Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist attack on self-org theorist James Shapiro: Payback for talking to ID guys?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne (the one who refused to have lunch with Moshe Averick to discuss the origin of life) has now gone after self-organization theorist James Shapiro:

Shapiro’s piece then rapidly goes downhill as he starts repeating creationist arguments. Here’s one:

The first problem with selection as the source of diversity is that selection by humans, the subject of Darwin’s opening chapter, modifies existing traits but does not produce new traits or new species. Dogs may vary widely as a result of selective breeding, but they always remain dogs.

You’ll recognize this as the old creationist canard. Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years. But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible. I deplore that a colleague of mine makes this misguided argument, and in the Science section of HuffPo, which I’m increasingly beginning to deplore as well.

Hmmm. Shapiro would never describe himself as a proponent of design theory, let alone a “creationist.”

Here’s Shapiro’s recent Huffpopost (2 16 2012) But Shapiro has recently been dialoguing with design theorists, so we naturally wonder if this attack is also payback for that. See, for example,

James Shapiro: Bill Dembski asks the question we’ve all been dreading

“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”: James Shapiro Replies to Bill Dembski

Dembski replies to Shapiro: “Natural genetic engineering” is just magic, by another name. Can you make it science?

See also: Reviewing James Shapiro’s book, Darwinist admits: Growing number of gene scientists unconvinced by Darwinism

Is it payback? Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Coyne is being either willfully misleading or stupid. He knows well that Shapiro is proposing other mechanisms for evolution, and saying that natural selection alone is not an adequate one. Coyne replies that because we see evolutionary sequences (disregard for the moment whether they are valid), then natural selection must explain them. Here's an equivalent argument. Assertion: A child couldn't have produced this painting - an adult must have at least helped. Reply: But you can clearly see there's a painting: ergo, the child did paint it alone. What do they teach them at university nowadays? Not reasoning, that's for sure. Coyne is a leading spokesman for Neodarwinism, right? And that's the best kind of argument he has? Maybe I wasn't so far off about Gnu thought processes in a blog I did last month.Jon Garvey
February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Further notes of Dr. Axe's work on the rarity of protein folds:
Axe And The Evolution Of Protein Folds - March 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/axe-2004-and-the-evolution-of-protein-folds/ The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00
The following article is very revealing as to the inherent blindness that neo-Darwinists have to the results of what their very own research is telling them;
Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
bornagain77
February 20, 2012
February
02
Feb
20
20
2012
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Did Dr. Shapiro ever reply to Dr. Axe and Dr. Gauger's last reply to him???
On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro - Douglas Axe - January 20, 2012 Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical. Having followed this debate for some time now, and having made several experimental contributions to it, Ann and I have become convinced that none of the current naturalistic ideas about the origin of protein folds or the functional diversification of existing folds actually works in any general sense. But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to see the evidence that might prove us wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_protein_orig055471.html
It seems that Dr. Shapiro, in the Huffpost piece, just dodges the question that Dr Axe put to him:
What Is the Key to a Realistic Theory of Evolution? - James Shapiro February 16 The genome sequence record shows that these networks and their DNA recognition sites have evolved by well-documented natural genetic engineering processes. The examples include: • How cells generate new proteins by combining parts of existing ones http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/what-is-the-key-to-a-real_b_1280685.html?ref=science
Perhaps Dr. Shapiro doesn't realize it, but Dr. Axe's work on the extreme rarity of functional protein sequences was on finding the novel sequences for functional domains (parts) of the proteins in the first place,,, functional domain sequences which Dr. Shapiro has just taken for granted in his 'natural genetic engineering' scenario; i.e. It doesn't matter that the 'natural genetic engineering' in the cell can implement different domain sequences into novel functional proteins when needed, if the primary problem is not dealt with in the first place. It seems Dr. Shapiro, besides invoking magic by another name, has just ignored this monumental problem of finding functional domains in sequence space! notes:
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/ ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00 Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
Moreover, does invoking 'natural genetic engineering' even come close to really explaining how the programming in the cell 'knew', beforehand, how to combine functional domains into a novel protein, or is it, like Dr. Dembski wryly noted, just magic by another name???
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012 Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
bornagain77
February 20, 2012
February
02
Feb
20
20
2012
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Agreed. I guess I would say you can't question it or objectively evaluate Darwinian dogma even if you are an Materialist. This is how they want to teach our kids in school!tjguy
February 20, 2012
February
02
Feb
20
20
2012
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
While I'm sorry Shapiro has to be exposed to such childish and unprofessional behaviour from Coyne, it should serve as evidence of what I.D proponents and Creationists have been saying all along: You can't criticize darwin's myth without experiencing repercussions. e.g(*Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*) What other 'scientific theory' needs such protection?!?! Even Einstein's theory can be challenged/questioned but heaven forbid someone dare point out the shortcomings/flaws of the darwinian myth.Blue_Savannah
February 20, 2012
February
02
Feb
20
20
2012
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Love the bit about the small deerlike beastie turning into a whale, as established fact!Axel
February 20, 2012
February
02
Feb
20
20
2012
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply