Berlinski: I can’t believe I’m wasting time on this guy.

| 45 Comments

David Berlinski is babbling against evolution again (an abridged version has been published in the Wichita Eagle), and it's dreadful. This is a guy who is a competent mathematician with a degree from Princeton, and all he can do is whip out creationist lies in a lather of fury against Darwin. I've tried to dissect it as well as I can, while trying to choke back the nausea induced by such putrid arguments.

Continue reading "Berlinski: I can't believe I'm wasting time on this guy." (on Pharyngula)

45 Comments

Berlinski may find nothing to salvage in Darwin’s theories, but he is rather favorably disposed towards astrology. It’s all a matter of evidence, see.

As a Christian man, I am very disappointed in Berlinski and his ilk. He is ill. I went and looked on amazon in regards to his book on astrology. Frankly that book and all it places in the public domain should be placed anywhere he speaks and attach to everything he writes.

It’s a shame he and his type continue to push their unproven and harmful thoughts onto a nations children.

Re “What does he expect, flies to give birth to cats?”

And flies aren’t even in the lineage leading to cats.

Don’t worry about it, PZ. There’s no controversy. Guys like Berlinski are just a bad dream you’re having. Click your heels together three times and repeat after me:

There’s no place like home!

There’s no place like home!

There’s no place like home!

The bit about “fruit flies are still fruit flies” is really two-bit YEC stuff. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that if Berlinski can’t come up with any material of his own, he could at least avoid parroting some of the stupider arguments of the old-school creationists.

David Berlinski Wrote:

A paper published recently in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington concluded that the events taking place during the Cambrian era could best be understood in terms of an intelligent design – hardly a position unknown in the history of western science. The paper was, of course, peer-reviewed by three prominent evolutionary biologists.

Since the peer-review process is confidential, he seems to have access to confidential information. or else he’s talking out of his ***. You decide.

DaveTroll writ:

Don’t worry about it, PZ.  There’s no controversy. 

.

Yes and no. There is no scientific controversy about evolution. There is political controversy about evolution.

“And yes, I am angry. This is what us American biologists have to deal with?”

Sitting over here in Australia I am not always sure what happens after an article like David Berlinski’s is published. Your rebuttal is excellent PZ, but do you ever write a (toned down) version and submit it to the newspaper as an open reply? If not then why? In the past have papers refused to publish rebuttals?

If you get too sick of the whole situation how about you move to Australia, things aren’t too bad here yet. We could do with some people to fight the small creationist movement here before it gets too big. We can always use more scientists at our universities. The University of Western Australia is nice, we have a good publication record and a nice pub.

Serioiusly though my heart goes out to American biologists with all the crap you have to put up with from ignorant, misinformed or malicious individuals who oppose evolution, who are also sadly nurmeous and well funded.

I am heading to Kansas soon to visit a research center in Salina, i will also be in Wichita for a day. I have started to think i should keep quite regarding my views on religion and evolution.

Keep up the good work.

I am a longtime lurker, freshly released from the closet, and ardent scientific atheist (of the Dawkins, fulfilled type). I can’t recall reading in PT anything like the following question, so please forgive me for repetition. Why is such amazement expressed at the putrid arguments of creationist and id’ers? These people are defended as being ignorant or mistaken, but they’re not. They are not peddling intellectual arguments to the undecided in the hopes of convincing them; nor are they trying to sway scientific debate their way. The quackery they peddle are hymns to their choir and they are making hideous amounts of money and acquiring immense political power in the process. This is not an academic fight but a political one and I can’t believe the accumulated intelligence of the PT crew is naive to it.

What is worse is that the American public wants this. Behe, Dembski, et al don’t care one bit whether they are scientifically accurate. They’re riding herd on huge audiences that adulate them like saints for every smug put down that drips from their poisoned tongues and here at the PT you cheer for a nomimation for best group blog by another blog. Talk about aspiring to mediocrity. To use an askew example: did Carl Sagan ever think “Cosmos” could sell 20 million copies making tens of millions of dollars. Tim LaHaye didn’t just think it, he did it(not including the sales of private religious bookstores that don’t report their sales to national databases). The idc’ers are tapping into and feeding off of the religious insecurities of millions of Americans, and the truly sad thing is that, beyond the fragile hope of the courts, we have no power to stop them.

PZ, in case you couldn’t figure it out they make me angry too.

To Uber

Frankly that book and all it places in the public domain should be placed anywhere he speaks and attach to everything he writes.

That would only add to his credence. In two years of clerking in a bookstore I have sold many hundreds of books from the new age section and one, exactly one, book from the science section. Astrology is just another feather in his cap as far as the public is concerned.

You are so right Paul-this is a political fight. The problem is that this stuff gets repeated and repeated. How much do you want a bet some of these very same arguments show up the next time I have a discussion with a colleague of mine about ID?

Some of them believe it. Berlinski probably does. It takes a lot of time to correct this crap.

Fortunately, I think the DI screwed up by publishing this one. It is so far out that it barely makes sense. I think we should make Berlinsky our poster boy for the ID movement.

Chip, Again, you’re giving the leaders of the idc movement to much credit. It is not exageration to say that their intellectual dishonesty is blatant lying; distortion for the purpose of continuing the deceiving of the faithful. And it doesn’t matter how far out it all is. It is only far out to us who know the science. To the faithful it is manna from heaven and they don’t want it taken away from them. I don’t know what the solution is if there is one at all, and I fear for American Science.

Sincerely, Paul

Dave Scott writes: “Don’t worry about it, PZ. There’s no controversy. Guys like Berlinski are just a bad dream you’re having.”

Dave, how are you using the word “controversy?” I suspect that, world-wide, literally 99% of all people with a doctorate in biology from an accredited university accept that all organisms to live on earth are the descendents of self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Among all people with a doctorate in a natural science (including chemists and physicists), I suspect we are still at about 99%. Remember: there are 1.3 billion Chinese, and lots of scientists there. Nearly all Japanese scientists (and 97% of Japanese citizens) accept evolution. I urge you to google Project-Steve and/or read the statements on evolution by AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences.

Also, it is a scientific fact that all organisms to live on earth are the descendents of self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Here is the web address to an article that presents some of the data that support common descent: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I recommend Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. Mayr was maybe the second or third greatest biologist to ever live, and he wrote the book for a general audience.

Also, that some organisms have reproduced more times than some other organisms contributed significantly to the existence of every organism to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial cells.

However, I understand that about 45% of US citizens believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that a deity turned inert matter (or “nothingness”) – poof! – directly into the first two humans (one male and one female). So, evolution is “controversial” in the US in the sense that apparently almost half or US citizens don’t accept it.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 438, byte 1160 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Paul, you’re giving them too much credit by calling them liars. It assumes they know what the truth is. They don’t. But it also imputes a set of motives that in reality is a little implausible. It’s too conspiratorial and it reduces the severity of their ignorance. The fact that they actually believe this stuff is more disturbing. I think it’s better categorized along the lines of Harry Frankfurt’s “bullshit” which makes it more insidious.

Just a friendly reminder: Let’s not fall into the temptation of feeding the trolls. I know, it’s so easy and satisfying to respond to their idiocy, but the “don’t feed the troll” policy really does make for a much better discussion.

According to David Berlinski, “A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.”

I don’t know what Berlinski means by that. Nearly every known fossil specimen is very similar anatomically to some other known fossil specimens that are older than them. He should offer an example of one known specimen that is different than every known specimen older than it. The biggest difference I’ve seen (between a known specimen and the specimen older than it that is most like it anatomically) is between like sea anemone and bacteria. Specifically, some specimens that are about 600 million years old are like sea anemone (or maybe cnidarians or jellyfish), and the oldest known specimens are bacteria that are about 3.5 billion. But it is not as if the fossil record in mosquito-mosquito-mosquito-mosquito-boom!-elephant. And, needles to say, 2.9 billion years is a long time! A lot can happen in 2.9 billion years.

Obviously, some known fossil specimens are not the children, grand-children, great-grandchildren, or great great grandchildren of any other known specimen. However, this does not enable us to justifiably doubt common descent. We know that we only have a tiny percentage of all the organisms that have lived on earth. And the fossil data is not the only data relevant to whether we are justified in believing that evolution occurred. Some of the most important evidence is that the existence of billions and billions of organisms has been proximately caused by cell-division or sexual reproduction, and no other kind of event is known to have proximately caused the existence of an organism. For instance, over the last 2,000 years, no deity has turned inert matter (or “nothingness”) – poof! – directly into two elephants (one male and one female).

According to Berlinski, “Look – Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.”

That all fruit flies in experiments have given birth to organisms that are very similar to them does not enable us to justifiably doubt common descent. Berlinski is committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. Billions and billions of kinds of organisms have lived on earth other than fruit flies. And we have only experienced millions – or thousands – of generations of fruit flies. Organisms have been reproducing on earth for 3.8 billion years.

DS: so what are we going to do about it? Where is the grassroots organizing? Where are the PR hires on the side of good science and the ethics of free inquiry? I don’t see them. I fear that this is perhaps because there is a sense of moral self-righteousness on the left: we are so just that we don’t need to stoop to marketing or politics: it’ll all work out in the end! But it won’t. The right has very expertly played on some powerful cultural themes and memes. Creationists are learning to do the same. We, however, seem to be mostly just patting each other on the back and hanging out on the internet. I’m mean, do we really think we are makingmuch headway fighting ignorance if all we do here is endlessly debate DaveScott? I mean, this one troll seems to tie up most of the posting efforts of people on the comment section of this site! Meanwhile, we’re steadily losing middle america.

I wrote: “Nearly every known fossil specimen is very similar anatomically to some other known fossil specimens that are older than them.”

Let me rephrase that to make it clearer:

“Nearly every known organism is very similar anatomically to some other known organisms that are older than it.”

Plunge it may seemt that way sometimes. But a ragtag group of a few dozen scientists, lawyers, and interested people, have managed to keep the entire might of the Creationist Extremists funded by millions of dollars and millions of believrs exposed as shills, on the defensive, and barely able to keep a sticker on a flippin textbook, muc less destroy science.

The end may come for Creationism, or at least a severe setback, precisely because they have so comitted to this WH and the whole stink’in extremist Neo-Conservative movement. I detect some winds of change blowing. It will take the defeat of the neocons within the GOP to knock creationism a loop, but that’s entirely possible.

Also, don’t lose sight of how reltively minor this issue is. The larger picture to which creationist belong to, the American Talban Movement of Neo-Christianity, is worrisome, but creationism itself is not that dangerous. I don’t think of Creationists the way I think of a mortal enemy such as Al Qaeda. I don’t want to seem them beaten and killed or anything like that. Most of them are simply fellow Americans who’ve been mislead, and I doubt it will do any lasting harm to science if they succeed here and there with their agenda. I don’t want to see them succeed and I’ll oppose them, but I don’t see this in and of itself as the most dangerous aspect of the Culture War.

Never underestimate evangelicals and fundamentalists. Like radical Islamists, they see their mission as a divine imperative and such dedication, even by a relative minority, is difficult to squelch. Look what they did for Reagan and Bush. Hell, look how they operate here on PT! They’re in this for the long haul and not easily dissuaded.

I don’t underestimate them, I deal with them everyday. What I’m saying is most scientists I know, and living working on and near Cape Canaveral I know plenty, when they read of me or hear me flogging some creationist shtuff, they chuckle, agree with me they’re deranged or misguided, and walk away laughing and go on with their science. Only a few of us are so masochistic we actually do this as a semi full-time hobby. Science is powerful and the mainstream is quite happy to let the goodies from science continue. Even though there is a sizable contingent of folks that sympathize with creationists, so far that hasn’t resulted in any meaningful legislation getting past that’s stuck. My understanding is that looking forward and looking back, the Creationists have and likely will continue to get their ass fairly regularly kicked right and left in every battle they enter with science and education. That Creationism can be held off by a handful of folks who are deeply interested in preserving the integrity of science is testimony to the three things: 1) Creationism doesn’t have massive support when it comes down to it, most people couldn’t care less about it. It’s not a burning issue for most folks. 2) The people who fight it, such as the folks who contribute to PT, and the science itself, are just that damn good 3) Creation Science and the Creationists themselves, are just that damn bad

And again even if they win here and there, and science educators are forced to pay lip service to some watered down version of Creationism in some way, shape, or form, that’s not that big a deal in and of itself; and I doubt it will last for long anyway. The real danger is other aspects of the Culture War in my view. If we get a solid majority who will go along with anything that is religiously ‘approved’ or decreed by the Neo-Right (Or anyone else), we could find ourselves quickly with some variant of a draft, ignoring or downplaying the Constitution, gallivanting off on more overseas cowboy military adventures, and racking up huge deficits leading to economic collapse. The result of that would be 1000 times the shit storm to science and our very way of life, than anything the Creationists can do.

I’m not saying it isn’t a threat, I’m saying it isn’t in the same league with some of the other threats we currently face from the Neo-right.

I meant it more as a general statement and I do see your point. In fact, I’ve made a similar argument elsewhere but within the context of science itself. Within that context it’ll never be a threat and that’s why most scientists poo poo its significance or threat - they’ve got better things to do. But, There’s more at stake here.

The religious right continues to be a significant force among the Neo-right. They’ve changed their tactics since the glory days of the 80’s and have taken some of Ralph Reed’s suggestions of stealth politics to heart. Their infiltration of school boards across the country is one such strategy. Creationism is just one leg of a broader set of movement goals. These people are extremely well organized and they see this crap literally as a ministry.

It’s no accident that the likes of DaveScot and David Heddle are regular features here at PT. Some of us who have been on “the inside,” know exactly what they and others like them are doing. I’m sure you’re well aware of this as well. And, this has nothing to do with conspiracies or any other paranoid crap. It’s simply the way they see the world - there’s good and evil and no in-between; they see their calling as battling evil; science a la evolution happens to be evil in their minds. The Culture War is not a single monolithic social phenomenon but made up of smaller components like creationism. That’s where the so-called battles are taking place.

DaveScot wrote: Don’t worry about it, PZ. There’s no controversy. Guys like Berlinski are just a bad dream you’re having. Click your heels together three times and repeat after me:

There’s no place like home!

There’s no place like home!

There’s no place like home!

I just wanted to tank you for your bit of comic relief to not only this thread, but to PT in general!

I just wonder how you would respond if I told you that I characterize you as taking seriously your newly elected position as the Minister of Silly Walks?

Nic Wrote:

Serioiusly though my heart goes out to American biologists with all the crap you have to put up with from ignorant, misinformed or malicious individuals who oppose evolution, who are also sadly nurmeous and well funded.

Nah, those are the easy ones to put up with. The hard ones are these guys:

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

[ since DaveScot claims to have ‘unintentionally’ cut&pasted so many names, I’ve taken the liberty of correcting his mistake. ]

Sorry about the length of that. I didn’t mean to cut & paste so many names. The list is actually a lot longer and grows larger every day.

Longhorm Wrote:

it is a scientific fact that all organisms to live on earth are the descendents of self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago

Prima facie evidence of the brainwashing of naive, impressionable young minds.

Good grief. I’m stunned.

DaveScot huffed and puffed:

CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

Hey, just like real science, way to go! Do you (for the 34215134576543th time…) actually suggest that this has somehow not been the case, for this particular theory?

DaveScot, you’re a spammer. I am braking my pledge to not answer you to tell you that I will ask for you to be banned if you ever again post a useless post as above which so increases bandwith. May I recommend that next time you only post the Steves in the list? Your pathetic attempt at showing dissent has only one Steve, from what I’ve seen.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who’d love to be named Steve just so he could join project Steve

DaveScot: “I’m stunned”

Stunned?

Yeah. Norwegian Blues stun easily.

Gee, I did not know Dr. Alexanian signed that. I think I will look him up today. Thanks DaveScot. Does anyone have suggestions for questions I could ask him? Sincerely, Paul

Thank you DaveScot

Yes. This blind recital of lists of names of uninformed people is spamming, and just like Berlinski’s dishonest editorial, is intended to mislead. You can find this list at the Discovery Institute; just link to it, you moron, and spare us the indigestible glob of pointless text.

If you are unable to say something intelligent and can do nothing but spew canned boilerplate (man, is that unsurprising…creationists are the most unimaginative people I’ve ever met), I will delete them.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 12, column 10, byte 393 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

And how many of them are named Steve?

Here’s an interesting story that details evolutionary impacts on Kansas two ways: Evolution of a wheat pest, and evolution of wheat resistance to the pest: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/news/sty/2[…]_sidebar.htm

Title of the article? “Aphids Clear Proof That Evolution Works.”

Russian wheat aphids do $65 million damage in Kansas alone, each year. That’s about 25 times the budget of the anti-evolution forces at Discovery Institute.

What are the poobahs and tycoons of intelligent design doing about the Russian wheat aphid? Kansas farmers deserve to know. They’re losing $65 million a year, and intelligent design promises to extend those losses forever.

Oh, and here’s the story about the evolution-based research being done to reduce the $65 million Kansas farmers lose each year to the Russian wheat aphid: “Small K-State Lab Making Big Gains in Russian Wheat Aphid Resistance” (http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/news/sty/2[…]sistance.htm

This story details breeding new wheats with new tissues and enzymes – one wonders just how much it would take to meet the creationist definition of “novel.”

In any case, intelligent design advocates do no favors to the farmers of Kansas when they hammer at the foundation of the research to save Kansas wheat.

I interviewed 20 scientists who had signed this statement:

“WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

Each of them disavowed the all-caps format.

And not one of them said he would support teaching intelligent design in public schools, or at all.

I’ve often wondered why no still-working reporters bothered to check out that list.

I think there is more to complexity than random mutation and natural selection, but I don’t think ID is the answer, or even a useful approach to the answer.

My apologies, I had tried to post this much earlier today. It didn’t take.

So you can suffer through it here:

Thanks for the examples of novel body types, tissue types, organs, etc., Reed and company! I almost always pick up a new one in such a list.

I work at a school with a program for pregnant teens. It seems the probability that a human will self-assemble is much higher than most of them thought! One of the problems is that many of our schools around here use “abstinence” as the curriculum for sexual and mental health. Denying the kids information that could stop pregnancies and save lives produces an immediate result in more unplanned babies.

Kansas’ efforts to keep kids from learning about evolution may not produce such an immediate effect anywhere, but neither will it help us in two key areas: Health care and agriculture.

To the extent that the Kansas State Board wishes to conduct hearings, it would be useful for the people of the state to get a full sense of what evolution means to people there. Surely there is a cancer clinic of some reknown, and surely there is research into crops at one of the state universities that form one of the keystones of the Kansas economy. That stuff needs to be highlighted repeatedly.

Dickens’ portrait of Ebenezer Scrooge provides a lot of grist for the careful reader. It shows us what not to be, through most of the story, as well as presenting a model for behavior at the end. One of the lines in the book that most affects me is early on, when Scrooge gets to his house and starts up the stairs, after having seen his dead partner Marley’s face on the door knocker. Dickens wrote, “The stairs were dark. But darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it.”

By the end of the story, Scrooge has repented of cheapness and darkness. Kansas may yet be so lucky (though dealing with several Scrooges at once can be frustrating).

According to Dave Scott, “Prima facie evidence of the brainwashing of naive, impressionable young minds.

Good grief. I’m stunned.”

Dave, what are you talking about? I don’t see your point.

Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the organisms that have lived on earth.

Dave, try to be clearer.

Ed Darrell, you said that

I interviewed 20 scientists who had signed this statement:

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS yada yada yada

And not one of them said he would support teaching intelligent design in public schools, or at all.

I’m curious: what was their motivation for signing the document then? Are they generally skeptical of evolution? Are there other materialistic factors they feel are needed to account for the complexity of life?

DaveScot cites this as evidence of “scientific dissent from Darwinism”, but that looks to me like Discovery Institute dishonesty; I could imagine many scientists (like PZM above) agreeing with the sentiment even if they are evolutionists and have no sympathy with ID.

Let’s look at this claim a second. It’s misleading. Here it is:

“The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that ‘all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution’ as does ‘virtually every reputable scientist in the world.’”

First, what is “Darwinian evolution?” Charles Darwin didn’t know about genes and DNA. Do they mean what people sometimes call the synthetic theory? Second, the PBS spokesperson didn’t even use the word “Darwinian.” That was inserted by someone else.

On a different note: as far as I know, “virtually every reputable scientist in the world” does accept descent with modification from common ancestors. I know that the Discovery Institute put out that list. But let’s look at that list.

First, some of the people on that list do not have a doctorate in a natural science. And some of the people on the list are not reputable. Also, the statement they signed is ambiguous. In fact, it is accurate on at least a couple of levels. First, “random mutation and natural selection” do not “account for the complexity of life.” Those kinds of events – at least as I think the authors are using the language – did not cause the first self-replicating molecules on earth.

Second, what do the authors of the statement mean by “random mutation and natural selection?” For instance, how are they using the word “random?” Mutations are not “uncaused events.” We often don’t know what caused a given “mutation.” But they are not “uncaused.” When cells divide, sometimes the daughter-cell has a different genome than the parent-cell. This happens frequently. Among RNA-based lytic viruses, there is one new mutation per division. Humans average about two new mutations per sexual generation among coding genes and 100 across the entire genome. We don’t always know what caused a particular genetic sequence. But events caused it.

Third, what about genetic drift? What about meiosis? What about nucleotide sequences caused by division and exposure to radiation? What about the choices that some organisms have made in terms of whom they have reproduced with? Humans can choose who to reproduce with. These kinds of events have been important in bringing about the “complexity of life.”

And though I have my doubts, I guess that it is possible that some kinds of events that we haven’t yet uncovered contributed to some genotypes. But did a deity or extraterrestrial turn inert matter (or “nothingness”) – poof! – directly into two elephants (one male and one female)? No! That didn’t happen. It’s ridiculous. Moreover, if someone has a hypothesis that is logically inconsistent with the theory of evolution, let’s hear it. Offering and defending clear hypotheses is how we best figure out the universe.

In other words, someone like Ernst Mayr could conceivably sign that statement. He wouldn’t have signed it because it was put out by the Discovery Institute. But the statement can be interpreted in such a way that it is true. Let’s look at it one more time:

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.

Not only am I “skeptical,” it is reasonable to interpret the statement as accurate. The first cell was “life,” and it was not caused by “RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION.” Also, genetic drift played a big role. Is “genetic drift” part of “RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION?” I don’t think of it that way. What about meiosis?

Berlinski’s letter to PZ Myers:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?cat=14

Wow. Those email replies are hilarious. Berlinski is a hypocritical douchebag.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on March 14, 2005 3:11 PM.

New news from Dover was the previous entry in this blog.

Kansas Evolution Hearings is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter