible". Nothing that isn't already familiar to everyone here, but nice to see in the "general" press.
So then they are all Amish? They reject all science and all technology? No? Then they are just hypocrites. Seriously, any argument that starts with any form of "all scientists are ..." is automatically wrong. Science is not some monolithic conspiracy by some zealots sworn to a common ideology. That's just projection, pure and simple. Ideally, science is just the sincere quest to understand nature, based on the evidence. It has provided us with the modern lifestyle and lifespan we enjoy. You don't like science,? Fine, do without, nobody cares. You can always choose to have a short, painful life. But don't be too surprised if this is the only chance you get. The bible can coexist with science just fine, as long as you follow the advice in the bible and don't try to steal that which rightfully belongs to Caesar. Why is it that the people who cry the most about following the bible are invariably the ones who choose to ignore it?
The Salon article consists of a summary paragraph or two about each episode of Cosmos, a paragraph or two describing the Creationist response to it (typically a quote from AIG or the DI), and a snarky response to the AIG babble gaff. The phrase, "All of science is wrong and all scientists are liars, because… Bible", is my generalization of the AIG quotes, and a summary of how Salon views those quotes. The AIG quotes form a consistent whole: that all of the "historical" sciences (astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, paleontology, chemistry, etc (any science that doesn't fit on a lab bench with experimental results measurable in the range of a human attention span using human senses alone)) are simply conspiracies intended to manufacture and prop up the lie of "deep time", this for the sole intentional purpose of supporting the lie of Evolution, this for the sole intentional purpose of denying the truth of the Bible, the reality of Creation, and the authorship of God (in that order). They appear to believe that deGrasse Tyson is a lying shill for this vast, all encompassing conspiracy. They don't reject "all" science, nor any human technology (as long as it's technology that they don't understand, such as GPS). They believe in "true" science, and merely reject any "false" science or "false" evidence that does not conform to their interpretation of their version of the Bible.

DS · 15 June 2014

Yea, that was kind of my point. The assumption that an entire branch of science, any branch, is completely committed to one and only one goal is absurd. Obviously the person who wrote that doesn't know any real scientists. You have to be completely nuts to even suggest a conspiracy on such a scale. But of course, if you first you assume that you are right and everyone else is wrong, how else could you explain the fact that absolutely no real scientist agrees with you? It can't be the evidence, can it? Why would that convince anyone?