A Sermon by Jerry Coyne on Biogeography

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 14, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

It is remarkable that people pay evolutionist Jerry Coyne to indoctrinate their children according to his dogmatic religious beliefs. But they do, and he does. And the University of Chicago biology professor has now enshrined evolution’s theological convictions in his new book, Why Evolution is True, for all to see. Here is one example:

Continue here

Comments

Jehu @ 41:
The argument that “just rodents” were found in australia is unbelievably lame. Rodents and rodent sized placentals are the most successful mammals in the world. So why did the lose out to marsupials in Australia?
Who are you quoting there Jehu? Certainly not me. What I said was that as far as placental species go in Australia, a single rodent has been found. However, I made a mistake. Two actually, neither of which help out Mr. Hunter: there are other rodent fossils (though they're almost all teeth and only one other species, Zyzomys rackhami, has been conclusively identified) and I forgot to say that the species I mentioned before, Pseudomys vandycki, dates to the Pliocene (which started approx. 5.3 mya). So do all the other rodent remains found. This is far, far later than the earliest marsupials, which date to the late Paleocene/early Eocence (that is, about 55 mya or roughly 50 million years earlier than the earliest known Australian rodent). By contrast to the rodents, the most ancient confirmed placentals in Australia were a primitive bat, Australonycteris clarkae, and the tooth (and possibly a couple other fragments) of an otherwise unknown species, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v356/n6369/abs/356514a0.html"Tingamarra porterorum. The other bat (and the last of the known Australian fossil placentals), Brachipposideros nooraleebus, dates to the early to mid-Miocene (which starts at ~23 mya), and as I said, is obviously related to species known from Europe. All this is there in the references I cited earlier (and re-cited here), but I figured I should point out my mistake and clarify a few things about the timeline. Oh, and also that no one said a thing about "just rodents" except you, Jehu.dbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Khan, Really? A paper on how RNA was originally formed on a clay template? That is the best you could do? This montmorillonite theory has been around since the 80's. It is part of the larger "RNA world" theory which is effectively DOA. The father of the whole "RNA world", Leslie Ogle, who once called RNA world a "molecular biologist's dream" eventually had this to say about the theory before he died:
In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe they cannot The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.
And to get down to real problem with the whole RNA world nonsense consider the conclusions of former RNA world advocate Robert Shapiro. The problem isn't just catalyzing RNA, it is getting all of the building blocks of RNA in one place. As Shapiro explains:
[N]o nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites, nor have the smaller units (nucleosides) that contain a sugar and base but lack the phosphate. To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, ...
However, these reactions get ridiculously complex. Shapiro continues,
The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.
Shapiro concludes, and all reasonable minded people would agree that:
Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.
So what exactly then is the Darwinist hypothesis for abiogenesis?Jehu_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

FYI for all: The original German text of the Leopold von Buch quote is located on page 133 in his book "Physicalische Beschreibung der Canarischen Inseln" (1825). A copy can be viewed at: http://humboldt.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/buch_physi_de_01_1825/index.html The full paragraph that the quote is from reads:
"Die Individuen der Gattungen auf Continenten breiten sich aus, entfernen sich weit, bilden durch Verschiedenheit der Standörter, Nahrung und Boden Verietäten, welche, in ihrer Entfernung nie von andern Verietäten gekreuzt nnd dadurch zum Haupttypus zurückgebracht, endlich constant und zur eigenen Art werden. Dann erreichen sie vielleicht auf anderen Wegen auf das Neue die ebenfalls veränderte vorige Varietät, beide nun als sehr verschiedene und sich nicht wieder mit einander vermischende Arten. Nicht so auf Inseln. Gewöhnlich in enge Thäler oder in den Bezirk schmaler Zonen gebannt, können sich die Individuen erreichen und jede gesuchte Fixrung einer Varietät wieder zerstören. Es ist dies ungefähr so, wie Sonderbarkeiten oder Fehler der Sprache zuerst durch das Haupt einer Familie, dann durch Verbreitung dieser selbst, über einen ganzen District einheimisch werden. Ist dieser abgesondert und isolirt, und bringt nicht die stete Verbindung mit andern die Sprache auf ihre vorige Reinheit zurüch, so wird aus dieser Abweichung ein Dialekt. Verbinden natürlich Hindernisse, Wälder, Verfassung, Regierung, die Bewohner des abweichenden Districts noch enger, und trennen sie sie noch schärfer von den Nachbarn, so fixirt sich der Dialekt, und es wird eine völlig verschiedene Sprache."
Perhaps someone who knows German can make a new translation, to see if it sheds any further light on von Buch's ideas.j_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

since you seem to like quotations, here's one (from Wiki):
Lamarck's contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[5]
Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

jerry, wow, you are really not getting it. Lamarck had his own version of evolution before Darwin, of which inheritance of acquired characteristics was only a part. so Lamarckian mechanisms (use and disuse, AIC, inner "need") and natural selection are two mechanisms of evolution. not two different concepts.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

"goes to show how important it is to distinguish between evolution by natural selection and by Lamarckian processes." They are different concepts or didn't you read above. Lamarck has to do with genetic inheritance and which Darwin endorsed along with his blending ideas. Natural selection has to do with survivability of offspring. One does not preclude the other except for the rarity of Lamarckian processes means that it only occurs in certain very limited circumstances. See Jablonka and Lamb, Evolution in 4 Dimensions..jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Khan,
herb,
they are telling us theists about our God’s behaviors and motives.
if you don’t like this, perhaps you should put forward your own ideas. at least YECs have a model with testable hypotheses, as opposed to ID, which just has arguments against evolution and no testable hypotheses.
Believe me, I do have my own ideas about God, but I'll spare you. :D We IDers prefer to keep science and religion separate anyways.herb_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Jehu, you can try here for starters: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1777.abstractKhan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Khan,
ID, which just has arguments against evolution and no testable hypotheses.
Speaking of which, when are you Darwinists going to present a testable hypothesis for abiogenesis? It has only been over 150 years.Jehu_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Jerry, From you wikipedia quote,
Marsupial success over placental mammals in Australia has been attributed to their comparatively low metabolic rate, a trait which would prove helpful in the hot Australian climate.[citation needed]
I love the "citation needed" at the end. I won't bother to go looking for a citation for that bit of "just so" story telling.Jehu_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

jerry, speaking of wikipedia, here's some info on a contemporary of von Buch's that influenced Darwin:
Modern experts such as Ernst Mayr, Jerry Coyne & H. Allen Orr,[9] agree that Wagner first identified geographical speciation. However, his "migration theory" was based on a rather simple, Lamarckian idea of evolution.
goes to show how important it is to distinguish between evolution by natural selection and by Lamarckian processes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_WagnerKhan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

herb,
they are telling us theists about our God’s behaviors and motives.
if you don't like this, perhaps you should put forward your own ideas. at least YECs have a model with testable hypotheses, as opposed to ID, which just has arguments against evolution and no testable hypotheses.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Here is the sort of convoluted speculation/history of marsupials from Wikipedia. It seems they are really stretching here. "It was once commonly believed that marsupials were a primitive forerunner of modern placental mammals, but fossil evidence, first presented by researcher M.J. Spechtt in 1982, conflicts with this assumption[citation needed]. Instead, both main branches of the mammal tree appear to have evolved concurrently toward the end of the Mesozoic era. In the absence of soft tissues, such as the pouch and reproductive system, fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth; primitive marsupials possess four pairs of molar teeth in each jaw, whereas placental mammals never have more than three pairs.[4] Using this criterion, the earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago.[5][6][7] This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils, which have been found in the same area.[8] The discovery of Chinese marsupials appears to support the idea that marsupials reached Australia via Southeast Asia.[9] There are a few species of marsupials still living in Asia, especially in the Sulawesi region of Indonesia. These marsupials coexist with primates, hooved mammals and other placentals.[citation needed] However, due to the fact that Australia and China were separated by the wide Tethys Sea in the early Cretaceous into the Northern continent of Laurasia and Southern continent of Gondwana, marsupials had to take a much longer route around. From their origin in East Laurasia (modern day China), they spread westwards into modern North America (still attached to Eurasia) and skipped across to South America, which was connected to North America up until around 65MYA. Here they radiated into Borhyaenids and Shrew Opossums, creating a unique fauna found in South America and Antarctica (which were connected until 35MYA). Marsupials reached Australia via Antarctica about 50MYA just after Australia had split off, suggesting a single dispersion event of several of just one species, related to South America's Monito del Monte (Microbiothere), rafted across the widening, but still narrow gap between Australia and Antarctica at that time. In Australia, being the only mammals present (except a few Austrosphenids like echidnas and platypuses) they radiated into the wide varieties we see today, even island hopping some way through the Indonesian archipelagos, almost completing a circumnavigation back to their homeland in China. [10] On most continents, placental mammals were much more successful and no marsupials survived, though in South America the opossums retained a strong presence, and the Tertiary saw the genesis of marsupial predators such as the borhyaenids and the saber-toothed Thylacosmilus. In Australia, however, marsupials displaced placental mammals entirely, and have since dominated the Australian ecosystem. Marsupial success over placental mammals in Australia has been attributed to their comparatively low metabolic rate, a trait which would prove helpful in the hot Australian climate.[citation needed] As a result, native Australian placental mammals (such as hopping mice) are more recent immigrants."jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

JTaylor,
Theological then implies an existence of some kind of deity (God) - when people here say evolutionists are practicing theology, what exactly does that mean then?
Simply that the evolutionists are making claims about how a putative God would choose to create life on earth. I don't think Cornelius is saying that the evos are religious in the sense that they worship a deity or anything like that; rather, in order to further their arguments about evolution, they are telling us theists about our God's behaviors and motives.herb_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Whatever for Coyne. Maybe somebody should fill him on the elephants that once occupied North America, which are indistinguishable (except larger) from the elephants of modern Africa. (See Schindenwolf) Also the Columbian lions. As for marsupials and placentals in Australia. Well placentals where there even before the marsupials and the marsupials themselves are all over the world, not just Australia. The argument that "just rodents" were found in australia is unbelievably lame. Rodents and rodent sized placentals are the most successful mammals in the world. So why did the lose out to marsupials in Australia? Evolution doesn't explain it.Jehu_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

jerry, i think your reaction is more interesting than anything. called on a mistake, you instantly resort to ad hominem, then compound your mistakes and never acknowledge any of them. classic ID behavior.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Jerry Coyne is a committed philosophical naturalist. For him there is no other option but Neo-Darwinism, which is why Hunter's post is so relevant. Call it what you wish, Coyne's approach to his subject is guided by his metaphysical presuppositions, as are the theist's. Furthermore, naturalism is conjoined (willingly or not) with atheism, by necessity, a theological proposition.toc_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, I am sorry, but your response is knee jerk as far I am concerned. And just reinforces my assessment of the anti ID behavior found here and elsewhere. So I have to thank you for being such a good role model. The interesting thing is that I did nothing to contradict the anti ID diatribe, only point out that Sir Charles was beaten to the punch by someone who was not given credit. I find the reactions more interesting than the actual ideas by von Buch. By the way the quote came from an arch Darwinists who was just correcting the record and giving an hour lecture on speciation and natural selection and the effect of geographical isolation. That is why I love to see Darwinist on record because they are a great source for information on this debate. And why the anti ID people here are just "knee jerked" in comparison.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

"Theological then implies an existence of some kind of deity (God) - when people here say evolutionists are practicing theology, what exactly does that mean then?" A religion doesn't need a god. The oxford dictionary I'm sure has a definition which broadens religion more than that, and I'm sure there's one in there that could include atheism or naturalism. I could look if anyone wants but do I really need to? Maybe atheists would be more comfortable with calling themselves a "fold".lamarck_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

It's one thing to say that evolutionists use pre-conceived ideas, confirmation bias or presuppositions in their approach to the theory of evolution - but to use the words religious, theological, or theology is incorrect, inaccurate and actually an unnecessary distraction from the real discussion of whether or not there is evidence for evolution (or ID for that matter). It makes no sense. Here's a dictionary definition of theology: "The field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity." Theological then implies an existence of some kind of deity (God) - when people here say evolutionists are practicing theology, what exactly does that mean then?JTaylor_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, As Mr PaV has seen, allopatric speciation does not equal natural selection. In the kind of radiation into new niches and geographies considered by von Buch, the selection pressure is much lower than it would be in a stable environment. It still exists to some degree, but much lower. Of course it is possible to fill up the new niches very quickly and hit the competition for scarce resources quickly that Darwin felt drove natural selection, but in time there are two distinct periods and it seems that von Buch is only discussing one of them. I hope you can see that my comments are not knee jerk reactions to the materials and ideas that you bring to the table. I am not rejecting your quotes of von Buch, Huxley, et al., but I am considering them seriously, and comparing them to what is claimed for them. I expect no less from you.Nakashima_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

More to the point, evolutionists' false claim that their theory does not rest on religious assumptions is important for the following reason: because they are, in general, the ones most insistent that their theory should enjoy special authority and prestige, precisely because it rests on scientific evidence, in contrast to their opponents' theories which (they say) rest on religious assumptions. Given that the theory of evolution does in fact rely on religious assumptions for its key arguments, it is, by its proponents' own standards, ineligible for the position of authority and prestige it currently enjoys.lars_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

It seems that many people are missing Hunter's point: It's not just that evolutionists base some of their arguments on theological assumptions; it's that their main arguments rely on theological assumptions; and then they falsely claim they have overwhelming scientific (empirical) evidence for their theory. This is Hunter's theme. If evolutionists admitted that their main reasons for believing evolution to be true were based on theological assumptions, like Gould and the panda's thumb, Hunter's main point would be moot. But in reality they are staunch in claiming that their reasons are empirical, a claim that falls apart upon inspection, as shown in Hunter's examples.lars_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Hedge (#33) wrote: "...(re:) the similarities between marsupial vs. non-marsupial mammals...whether or not thylacines and wolves could really be considered examples of convergent evolution due to their extreme similarity, and when shown side-by-side pictures of the two animals, I for one could not distinguish between them! How about if you watched movies of these two very different species giving birth, with particular attention to relative birth size and activities of the two different species' newborns? Do you think you might notice any differences? Or have a detailed DNA/RNA analysis shown to you - do you think you might notice any differences? Or if you participated in a detailed dissection (with particular attention to the female reproductive organs), would you expect any differences? Do you think any of these differences would (or could) change your opinions about convergent evolution?PaulBurnett_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller:
I think you people are missing Hunter’s point. He’s criticising the way creationism is being cast in Coyne’s argument, namely, in a very extreme form, on the basis of which you can already tell that it is not very likely going to be true.
Actually, I think that when either evolutioists or creationists (or anyone else as well, I suppose)ascribe intent to "the creator", they are making a testable claim (and this is not, I think, because the claim is a priori unlikely). If there is no such intent declared, then there is really no way to test the likelihood (in a bayesian sense) of anything involving creators. For without such intent, the likelihood of anything is as likely as anything else. (This is basically where ID is, btw) Disclaimer: I'm not saying that this is a good way to make a testable claim.Hoki_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

I think Dr. Hunter may be on to something with regard to the similarities between marsupial vs. non-marsupial mammals that call into question their evolutionary origins. I once read an online debate about whether or not thylacines and wolves could really be considered examples of convergent evolution due to their extreme similarity, and when shown side-by-side pictures of the two animals, I for one could not distinguish between them!Hedge_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

jerry, if you don't understand something, why do you keep citing is as support for your arguments? COyne's words are mostly about the mechanism of PE. I was simply referring to the idea. when talking about someone's ideas, I prefer to use their actual words. you can find those here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2400177 quick answer: PE is about microevolution, not macroevolution (by your definitions).Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

jerry,
Yes I do. Do you? You confused Lamarck with natural selection and you are questioning what I know. Darwin endorsed Lamarck or have you forgot. Lamarck is about how genetic material is inherited. Natural selection is about which offspring survive. Different concepts.
this remark cements that you don't understand the significance of natural selection (or Lamarck) at all. Lamarck was fundamentally concerned with explaining adaptation. he thought that it occurred via use and disuse and inheritance of acquired characteristics. these latter are mechanisms of how adaptation occurs. Darwin replaced these mechanisms with another one: natural selection. yes, he still endorsed a modified version of Lamarck's idea of inheritance. but the fundamental mechanism of adaptation was radically changed, with no inner "need" driving the adaptation of organisms. this is why you were wrong about the quotation supporting natural selection. it supports adaptation, for sure, but not whether it occurs via either Lamarckian means or by natural selection (or by any other process). sometimes it's better to admit a mistake and move on.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

herb:
Anyway, recall what Berra said: God would not have done X. If that’s not a religious claim, I don’t know what is.
The quote actually reads :
“if special creation were really how things came to be, there would be no reason for species on volcanic islands to resemble the inhabitants of the nearest land mass.”
I read that to mean that the creator had no reason to do X rather than ~X. That is not a religious claim.Hoki_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Herb: "I’m not sure I understand your argument here. I agree that Berra’s statement is in response to a religious idea (at least a hypothetical one). Doesn’t that mean it’s automatically a religious statement?" Technically I suppose...in the same way I (as an unbeliever) might say "Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus" even though that is not a belief I personally ascribe to. I'm not making a faith claim, just an observation on what others believe, that's the difference and what I thik Berra is doing here. But my objection is that Dr. Hunter is claiming Coyne is making religous statements about evolution itself; I can conceded that Coyne may have some naturalistic presuppositions at work (we all have them after all), but these aren't necessarily "religious" in the normal usage of the word.JTaylor_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply