Casey Luskin hypocritically criticizes Darwinists' complaints of being misled by interviewers
In an article in Evolution News & Views, the Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin criticizes Darwinists for complaining that they were "misled" by interviewers for the movie "Expelled." However, Luskin himself denied Monkey Girl author Edward Humes a full interview because he was suspicious of Humes' intentions, and I think that was just as bad. Also, it was reported that Discovery Institute staffers refused to be interviewed for a PBS NOVA TV reenactment of the Dover trial.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/09/2007 01:52:00 AM
17 Comments:
The main mechanism for increasing the information content in a genome is not mutation, but hybridization through sexual reproduction.
In sexual reproduction, two sets of genomes are combined to produce an offspring with incrementally more functionality than either parent.
A simple substitution mutation doesn't change the number of bits in the genome.
The main mechanism for increasing the information content in a genome is not mutation, but hybridization through sexual reproduction.
For the higher organisms that use this strategy, that is certainly true. Good point.
There's an excellent article by Dennis Prager that touches on several issues that have come up on this blog. An excerpt:
================================
"Speaking for the board that oversees student media, CSU faculty member Jim Landers read a prepared statement and refused to comment further. 'We see the editorial as an opinion which is protected by the First Amendment,' Landers read."
Two sentences that say so much. The misunderstanding of freedom of speech is breathtaking. Retaining or firing the CSU editor had nothing to do with freedom of speech. It had to do with whether someone who abuses the editorial space of a major university newspaper is fit to be its editor.
================================
I only read those parts of Monkey Girl that deal with scientific issues: but on that score Humes produced such erroneous garbage that it's hard to believe that Luskin could have straightened him out: at least unless Humes had shown him a copy of his proposed manuscript.
Look up "Denton" in the index and one finds Humes declaring that biochemist Michael Denton, in his 1985 book "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis," held that new species never evolve from old ones.
Denton actually wrote the opposite: that new species have frequently so evolved, and indeed, done so by Darwinist chance and natural selection. What he doubted, or remained agnostic upon, was the idea that Darwinist processes explain all of life's emergence.
There are other similar factual absurdities about Denton and his views, in the book.
And Yecke goes down in flames!!!!!
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071008/APN/710080703
Score one for the Darwinists and common sense!
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071008/APN/710080703
Durr I suck at cutting and pasting
haha, I still suck... I'm sure Larry can find it on his own. Feel free to delete my comments to clean it all up a bit. I won't cry censorship or anything. Barring some final edits to Yecke's wiki article, my work here is mostly done. However, I will be looking at it from time to time, even after the protection has been lifted so don't you go vandalizing it again. Overall, it's been a blast to hang around here and dealing with the insanity and self denial.
Wishing you the very best, Larry! Hope your head gets better!
Moulton said (October 09, 2007 3:22:00 AM),
>>>>> In sexual reproduction, two sets of genomes are combined to produce an offspring with incrementally more functionality than either parent. <<<<<<
On the other hand, as this article points out, "recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection."
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> And Yecke goes down in flames!!!!!
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071008/APN/710080703 <<<<<<<
You stupid fathead, Yecke has already been vindicated. She was one of three finalists for the position out of seven semi-finalists who were chosen out of 24 original candidates.
>>>>>> Durr I suck at cutting and pasting <<<<<<
You suck, period.
Haha, vindicated from what exactly? Not getting selected as education commissioner? Not being able to hide her past associations with intelligent design and creationism despite using Reputationdefender?
Are you bitter now that your not gonna get that sanitation commissioner job? Boohoo
One of the notable features of the Contempt-Respect Axis is that expressions of contempt tend to elicit contemptuous responses, and expressions of respect tend to elicit respectful responses.
>>>On the other hand, as this article points out, "recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection."<<<
What your creationist article fails to point out, however, is that a full round of recombination+selection increases the total number of individuals with sets, as well as increasing the number of individuals with partial sets. This increases geometrically each generation until most individuals in a population have the full set of favorable genes.
Since I have previously proven this on Larry's blog, it is dishonest for him to continue to use this creationist canard.
Kevin, it occurs to me that if one puts forth a scientific argument grounded in mathematical analysis, only about 5% of the population will understand it.
The remaining 95% either accept the conclusions on faith (if they trust the analyst) or they ignore the conclusions if they have no reason to place their trust in the analyst.
For those of us who care about public education in science, math, and technology, this observation is pretty grim.
We have to figure out how to convert a mathematically grounded scientific theory into a simple story without doing violence to the theory.
This was easier, back in Biblical times, when all cultural knowledge was transmitted through story, and the bards who recited those epic stories were well respected in the community.
In the modern era, the process of mapping theory into story is something that would be a challenge even for Raymond Smullyan or Umberto Eco.
>>>Since I have previously proven this on Larry's blog, it is dishonest for him to continue to use this creationist canard.<<<
Since there are people reading Larry's blog now that weren't reading it a year ago (Moulton, at the very least, I thought it prudent to link to the post were I first demonstrated that sexual reproduction statistically increases favourable sets of mutations. It was made on Hallowe'en last year on the Hoopla about another "missing link" discovery thread.
Brief synopsis:
I created an Excel spreadsheet that could track the normalized distribution of normal and mutant allelles for an unlinked dominant and recessive trait in a population that reproduces sexually. I could modify the initial distribution of the 16 genotypes and the normalized benefit of the mutant alleles. Assuming both mutant traits affect fitness prior to reproduction (ie, a critter with one or both of these traits is more likely to survive to maturity, but no reproductive benefit), the spreadsheet calculated the distribution of genotypes and phenotypes that a) survived to reproduce, and b) the initial distribution of genotypes in the daughter generation.
The results can be summarized in three columns. The first is compares the relative distribution of the surviving population to the initial population, the second compares the distribution of the daughter generation to the surviving parent generation, and the third is the overall change from one generation to the next.
Phenotype 1 2 3
Normal down up down
Carrier down up down
Dominant up down same
Recessive up down up
Dom Carrier up same up
Both up down up
This of course assumes that any surviving male is equally likely to mate with any surviving female, a well mixed population. In real life, there would be a gradient, as the beneficial mutations spread from their initial subpopulations and then overlapped.
See, I'd really love to see a computer animation of this result, with a cool musical background.
Oops, I switched the results for Dominant and Recessive. Sorry.
>>>See, I'd really love to see a computer animation of this result, with a cool musical background.<<<
Maybe some kind of histogram, with different colors for each phenotype? For music, maybe have a bass line that sounds like a heart-beat (lub-dub, lub-dub...), with the histogram updating on the beats (mature population on "lub", next gen on "dub"). And then have different instrumentation or melodic line for each phenotype, volume controlled by relative distribution.
You'd start with most of the histogram in the normal color, the soundtrack dominated by the drone of mundanity. But soon you'd see pulses of the dominant and recessive traits, adding a note of joy and hope to the mix. These colours would slowly, pulsatingly invade the former domain of normalcy, while on the edge of hearing a triumphant tone sounds as the two traits merge. Relentlessly, this triple attack drives the normal color into a last bastion, and the sounds of joy, hope, and ultimately triumph dominate the music - though the mundane tones never quite die away.
How's that work for you?
It might work OK, Kevin, but you should insert a largo movement, with interminable aspects of chagrin, disappointment, exasperation, and despair.
Then abruptly and inexplicably segue into the triumphant epiphany.
Post a Comment
<< Home