Darwinist attack on self-org theorist James Shapiro: Payback for talking to ID guys?
| February 20, 2012 | Posted by News under Darwinism, News, Self-Org. Theory |
Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne (the one who refused to have lunch with Moshe Averick to discuss the origin of life) has now gone after self-organization theorist James Shapiro:
Shapiro’s piece then rapidly goes downhill as he starts repeating creationist arguments. Here’s one:
The first problem with selection as the source of diversity is that selection by humans, the subject of Darwin’s opening chapter, modifies existing traits but does not produce new traits or new species. Dogs may vary widely as a result of selective breeding, but they always remain dogs.
You’ll recognize this as the old creationist canard. Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years. But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible. I deplore that a colleague of mine makes this misguided argument, and in the Science section of HuffPo, which I’m increasingly beginning to deplore as well.
Hmmm. Shapiro would never describe himself as a proponent of design theory, let alone a “creationist.”
Here’s Shapiro’s recent Huffpopost (2 16 2012) But Shapiro has recently been dialoguing with design theorists, so we naturally wonder if this attack is also payback for that. See, for example,
James Shapiro: Bill Dembski asks the question we’ve all been dreading …
“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”: James Shapiro Replies to Bill Dembski
Dembski replies to Shapiro: “Natural genetic engineering” is just magic, by another name. Can you make it science?
See also: Reviewing James Shapiro’s book, Darwinist admits: Growing number of gene scientists unconvinced by Darwinism
Is it payback? Thoughts?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
36 Responses to Darwinist attack on self-org theorist James Shapiro: Payback for talking to ID guys?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Love the bit about the small deerlike beastie turning into a whale, as established fact!
While I’m sorry Shapiro has to be exposed to such childish and unprofessional behaviour from Coyne, it should serve as evidence of what I.D proponents and Creationists have been saying all along:
You can’t criticize darwin’s myth without experiencing repercussions. e.g(*Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*)
What other ‘scientific theory’ needs such protection?!?! Even Einstein’s theory can be challenged/questioned but heaven forbid someone dare point out the shortcomings/flaws of the darwinian myth.
Agreed. I guess I would say you can’t question it or objectively evaluate Darwinian dogma even if you are an Materialist. This is how they want to teach our kids in school!
Did Dr. Shapiro ever reply to Dr. Axe and Dr. Gauger’s last reply to him???
It seems that Dr. Shapiro, in the Huffpost piece, just dodges the question that Dr Axe put to him:
Perhaps Dr. Shapiro doesn’t realize it, but Dr. Axe’s work on the extreme rarity of functional protein sequences was on finding the novel sequences for functional domains (parts) of the proteins in the first place,,, functional domain sequences which Dr. Shapiro has just taken for granted in his ‘natural genetic engineering’ scenario; i.e. It doesn’t matter that the ‘natural genetic engineering’ in the cell can implement different domain sequences into novel functional proteins when needed, if the primary problem is not dealt with in the first place. It seems Dr. Shapiro, besides invoking magic by another name, has just ignored this monumental problem of finding functional domains in sequence space!
notes:
Moreover, does invoking ‘natural genetic engineering’ even come close to really explaining how the programming in the cell ‘knew’, beforehand, how to combine functional domains into a novel protein, or is it, like Dr. Dembski wryly noted, just magic by another name???
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
Further notes of Dr. Axe’s work on the rarity of protein folds:
The following article is very revealing as to the inherent blindness that neo-Darwinists have to the results of what their very own research is telling them;
Coyne is being either willfully misleading or stupid. He knows well that Shapiro is proposing other mechanisms for evolution, and saying that natural selection alone is not an adequate one.
Coyne replies that because we see evolutionary sequences (disregard for the moment whether they are valid), then natural selection must explain them.
Here’s an equivalent argument. Assertion: A child couldn’t have produced this painting – an adult must have at least helped. Reply: But you can clearly see there’s a painting: ergo, the child did paint it alone.
What do they teach them at university nowadays? Not reasoning, that’s for sure. Coyne is a leading spokesman for Neodarwinism, right? And that’s the best kind of argument he has? Maybe I wasn’t so far off about Gnu thought processes in a blog I did last month.
This bit:
Do evolutionists actually have any actual examples; or is it just one big thumb-suck consisting of nothing but “favourable interpretations” of the fossil record?
Coyne says:
‘But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible.’
It’s all very well for him to say but are they really there?
I don’t just want to see a fossilized ‘dear like creature’ and then a ‘whale’, but the steps in between. I don’t want to see only a few fossilzed ‘fish’ then a fossil of a fully formed ‘Amphibian’, I want to see the stages in between. I don’t want to hear about ‘reptiles’ in one breath and in the next ‘mammals’, I want to see the transitions. I don’t to hear about ‘birds’ and how they evolved from ‘theropod dinosaurs’, I want to see the pathway. I don’t want to just hear that my distant relative was an ‘ape’ I want to see how it became human.
I know it’s a lot of wants, but if it is such a fact as he seems to say it is the fossils themselves must exist. Right?
So where are they?
Can somone please point me to some fossil evidence of ‘something’ turning into ‘somthing else’, the operative word being used here ‘turning’, as Mr.Coyne puts it.
Thank you
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Lastyearon
I have already looked through Talk Origins, and as I said I don’t just want to hear what they assumed happened, as in ‘Whale evolution’, but see the transitions in between.
We also have to remember that fossilized a fossilized jaw of a whale was discovered, dated to have existed at the same time as Packacetus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0
Why dont you watch the above link, it’s only 28mins long, but certainly from 8min – 17min.
What is your answer to this claim?
Now really lastyearon!
While I fully understand that theological arguments and mythology have very powerful influence on ones worldview, I would strongly suggest that you refrain quoting or linking to tabloid evolutionary propaganda sites like The TalkOrigins Archive. That is if you want to retain some level of respectability on this blog.
Or what is your answer to this observation from population genetics?
If that wasn’t bad enough, The time frame for the supposed transition of whales, from some supposed ancestral four legged creature, has recently been dramatically shortened from the 10 million years Dr. Sternberg used in his calculation;
Moreover the blatant misrepresentation of the fossil record by neo-Darwinists for supposed whale evolution should make the blood boil in anger of any person who is concerned with the truth of this matter;
As for ‘vestigial legs’; It turns out the ‘vestigial legs’ are humorously revealed to be very functional pelvic bones instead:
PeterJ,
No you don’t want to see the transitions. Otherwise you would have read the article, and seen them.
I can’t view the video now. I’m assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus’s living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals?
That claim is the same as asking “Why are there still monkeys, if we evolved from them?”
Think about it a little (please).
LYO, Dr. Sternberg doesn’t even contest the fossil record (which is severely contorted by neo-Darwinists), he just demonstrates, from population genetics, that the mechanism of neo-Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain the origination of whales. Do you have empirical of mathematical evidence to the contrary???
inunison,
I’m not after respectability on this blog. I’m more interested in getting people like you to question a little.
If you think Talk Origins is biased, you can do a Google search for whale transitional fossils. Although you may consider each and every article/resource you find to be evolutionary propaganda. If so, I suggest that you’re happy in your ignorance, and that you tell yourself “it’s all propaganda” because you don’t like feeling ignorant.
Well since LYO refuses to be forthright with the genetic evidence which falsifies his assertion, and stiucks to fossil evidence, then here is another video that clearly shows how fraudulent neo-Darwinists can be with the fossil record:
This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson’s critique of ‘imaginary’ whale evolution in the preceding video:
Lastyearon.
‘I’m assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus’s living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals?’
No not in slightest.
The video was made long before the discovery of the whale’s jaw.
It’s a shame you can’t spare the 9 minutes to watch what I think is a very startling confession by Dr. Phil Gingerich. (who is one of the worlds leading experts on Whale evolution)
I suppose it’s just easier for to fill your head with TO stuff, but that doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid.
Watch the video and then tell me if you still believe what TO says about whale evolution is the fact they would like everone to think it is?
Go on, I dare you.
Watched the video. It would take more time to correct all the misconceptions in it than it did to watch it.
But I do want to ask you something. You said this:
Why do you think that “they” would like everyone to think evolution is a fact? Do you think there’s some sort of conspiracy going on?
O, and by the way, they do use the “why are there still monkeys” argument with regards to ambulocetus at the 13-14 minute mark.
Lastyearon
‘Why do you think that “they” would like everyone to think evolution is a fact?’
I asked for evidence of transitional fossils linking any of the examples of evolution sited by Coyne, and you gave me TO, and its explanation of ‘Whale evolution’.
I take it by doing so you found this evidence suffice.
My point was that Coynes argument fails on many parts because of a severe lack of what he claims.
Dr.Phil Gingerich clearly admits that one of the major players in ‘Whale evolution’ was deliberately doctored to give the appearance of a transitional, it is also used by many top paleontologists, can be found in the pages of nearly every science text book on the subject, yet it really is nothing more than a fraud.
You accuse other of being ‘happy in their ignorance’, yet you willfully deny the truth.
That must be a gift of evolutionists. A well honed skill.
Good luck to you.
lastyearon,
You can continue piling insults following good old TalkOrigins tradition.
Anyone can start “arguments” with nonsensical intro:
“How do you convince an evolutionist that a fossil is not a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse…”
However I don’t think that approach adds anything to our understanding of whale evolution or any other such subject.
Instead of calling other people ignorant maybe you should better spend your time researching the given subject using more respectable sources. And no, I don’t mean dreaded Creationist’s materials, but am referring to, in “scientific circles”, recognized experts like Robert L. Carroll, J. G. M. Thewissen, G. A. Mchedlidze etc.
Saying all this I have no illusions that you will familiarize yourself with evolutionary science proper. It must be infinitely more satisfying and gratifying to quote TalkOrigins’ mythology (so called Vestigial Evidence being case in point). But hey, I don’t blame you, I know the feeling, same feeling I had as a kid reading Greek pagan stories.
The formula:
Dogs + artificially selected magical mystery mutations + some period of time more than a few thousand years = Cats
Oops- “some period of time greater than a few MILLION years”
I read the article Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans referenced at Science Daily and here.
I really don’t see how it supports the contention that “Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years”. Rather, the authors find quite a lot of diversification spread out over 55 million years:
Its really worth a read.
Cheers
Well CLAVDIVS, since I consider pretty much all of their hypothesizing from molecular sequences to be bunk,,,
,,, since they can’t even account for the fixation of a single ‘coordinated’ beneficial mutation for whales, then I pretty much look at the stasis portion of their paper that was forced on them by their cross check to the fossil evidence.,,Moreover, As far as the Diversity vs. Disparity title of their paper, this is funny for Diversity vs. Disparity in the fossil record is actually a common pattern and is actually a point that, though danced around by neo-Darwinists, argues very forcefully for ‘top down’ creation of specific ‘kinds’ of animals;
as well, since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence from molecular sequences, here are several comments and articles, by leading experts, on the severe incongruence of molecular sequences to what Darwin’s gradualistic theory expects:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4
Hi bornagain77
Ok. It wasn’t clear to me that you were relying on just some parts of the article, and disregarding others.
Even so, just looking at the fossil evidence parts, the article still doesn’t seem to support the idea that “Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years”. For example, the authors state:
They have a nifty chart illustrating this (Figure 4).
Cheers
CLAVDIVS, well I’m quite comfortable with their ‘surprise’ at finding overall stasis in the fossil record, from ‘early on’ for whales, as was reflected, clearly, in the Science Daily article. Moreover, since the problem of ‘functional information generation’ is acute for neo-Darwinists, I really don’t feel the need to have to point out to you their severely unwarranted extrapolations from their very shaky molecular interpretations. And if you don’t feel, their ‘free-willing’ interpretation of molecular sequences is problematic, or the problem of function information generation is critically acute for neo-Darwinists, perhaps you would care to falsify Abel’s null hypothesis with empirical evidence?
Hi bornagain77
Despite the potted summary in the Science Daily article, it’s difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the original paper in Proc. R. Soc. B as support for the idea that whales have not evolved for over 35 million years — even if one just focuses on the fossil evidence.
And I don’t see how Abel’s work makes this any easier to understand.
Cheers
CLAVDIVS, well since you do not readily see the glaring deficiencies in their analysis, nor their unwarranted extrapolations they make in the fossil record to neo-Darwinian processes, perhaps it is because you believe material processes can magically generate complex, and ‘transcendent’, functional information? Hence the primary relevance of Abel’s null hypothesis! Myself, I hold the position that speciation will follow a ‘top down’ genetic entropy pattern following initial ‘sudden’ appearance in the fossil record; (which happens to be the pattern that conforms to the second law and Conservation of Information)
The following is perhaps the best case study we have for the overall ‘top down’ pattern we should expect to see in the fossil record:
further note:
In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a ‘scientific law’:
A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
This recent study falls in line as well:
Dollo’s Law was further verified to the molecular level here:
So CLAVDIVS, basically we have no evidence that material processes can generate functional information yet we have abundant evidence that material processes, and neo-Darwinian processes in particular, reduce genetic infomation! Go Figure!!!
Hi bornagain77
If one thinks the Slater et al paper in Proc. R. Soc. B has glaring deficiencies, then one shouldn’t be citing it in support of an argument.
On the other hand, if one credits the paper with some validity, it doesn’t support the argument that whales did not evolve for over 35 million years.
This has been my point all along. The Science Daily article was referenced, which in turn cited the Proc. R. Soc. B paper. I was interested enough to read the actual paper, and it was apparent (to me) that it did not in any way support the original argument — namely, that whales remained in stasis for over 35 million years. I thought this was worth mentioning. And I don’t see how Abel’s work or Dollo’s law in any way detracts from what I’m saying.
We can drop it now, bornagain77. I think I’ve made my point.
Cheers
CLAVDIVS, You have made your point. Thank You! I did not read the original paper at first but only read the Science Daily article. ,,, The Science Daily article readily gives the impression, at least to me, that they were far more forthright in the original paper. But as you have made clear, it is not nearly as clear as the Science Daily article implied. ,,, I will search for a more reliable source. Perhaps dig through their sources.
Then again CLAVDIVS, the Science Daily article does quote directly from Slater and Alfaro,,, for instance.
thus I will just quote directly from them;
Yeah I think I will leave my cite just as it is CLAVDIVS, despite your objections, since the quote I used from the Science Daily article is directly from the lead researchers themselves.,,,
Hi bornagain77
So, just to wrap this up — As support for the contention that “Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years” you’re going to continue to use a small quote from an article that:
– is entitled “How Whales Have Changed Over 35 Million Years”;
– discusses changes in whales between 55 and 25 million years ago;
– discusses significant changes in killer whales over the past 10 million years; and,
– is based on interviews with the authors of a scientific paper where they discuss, in considerable detail, significant diversification and extinction in whales over 55 million years.
Let’s just leave it at this: I don’t agree with you that the cite you used counts as support for your proposition.
Cheers
CLAVDIVS, well lets look at it a little more soberly at the study shall we???, The authors, despite being card carrying neo-Darwwinists, indeed trying to force fit the evidence into the most friendly neo-Darwinian position they could muster, (indeed making several unwarranted leaps in the fossil record) candidly admit, after fairly extensive study, to a reporter these very un-Darwinian facts about their extensive, ‘Darwinianly’ biased, study:
Hi bornagain77
I can only tell you that I would care about representing that study as supporting overall stasis, for the reasons I’ve already specified. I cannot dictate to you what you should care about. Others can form their own opinions — the relevant articles are just a click away.
By the way, I don’t prefer an atheistic Darwinian worldview.
Cheers
CLAVDIVS:
Well exactly what do you ‘prefer’ since your actions are inconsistent to me?