Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Larry Moran is a Desperate Man

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Larry Moran is desperate.  He said I do not understand Darwinism.  I called him out and challenged him to demonstrate his claim.  He has now put up two posts in response, and they both fail miserably.

In the first post he flails about over the term “Darwinism” and says I mistakenly equate that term with “Neo-Darwinism” and the “Modern Synthesis.”  As evidence of my confusion he points to the UD glossary.  But that very glossary entry states that on this site we use the term “Darwinism” as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis, and then goes on to define those terms.

Note that Larry does not say UD’s definition of Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis is wrong.*  He says that when I use the word “Darwinism” as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism, it proves I don’t understand the difference between those two terms.  Astoundingly, the very glossary entry he points to proves him wrong.

In the second post he jumps on his favorite hobby horse, junk DNA:

He [i.e., Arrington] said that “Darwinists” predicted junk DNA and he states clearly that junk DNA is supposed to be “practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis.”   But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists. 

(Emphasis added)

No Darwinist ever said the theory predicts junk DNA?  What about world famous Darwinist Francis Collins:

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.” That is exactly what is observed.

Francis Collins, The Language of God, 2006

How about world famous Darwinist Jerry A. Coyne:

Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it’s precisely what we expect from evolution. . . .when a trait is no longer used or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don’t instantly disappear from the genome: Evolution strops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes. . . . the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled – amply. Virtually ever species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that some of those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome, – and that of other species – are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes

Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009

Examples could be multiplied, but you get the picture.

How embarrassing that biologist Larry has to be schooled on this subject by a lawyer.  Ouch.  That’s gotta smart.

Finally, notice how Larry lies about what I said just a few short paragraphs after he quotes me.  First he quotes me:

For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.  Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

Yes, I did write that.

Now notice Larry’s distortion later in the post:

Barry Arrington says that Darwinism predicted junk DNA and that junk DNA is strong evidence of the Darwinian hypothesis

No, I did not say that Darwinism predicted junk DNA.  I said Darwinists said the theory predicted junk DNA, and as I demonstrated above, they did.  And no, I did not say that junk DNA is strong evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis.  Those same Darwinists made that claim.  I said exactly the opposite, i.e., that ID proponents disagreed.

Larry, I have a question for you.  Why do you think making obviously false statements helps your case?  I’m not one of your poor captive students whom you can bully and give failing marks if I don’t toe your line.  This is not your classroom.  You can’t just make up facts to suit you as you go.

Things are not looking good for you Larry.  Two blog posts in and you have yet to provide a smidgen of evidence for your claim.

 

_________________

*To be sure, as is his wont, he engages is some genetic fallacy smears, but he never says a single word of the UD definition is wrong.

