Dissenting from Darwinism

| 248 Comments | 1 TrackBack
Here Genie Scott asks for a breakdown of the signatories of the DI's "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Here I provide such a breakdown for the 300 signatories in 2004. An analysis of the current 700 signatories will appear in the next few weeks.

1 TrackBack

Over at the Pandas Thumb, "ThisIsPerfection" accuses me of using an argument from authority when I posted the composition of the 300 signatories of the DI’s "Dissent from Darwinism" list. I beg to differ. It is the DI itself t... Read More

248 Comments

For years I have occasionally tried, with no luck, to find a ~2005 PT comment in which a PT regular (I forget who) reported contacting 6 signatories at random, and said that 5 of them agreed that they had been misled by the vague statement. Once again I ask for help in finding that comment. It may not mean much, but it may warrant contacting more signatories for feedback. I’d certainly like to hear what most of the biologists on the list have to say about common descent and the age of life. I think that it also deserves highlighting which ones were members of anti-evolution activist organizations before signing.

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

The Skip Evans report referred to by ECScott dates back to 2001. That was the time of original PBS series on evolution. Much has happened since. From Iraq war to Dover decision to Kansas educational board changes to Florida citizens response to …

More than the judgment by Jones, the complete 8 for 8 rout of the Republican slate in the heart of Penna bible country has shaken the Republican Party establishment. They now know for every vote they get by pushing ID, they lose more than one vote in the independents. The 2006 loss was due to the independents breaking 2 to 1 in favor of the democrats. The Kingmakers for this election is NOT the evangelicals, but the independents.

Further the Dishonesty Institute and its cohorts have lost credibility. They ran away scared from Dover court room. They made a potty mouth video and in a stroke of genius sent it to Dawkins. They stole video from Harvard. Abbey Smith trounced Behe. After Baylor, even religious univs are scared to touch Dembski with a ten foot pole. Thomas Moore has conceded that ID is not a “fully worked out scheme”. He also has given up seeing his wedge strategy bearing fruits in his lifetime.

Amazon ranks for their books shows the public sentiment shifting away from them. (Design of Life 20118, Intelligent Design 23052, Design Inference 405039, Uncommon Descent 53065, Edge of Evolution 14395, God Delusion 232, The Selfish Gene 592, Blind Watchmaker 3562)

This is a good time to contact the biologists in that list of 700, and profs from prominent American institutions and see if they still wish to be associated with Distortion Institute.

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise. That’s not evasion, that’s more like common sense.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise. That’s not evasion, that’s more like common sense.

Why would professional chemists be more knowledgeable about the various evolutionary mechanisms, than about the age of the earth? Yet they were willing to sign a statement of opinion about something they understood no better. Which indicates that “common sense” is mysteriously suspended when religious faith feels threatened. Of course, here you are speculating about what might be, in the absence of actual experimental evidence.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Here, you are speculating about what might be, in the absence of actual experimental evidence. And once again, your speculation is presented as though it’s support for your wishful thinking.

Your problem is, the Kansas protocols were totally different: the “judges” where chosen *because* they were creationists, and every single “witness” was chosen for the same reason. Once you stack the deck like that, how can any capable lawyer look good? Yet Irigonegaray did exactly what he could under those circmstances - he simply made it clear that every single “witness” was too prejudiced to believe. What more could anyone ask?

Has anyone ever written all 700 signatories just to ask them what their take on evolution is? That would make an interesting project. Engage these 700. First I’d want to know if they are aware of what they signed and how it’s being used. Then I’d want to know what (if anytyhing) they actually reject in terms of evolution.

I could be wrong but I suspect the results of such a study would not be flattering for the DI.

FL:

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Please explain why this would change the fact that Intelligent Design is not a science and does not deserve to be taught in a science curriculum?

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Right, right. It has nothing to do with the strength of the case, only the “slickness” of the lawyer.

When you lose, that is

FL Wrote:

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise.

Nice try. If anything chemists are better equipped than biologists to answer the question. Any chemist who has read even a little about it should be able to say 4.5 to 4.6 billion years without any hesitation. If they have any doubts, they would have much more doubts about numbers that are significantly less or greater.

Even Bryan Leonard had no problem with the established number. Though he tried to slip out of it with the qualifier “I tell my students…”

Mr_Christopher Wrote:

Has anyone ever written all 700 signatories just to ask them what their take on evolution is?

I doubt it or it would be all over the place by now. As I say in Comment 139547, though, I recall reading of 6 who were contacted.

I’ll ask everyone again. Can someone please help me locate the reference??

No matter who the evilutionsits hired as their legal team (slick or not so slick) the creationsts would have won in Dover had they hired IDC secret weapon and amazing legal mind, LA la Larry Falafala!

Ravilyn Sanders: This is a good time to contact the biologists in that list of 700, and profs from prominent American institutions and see if they still wish to be associated with Distortion Institute.

Don’t forget the folks on the side of everything that’s good and decent: the list of 140 Texas University Biology Professors Defending Biological Evolution as a Central Pillar of Modern Science Education at http://www.texscience.org/reviews/b[…]r-letter.htm

FL:

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise. That’s not evasion, that’s more like common sense.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

What did I tell you about posting here, trollboy?

(Hint: Don’t.)

Nothing you say here means anything. You’re only wasting your time. If you get an education, you won’t have to pretend to be smart anymore.

Frank J:

I’d certainly like to hear what most of the biologists on the list have to say about common descent and the age of life.

There would be a lot of fascinating ways to break down that list of 700 signatures.

1. How many were duped into signing a vague statement that says one thing, that was promptly used to claim to say something else?

2. How many of those signatures hold the views they hold because of a religious affiliation. I doubt that any are agnostics or atheists. Most are probably members of the various US Xian cults.

3. How many of the signers are victims of polykookery? People who believe one odd thing tend to collect and cherish strange delusions. The creo who testified in the Arkansas trial believed that UFOs are real but are piloted by demons from hell. Dembski believes that hordes of invisible demons and angels roam the earth doing stuff, although what they do (or why) isn’t clear.

The 700 number is way less than 1% of the reported (old) number of 480,000 scientists in the relevant earth and biological sciences. You could probably find more scientists in mental hospitals or detox centers than scientists who don’t accept the fact of evolution.

Lenny Flank advised me some time back that the Discovery Institute had asked those who signed the statement not to discuss their position with people making inquiries.

For what it is worth, I have done some work on the UK signatories if anyone is interested. IIRC, it showed that less than a third were actually IDers, most of the rest being full blown young earth creationists. It also showed up that many of them had PhDs that were irrelevant to the issue - in engineering or philosophy for example. Stephen Meyer was amongst them (he did his PhD in the UK). One did not have a PhD. It proved to be honorary and even his 1st (and only earned) degree was not in science.

My conclusion was that an extrapolation from the analysis of UK signatories would suggest that only abut 250 of the 700 or so signatories would be true IDers (i.e. supporting it and not accepting young earth creationism).

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that once a signatory is on the DI list, it’s very difficult to get back off. Some of those people have died, but they’re still on the list. Is this true?

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Others have noted the complete lack of evidence in this claim, par for FL.

More to the point, we used knowledge of the sciences and of philosophy, plus the facts, to show that you guys avoid all of those (except for a tendentious rendering of some philosophy).

Your side would have lost if all it had were the IDiots and their mendacious nonsense. And they did.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Roger Stanyard:

Lenny Flank advised me some time back that the Discovery Institute had asked those who signed the statement not to discuss their position with people making inquiries.

Even if they don’t talk about their views, their publication record is public. We can dig through scholar.google.com and similar resources (some of them are subscription based, but will be available to people in the universities) to find what areas they are working on.

Would be great to find gems like a signatory who used evolutionary explanations in his own papers! Simple statistics that show the number of signatories who have published nothing on evolution, total number of publications by these signatories, how frequently their papers get cited etc could be collected to show how vacuous the list of 700 is.

Flint Wrote:

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that once a signatory is on the DI list, it’s very difficult to get back off. Some of those people have died, but they’re still on the list. Is this true?

I read that at least one person had his name removed on learning how the vague statement would be spun. I can’t imagine even the DI being so foolish to refuse removing a name.

I keep asking about the 5 out of 6 who admitted to being misled, though, not because I think that 83% of the signatories would jump ship, but because I think that they meant that they just admitted not knowing how the list would be promoted, not necessarily that they objected to it.

There has been enough publicity of the list, that the majority probably have some prior record of activism. Indeed, many are DI fellows.

Roger Stanyard Wrote:

My conclusion was that an extrapolation from the analysis of UK signatories would suggest that only abut 250 of the 700 or so signatories would be true IDers (i.e. supporting it and not accepting young earth creationism).

OTOH, I’d be very surprised if most US signatories were YECs (meaning that they preferred to promote YEC directly, not necessarily that they privately believe it). Even your UK sample leaves me a bit suspicious. Are you sure you’re not including any OECs? They too come in many flavors, such as old-earth-old-life, old-earth-young-life, and differ from IDers only in committing to a timeline and specifically denying common descent.

With all the hoopla over the “dissent” list, we have all but forgotten another list that the DI was touting in 2002. One whose members, real scientists whom the DI pretended supported ID in their publications, were questioned by critics of the DI. The DI might not have needed the “dissent” list if they didn’t fail so miserably with that other list. They in fact batted zero. From the linked article:

“NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for “intelligent design.” [5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.”

Frank J: There is an analysis of the UK names by me at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php[…]ignAdvocates

It’s out of date but the update has not yet been published.

Basically some of the names we cannot trace so we don’t know if they are OECers/YECers/IDers. Others are openly YEC. I wrote to all the names we had doubts about but only one bothered replying.

The issue in the UK is very different from the USA. ID is basically largely irrelevant because it’s not needed. There is no separation of church and state in England and teaching religion is compulsory in state schools. (As are religious services.)

The main organisation that has pushed ID is Truth in Science and all of its members are known YECers.

Moreover, all the other creationist organisations in the UK are openly YEC. We have no Hugh Ross, for example.

I doubt whether more than ten people in England have publicly advocated ID. The DI is widely perceived as yet another bunch of American religious wackjobs alongside Scientologists, JWs, Mormons, Prosperity Gospel charlatans, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and “Hallelujah brothers” types waving their arms in the air. Even the term “born again” is treated with disdain.

You have to remember that the dominant church in England is the Episcopalian church and the British are simply as nowhere as religious as Americans.

Northern Ireland, though, is a different matter.

Totally “OT” - sorry - I just wanted to say thank you to PT and show you the treasure that I found today! Stacy —————————-Posted by Lee Bowman at 2/7/07 6:21 a.m.

To add to the first paragraph above, Judge Jones stated: “ … ID is not science.”

According to the strict rules of verifiability and falsifiability maybe not.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Ah, so very telling.

See, in the impoverished world of FL’s empirical relatavism, there is no truth of the matter. “Slickness” is all.

Ah, so very telling.

See, in the impoverished world of FL’s empirical relatavism, there is no truth of the matter. “Slickness” is all.

ID pushers: “Curses, oiled again!”

Dr. Lynch

I have noted in the past that this statement does not, of course, imply that the signatories deny evolution and common descent and that it is almost certain that “random mutation and natural selection” cannot account for all aspects of the diversity and complexity of life. That said, what is obvious is that most of the signatories have no expertise in areas germaine to evolutionary biology. Over at the Pandas Thumb, Genie Scott notes:

“It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing.”

and

At the risk of being a broken record, I’ll say this again: I don’t care what chemists, physicists, engineers etc have to say about evolution, and neither should you. They have no expertise in the field (and I have none in theirs).

So will you, Dr. Lynch, also be protesting the NCSE’s “Project Steve” as well? I mean who cares what Dr. Stephen Hawking (the 300th signatory of that list) think about evolution, right? Sure, the claim from NCSE is that is a “tongue in cheek” stab at the DI. Right.

Oh, and while you’re on the subject, I eagerly await your letter of protest to those who run this very web site, that some of those with opening post privileges are NOT qualified. Richard B. Hoppe has a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology, Pim van Muers is computational linguist. Until recently Nick Matzke (formerly with the NCSE) posted here with a degree in, I believe, Geology. (although I understand he is working on a degree in biology now)

And speaking of the NCSE itself, lets look at some of their staff. There is Glen Branch, the director who, according to his NCSE web-site bio is “Formerly a graduate student in philosophy at UCLA, where he won prizes both for scholarship and teaching, he is conversant with the philosophical debates surrounding creationism and “intelligent design”; he is also a long-time student of pseudo-science.” Dr. Barbara Forrest: Ph.D., Tulane University (Philosophy); M.A., Louisiana State University (Philosophy); B.A., English, Southeastern Louisiana University. Peter Hess, Ph.D in Science and religion from a seminary. Earl Meikle, Ph.D. Anthropology (is that close enough?)Carrie Sagar, History. I do not for one minute detract from these people’s fine academic credentials and accomplishments. They all worked hard to earn what they have. But like you, Dr. Lynch, I question their authority to speak out on anything related to evolution. Wouldn’t you agree?

Will you also send letters to Daniel Dennett and Michael Ruse – Ph.D’s in Philosophy – and request that they refrain from writing any more books, articles or giving any further lectures on Evolution and/or Biology. Don’t you think they should? I mean what qualifies them?

And finally there’s the Project Steve list itself. Will you vette that one also? Here’s just the first few to help get you started:

Stephen T. Abedon Associate Professor of Microbiology, Ohio State University Ph.D., Microbiology, University of Arizona Creator of The Bacteriophage Ecology Group, Home of Phage Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (www.phage.org) Steven G. Ackleson**** Oceanographer, Office of Naval Research Ph.D., Marine Studies, University of Delaware

Stephen A. Adam**** Associate Professor, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Ph.D., Biochemistry, Molecular, and Cell Biology, Northwestern University

Steve Adams***** Vice President, Curl Inc. Ph.D., Astrophysics, University College London

Steven Reid Adams****** Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of Central Arkansas Ph.D., Zoology, Southern Illinois University

Stephen R. Addison* Associate Professor of Physics, University of Central Arkansas Ph.D., Physics, University of Mississippi Stephen L. Adler Albert Einstein Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University Member, National Academy of Sciences Steven K. Akiyama***** Scientist, Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health Ph.D., Chemistry, Cornell University Stephen B. Aley Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Texas, El Paso Ph.D., Biology, Rockefeller University Stephen C. Alley* Senior Scientist, Seattle Genetics, Inc. Ph.D., Chemistry, University of Washington Steve Allison****** Staff scientist, Photonics Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Ph.D., Engineering Physics, University of Virginia Steven I. Altchuler* Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; Consultant in Psychiatry, Mayo Clinic Ph.D., Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.D., Baylor College of Medicine Stephen J. Anderson***** Commercial Officer, U.S. Export Assistance Center, Baltimore, U.S. Department of Commerce Ph.D., Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stephen Robert Anderson Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, Yale University Ph.D., Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Steven C. Anderson****** Emeritus Professor of Biology, University of the Pacific Ph.D., Biology, Stanford University Steven D. Anisman***** Fellow, Cardiovascular Disease, Worcester Medical Center M.D., University of Vermont Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine; Member, American College of Cardiology Steve J. Aplin***** Calorimeter Coordinator, HERA experiment H1, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron Ph.D., Particle Physics, University of Portsmouth Stephen W. Arch L. N. Ruben Professor of Biology, Reed College Ph.D., Biology, University of Chicago Steve Archer**** Professor of Rangeland and Forest Resources, University of Arizona Ph.D., Rangeland Ecosystem Science, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins J. Steven Arnold* Medical Director, Intensive Care and Sleep Medicine, St. Mary’s Hospital Medical Director, Respiratory Care and Sleep Medicine, Decatur Memorial Hospital M.D., Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago Stevan J. Arnold Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University Ph.D., Zoology, University of Michigan Past President, Society for the Study of Evolution Steven E. Arnold***** Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Auburn University, Montgomery Ph.D., Chemistry, Louisiana State University Stephen M. Arthur**** Research Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ph.D., Wildlife Biology, University of Maine Steven N. Austad Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho Ph.D., Zoology?, Purdue University Author, Why We Age Stephen J. Aves****** Associate Professor of Molecular Biology, University of Exeter Ph.D., Biochemistry, University of Bristol Stephen Azevedo* Deputy Division Leader, Electronics Engineering Technologies Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ph.D., Electrical Engineering and Computing Science, University of California, Davis Stefano Bagnasco****** Physicist, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Ph.D., Physics, University of Genova

Chemists, Physicists, Electrical engineers. Hmmm…they must all be secret “creationists” mucking up the list. Please have NCSE purge the list of these unworthies immediately!

The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke. The whole point of Project Steve is to demonstrate how silly such lists of supposed luminaries are, how very irrelevant such appeals to perceived authority en masse are when the question is one of empirical reality.

In the famous words of Albert Einstein, “They wouldn’t need a hundred scientists if they had one single fact.”

To Ravilyn Sanders’ comment #139556, it appears like the IDers are going the Hollywood route with Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, to be released on the big screen next month. Once it’s out, you should be able to add the box office take to your growing list of defeats for ID.

Sorry, forgot to leave the URL in my last email:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Well, Donald M, I don’t quite get your point. Project Steve was a commentary on the DI’s “700 scientists”. The Discovery Institute parade’s the size of that number around “700!” to get credibility. The response was, “Hey, doing the same thing, we can get a lot more than you. In fact, we’ll tie one hand behind our back by limiting ourselves to scientists named ‘Steve’ or some variant and STILL beat you.” And, of course, Project Steve dwarfed the Discovery Institute’s pathetic numbers. Now, you want the evolutionists to tie one more hand behind their back by limiting the list in ways that the Discovery Institute won’t. Of course, it’s all a game since the DI is arguing with raw “hey, look at our numbers!”

CJO

The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke. The whole point of Project Steve is to demonstrate how silly such lists of supposed luminaries are, how very irrelevant such appeals to perceived authority en masse are when the question is one of empirical reality.

I know its meant as a “joke”. I said so in my post. But this goes to my over-all point. If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution, then this blog is a joke, too. How many here are evolutionary biologists? What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?

CJO:

Out here in the ether, it’s useful to remember: “sticks and stones may break my bones…”

“…But names will lead to lawsuits.”

Frank, I think this may be the link you’re referring to. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]logists.html

(Sorry ‘bout the hard link, but I’m having trouble getting my tags to work)

Red Right Hand,

I replied on the other thread.

CJO,

I too take it as constructive criticism to be more clear, in particular to differentiate between my personal speculations (e.g. what IDers believe or understand) and hard, cold facts (e.g. Behe is on record as accepting common descent). The following is at least my personal speculation, and maybe a lot more:

This all highlights the “Catch-22” that defenders of science face in an anti-science culture. If we disagree on anything our theories are perceived as “in crisis,” but if we agree, we’re perceived as conspiring to protect theories that are “in crisis.” Most people give much more slack to pseudoscience of any “kind,” because it promises “quick fixes.” Never mind that it can’t deliver.

If you simply stop at saying “they make appeals to the supernatural” without explaining why that’s a problem then it merely feeds into the erroneous perception that scientists reject the supernatural from consideration a priori. But this is not true, as PG has stressed.

I’m not sure if this is philosophical or semantic. The word “supernatural” doesn’t seem to have any referent, it’s empty of meaning. If science, of necessity, is limited to what is natural and can be observed, and if “the supernatural” MEANS whatever is NOT natural and can NOT be observed, then that sure looks a priori to me. “Supernatural” is being defined as “That which science can’t investigate.” How can science possibly help but reject from consideration, what science ipso facto cannot consider?

What I’ve seen is scientists saying “show me evidence of something, and I’ll be glad to investigate it - supernatural or not.” But if supernatural MEANS absence of any possible evidence, then this is a failure to communicate hidden behind a meaningless word.

Flint:

What I’ve seen is scientists saying “show me evidence of something, and I’ll be glad to investigate it - supernatural or not.” But if supernatural MEANS absence of any possible evidence, then this is a failure to communicate hidden behind a meaningless word.

I think what people have been willing to investigate is examples of a claimed impact of the supernatural on the natural world, e.g. looking at the efficacy of prayers. Of course, it assumes that any supernatural agency is not deliberately frustrating any efforts to study it.

Donald M:

I know its meant as a “joke”. I said so in my post. But this goes to my over-all point. If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution, then this blog is a joke, too. How many here are evolutionary biologists? What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?

You have misconstrued the issue. ANYONE can have an opinion - no matter how well or ill-informed. Anyone can debate. However, the list of ID signatories amounts to an argument from authority - not a debate. “See here! We have all these here PhDs. There just MUST be something to it.” At that point the creationist end of the conversation devolves into an argument from authority, it is entirely appropriate to question whether the trusted authorities actually know what they’re talking about.

Invariably, we find that IDers and other creationists accept “experts” as just “anyone who happens to agree with them and has a PhD” rather than people who are recognized experts in the fields, e.g. William Dembski over David Wolpert, Tim Wallace over Tom Schneider, Michael Behe over Robert Shapiro.

The fact that, for example, Wallace’s ravings about thermodynamics are conspicuously devoid of mathematics, or that Werner Gitt’s presentation of information theory consists of unsubstantiated assertions that the rest of the IT community considers blather is immaterial.

Donald M wrote “In other words, where and how has it been confirmed or demonstrated scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect?”

I’m not aware of anyone claiming this, but your point is irrelevant. Science cannot disprove the supernatural; however, science can only address the natural. That is the scope of science. If the supernatural exists, science cannot recognize.

Darwinism Corrected To Tomorrow’s Comprehension. Darwinians, It Is Culture That Drives Evolution!

March 16 2008 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?[…]#entry323376

“By plain common sense it is therefore culture, the ubiqitous biological entity, that drives earth life evolution.”

March 1 2008 “Culture Is Biology, It Imprints Genetics”

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?[…]#entry316631

I. Quotes from “Chimp and human communication trace to same brain region”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea[…]ah022108.php

“ An area of the brain involved in the planning and production of spoken and signed language in humans plays a similar role in chimpanzee communication.

This might be interpreted in one of two ways:

One interpretation of our results is that chimpanzees have, in essence, a ‘language-ready brain’. By this, we are suggesting that apes are born with and use the brain areas identified here when producing signals that are part of their communicative repertoire.

Alternatively, one might argue that, because our apes were captive-born and producing communicative signals not seen often in the wild, the specific learning and use of these signals ‘induced’ the pattern of brain activation we saw. This would suggest that there is tremendous plasticity in the chimpanzee brain, as there is in the human brain, and that the development of certain kinds of communicative signals might directly influence the structure and function of the brain.”

II. Quotes from earlier postings in this thread:

Culture Is Biology, It Affects Genetics

The Common Mistake: Genetic Changes Have NOT Made Us Human; Human Culture Has Been Changing Our Genetics.

A. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea[…]he120607.php

Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike.

B. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea[…]sp120507.php

Genome study places modern humans in the evolutionary fast lane.

C. http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81p[…]BbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1&p=207

From my postings way back in 2005, which cites genetic evidence/demonstration of the workings of human cultural evolution:

- From Science, 2 Sept 2005: “Page’s team compared human and chimp Ys to see whether either lineage has lost functional genes since they split.

The researchers found that the chimp had indeed suffered the slings and arrows of evolutionary fortune. Of the 16 functional genes in this part of the human Y, chimps had lost the function of five due to mutations. In contrast, humans had all 11 functional genes also seen on the chimp Y. “The human Y chromosome hasn’t lost a gene in 6 million years,” says Page. “It seems like the demise of the hypothesis of the demise of the Y,” says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Chimp’s genome has been continuing survival by physiologically adapting to changing environments.

- But look at this: From Science, Vol 309, 16 Sept 2005, Evolving Sequence and Expression:”An analysis of the evolution of both gene sequences and expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees…shows that…surprisingly, genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences”.

Surprisingly…???

Human’s genome continued survival mainly by modifying-controling its environment.

- And I suggest that detailed study of other creatures that, like humans, underwent radical change of living circumstances, for example ocean-dwelling mammals, might bring to light unique effects of culture-evolution processes and features of evolutionary implications parallel to those of humans.

D. Chapter II, Life, Tomorrow’s Comprehension:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81p[…]BbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1&p=372

Natural Selection Is A Two Level Interdependent Affair

1) Evolution ensues from genome/genes modifications (“mutations”), inherently ever more of them as new functional options arise for the organism.

2) Modifications of genome’s functional capabilities can be explained by the second-stratum organism’s culture-life-experience feedbacks to its genome, its prime/base organism. The route-modification selection of a replicating gene, when it is at its alternative-splicing-steps junctions, is biased by the feedback gained by the genome, the parent organism, from the culture-life-experience of its progeny big organism. THIS IS HOW EVOLUTION COMES ABOUT.

3) The challenge now is to figure out the detailed seperate steps involved in introducing and impressing the big organism’s experiences (culture) feedbacks on its founding parents’ genome’s genes, followed by the detailed seperate steps involved in biasing-directing the genes to prefer-select the biased-favored splicing.

4) I find it astonishing that only very few persons, non-professional as well as professional biologists-evolutionists, have the clear conception that selection for survival occurs on two interdependent levels - (a) during the life of the second-stratum progeny organism in its environment, and (b) during the life of its genome, which is also an organism. Most, if not all, persons think - incorrectly - that evolution is about randomly occurring genes-genome modifications (“mutations”) followed with selection by survival of the progeny organism in its environment. Whereas actually evolution is the interdependent , interactive and interenhencing selection at both the two above levels.

E. Eventually

Eventually it will be comprehended that things don’t just “happen”, “mutate”, randomly in the base-prime organism, genome, constitution; the capability of the base-prime organisms to “happen” and “mutate” is indeed innate, but things “happen” and “mutate” not randomly but in biased directions, affected by the culture-experience feedback of the second level multi-cell organisms (or the mono-cell communities).

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81p[…]BbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John M. Lynch published on January 8, 2008 4:50 AM.

Making Babies - How Simple Rules Build Complex Bodies was the previous entry in this blog.

Happy Birthday, Alfred Russel Wallace. 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 4.361

Site Meter