Pharyngula

PZ Myers. 2005 Sep 18. Dawkins explains evolution. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dawkins_explains_evolution/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Sunday, September 18, 2005

Dawkins explains evolution

Richard Dawkins has an excellent summary of the idea of evolution in this week's New Scientist, in an article titled "The world's ten biggest ideas". Here it is—it's a very clear, short, six paragraph explanation of a big idea, fewer than 600 words. Now if only everyone could just understand this:

The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and airliners) and things that don't (rocks and mountains). Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed (submarines and tin openers) and those that aren't (sharks and hedgehogs). The diagnostic of things that look (or are) designed is that their parts are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. They do something well: for instance, fly.

Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.

Every living creature has ancestors, but only a fraction have descendants. All inherit the genes of an unbroken sequence of successful ancestors, none of whom died young and none of whom failed to reproduce. Genes that program embryos to develop into adults who can successfully reproduce automatically survive in the gene pool, at the expense of genes that fail. This is natural selection at the gene level, and we notice its consequences at the organism level. There has to be an ultimate source of new genetic variation, and it is mutation. Copies of newly mutated genes are reshuffled through the gene pool by sexual reproduction, and selection removes them from the pool in a way that is non-random.

What makes for success in the business of life varies from species to species. Some swim, some walk, some fly, some climb, some root themselves into the soil and tilt green solar panels toward the sun. All this diversity stems from successive branchings, starting from a single bacterium-like ancestor, which lived between 3 and 4 billion years ago. Each branching event is called a speciation: a breeding population splits into two, and they go their separately evolving ways. Among sexually reproducing species, speciation is said to have occurred when the two gene pools have separated so far that they can no longer interbreed. Speciation begins by accident. When separation has reached the stage where there is no interbreeding even without a geographical barrier, we have the origin of a new species.

Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.

The ten big ideas, if you're curious, are:

The big bang
Evolution
Quantum mechanics
The theory of everything
Risk
Chaos
Relativity
Climate change
Tectonics
Science

Posted by PZ Myers on 09/18 at 09:00 AM
Science • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink

Dawkins' final paragraph seems slightly tendentious, though. Who says it *is* random?
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 10:23 AM
Who says it *is* random?

Intelligent Design Creationists always says that the theory of evolution says that evolution through natural selection is a random process. I would think that this is what Dembski is addressing,
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 10:25 AM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

<<Snip 600 words of total horsepookey.>>

Richard Dawkins is either a liar or he's brain dead.

He's far worse than any creationist.

Living organisms are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction.

Birds can fly as well as airplanes, if that is his criteria for identifying design.

He has not one shred of credible evidence that random mutations, filtered by natural selection can generate new structures, processes or adaptations that are anything more than trivial. He has no empirical evidence of any kind that a nexus exists between darwinian mechanisms and highly organized processes and structures. In short, like most darwinists, it's nothing more than a story he made up that sounds good.

Dawkins is correct about one thing: Chance cannot explain life. Unfortunately, neither can neo-darwinism.

I wrote about natural selection being non-random:

"Natural selection is not random in the sense that all offspring have an equal chance of living or dying. Those that are more fit will have a better chance than those that are less fit.
However, natural selection can only act on what is already present. It has no power to create or assemble structures, processes, adaptations or systems that are not already in existence. Thus the power to create the variation that natural selection acts upon lies solely with the random processes of mutation, duplication and drift.
Use your experience as an analogy. There are dozens of makes and models of cars. Buyers select those that best fit their needs and the more popular and well made models will survive better than those that are poorly built. Think about the Yugo. But no on would ever claim that cars emerge due to random, accidental processes or that intelligent input was not an absolute requirement.
#: Posted by charlie wagner on 09/18 at 11:10 AM
The entirety of Dembski's math is founded on random genetic mutation.

Nowhere in is "model" does he address common decent or selection.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 11:16 AM
I wrote about natural selection being non-random

Charlie, what makes you think that we care about anything you have written on a subject? It might be correct, but given your lack of understanding of the basic scientific premisses, it's not something any of us are likely to take for given. Instead, we're better of reading something written by someone who actually understand the subject being debated.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 11:26 AM
Living organisms are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction.

I don't understand what this means. I don't know what statistical measures you used to determine the probability of a "functional direction".

One of course would assume that selection would statistically TEND towards functionality. (why would selection filter out what works? ... or worse, provide no filter at all? - then it ain't selection)

also... I think you missed Dawkin's point. (More like you made what he said, fit what you are thinking). He is NOT equating design with "ability". I believe he is stating that just because planes fly, and planes are designed, that not everything that flies is designed. (the whole cow with four legs thing... remeber that one?)
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 11:30 AM
My only problem with this otherwise excellent summary by Dawkins is in the first paragraph - the concession to the 'common sense' notion that biological entities "look designed". It's a very common way of describing the situation, and a tempting habit, but I think it's misleadingly wrong. I'll try to explain why via an analogy.

We explain the old geocentric model of the universe by saying that "it looks as if the Sun goes around the Earth". But as soon as you ask the relevant contrast question this supposed 'explanation by appearances' collapses: What would it look like if the Sun didn't go around the Earth? A fixed planet and orbitting star gives the Earth-Sun system just the same appearance as a heliocentric model. The geocentric illusion therefore can't be explained by mere appearances.

The analogous question in biology, then, when someone says "We imagined there was a designer because animals look designed" is: What would it have looked like if the animals weren't designed? This supposed 'appearance of design' has no more power to explain our naive error, it seems to me, than the supposed 'appearance of geocentrism' does.
#: Posted by logopetria on 09/18 at 11:38 AM
MpM

I'm also concerned with this 'functional direction' business (which ties in with my previous comment, in a roundabout way). How exactly do we define the function(s) performed by an organism (or parts thereof)? How is the performance of functions distinguished from mere actions? If a bird's function is defined as just whatever the bird does, it seems like a redundant notion. But I've never seen an adequate criterion to separate which actions (or potential actions) make up a function, and which don't.
#: Posted by logopetria on 09/18 at 11:53 AM
CW: Use your experience as an analogy.

NO! You simply cannot do this, and claim your insight as science. In doing so, you restrict yourself to a set of assumptions you can no longer test. You have eliminated science from your thought process, and restricted yourself to inductinve reasoning a la Aristotle. As we all know, that leads to a mishmash of correct observation and total B.S.

Here's a test: A beam of particles is sent towards two slits, and produces and interference pattern. Foolish scientists claim that particles "act like waves". Use your experience, Chuck, particles can't act like waves! Stupid physicists. Quantum mechanics must be wrong, even though all physicists agree on it.

How about this. Try determining simultaneity between two events using a stationary observer and one moving very quickly. They seem to report different conclusions. Silly experimentalists, use your experience! Time is a one-way process, so your measuring instruments must be misleading you! Relativity must be incorrect. Experience proves it.

</sarcasm>

This kind of appeal is generally correct, except when it isn't, and allows no way to determine between those cases. Thus, it will never be an acceptable way to practice science.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 12:14 PM
the last paragraph is missing:

Occasionally things are "designed" but: function only at things for which they were not intended (the Patriot Act), do not function at all (Edsel), complicate the elegant undesign of non-designed things (silicone implants), or do not appear to have been designed at all (art, especially that sculpture by the library; fake halloween dog poo).
#: Posted by tony g on 09/18 at 12:54 PM
Agree with logopetria - I wish he hadn't run off after the red herring that life "looks designed". It has never occurred to me, when looking at a bird or an elephant or an amoeba, to think "hey, that looks 'designed'". "Looks designed" is a reaction I've only started to encounter recently, in the writings of ID-ites.

That apart, a great simple precis, and a fine counter to the Birdnow Defense of "Don't blame me for getting it wrong, I'm just a layman, and laymen can't be expected to understand tricksy science stuff."
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 01:06 PM
He has not one shred of credible evidence that random mutations, filtered by natural selection can generate new structures, processes or adaptations that are anything more than trivial... natural selection can only act on what is already present.

Have you ever read anything about genetic algorithms? Apparently not. Here's one example of many:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14394
It's all done using the amazing power of random mutation and selection. If we were to take your argument seriously, we would conclude that genetic algorithms can's work because they "only act on what is already present".

The analogous question in biology, then, when someone says "We imagined there was a designer because animals look designed" is: What would it have looked like if the animals weren't designed?

You have to look at the deeper details of biology to see that animals are a product of "blind" evolution rather than a designer.

A couple of examples:

Jury-rigged design
Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

Sub-optimal structures (like the mammalian eye being less-well "designed" than the octopus eye).
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 01:40 PM
Charlie Wagner, I made the effort and read your site and the various materials there. My conclusion: sorry but you're a crackpot. I know that my saying this won't make you re-examine what you think but unless your stuff is satire - and it would be quite good as satire - then you don't understand what science is let alone what evolution is.

Your family looks very nice. Maybe you will some day accept that you, like many people (including me) can have irrational blind spots. Maybe it's a woman or a place or an idea. Frankly, one test of whether you're completely out of the zone is when you start calling major scientists names and quoting your own words which have not been published in any scientific journal. That's a sign your egoistic belief system has overruled your sense.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 02:17 PM
Of "the 10 big ideas", shouldn't #10-science be #1? It established the other 9.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 03:18 PM
"Random" can mean many things. Mutation, like radioactive decay follows "probabilistic rules". Antibody generation is a simple example of mutation creating something useful. It's important to note the involvement of directed hypermutation (i.e. certain regions of the gene follow different "probabilistic rules".)
#: Posted by Les Lane on 09/18 at 03:37 PM
Fed Up--
especially if you imagine Thomas Dolby saying it.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 04:34 PM
This is the second time i've seen Charlie Wagner show up in a thread to make a bunch of claims that he provides no evidence for. I wasted a few posts trying to point out some counter examples, but he lost interest and stopped responding. Apparently, whatever i said didn't register, since he's reappeared to post almost exactly the same thing as last time. Word of advice to others here: save your typing for something more useful than responding to him.
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/18 at 05:33 PM
See, this is why I really like Dawkins. There's quite a lot one might very justifiably hit him over the had for. Yet he can distil something enormously important and enormously beautiful and enormously complex into a minute and a half of plain English.

He and I disagree on whether there is a God. I hope that Dawkins would at least appreciate the irony that, if there is a God, few so effectively glorify Him as Dawkins does.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 09/18 at 06:04 PM
Oh jayzis, feck, not paying attention there at all, I'm afraid...

a loud ARRRRR is to be understood at the start of my comment above; and you should read it as ending with a hearty 'avast ye!'

Thank you.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 09/18 at 06:08 PM
It be Septemb'rrrr 19th 'ere.

In each thread, Charlie argues a little until his lack o' evidence has left that scurvey dog flounderin'. I doubt he e'er visits any o' th' linked sites that provide easy, evidence-based refutations o' his ideas. And swab the deck! The ornery cuss just keeps comin' back, and each time he appears t' have forgotten past arguments.

Is he:
- Playin' devil's advocate fer th' sake o' an argument?
- Lackin' short term memory?
- Sufferin' a specific mental block or area o' blindness?
- Postin' here fer google-juice fer his site?
- Seekin' attention o' any kind, even negative?
- Tryin' t' impress an anti-evolutionist lass with his heroic struggle against th' forces o' evil science?
- Really a sophisticated chat-bot?
- Correct, but findin' reality still too stubborn t' submit itself t' his authority?

Curious pirates wanna know.
#: Posted by Virge on 09/18 at 06:26 PM
Virge wrote:

"Curious pirates wanna know."

Well, it's only 4:00 O'clock in the afternoon here, so I guess I can forgo "pirate mode" until tomorrow.

I'm here for 2 reasons:

1. My own amusement and to entertain you'all.
2. More than 5000 people a day read this blog. What better way to get my views exposed to the masses? Someone out there might take note and pay attention. I may not be able to convince most of you but somewhere out there there might be one person thinking and wondering. I'm a farmer. I'm planting seeds.
I took the same attitude when I was teaching. You never reach everyone and the great majority of students either don't haer you, don't care or immediately forget what you say. But there's always that one.
#: Posted by charlie wagner on 09/18 at 07:07 PM
So, Charlie's whorin' ignorance and his special inability t' learn from reasoned discussion.

Perhaps we should describe that scurvey dog as th' "salt o' th' earth"--based on what he be sowin'.
#: Posted by Virge on 09/18 at 07:25 PM
Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random.

Yet his mind is shifting between random and non-random as an answer. "Random" can be an appeal to ignorance about cause and effect, which tends to be less and less scientific.

Yet that is what he shifts back to:

Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop.

...cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.

Living complexity cannot come about by chance...but it did in little steps? He seems to want "chance" to be the answer, even as he knows it cannot be. So he begins again into another iteration of not by chance....but by chance.

Perhaps his mind is working as a parasite off of Life as the fundamental or vital/selecting force. He seems to be using such a notion in the background, a principle that Life will select to survive and beget Life. He's just shifting between Life (Which selects for more of itself in the struggle for survival, a natural enough selection.) and Chance as answers, mixed in with some handwaving about how making "chance steps" (Cause and effect which apparently trace to poof there it is by "chance"?) smaller can increase the number of chances for some sort of Ultimate Chance.

If the Watchmaker is blind then the systems it processes cannot be "guided" or "selected" by it. If some selective principle is guiding a process mixed in with chance then that principle is not therefore broken down to being "random" as well. (His not by chance...but yes, by little chances argument.) A guided process that is broken down into small steps that make use of chance (or trial and error) for learning is still a guided process accumulating knowledge, ultimately guided by whatever first principles are being processed through the system, perhaps a system that is making use of "chance" to learn.

The use of the word "chance" seems to be a weasel word to avoid dealing with cause and effect scientifically. The "random" mutation supposedly being selected by Nature but more likely being selected by Life in its struggles was caused by something, which was caused by something else, and so on.
#: Posted by mynym on 09/18 at 07:43 PM
Mrs. Tilton, would you be so kind as to explain:

I hope that Dawkins would at least appreciate the irony that, if there is a God, few so effectively glorify Him as Dawkins does.

(Oh, and your post about spiders Dr. Myers linked to recently was just lovely - I've been feeding the Argiope aurantia living across my kitchen window beaucoup insects, and damn she's gettin' fat and happy and beautiful).
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 07:49 PM
Mynym, we are not interested in your unintelligible word salad. You've likened biologists, including the owner of this site by name, to Nazis. Go away, child.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 07:52 PM
Were you a farmer, Charlie, you couldn't afford to be so ignorant of Darwin's findings. Even those farmers who claim to be creationist know about how animal husbandry and horticultural breeding work, and why.

That's why Darwin's book was such a hit. He spoke farmer language. They understood. Darwin described what they lived with every day, and they saw the light, too.

Too bad you're not a farmer, Charlie.
#: Posted by on 09/18 at 08:05 PM
Arrrr! Charlie 'n mynym! Lost at sea. One claimin' a pre-fitted (but invisible) compass in ev'ry bit o' plankton, and one claimin' there's a land-lubber's road map t' his random spot in th' ocean.

(Did some daft bugger shoot an albatross? All we need now is Heddle 'n' Susan.)
#: Posted by Virge on 09/18 at 08:25 PM
Virge, if they show up now on accoun' o' ye summoned them, I`ll keel haul th' plank wit' ye! Arrr!
#: Posted by Raven on 09/18 at 08:39 PM
Ay, lass. Mebbee I tempted fate wi' me loose lips. (Still, an offer t' ha' me plank hauled canna' be all bad.)

Whate'er! Th' devil take th' lot o' 'em. We'll fill the sea with ghosts!
#: Posted by Virge on 09/18 at 09:03 PM
Here I thought I had too much beer, but it be talk like a pirate day, apparently. That explains a lot. Too bad my parrot is long since put to bed. But I'm a third of the way into Zimmer's "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea" and anybuddy who hasn't read that book, go read it! Arrrrrr!
#: Posted by Jamie on 09/18 at 09:26 PM
I love Richard Dawkins. I want to have his baby.
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 12:09 AM
The fact that this piece made for more than usually easily understandable reading in pirate mode makes me wonder if all those drugs I took in the sixties did actually cause me some harm.
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 12:41 AM
Well, it does sound better in pirate mode... but then again, most things do. Pass the grog!
#: Posted by Alon Levy on 09/19 at 12:43 AM
I would argue that evolution is a random process. Mutations happen in a random way and there is a lot of chance involved in which individuals who get to reproduce.
The problem is that a lot of people confuse "this is an random process" with "everything is equally likely to happen". That something is random does not mean that certain outcomes can not be vastly more likely than others.
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 08:33 AM
"10 biggest ideas" my parrot's bottom! Whar be "fire", "germ theory of disease", "money", and of course "sex"! Now there be a great big idea, or my name i'nt Darby M'Graw!
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 10:43 AM
'pirate mode' be a treasure chest of goodness for Dawkins' writing. He should do it regular-like.
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 12:50 PM
I don't understand the few complaints about Dawkins' language when describing evolution through natural selection. As he has said before, "...words are our servants, not our masters." He's trying to give lay people an intuitive feel for the idea of evolution through natural selection. The idea comes through quite clear in most of Dawkins' writings, including this one, and I find it hard to believe that some people are really as confused as they claim to be.

Arrrr!
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 02:25 PM
I'm actually disappointed by this summary of evolution, because it contradicts itself in the midst of its explanation. (Another commenter made a similar point above.)

First, Dawkins says Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. But he follows up with the (to my mind) superior explanation: Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. ... Chance cannot explain life.

So which it Richard, lots of luck in little pieces, or no luck at all?

I prefer to think of evolution as analogous to statistical mechanics. The states of individual atoms are, or can be treated as, random, but the statistical aggregate of large ensembles of atoms averages out almost all of the randomness: what is left is entirely predictable. "Random" motions on the small scale lead to non-random fluid flow on the large scale. (Brownian motion, of course, is the residual randomness that confirms the overall statistical picture.)

Now it is probably the case that evolution has more residual randomness than a few liters of an ideal gas -- indeed, one of the things that evolutionary biologists argue over is just how random evolution is on the large scale.

But a little understanding of how macroscopic predictability can arise from microscopic randomness goes a long way to understanding what evolution can do.

Aside: I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't know how the field has evolved since Gould wrote his brief for "randomness" in Wonderful Life. I tend to suspect that the "gradualist", non-random picture is more accurate. But I do think it's important to make it clear how randomness does -- and does not -- enter in to evolutionary theory, and I think that the microscopic/macroscopic distinction is helpful here.
#: Posted by on 09/19 at 02:34 PM
The problem with relating randomness and evolution is that there are random and non-random aspects of all the steps in evolution through natural selection. The raw material for evolution is provided by genomic changes, but some of these changes (ie - translocations) just can't be inherited properly, and some are more probable than others (ie - expansion of a dinucleotide repeat vs. a large duplication). This goes right on up through genome-wide issues to the ultimate test, reproduction: which individuals survive to reproduce has a lot of randomness (a potentially fit animal may be eaten as a pup), but the probability of a fit animal reproducing is certainly not random. So yes, things are random, but no, they're not completely random....
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/19 at 04:09 PM
John Timmer wrote:

"So yes, things are random, but no, they're not completely random...."

But those non-random components have nothing whatsoever to do with the generation of new processes, structures or adaptations. Those are within the province of random processes such as mutation, duplication and drift. So the fact that there is a non-random component to selection is irrelevant, since selection acts only on what is already present.
#: Posted by charlie wagner on 09/19 at 05:55 PM
But those non-random components have nothing whatsoever to do with the generation of new processes, structures or adaptations.

Well, that's not entirely correct, since those three things are very different. A new "adaptation" could just be a single point mutation that results in something slightly advantageous, so yes, that's probably random. I'm not sure what a new "structure" is in this context, but if you're talking about something like the wing on a bat, i'd imagine it's required a series of changes with selection for intermediate forms. That means later changes are predicated on the earlier ones, so it's not just a true collection of random changes. "Process" isn't entirely clear, either, but i'd guess you're talking a biochemical pathway. That'd typically require duplication (to keep the original component(s) intact) followed by re-specialization through point mutations - duplications are less probable than some other genomic changes, so that should affect the overall probability.
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/19 at 06:53 PM
Jamie,

what I mean is that the creationists worship a very unimpressive god. Nature is vastly more complex and interesting than their explanation paints it. Dawkins doesn't believe in any god, of course. But he does a great job of conveying the grandeur of nature. The irony is that, if Dawkins is wrong and there is a divine cause of nature, Dawkins the militant atheist has nonetheless faithfully represented what that divine cause has wrought; the militantly theist creationists, by contrast, have presented only a shoddily-carved idol.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 09/20 at 07:50 AM
“Chance cannot explain life.” But neither can evolution. From whence came the possibility?

Am I to understand that rocks and atoms have no design? That only living organisms have design? Has the universe no design? From whence came the universe?

What, exactly, are the ideas expressed by Mr. Dawkins? From whence came they? May they be proven true (do they really exist?), or are they merely a statement of his faith?

RLJ
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 08:43 AM
OK!
Can somebody explain to me what was a chance what create a platipus?
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 02:37 PM
He forgets the most fundamental of design parameters: metaphysical design integrity. Design integrity MUST exist before anything can happen: If A wants to mix with B then the fact that A CAN mix with B must exist as a metaphysical design integrity prior to it becoming a physical manifestation. Everything that occurs is NATURAL, and Naturally designed; the UNNATURAL never occurs -- it can't! (And not occuring is just as much a "design" factor as occuring!
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 06:05 PM
Intelligent Design...

Hmmmm..

We then are either designed to grow a tail, or to loose one we had...
But we were allready created according to some in the image of perfection.

One just can't have it both ways.

--
TranceAm

If you have to believe in fantasies, one might as well preferr your own over someone elses.
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 07:21 PM
"Speciation begins by accident."

and...

"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random."

That is a contradiction in logic. Is an accident non-random?

"Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers."

This is a non-argument. Simply because something appears complicated does not dictate that reductionism is the correct solution.

"Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly."

Not so brilliant if in this 'short 6 paragraph text', a major contradiction is found at the core of the explanation.

The fact is, although evolution is a facet of the nature of the transformative diversifying processes of life, it still does not explain where quarks which form atoms which form elements which form amino acids come from.

Whether you believe in 'creationism' or not, it can only be argued that evolution is an observation of the impact of time processes on the development of life, not an explanation of the source of creation.

Creationism does not explain evolution, granted; nor does evolution explain creation. If you are of a logical and truth seeking open mind, you must separate one concept from the other.

If the answer is not satisfactory, do not simply lie back and accept an incomplete argument to answer the question for you. Keep looking.
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 08:03 PM
Tsk, tsk. These aren't contradictions at all. What you're showing is that you don't understand the basic concepts.

Speciation ≠ Natural selection. Selection is not random, period. Speciation begins with a chance event. This is not a contradiction.

We are forced to conclude that your complaint is not so brilliant if a major misconception is found at the core of it.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 09/22 at 08:16 PM
"From whence came the universe?"

That involves a complicated answer that does NOT involve religion. Try reading:

How to Build a Habitable Planet (Hardcover)
by Wallace S. Broecker

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0961751118/qid=1127442625/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8591674-4083934?v=glance&s=books
#: Posted by Paleobiologist on 09/22 at 08:32 PM
"We are forced to conclude that your complaint is not so brilliant if a major misconception is found at the core of it."

Do tell. Address the rest of the post.
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 09:20 PM
There is nothing to address. When you start by flashing your ignorance at us, I can't say that I feel much incentive to address the noise.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 09/22 at 09:26 PM
A nice opinion piece . . .

Proving nothing
#: Posted by on 09/23 at 12:32 AM
"Selection is not random, period."

Natural selection is all about chance. It is about creating random variations through generations, the detrimental ones discarded, the useful ones retained.

"...natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."
Source : The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

"Speciation begins with a chance event."

As I stated in my first post, contradictory.

"There is nothing to address. When you start by flashing your ignorance at us, I can't say that I feel much incentive to address the noise."

If you plan to be confrontational and close minded, then maybe you should study what Darwin actually wrote.

Dogma is not about a subject, dogma is about people unwilling to think and expansively reform their perceptions of held beliefs based on new ideas/information, e.g. grow.

Read this, learn something new today:

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/sheldrake.html
#: Posted by on 09/23 at 04:55 AM
fufu:

It's all very simple: you're conflating two things that are separate. Selection is non-random. The material that's being selected, genetic variation, is (though, as i discussed above, some variations are more probable than others). Speciation may start with a genetic variation (which is random), geographic isolation (which is random) or other random event, but the selection that acts on the result is non-random.

It's not PZ's job to correct everyone that shows up here with a misconception they think the whole scientific community has somehow missed...
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/23 at 06:26 AM
fufu,
What? Read Sheldrake and learn something? About science?
Haven't we seen enough mystic teleological fantasies?

Morphic Resonance
#: Posted by Virge on 09/23 at 07:20 AM
Incidentally, i read the link. I learned nothing new - i was already aware that there were a large number of pseudo-scientific crackpots out there. In the last 15 years, many of the genes and proteins responsible for creating embryonic morphogenetic fields have been identified (i work on some of them) - not surprisingly, their function is evolutionarily conserved. No pseudoscience necessary.

I am mildly curious about the rat learning experiments described, but don't have any background in behavioral biology, so i would need someone versed in the field to help me find and analyze them. My guess is that there's a misinterpretation of the data as generally happens with crackpots, but i can't tell for sure.
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/23 at 07:39 AM
Natural selection is random according to Darwin.

Negative characteristics are discarded, since benign ones which do not produce a better creature remain - then it is random, not design or choice but a mindless thoughtless bumbling construction.

"the selection that acts on the result is non-random."

If it paired away benign useless parts it could then be considered non-random. What you mean is the system is non-self-desturctive.

PZ claims that Natural Selection is 'quintessentially non-random'.

That is false, since Darwin coined the term, then Darwin's writings are the authority, not PZ. Natural Selection is quintessentially random.

"It's not PZ's job to correct everyone that shows up here with a misconception they think the whole scientific community has somehow missed..."

Nor is it mine to correct every article based on the telephone game, if he is going to write about Darwin, then PZ needs to study Darwin.

There are many examples of how dogmas have engulfed the 'scientific community'.

Most science in the US today is performed in either Universities or corporations. Universities have budgets which are paid and effectively controlled by the DoD/Pentagon and therefore Universities will not pursue knowledge which the Pentagon deems inadequate, ask around; corporations will maintain secrecy on knowledge which may tend to adversely effect their bottom line, more specifically their strategic market dominance and bottom line of the owners.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/1996/b061196_bt348-96.html

What is better, a $5 one time pill to cure cancer, or 20 years of recurring treatments costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. For honest people, the quick cure. For corporate America, the bottom line is money. Extrapolate this simple concept to all things corporate and Government.

"pseudo-scientific crackpots"

It is up to you to do your homework. It is in the best interests of some powerful people to keep the masses bumbling in the dark. It is naive to think otherwise.

Learning is a group effort, not a negative divisive competition. That spirit of negativity is what has been the most powerful suppressing device for the free flow of knowledge. Everybody is a know it all, until the theory du jour is replaced by a new one, then most refuse to accept it or scramble for cover - this is a historical fact.

"I am mildly curious about the rat learning experiments described, but don't have any background in behavioral biology, so i would need someone versed in the field to help me find and analyze them. My guess is that there's a misinterpretation of the data as generally happens with crackpots, but i can't tell for sure."

I am glad to see interest. Learning is a good thing.

It would behoove you to spend some time studying the nature of 'disinformation'.

You might want to look in to SRI's relationship to special projects over the years, it is quite revealing.

Here is another useful resource to give due diligence. Investigate it, you will find it valid:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/
#: Posted by on 09/23 at 02:39 PM
Natural selection is random according to Darwin.

Bullshit. Show me a quote where he claims such a thing.

First of all, Darwin is not the final word in evolutionary biology. You could find a quote from Darwin in which he asserts that the moon is made of cheese, and it simply wouldn't make any difference to modern biology.

Secondly, your assertion is utter nonsense. Selection is a non-random process. Darwin did not consider the action of selection to be a chance element...for example,
In some cases it can be shown
that widely-different checks act on the same species in different
districts. When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled
bank, we are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds
to what we call chance. But how false a view is this!
You're getting worse when your claims are lies from the very first sentence; it's also ironic that you tell me that I need to study Darwin when you are making up garbage about him like that.

Go away. I have little tolerance for dishonest morons.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 09/23 at 03:24 PM
I see from most of your post that you are also a pseudo-scientific crackpot. Lovely. Incidentally, Darwin didn't even know about mendelian genetics, so to suggest that we should limit our current understanding of evolution to what he wrote is absurd.
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/23 at 04:38 PM
Bullshit. Show me a quote where he claims such a thing.

Asked and answered, in my third post (post #53).

First of all, Darwin is not the final word in evolutionary biology. You could find a quote from Darwin in which he asserts that the moon is made of cheese, and it simply wouldn't make any difference to modern biology.

You are making unqualified statements and labeling them as (and I quote from your article) "Darwinian natural selection".

Now you are demonstrating you don't respect Darwin, that what he said is irrelevant.

Make up your mind.

Go away. I have little tolerance for dishonest morons.

Very scientific remark. Do you always defend theories with such emotional zeal?

Darwin didn't even know about mendelian genetics, so to suggest that we should limit our current understanding of evolution to what he wrote is absurd.

I agree that ideas should not be limited. I agree that additional concepts and elaboration have developed over time.

My posts addressed the article on this page, the article on this page qualifies itself as Darwinian evolution. That is not accurate regardless of how angry you guys become.

If it is your assertion that the concepts in the article are not consistent with Darwinian evolution because what you are discussing goes beyond Darwin, then state it in properly qualified terms and context - otherwise it is wrong.

I see from most of your post that you are also a pseudo-scientific crackpot.

I have seen similar responses during discussions with religious types.

The 'crackpot' posts you say I have made only prove you have made superficial judgments.

For example, the Disclosure project is run by Steven Greer, MD, who has briefed sitting presidents, an acting director of Central Intelligence, the head of J2 (Joint Chiefs of Staff), etc.

But since your perception becomes clogged up with your opinion of being right in the previous arguments, you wear blinders to all other information.

That is being close minded.

Insults, inaccuracies, foul language. You guys are batting a thousand. Is that the technique you employed to get your college degrees?
#: Posted by on 09/23 at 06:09 PM
Allow me to correct my wording:

The article is making unqualified statements and labeling them as (and I quote from the article) "Darwinian natural selection".
#: Posted by on 09/23 at 06:20 PM
I wonder, why people who want to portray themselves as quoting "scientists" and "science" (?), like the majority of posts here show, in the big picture (if you browse through all the posts) only act like kids, bash others, and take the views of 'established' writers for granted. Didn't get to fight enough in the sand-box / playing-grounds when they were kids?

Somebody says:- "Listen to someone who knows what they're talking about".

Should that be interpreted as that whoever says that, cannot come up with any backing on themselves, but yet tell others to listen to their 'authority', even though by that very same sentence they automatically disqualify themselves from any understanding on the issue, which does not really give credibility to their 'authority' ?

Not many rockets coming out from this sandbox, hmm?
#: Posted by Kalle Kataja on 09/24 at 04:41 AM
Evoloution? You know reading this forum reminds me of a passage in Romans about how evil men invent new ways to do evil! I believe you all that I have made the hardest and most dangerous journey any one could attempt. That is to say that as a child I had no fear of anything or anyone even though a fate far more terrifying slept in the next room every night. I was a child, but I had to go out into the world and explore all the sciences, and I'll say this I am a pure scientist, not like you idiots who take the discovery channels word for fiction, when they don't even bother to let the children know that it's purely theoretical. Now you have to understand that these fake idiotic shows using computer renderings aren't for adults entertainment, or for education. Check this out...if you. as an adult are dumb enough to let your child watch propoganda movies on national geographic channel and discovery channel, well obviously the show isn't aimed at you..the parent because you're already brainwashed, or never bothered to pay attention in school, and so they aim these shows at the children so as to keep them from teaching their children the truth. I remember reading an article in this monthly mag called the prophetic word..from the house of Yahweh ( http://www.yahweh.com ). It simply took just one aspect of evoloution, the fact that man knows that when it comes to genomes, anytime a mutation of more than two genomes occurs in the human creature, it's fatal. Period. Now we also know that there are some 3.2 Million genome differences between what some idiot calls our closest relative. So to go from monkey to man, you have a monkey that has a kid, that kid is a mutant, of course having no more than two genome diferences from his parent, now that kid must grow up, live long enough to have a kid, and that kid has to be a mutant. And so on and so on, what you have is a lineage of mutatants, with not one of them dying!!! Nor any of them being sterile, or too ugly to find a partner!! So basically it pointed out that if these absolutely rediculous things were to occur, with 20 years between parent and kid, it would have taken 4.6 billion years, the supposed age of the earth!! And I laughed my ass off, because that of course leaves every other facet about the stupid disobedient idea of no creator un-answerable. So if the monkey came from an amoeba? then just how old is this planet really? the statistical inprobability was I believe 3.2 with 15 zeros , now I'd like to see some idiots going out to buy lottery tickets at those odds! And if they ever get that high, you will because some people just don't seek understanding, and thus they will never find the one who gives it out freely to those who seek him. Another article mentioned one scientists work in the brain and how he has learned (3yrs ago) that inside the brain cells are these cylinders with bumbs on them, and that they act like mini computers that are linked, some in series and groups in parrallel much like that way the idiots who make those renderings use thousands of cpu's to work on one project or divy it up into groups. But his research also revealed that your, yes your brain works at a constant bandwidth, no matter what, whether you're under the knife and gassed out, sleeping, knocked out etc. He calculated the throughput at 2.78 terabits/sec constant!!! His work proved that we can even see the images on tv when we turn away, subliminal laser projections caused a test group to score 80% correct on tests in subjects they were completely ignorant of. Now You guys are so smart huh? well tell me this, if puny man whom utilizes maybe 2 percent of his power (subconscience) can come up with algorithims like winzip to compress 3 times, or mp3 11times, or mp4 26:1, and keeping with the guys throughput number, how much compression did Yahweh build into us? I'm 33 or 32 and I made a statement to the rocks and the heavens cuz I was by myself chopping wood and no one heard me, but I purposefully stated to the rocks and the earth after hearing a radio news guy talking about the start of mapping the DeoxyRiboNucleic Acid (DNA) and so what I said was this. "One day man is going to find out that the whole unperverted bible, and much more, including the laws will be found to be written in our dna. Now for you guys who don't read or can't read the bible it says that after Noah's Days Man will not teach Man the law, because Yahweh will write it in our hearts and our minds! Now I hadn't read that, didn't until I was 24(16 years later), but mark my words you who speak boastfully against Yahweh who knew you and carefully constructed you while you were in the womb. If there is one thing that scientific methodology with regards to labs and theories and experimentation, it is this, the world is too complex to have happened on it's own! So I finally did make it back to My father's house after being acosted by the world, and learning(as I set off to do) it's secrets. This journey has been the most wonderful and amazing period in my life, and I've had it worse that 99 percent of you since kindergarten when a motorcylce demolished my dad and I cared for him and his phantom pain, and subsequent drug addiction, and subsequent body failure, waiting and dreading his day, every day since may18 1979. The screams of dantes inferno pale in comparison when it's your dad doing the screaming and not some wannabe character in a book that you can set down. My point is this, I hate what you god-worshippers and litter-bugs have done to My earth, and it is mine because no owner in his right mind would give as an inheritance earth to someone who doesn't treasure every nuance, curve, detail and wonderment as I have every day of any of my sober days, and even stumbling drunk, detoxing the cocaine injection phase, or on mushrooms, I have always enjoyed this planet, and so I am thankful! Yes you have something to be thankful for, and instead of wasting your time trying to figure out what isn't and could not be, why don't you just look up to the heavens and say Thank You Father, Thank You! Before you can't cuz of anger and sulleness when your in the boat with New Orleans! But should you find yourself in that boat, and you remember these words, I tell you friend, tell Your Father Yahweh, Not pagan G.O.D whom man makes, but just be true and say thank you father, it's never too late till this act is ended, and he will show you things you have always wanted to know, and in time you'll realize you always knew it, and it was this evil world that pressed and pushed you, and you gave in and became decieved. You people need to wake up and realize that those pangs of labor, of which were spoken of regarding this time period, were showing that the catastrophes that came and hit last week, and warned against, they will start off like the pangs of a woman in labor, and if you've ever seen the end of a pregnancy!!! Your time for debate, politics, hate, envy, materialism, ungratefullness is gone, not coming to an end, you missed it, it's here, so instead of every one going around doing what seems right in his head, why don't we all come together in one accord and one mind, and meet at the house of Yahweh in Abilene to give thanks and present ourselves as the law requires. Wars won't bring peace, ever, so just forget about weapons, payback, and stop worrying, it's impossible to have faith, or be in faith and worry simultaneously. And it's shameful to claim you have faith, whether it's in science or the creator, and then to crawl on your belly worshipping gods, or liars. If you have faith in science, then you need to understand that like Yahweh, the rules don't change with each generation, or cpu advancement. If you're going to be a scientist, then stick to the rules, and number 1 If they haven't found the missing link, then it's still missing!

If you have felt offended by this, then I would ask you to ask yourself if it's possible that the world has been steering you away from him, and his name, and his house, and if you feel the need to be angry, or hate, or despise the message I'm trying to give you, just remember this "he who says he says he loves the law, and yet hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him" If that's you, then I advise you seek out the truth, not tainted, but "the every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh"
Halleluyahweh
#: Posted by on 09/24 at 05:54 AM
I think Aubrey Kimbell's post pretty much shows the difference between the scientific way of thinking and the non-scientific way of thinking. How is it possible to explain anything to someone who says that National Geographic and the Dicovery Channel shows propaganda? How can you say anything to a person who seriously can refer to her spiritual journey into fundamentalism as:

I believe you all that I have made the hardest and most dangerous journey any one could attempt.

Try talking to some people who had to flee their countries as refugees, some times because of their religious background, but other times because of their nationality, sexual orientation or simple family background. Talk with them, and try to understand what a hard and dangerous journey is.

Oh, and Aubrey Kimbell, if you want us to read your posts, then it might help putting in some line breaks. As it reads now, it just appears to be incoherent ramblings.
#: Posted by on 09/24 at 06:08 AM
Kalle, is there a point in your comment? We say that someone should study a subject before talking about it - and by study, we mean something more than reading some talking points. If people haven't done that, we suggest that they actually listen to someone who knows something about the subject, instead of going by whatever they feel right. Intuition is very well, when it has it's fundation in actual knowledge, when it doesn't it's often counter-factual.

When we are dealing with people like fufu who doesn't udnerstand the basic principles of the subject he talks about, and who deosn't bother to read the many posts and comments here that explains the subject at great length, we haven't no obligation to pretend that he is entitled to have his opinion on the subject respected.

Also, it might not strike you as such, but the attitudes of people like fufu are a lotmore insulting than our comments. He feels that he has the right, and the knowledge, to go in and dismiss the knowledge, skills and hard work of many people who have studied and worked hard within the field, without doing the studying and work necessary to understand the basic principles of the field. Now, that is insulting.
#: Posted by on 09/24 at 06:16 AM
While I accept Darwin as the "authority" on evolution, I would use his brilliant writings as reference points as the foundation of an elegant theory. Faith based thinking tends to bog down the mind. I.e. if the Bible is forever correct, then scientists gathering data on evolution must accept everything that Darwin ever put to paper as "the end", the final answer.

Copernicus published a heliocentric view of the solar system. Must I accept that planetary orbits are circular?

Kepler formulated laws describing the motion of planets, correctly describing eliptical paths. Must I believe that there are only 6 planets? Does this make Copernicus wrong?

Each generation of scientists builds on the knowledge of the previous. Only a dishonest (or stupid) person would point to the writings of Darwin as being incomplete, thereby damning the entire theory. That makes no more sense than arguing the validity of modern astrophysics, by quoting Galileo.
Reading comments on this thread, I do not believe that these quote miners are stupid. It is way too obvious that science is an enterprise devoted to discovery and change. I do believe they are dishonest, and more interested in being right, than finding the truth.
#: Posted by on 09/24 at 02:34 PM
From post #63 Auberly:
anytime a mutation of more than two genomes occurs in the human creature, it's fatal. Period. Now we also know that there are some 3.2 Million genome differences between what some idiot calls our closest relative. So to go from monkey to man, you have a monkey that has a kid, that kid is a mutant, of course having no more than two genome diferences from his parent, now that kid must grow up, live long enough to have a kid, and that kid has to be a mutant. And so on and so on, what you have is a lineage of mutatants, with not one of them dying!!! Nor any of them being sterile, or too ugly to find a partner!! So basically it pointed out that if these absolutely rediculous things were to occur, with 20 years between parent and kid, it would have taken 4.6 billion years, the supposed age of the earth!!

This is interesting. With all of the posters who seem to know the ins and outs of biology etc, can one of you confirm or deny the accuracy of this excerpt?

I think Aubrey Kimbell's post pretty much shows the difference between the scientific way of thinking and the non-scientific way of thinking. How is it possible to explain anything to someone who says that National Geographic and the Dicovery Channel shows propaganda? How can you say anything to a person who seriously can refer to her spiritual journey into fundamentalism as:

I believe you all that I have made the hardest and most dangerous journey any one could attempt.

It is not your place to criticize Auberly. Indeed, if you had attempted to understand the post, you may have addressed a relevant issue which was brought up.

Can you answer the above question?

Try talking to some people who had to flee their countries as refugees, some times because of their religious background, but other times because of their nationality, sexual orientation or simple family background. Talk with them, and try to understand what a hard and dangerous journey is.

You have no idea what Auberly's life has been like. For all you know, that individual may be a refugee. Never underestimate anyone, never overestimate yourself.

From post #63 MpM.

Your post is well stated.

I find fault with the umbrella way in which the article "Dawkins Explains Evolution" combines new ideas which counter some basic ideas I read about in Darwins actual writings; the article states it to be Darwins theory. Indeed, the article says, and I quote:

"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life."

This wording tends to communicate that if you don't think like this, first, you are wrong and to be lamented, and second, states that chance can not explain life. Copy like this is detramental. Why? because nobody seems able to absolutely explain life, therefore nobody can state with authority, as this article does, what can not explain life. The article is happy to close the door on "life based on chance".

Articles written like this appearing to scientists and the public, under the guise of science are a sham, they do a disservice to science itself. It promotes the spirit of know-it-alls. The article doesn't know, can't know - but people will read it and parade around as if they know. It also stifles further thinking by those who may wish to think on it, the answer is known, no point looking in to it - thought police, subtly self imposed if you will.

This is a common problem in society of course, but I would expect scientifically minded people to behave like adults. Most of the replies I received were not particularly encouraging.

It is also inconsistent with the actual letter and spirit of Darwins theory as I read it. Others who have read it may think as I do (apparently not those on this board) that it is essentially random in nature. From there I am told flat out that is wrong - reflective of the nature of the article as stated above.

Case in point, one can not randomly select a group of items from an infinite pool, then by process with that miniscule random group mechanically select a few, then consider that it was not random. That is counter to logic, it clearly explains a random selection. In simpler terms: random + non-random = random.

My essential position is simple, clarity is paramount. You have good thinking, I have good thinking, they have good thinking. Let us not assume that simply because something is 'conventional wisdom' that it must therefore be correct.

Let us also not assume that because somebody can't state what they mean in terms you can understand, that it is a reflection on their wisdom, intelligence or experience.

Here is a good quote I once read: If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples, we each have one apple. If you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, we each have two ideas.

I can say that I know the answer. The essential truth of reality is apparent, and has been revealed repeatedly for millennia. Truth is but a point which fools have multiplied.

I doubt most of you are ready to hear it. If asked, I will happily supply resources.
#: Posted by on 09/25 at 03:33 AM
Fufu, the point about mutations of two base pairs (not genomes - the genome is the entire sequence of genes) is a lie. In fact on average a human has 60 single-base substitutions. This doesn't include large-scale mutations, such as translocation of genes, and, of course, natural selection increases the rate of differentiation by propagating specific mutations that developed in different individuals.
#: Posted by Alon Levy on 09/25 at 05:50 AM
Errata: instead of "60," read "120." 60 is the average number of substitutions per haploid genome, but humans are diploid, so the actual number is 120.
#: Posted by Alon Levy on 09/25 at 05:52 AM
It is not your place to criticize Auberly. Indeed, if you had attempted to understand the post, you may have addressed a relevant issue which was brought up.

As I said, if Auberly wanted us to respond to his/her post, (s)he would have been better off, if there had been line breaks. I can't really see any good reason why I should strain my eyes to read something. And, since Auberly felt it was his/her place to write something that criticizes us, I feel it's entirely within my rights to point out what I find problematic with his/her comment. If (s)he didn't want that to happen, (s)he should just have refrained from posting.

I don't know the answer to the question, but given the quality of the post, I would like to see some evidence of mutations of more than two geromes being fatal in living creatues (human or otherwise). Even if we know of no examples of it being non-fatal in humans, it's still not enough to convince me, since that doesn't mean that it couldn't be not fatal.

You have no idea what Auberly's life has been like. For all you know, that individual may be a refugee. Never underestimate anyone, never overestimate yourself.

If you read through his/her ramblings you would have actuially noticed that (s)he did indeed describe his/her life. Nowhere did (s)he mention being a refugee.
#: Posted by on 09/25 at 06:19 AM
In simpler terms: random + non-random = random

Well, we agree on the basics, but disagree to the right of the equal sign. One other way to think about this is to compare it to rolling dice, and then selecting. The results of rolling a few dozen dice is random, but if you select only sixes from the result, you can wind up with a thoroughly non-random subset - a dozen sixes. So, in that case, and in the case of natural selection, random + non-random = non-random.

As for the poor response several recent posts (including yours) have gotten, they have either included or linked to information that shows a complete lack of understanding of biology. Yet you and others suggest that these things are interesting or insightful. Like all the debates with opponents of evolution, it's extraordinarily frustrating that people with no grasp of some of the basics of biology (ie - can't tell a genome from a base change) publicly parade such ignorance as insight. Those of us in biology respond badly accordingly.
#: Posted by John Timmer on 09/25 at 11:23 AM
Well the article I was recalling, was in a magazine that had many short and very interesting mini articles in it and I had borrowed it, about three years ago. Now lets get back to the point, and stop trying to wreck the car! I was talking about changing a monkey into me. Yes I did say genome when I recall now it was base pairs. So what? okay take 3.2million and divide that by your number 60, now multiply by 20 years and what does that leave you with? And don't forget the mutation every generation, without deaths, or errors, or maybe the missing species don't make errors until they completely reach the homo-ignaramous stage. well that's still 153 million years..hmmm well hold on, no I see it now, that is a long time! I suppose that's sufficient for them to have covered their tracks?

Now here's a question for all you geniuses out their, Lets say I'm holding a completely petrified tree here to my side, now I'm asking you, how old is this petrified wood? I want somone to send me or post their best knowledge on said wood/tree and keep in mind the human dna strand was just barely decoded in full (and I have a feeling that certain parts were left out) just a few months or years ago right. I'm just wondering if any of you biologists have any idea how many cpu's were used, and how many tax dollars were spent in this task? Any ideas? Cuz I'm the computer guy, and I know as much about electricity and the things it's used for as any of you know about rocks or bones or cells or whatever. My point is this how many scientist does it take in 1980 to make one cpu? now the number of cpu's used to decode this project far outnumbers the number of people who know how to read! And it took alot of pretty smart people to make all those cpu's...hmmm and twenty years, yet the data is just in and all the sudden you know everything about the chain, like it was you who did the decoding, but I beg to differ, I think the guy who figured out how to make the machine that did all the work for you is the smarter one. Because he was succesful in his/her endeavor! Hmm, hope that computer didn't make any errors!! Or did you biologists actually take the data (zeros and ones) and extrapulate it into something a regular computer user can understand? Or are you relying on the computer to do all the work that you cannot do? Yes I think so because as they say the dna of a human contains about as much data as one fourth of the library in washington? Now I don't believe any of you has studied the whole results? too much reading huh, about 2.5 terabytes, ha just happens to be the same as the amount of data that congressman says they shredded about "Able Danger" ( the fbi's investigation 2 years pre 911 about mohamad atta). Now if it takes 3600 dumpster size paper shredders to shred it? how many people does it take to actually read it?

Okay I just remembered something, the guy who said 60 instead of 2 says he would like to see some proof, well then he says there isn't any, now which is it, is there proof, or did you read it and decide it proved otherwise? No you assumed things from the filtered information that they allow you to see. The fact is this I know the man in charge of that newsletter doesn't lie, nor would he allow a lie to be printed in his newsletter, not to mention he worked for the state board of health in texas 40 - 50 years ago and knows a little about biology. But the proof is out there, and it came from studies on humans! What you didn't think they did experiments on humans yet, try fifty years ago, or thousands according to eclesiastes. So don't go getting animal studies mixed up with human studies, cuz that's kinda like saying that humans came from monkeys! He said that it has been proven, so if you want proof why don't you write him Israel Hawkins at and I'm sure he would be glad to tell you where it came from. But don't forget about the 153 million years and the 5,333 consecutive linear continual mutations to go from one perfectly content monkey to a know it all human like me!!

You know it's funny they say the monkey is almost as smart as the human, but in 153 million years that damn family of mutating monkeys and missing species never had any doubts or regrets about the path that anyone with 60 base pairs of ganglia could see it was heading down? Personally I think it shows alot about your arrogance in that you think those monkeys needed, or wanted to change into the killer of the earth. I think the truth is that you are so confused that deep down inside you can see what all this technology and deception is leading to and you really are the one who just wants to hang out with caring, loving, thougtful and fearless monkeys in the forest!
#: Posted by on 09/25 at 01:58 PM
Now here's a question for all you geniuses out their, Lets say I'm holding a completely petrified tree here to my side, now I'm asking you, how old is this petrified wood?

Unless people are able to do actual analysis on the wood, and get the information of where the wood was found, under which circumstances it was found, and under which conditions it was stored, there is no way to tell how old the wood is.
It works much the same way with fossils and other things that are dated.

I want somone to send me or post their best knowledge on said wood/tree and keep in mind the human dna strand was just barely decoded in full (and I have a feeling that certain parts were left out) just a few months or years ago right.

How on earth do you leap from petrified wood to human dna? And why do you have a feeling that certain parts were left out?

I'm just wondering if any of you biologists have any idea how many cpu's were used, and how many tax dollars were spent in this task?

Well, I'm not a biologist, but I'll answer. No. Bet you don't know either. Nor do neither you nor me know how many dollars were spent outside the US or by private companies, but I guess it would be safe to guess "a lot".

Any ideas? Cuz I'm the computer guy, and I know as much about electricity and the things it's used for as any of you know about rocks or bones or cells or whatever.

Whatever would be computer science in my case. Can you be a bit more specific on what type of computer guy you are? Do you make the hardware (a hardware engineer), do you work on software (a system developer/designer), or do you work on the theory behind the hardware and software (a computer scientist)? Calling oneself a "computer guy" is not very telling.

My point is this how many scientist does it take in 1980 to make one cpu?

Are we talking designing the prototype or building the actual CPU? In the first case, I don't know, but quite a lot. In the later case, none really.

now the number of cpu's used to decode this project far outnumbers the number of people who know how to read!

That's an interesting claim - do you have any numbers to back it up? Asouce would be nice as well.
You would have been better off by saying that the number of CPUs outnumbered the number of people involved. That's a claim that seems plausible.

And it took alot of pretty smart people to make all those cpu's...

Not the individual CPUs. They are not made by hand you know.

hmmm and twenty years, yet the data is just in and all the sudden you know everything about the chain, like it was you who did the decoding, but I beg to differ, I think the guy who figured out how to make the machine that did all the work for you is the smarter one.

The knowledge gathered by using the CPUs are useless unless someone can understand it. I doubt Turing or any of the other smart computer people would have been able to get much out of the decoding of the DNA. Different specialities.
The computers are a very useful tool, and in pure number crunching, it far outperforms humans, which is exactly why they are used for tasks like decoding DNA.

Hmm, hope that computer didn't make any errors!!

All computers makes errors. They round of and thus introduces uncertaincies. However, these errors are known, and can be worked around. Other types of errors (the unknown ones) are found through intensive testing before the computers are used for important tasks. Why do you think Intel had to call it's first batch of Pentium II chips back? It was because scientists had found computional errors when testing it.

Or did you biologists actually take the data (zeros and ones) and extrapulate it into something a regular computer user can understand? Or are you relying on the computer to do all the work that you cannot do? Yes I think so because as they say the dna of a human contains about as much data as one fourth of the library in washington?

However, DNA can be represented in a much better visual form than a library. However, having said that, it's my impression that scientists focus on different aspects, and not on the whole.
#: Posted by on 09/25 at 02:45 PM
Okay I just remembered something, the guy who said 60 instead of 2 says he would like to see some proof, well then he says there isn't any, now which is it, is there proof, or did you read it and decide it proved otherwise? No you assumed things from the filtered information that they allow you to see.

You have a bit of a problem with your reading comprehension. Alon provided the information about 60 (or rather 120), while I was the one who asked for some evidence for your claims.
Oh, and which worldwide conspiracy is it exactly that keeps people from all over the world from getting the right/unfiltered informations? People who comment here lived in many different countries.

The fact is this I know the man in charge of that newsletter doesn't lie, nor would he allow a lie to be printed in his newsletter

That's nice, but around here we prefer peer-reviewed publications, rather than some obscure newsletter. He might not lie, and he might not print things he knows are lies, but it still doesn't keep him from printing things that's wrong - not if they are outside his field of knowledge.

not to mention he worked for the state board of health in texas 40 - 50 years ago and knows a little about biology.

First of all, I would expect his knowledge to be stonger in the field of medicine or a similar field. Second of all, a lot has happened in the filed of sience within the last decade, let alone four or five decades.

But the proof is out there, and it came from studies on humans!

How do you do experiments on humans where you get them to mutate?

What you didn't think they did experiments on humans yet, try fifty years ago, or thousands according to eclesiastes.

What are you talking about? As far as I know there are not two different speeds of time. Just two different break-off points. And I think everyone here are aware that human experiments have happened in the past (and to some degree happens now - how do you think medicine is tested just before being released?).

So don't go getting animal studies mixed up with human studies, cuz that's kinda like saying that humans came from monkeys!

Uhmmm.... since monkeys, apes and humans all share a common ancestor....

He said that it has been proven, so if you want proof why don't you write him Israel Hawkins at [email deleted] and I'm sure he would be glad to tell you where it came from.

What have been proven? And is that poor guy aware that you are posting his email address on the internet?
PZ, you might want to do that guy a favour and delete the email address.
#: Posted by