Comments
nkendall: Your comment is general. Prestin is specific, not general. nkendall: How many clades are you talking about? How many sample species within each clade? How many genes within those clades? And how many amino acid differences within each “gene?” I guess I would have to see the data. See Li et al., The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales, Current Biology 2010. http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/611293/4889535/mmc1.pdf (Figure S1) nkendall: But my understanding is that there are stark differences between the phylogenies derived from morphology vs those derived from genetics, right? Overall morphology, as well as overall genetics, places bats and whales on distant branches of the mammalian tree, but prestin stands out against this pattern, with the bat and whale prestin proteins closely resembling one another. nkendall: In any case, the point you are making, if true, only applies to Intelligent Design adherents who deny common descent. Intelligent Design doesn't explain the pattern of synonymous substitutions, that is, unless Intelligent Design is empirically indistinguishable from old-fashioned evolution. nkendall: I think Gould might be a bit more circumspect about contingency were he alive today. Contingency is directly observed. See Blount et al., Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008. The scientific question concerns the relative importance of necessity and contingency in the history of evolution.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Zachriel at 87 Your comment is general. How many clades are you talking about? How many sample species within each clade? How many genes within those clades? And how many amino acid differences within each "gene?" I guess I would have to see the data. But my understanding is that there are stark differences between the phylogenies derived from morphology vs those derived from genetics, right? In any case, the point you are making, if true, only applies to Intelligent Design adherents who deny common descent. But Intelligent Design is agnostic, generally, on common descent, as am I. If you had asked by 5 years ago, I would have said common descent was a slam dunk. But now after the torrent of research coming out of ENCODE, I am not so sure and I am not even sure it matters...orphan genes, de novo genes, microRNAs, repeats all of which differ markedly between species (or families). I suspect that these things are more difficult to explain for evolutionists than your point about phylogeny matching between the genotype and the phenotype (in specific cases) is for those who don't accept common descent. Regarding your comment about Gould and convergent evolution...of course many more examples of convergence are known now than 15-20 years ago when the Gould-Morris debate over convergence was raging. I think Gould might be a bit more circumspect about contingency were he alive today. What do you think? Isn't it clear that many very complex things seem to occur over and over again...doesn't that strike you as the result of a plan with a goal?nkendall
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
nkendall: What is the independent evidence? While no single thread can be separated completely from the tapestry of evolutionary history, consider the case of the convergence of prestin, a mammalian motor-protein involved in high-frequency hearing. When we plot its phylogeny, the phylogeny seems to place bats and whales together, contrary to their overall morphological phylogeny; but when we plot the phylogeny of non-synonymous substitutions, the standard phylogeny is revealed. nkendall: Convergent and parallel evolution are evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design does not explain why the phylogeny of non-synonymous substitutions matches the morphological phylogeny, but it follows naturally from branching descent, and evolution by natural selection. nkendall: Convergent and parallel evolution are an embarrassment to neo-darwinism. That’s why Gould went to such trouble to deny it. Gould accepted convergence, but argued that convergence does not imply that evolution always follows predictable paths.Zachriel
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel at 84 "Biologists, from Darwin on, have considered it evidence of natural selection, and there is independent evidence to support the contention." What is the independent evidence? Convergent and parallel evolution are evidence for intelligent design. The same complex things happening over and over again is a pattern, a pattern of complexity. Recurring patterns of complexity sounds like the result of intelligent planning; it evokes foresight in my mind. Only through tortured logic could a neo-darwinist claim they are evidence of selection. Convergent and parallel evolution are an embarrassment to neo-darwinism. That's why Gould went to such trouble to deny it. And that's why darwinists seldom mention that the eye evolved so many times and why I had to dig so hard to find out that the reptile to mammal transition occurred multiple times. Convergent evolution is a label for their ignorance. But I do agree that of the two mechanisms offered by neo-darwinism--mutation and selection--selection has the best hope of explaining convergent evolution. But its a faint hope at that.nkendall
November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Zachriel @84, Why then did he not use the opportunity to type a couple of sentences explaining the gist of his argument? A true scientist, in my opinion, has a different attitude to educating the audience. If this is the passion of their life and profession, they should welcome every opportunity to promote knowledge. Credibility zero. In contrast, how many people just here at this blog patiently repeated themselves over and over again laying out their arguments!EugeneS
November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
EugeneS: Indeed, why in the world? He was asked a question loaded with a premise with which he disagreed. nkendall: Convergence for me is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for intelligent design especially when you hear of things like the eye of the octopus and the ocelloid of the warnowiids. Biologists, from Darwin on, have considered it evidence of natural selection, and there is independent evidence to support the contention.Zachriel
November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Larry Moran, "Why in the world would I do that?" Indeed, why in the world? That one was my personal marker, professor Moran, from which I decided I would make my opinion. Of course, it's not important to you, but just so you know your credibility has plummeted to zero.EugeneS
November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Moran:
bfast: (...) there remain only these two mechanisms [mutation and natural selection].
You’ve been reading my comments and blog posts for years and you still think that? No wonder I call some of you IDiots. You deserve it.
I'm an even worse IDiot. In my understanding of any Darwinian theory the one and only source for novelty is (happenstance) mutation. After effects like natural selection and drift are anti-creative; they remove information.Box
November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
Spit it out, Larry Moran, what other mechanism is there? (Please understand, of course, that when I refer to mutation, I don't simply mean "point mutation", I mean any change to DNA that was the result of happenstance.)bFast
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Larry, other than mutation-driven evolution, what is left? The right amount of mutations at just the right time?Mung
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
bFast says,
Your view differs from that of mainstream neo-Darwinism in that you place significantly more weight on random mutation, and significantly (even hugely) less weight on natural selection. However, from everything I have read from you, there remain only these two mechanisms.
You've been reading my comments and blog posts for years and you still think that? No wonder I call some of you IDiots. You deserve it.Larry Moran
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
bFast, Sorry for the delay I had a bit of trouble with the math problem Barry challenged me with in order to start typing here. Anyway... You may not find such a statement from Morris. This was something he shared with me in an email exchange shortly after I bought his book "Life's Solutions". I asked him about it because I read somewhere that this transition had occurred at least twice. I think it was a response to Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" which mentions that transition as a knock down proof of neo-darwinism. (I found it quite lacking...still a lot of gaps and lots of new features meaning new cell types and new proteins; a few sketches doesn't cut it for me.) Morris was very responsive and after thanking me for buying his book, offered his regrets for not including any discussion on this transition. He said he had to consult with a colleague to say for sure how many times the transition occurred. I could probably dig around and find the email but it would be a lot of effort. In conveying what he said above, I used the word "perhaps" I think Morris actually used the word "probably" [the transition occurred several times]. I was being cautious. In any case I don't know how you can square convergence with a neutral theory. Wouldn't it be the case that these mutations that some day will become a valuable part of a new complex feature would have to occur multiple times given that they would be more likely to be lost (more likely compared to mutation / selection)? Actually I don't know how you can square convergence with good old fashion mutation / selection but that is what Morris and others seem to be suggesting. Convergence for me is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for intelligent design especially when you hear of things like the eye of the octopus and the ocelloid of the warnowiids.nkendall
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
bfast:
Your view differs from that of mainstream neo-Darwinism in that you place significantly more weight on random mutation, and significantly (even hugely) less weight on natural selection.
I don't know if we can say that. Larry seems to be no great fan of Mutation-Driven Evolution. What else is there? Intelligent Design?Mung
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
nkendall, "the transition of the reptile to mammals which he [Simon Conway Morris] says occurred a few times and perhaps several times." What is your source on this. I couldn't find it by googling "morris reptile mammal". I'd like to see what he has to say exactly.bFast
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Fair enough Mr. Moran...It seems you have embraced the neutral theory and perhaps this "Constructive neutral theory of evolution" (CNE)? I have looked at that a bit. But even the neutral theory requires selection at some point, right? I don't think you could do a standing vertical jump up the steep side of Mr. Improbable. The proposal (it really isn't a theory) strikes me as something someone dreamed up during a DMT trip. I was not able to find any substance to it in my admittedly quick look. Do you have anything more specific to look at? Any evidence? It appears to be a collection of stories and a whole less plausible than the "just so" stories. I did see Michael Behe's critique of it. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2011/08/irremediable-complexity/. Have you commented on that? In addition to the problems he cites, it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely, given the ubiquity of convergent and parallel evolution, that you could have the same collection of innumerable series of serendipitous neutral changes occurring which just happen to be pulled together--somehow--into a very useful complex function and in fact along with several novel functions at the same time and do so over and over again. Simon Conway Morris seems to rely on the power of small changes and especially natural selection to explain how the same sets of complex features could evolve time and time again. For example the transition of the reptile to mammals which he says occurred a few times and perhaps several times. Larry, I am afraid that by embracing this neutral drift theory, you have cast aside your good sense and that you, yourself will be adrift in the marketplace of ideas, isolated on an island of thought, just like one of your a nascent genes...forlorned on a small island in the vast fitness landscape.nkendall
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Larry Moran, "I don’t believe that “evolution occurs strictly through random mutation and natural selection.”" Of course you do. You believe that natural selection plays no role in most random mutations, so you believe approximately, "most evolution occurs strictly through random mutation." Isn't that your theory? Your view differs from that of mainstream neo-Darwinism in that you place significantly more weight on random mutation, and significantly (even hugely) less weight on natural selection. However, from everything I have read from you, there remain only these two mechanisms.bFast
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
nkendall asks,
If you could. Please offer the 3 best pieces of evidence that you feel demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that evolution occurs strictly through random mutation and natural selection.
Why in the world would I do that? I don't believe that "evolution occurs strictly through random mutation and natural selection." Do you not understand anything I've been saying?Larry Moran
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Andre: And allot of others he did not cite…. Did you want to be specific?Zachriel
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Zachriel And allot of others he did not cite....Andre
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
MN #61, I don't think you are right in saying that code is reducible to mere ordering or sorting. Code (=rules, function) is inherently richer than the law-like necessity producing ordering/sorting. The laws of nature can produce only redundant regularity, randomness and transitions between the two. Functional sequences are always an artifact. See "Relationship between Random Sequence Complexity, Ordered Sequence Complexity and Functional Sequence Complexity", chapter in "The First Gene", D. Abel et. al. 2011.EugeneS
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Andre: And that is why the charge that he plagiarised others still haunts his legacy. The work of other scientists are regularly cited in his published papers.Zachriel
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel And that is why the charge that he plagiarised others still haunts his legacy.Andre
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Andre: It is well known that Darwin borrowed that from Lamarck. It is well known that Darwin marshaled evidence from many different scientists in many different fields of study.Zachriel
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Goodusername It is well known that Darwin borrowed that from Lamarck.Andre
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Dr. Moran, If you could. Please offer the 3 best pieces of evidence that you feel demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that evolution occurs strictly through random mutation and natural selection. Simply list the reason and briefly describe why you feel it supports neo-darwinism. Please provide brief discussion points here rather than referring to some other forum. If you need to reference some recent research paper, that's fine. But explain why it supports your point. Thanks, regards.nkendall
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Darwin refutes Zachriel:
Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions.- On the Origins of Species sixth edition chapter 4, end of paragraph 1
Virgil Cain
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Funny, a person on the street has no problem whatsoever knowing what someone means when they say Darwinian evolution. Namely, that all life arose via undirected material processes via common descent. But ironically highly educated Darwinists find it necessary to separate Darwinian evolution into different camps so as to protect it from falsification by junk DNA. Interestingly, the squabble now degenerates into how much junk DNA and natural selection makes you a true Darwinist and how much does not. I'm sure hard numbers for distinguishing true Darwinists from untrue Darwinists will be forthcoming in another 100 years or so. :)bornagain
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
bFast: I don’t include Moran in the camp of “we”. Moran’s position is infantile. Moran's position is conventional. In biology, darwinian evolution generally refers to evolution by natural selection. bFast: Bornagain uses it to refer to “reductive materialism” How does “reductive materialism” differ from my definition? Because reductive materialism is a philosophical position, that everything can be reduced to material mechanisms, while your definition only refers to life. So someone might believe the Big Bang is beyond natural explanation, but "propose that non-foresighted variation + natural selection, along with its products, can explain all of life." When talking about evolutionary theory, while implicitly using a definition of darwinism that means {to you} "reductive materialism", is just asking for confusion. bFast: “Coyne argues it should refer to modern evolutionary theory.” And how does that differ to my definition with the exception of scope? The exception of scope IS a difference in definition. Per your definition, this paper is incoherent; King & Jukes, Non-Darwinian Evolution, Science 1969: "Most evolutionary change in proteins may be due to neutral mutations and genetic drift. Darwinism is so well established that it is difficult to think of evolution except in terms of selection ..."Zachriel
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
@bornagain wrote: "It is physically impossible to evolve a code from the bottom up." Coding is simply a form of mathematics, and mathematics is ordered by the zero. Fundamentally mathematics is universal, and code is also universal. In mathematical theory the 1 is derived by rewriting the 0. So then you have 2 different symbols, which have the same information content, which means they have a boolean relationship. Then you can do the binary 0101010111110 computercode. Variations in codes, it doesn't apply to the basic structure of the code. In every code 5-2=3 So to say the structure of the code follows from the ordering by 0, which is a law of the universe. The basic structure is neither evolved, nor chosen top down. One cannot intelligently decide the rules in 5-2 = 3 nor evolve the rules in 5-2=3 by selection.mohammadnursyamsu
November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Andre, Well, that answer makes your comment #56 even more puzzling. Darwin wrote quite a bit defending the inheritance of acquired characteristics and "use and disuse inheritance". And he even developed the pangenesis hypothesis as a mechanism for how such inheritance could work. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any reference to drift in Origin, but there is a statement in Descent that I believe could be interpreted as backing the idea of drift, although I think most see the idea of drift as originating in the 1930s. But somehow drift is Darwinian and Lamarckism isn’t? Darwin believed that he came up with a mechanism for evolution (selection), but also believed there were many other mechanisms, including inheritance of acquired characteristics, and possibly drift, but didn’t see the former as part of his mechanism, and almost certainly wouldn’t see the latter as part of his mechanism (after all, it’s the opposite of selection!)goodusername
November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply