Why Were So Many Darwin Defenders No-Shows at the World’s Premier Evolutionary Conference?

_{Thomas Cudworth

July 9, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often wondered whether the loudness and aggressiveness of many culture-war defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution bears any relationship at all to the actual scientific contributions of those defenders to the field of evolutionary biology. As it happens, we have at hand some evidence, albeit of a rough and ready kind, relevant to that question.

From June 17 to June 21, 2011, at the University of Oklahoma (Norman) campus, the conference “Evolution 2011” was in session. It was co-sponsored by three scientific societies – The Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Systematic Biologists, and the American Society of Naturalists. It was billed by its promoters as “the premier annual international conference of evolutionary biologists on the planet.”

That billing may be somewhat hyperbolic, yet two things are clear: the conference was huge, with an expected turnout of 1400-1500 people; and many of the big names of evolutionary biology were to be there. Jerry Coyne was to give an address; H. Allen Orr was to chair a session; and Gunter Wagner and Sergey Gavrilets, cutting-edge biologists from the famed 2008 Altenberg conference, were to be there as well. Hundreds of papers were scheduled, and the research contributors to the various papers and presentations, according to the index for the conference, numbered something like 2,000.

It is interesting to make a mental list of the Darwin-defenders who have been most active in the culture wars, whether by publishing popular books defending Darwin, by appearing as witnesses against school boards in court cases, by working for the NCSE, by running pro-Darwinian blog sites, or by attacking Darwin critics throughout cyberspace, and to see which of them either read papers or at least contributed to the research and writing of papers for this premier conference.

Let’s start with those Darwin defenders who are actively anti-religious or show contempt for religion in their writings and internet remarks. Conspicuously absent from the list of conference contributors were evolutionary champions Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, Larry Moran, and Eugenie Scott.

Among those who have not attacked religious belief, but have violently bashed ID and/or passionately upheld neo-Darwinian theory, Paul Gross (co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse) and plant scientist Arthur Hunt (who has debated ID people live and on the internet) were not listed as contributors to any of the papers.

Among those who were active in the Dover ID trial, as witnesses for the plaintiffs, the no-shows include Kevin Padian, Robert Pennock, and Brian Alters.

Among the prominent Christian Darwinists, i.e., theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists, only Ken Miller was going to be there, and not to read a scientific paper, but to issue a cultural manifesto on why evolution matters in America today. The leading figures of Biologos – Darrel Falk, Dennis Venema, Kathryn Applegate, David Ussery, David Kerk, Denis Lamoureux – who have so often been presented, explicitly or implicitly, as experts on evolutionary biology – produced no papers for this conference. British scientists Oliver Barclay and Denis Alexander, who have posted several guest columns on Biologos, are not mentioned. The frequent UD commenter and Quaker TE Allan MacNeill, who has penned hundreds of thousands of words on UD and on his own blogs, apparently couldn’t manage 5,000 or so words for an original research paper for the conference, nor could the belligerent Calvinist TE and almost as prolific anti-ID blogger Steve Matheson.

Now of course statistics of this sort don’t prove anything about the competence or incompetence of any particular individual. There are all kinds of good reasons why a competent evolutionary theorist might not contribute to a particular evolutionary conference. Maybe some of these people elected to attend another evolutionary conference later this year, or early next year, or maybe their travel budget was exhausted. Maybe personal matters prevented them from going. Maybe some of them attended the conference, to keep up with the field, even though they contributed no paper. But one wonders why such a large number of rabid pro-Darwinists would be non-contributors at the premier evolution conference in the world, if they are as competent in the field of evolutionary biology as they make out. Could it be that most of these people, though possessing degrees in the life sciences, are in fact not trained specifically in evolutionary biology, and therefore had no original work to contribute?

I would be interested in hearing from readers about this. Of the people I’ve named, how many have read a paper at, or at least co-written a technical paper for, any secular conference on evolutionary biology in the past ten years? Or published a peer-reviewed paper specifically on evolutionary biology in a secular scientific journal in the past ten years? Are many of the loudest defenders of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in fact unqualified to talk at an expert level about the latest theoretical and experimental work in evolutionary biology? And if so, why do they set themselves up as the world’s teachers when it comes to evolution? Why do they write so many blogs, post so many comments, put up so many nasty book reviews on Amazon, participate in so many anti-ID debates on the Darwinist side, if they aren’t experts in the field? Why don’t they let the real experts in evolutionary biology – the Coynes and Orrs and Sean Carrolls – do the public cheerleading and debating for evolutionary biology, and stick quietly to their own specialties of cell biology, genetics, developmental biology, etc.?

In most scientific areas, non-experts don’t pretend to stand in for experts. You don’t see solid-state physicists rushing onto the blogosphere to defend the latest view on black holes from Stephen Hawking. They leave the defense of cosmology to the cosmologists. But for some reason every medical geneticist, soil scientist, biochemist, developmental biologist, cell biologist, anthropologist, part-time first-year biology instructor, undergrad biology teacher at a Christian college, etc., thinks himself or herself an expert on evolutionary theory, and competent to debate it with anyone, any time. Normal professional humility goes out the window when defending Darwinian theory is concerned. That’s why I think it’s important to ask the question: how many of the self-appointed defenders of Darwinian evolution have demonstrated competence, proved by research and publication, in the field of evolutionary biology?

Comments

Joseph:
Charles Darwin said the following in a RELEASED edition of “On the Origin of Species…”: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”– last sentence, last paragraph, last chapter 6th edition (bold added)
Darwin said this? So the theories originator was a creationist? Then why wouldn't Behe and Dembski etc use Darwin's appeal to creationism at the Dover trial to support their appeal to an intelligent agency to argue against the Darwinists non-appeal to Darwin's Creator? This thing is confusing.junkdnaforlife_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Well, what puzzles me, typo or non-typo, is that clearly the original Pandas book was written to promote creationism, not ID, and, at least according to the wiki, wrote that: "Creationism [later drafts: Intelligent design] means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc" Now, I fully accept that ID doesn't mean what is written above (at least it bears very little resemblance to anything I've read here about ID), so yes, what it my do is "prove... that people who *are* creationists will sometimes adopt ID language in order to conceal the real basis of their argument." But in that case, why were the ID people supporting the Pandas in the trial? Shouldn't they have been the most outraged at the misrepresentation of their position? But in fact Behe (whose ID ideas bear no resemblance to the definition of ID in the Panda's passage above) took the stand in its defense, and Dembski, I understand, was originally going to, then declined, but nonetheless responded to the final judgement with an um amusing animated parody of Judge Jones. If Pandas was a misrepresentation of ID, why did IDists support it? And if it wasn't, why the outrage?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

SCheesman:
Here’s a short list of papers/headlines I’d be looking forward to hearing: “Oldest trilobite discovered: Light sensitive spots found in place of eyes” “New pre-cambrian fossil graveyard discovered in Qinghai, China. Origins of 30+ phyla now clear.” “Self-organization in proteins: New analysis reveals hidden mechanism for production of novel functions in response to selection pressure.” “UNA: Universal nucleic acids form stable, reproducing life forms, bridging RNA and DNA worlds” “Beneficial mutations found to be 1000 times more common that previously realized; observer bias found to be culprit in earlier low estimates”
This exactly what I was looking for when I responded, "anything good", to homeboy's point: “Lots and lots of data and analysis and science.” Instead, the same fecal matter fight as usual. -- velikovskys: "Depends on the opponents ,you don’t need the Yankees to best a last place singleA team." You can make that analogy. But from there, you cannot argue that the single A team is not playing baseball.junkdnaforlife_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Re: flagellum -- even Mike Gene has admitted evidence has come in that has supported the evolutionary model, particularly further evidence of homology between the flagellum, T3SS, and the F1Fo-ATPase: Mike Gene Admits Matzke was Right http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/mike_gene_admits_matzke_was_ri.phpNickMatzke_UD_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

"FYI, here is what Thaxton has to say for himself, which is indeed reflected in both TMLO and Pandas and People:" Late-in-the-day rationalizations are a lot less convincing than contemporary evidence. In the early 1980s Thaxton et al. were advertising the book project as a creationist book. They hired two young-earth creation scientists, Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, to write the draft of the "non-creationist" book. Not-very-subtle endorsements of Biblical and young-earth creationism remain in the published 1989 book, let alone the drafts. C'mon, we aren't required to have infinite gullibility here.NickMatzke_UD_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke (15): The Pandas book doesn't prove what you claim it does. What it proves is that people who *are* creationists will sometimes adopt ID language in order to conceal the real basis of their argument. It does not prove that ID itself is creationism. Behe, Sternberg, Denton and many others are design proponents, but not creationists (as the term is normally used in American cultural discourse, to indicate a particular interpretation of Genesis). Dave Scot who used to be here was an ID proponent but not a creationist. Antony Flew, who concluded for ID on philsophical grounds, was not a creationist. Jewish, Muslim and Hindu ID proponents are not creationists. So, now that this standard move of yours has been refuted (yet again), how about answering my earlier questions?Thomas Cudworth_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

In most scientific areas, non-experts don’t pretend to stand in for experts. You don’t see solid-state physicists rushing onto the blogosphere to defend the latest view on black holes from Stephen Hawking. They leave the defense of cosmology to the cosmologists. Depends on the opponents ,you don't need the Yankees to best a last place singleA team.velikovskys_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, What you are suggesting means they didn't delete the whole word "creationists"- they left the "c" behind and then typed in "design proponentsists". My version has them deleting the whole word and then starting with a typo. That is the more simple solution. And we are STILL talking about a ROUGH draft and trying to play "mind-reader" of the author's intentions.Joseph_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

I didn't say that it ID = Creationism. I was merely responding to Joseph's suggesting that it was a typo, arising from the proximity of c and d on the keyboard. That seems unlikely seeing as a previous draft actually had "creationist" in the same spot. I guess I was being a bit of a lawyer :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

I have no problem accepting that c[design proponents]ists replaced c[reation]ists if that makes sense given the original context. And that deserves a big so what. It in no way follows that ID is creationism. And Elizabeth, why are you back on the ID = Creationism shtick? You know better.Mung_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Elizabeth Liddle, Charles Darwin said the following in a RELEASED edition of “On the Origin of Species…”: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”– last sentence, last paragraph, last chapter 6th edition (bold added) That would mean, by Nick’s logic, the theory of evolution = Creationism. Anything else I can help you with?
No, that is fine, Joseph. It seems to make my point very well :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Please look carefully at the actual draft text as linked here, noting that at the time no vocabulary was generally known for what Thaxton et al were plainly trying very hard to say. At some point they found/re-invented the right vocabulary for what they were trying to say and they systematically used it. IIRC, they heard someone with the term, talked it over and concluded this said what they were fishing for. I would take it that (at least to an unprejudiced mind) when the authors and editors of a book go through and change towards a key term systematically, and in line with the tenor of the argumentation long since being made --
1: note they are specifically distancing themselves from inference from signs of design in the world of life to the supernatural as the cause, and 2: they are specifically and for given reasons differing with Paley's natural theology argument --
. . . they are thereby showing that they have found something that better says what they want to say, and are going to use it. I long ago observed that as published -- what is most relevant to identifying intent, Pandas explicitly states:
This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don't propose to give final answers, nor to unveil The Truth. Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way. (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed. 1993, pg. viii) . . . . Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science. (pg. 126-127, emphasis added)
You would have to go far to be more direct than this. And that has a lot to do with say a certain late Mr Morris' objections, as a leading creationist, to the design movement. When I recently had occasion to contrast Wiki's coverage of CSI with what I know CSI to be about, I found the same pattern of a jaundiced, agenda-serving misreading. Something is deeply wrong here -- something that needs to be fixed forthwith, and that is why I spoke to Mr Matzke as I did above. There is something that has gone rotten down at the NCSE, and at the ACLU, as well as at the Louisiana Humanists. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Nick, To dovetail into Dembski and Marks's work on Conservation of Information;,,, LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'transcendent' quantum information by the following method:,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is 'conserved';,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Nick, as well, after you have supplied the proper literature for the demonstrated evolutionary origin of any molecular machine whatsoever,,, I would also appreciate if you be so kind as to provide a sufficient material cause for non-local quantum entanglement/information we are now finding, on a massive scale, in molecular biology??/ notes; Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the ‘essence of life’ itself, simply ‘emerged’ from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that ‘put the lie’ to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that ‘information’ is its own unique ‘physical’ entity. A physical entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not ‘emerge’ from a material basis. Moreover this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this ‘information’ is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. notes: Falsification of neo-Darwinism; First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007bornagain77_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Nick, you state: 'Endless repetition of ID talking points while ignoring the literature doesn’t make the talking points more true.' ,,,In regards to the T3SS being devolved from the Flagellum,,, Perhaps they were designed individually Nick,,, I honestly don't know for sure,,, One thing I do know for sure is that no neo-Darwinists has ever come on this site and demonstrated the evolutionary origin of any molecular machine whatsoever!!! Nick I would be more than willing to 'read the literature' on the demonstrated evolutionary origin of molecular machines if you would be so kind as to present it! notes: Astonishingly, actual motors, which far surpass man-made motors in 'engineering parameters', are now being found inside 'simple cells'. Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - 2010 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181 And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology What I find very persuasive, to the suggestion that the universe was designed with life in mind, is that physicists find many processes in a cell operate at the 'near optimal' capacities allowed in any physical system: William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University: Excerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,," http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.htmlbornagain77_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle, Charles Darwin said the following in a RELEASED edition of "On the Origin of Species...":
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."-- last sentence, last paragraph, last chapter 6th edition (bold added)
That would mean, by Nick's logic, the theory of evolution = Creationism. Anything else I can help you with?Joseph_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Mr Matzke: That you and ilk find yourself maintaining stoutly as a drumbeat talking point what you know or should know is false and misleading, the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" smear, instead of addressing issues on their merits; even while smuggling in materialism into an attempted ideological redefinition of science, is telling. GEM of TKI PS: FYI, here is what Thaxton has to say for himself, which is indeed reflected in both TMLO and Pandas and People:
I wasn't comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn't express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there. (Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))
--> Much more is here, including a key "from the horse's mouth" where drafts that predate the 1987 USSC decisions make some very crucial distincitons from they typical views of Biblical Creationism, and BTW, specifically distinguishing on given grounds, the pattern of thought from Paley's Natural Theology too.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Yes Nick, I looked up “cdesign proponentsists”- it appears in a ROUGH draft of the book “Of Pandas and People”- a ROUGH draft. Now if one looks at a standard keyboard one would obseve that the “d” key and the “c” key are close enough together that one could hit them both when just trying to hit one of them. Endless reprition of evotard talking points while ignoring reality doesn’t make those talking points more true.
Except that "cdesign proponentsists" actually occurred in a sentence in which "creationists" had appeared in an even earlier draft. Or do you dispute this?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

As for the T3SS, well it is irreducibly complex also- meaning your position can't explain its existence without relying on magical mystery mutations and poofing selection...Joseph_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Yes Nick, I looked up "cdesign proponentsists"- it appears in a ROUGH draft of the book "Of Pandas and People"- a ROUGH draft. Now if one looks at a standard keyboard one would obseve that the "d" key and the "c" key are close enough together that one could hit them both when just trying to hit one of them. Endless reprition of evo~~tard~~ talking points while ignoring reality doesn't make those talking points more true.Joseph_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

About ID and creationism. Two words: cdesign proponentsists Look them up ;-)NickMatzke_UD_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

"Nick,,, Do you still believe that the T3SS is precursor to the Bacterial Flagellum, or have you modified your view, in the face of the new evidence that indicates the Flagellum was precursor to the T3SS??? i.e. that the T#SS ‘devolved’ from the flagellum??? " If you actually read the Pallen/Matzke paper, you wouldn't say such silly things. The research papers are split on the question, and the most recent phylogenetic research papers indicate the flagellum and the T3SS are sister groups about equally old, not that the flagellum is older. Endless repetition of ID talking points while ignoring the literature doesn't make the talking points more true.NickMatzke_UD_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary history of over 600 proteins involved in mitosis clearly established. Darwin vindicated.Mung_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

SCheesman at 10 :)bornagain77_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Chance discovery leads to new insights into how evolution really works.Mung_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Here's a short list of papers/headlines I'd be looking forward to hearing: "Oldest trilobite discovered: Light sensitive spots found in place of eyes" "New pre-cambrian fossil graveyard discovered in Qinghai, China. Origins of 30+ phyla now clear." "Self-organization in proteins: New analysis reveals hidden mechanism for production of novel functions in response to selection pressure." "UNA: Universal nucleic acids form stable, reproducing life forms, bridging RNA and DNA worlds" "Beneficial mutations found to be 1000 times more common that previously realized; observer bias found to be culprit in earlier low estimates"SCheesman_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

This post does raise an interesting dichotomy. Put simply, the people who describe and evolution to the public are often not the ones who are at the cutting edge of the research. This is partly because the skills that are needed are different - verbal communication is less important for doing research (as anyone who has seen Nick Barton talk can attest). And also because people's time is limited, so the top researchers will want to continue doing what they do best - research. The people who concentrate on communication are also time-limited, so meetings like the SSE and ESEB in Europe are a lower priority. There's also a related issue that I think a lot of people at UD miss (and, in fairness, a lot of other people who are interested in science, but who are not working scientists). Most of the cutting-edge work and thinking on evolution isn't being done by people who have a high public profile, so if you want to see the current thinking you have to read the journals (e.g. Evolution, American Naturalist, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, TREE). The popular press is OK for reports on specific pieces of work (as long as you ignore the Darwin was RIGHT/WRONG rhetoric), but not s good at giving a deeper context. It also ignores the more technical (but as important) literature that needs to be read if you're to understand current thought - Mike Lynch's recent work springs to mind.Heinrich_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Yes Nick, evolution is everywhere in biology. However ID is NOT anti-evolution and you still cannot produce a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for the claim that the bacterial flagellum (for example- seeing you co-authored a paper pertaining to them) "evolved" via accumulations of genetic accidents. Heck you can't even demonstrate that such a processes can construct new, useful multi-part systems. And seeing living organisms are full of them one would think that would count against your position. And that is why you and your ilk are running jokes around the world...Joseph_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Thomas, I don't know what to say. I don't like to travel that much, and my meeting appetite will be whetted nicely in Cold Spring Harbor in August. Besides, we're talking Oklahoma, in June. No offense to Sooners who are reading this, but .... In any case, seeing as we're on the subject of absentees, I'll remind you that the DI crowd was very conspicuous by its absence from the RNA meeting in Seattle awhile back. Heck, the world's largest RNA meeting, with lots of stuff relevant to evolution, OOL, information, and the like, and they couldn't even find the time to, like, drive a few blocks or so and make their case. What's with that? Your post gives me hope, though, that maybe I will meet up with a few ID advocates in Cold Spring Harbor. We'll see.Arthur Hunt_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Oh, and by the way, Nick, I am quite sure you are right that I would learn something at a meeting of bona fide evolutionary biologists. The question I am raising is whether or not certain rather loud Darwin defenders are in fact bona fide evolutionary biologists, or just pretenders to the name. So if you can give us a list of peer-reviewed articles on evolutionary mechanisms published by Miller, Myers, Falk, etc. you can dispel all my concerns immediately. Oh, and one more thing: I'm not a creationist, and ID isn't creationism.Thomas Cudworth_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply