The Dawn Treader

How did you see the film already, Paul? It is not due out till Friday.

I haven't seen it (nor will I, how's that for prejudice?) But I've seen clips on YouTube that were enough to give the flavor - any time you're using scary music under an interview you'd better be talking to Stalin or Pol Pot, not a Mid-Western biology professor; anything else renders your opinions pretty worthless.

I don't want to put money in the pockets of the scoundrels who produce and promote this garbage. I have seen clips and extensive reviews written by preview attendees.

Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers were led into participating under false pretenses. Myers, who is thanked in the film's credits, was inexplicably barred from a preview (Dawkins, a guest of Myers, was not recognized and was allowed to enter). The producer keeps changing his story as to why this took place.

"Develop a model. Make predictions. Put your predictions to the test. Revise your models. Follow the evidence where it leads."

It leads to evolution as a robust theory and neo-creationists as tantamount to the Flat Earth Society.

I don't fear debate; I fear the gullibility of the indoctrinated and the unscrupulousness of those who would exploit their ignorance. People who are curious about evolution should study it and decide for themselves. Too many people are happy to just see their own ignorance reflected in heavily-slanted slabs of pseudo-entertainment instead of actually educating themselves about the "controversy".

It's not attack, Mr D. As Rob has mentioned, at least two of the participants were lied to in order to secure interviews. The producers have lied about the reasons for keeping Myers out of the preview. They lied about what the movie was going to be called, and what the movie was going to be about. They even lied about the origins of Nazism, which is a desparately important thing to get right. Oh, and they clearly and knowingly stole some of the material they used, at least in the preview screenings.

I imagine it's possible to make a movie that critiques evolution and science in a reasonable manner. I doubt I'd agree with it, but I'd happily watch it and debate it with you. I just don't see any reason to think that a bunch of lying thieves have produced that particular movie.

(I used the word 'lied' a lot then. I'm not using it in the political debate sense of 'said something I don't agree with', but in the technical sense of 'knowingly said things that weren't true').

If anyone is interested, Scientific American weighs in pretty strongly against the movie with four entries on the April 9 website (sciam.com) edition. They are really upset about the linkage of evolution and the Holocaust.

"It leads to evolution as a robust theory and neo-creationists as tantamount to the Flat Earth Society."

Rob, I think what Mr D. is saying is that if data is presented, it should be evaluated on it's own merit. One can disagree with the interpretation, but dismissing the paper due to the source is committing the fallacy of poisoning the well; and is not scientifically honest.

On the other hand, materialistic scientists say that when they present data, they do not then conclude (in the paper anyway), "therefore there is no God." Not surprisingly, they get very upset when ID scientists appear to say "therefore God exists."

Also, there is some issue with misrepresentation by the producer and Ben Stein when they interviewed the atheists in the movie.

I don't have any problem linking atheism with the totalitarian genocide of the 20th century, but it is a too much of a stretch to blame evolution.

I will be interested to see just how bad or good the movie is. I am afraid of what Paul mentioned regarding the movie reflecting badly upon Evangelicals. We'll see.

Mr. D:

If I can find a way of seeing the movie without financially rewarding the people who made it, I might do so. But it's clear that you're going to see it, so when you do, let me suggest this: Be very skeptical about things that tell you what you want to hear. This is true of all things in life, by the way, not just this particular movie.

Meanwhile, you're calling for open-mindedness, fairness, and honesty. That's admirable, but the makers of the film haven't bothered with such burdens.

Playing scary music underneath an interview of a biologist is not an example of academic freedom.

Making and airing this film *is* an issue of free speech (nothing to do with academia), which is why it's perfectly acceptable for them to shout their message from the rooftops. The 'heat' you describe is just the natural freedom of speech response when the people doing the shouting are lying thieves.

Here's a little thought to take into the movie with you. Darwin's great insight wasn't that inheritance can be manipulated (which was part of Hitler's plans for a master race); that had been known for thousands of years. His novel idea was that nature could be the agent of selection, which is the antithesis of Hitler's plans. Unless the film lays the blame for this aspect of Nazism at the feet of animal husbandry then it is at best misinformed, and more likely profoundly manipulative.

"because it seems to run the risk of being overzealous."

Any time you confront tyranny and those who seek to squash dissent, you take an enormous risk. I think academic freedom is worth fighting for though.

If the film raises awareness to the tactics of those in power to shut down dissent, then it will be worth the price of a ticket and 90 minutes of my time.

"Few open minds left on the subject of academic freedom I guess."

Academic freedom is a red herring; this is equal time for pseudo-science. Many of those you would see as carrying the academic freedom banner on this issue would prefer abstinence-only sex education.

You haven't responded to any criticisms of the producers. Is their behavior something you can support with your price of admission? Does the end justify the means?

Though I have not yet seen the film nor do I know what those interviewed for the film were told, the response to the film seems to be exactly what Stein and the producer set out to document: the intolerance for dissent from the prevailing theory of our origins.

The responses largely have been ad hominem attacks against those profiled in the film or bare assertions challenging whether they actually suffered some backlash for their positions on evolution. See Scientific American (SCIAM), April 9, 2008. One of the sites linked to by SCIAM, purportedly doing an excellent job debunking "Expelled", suggests that Caroline Crocker, profiled in the film, (1) hasn't suffered any impediments to her career because, after not having her contract renewed at George Mason University, she went on to teach at a community college and works for an intelligent design research group; and (2) that she had no business teaching biology because of her clear bias in favor of God and the theory of intelligent design. But the latter would clearly equally disqualify Richard Dawkins who suggests that science essentially disproves God and that those who believe in God are "delusional".

The response to Stein's film from those who accept the evolutionary theory of our origins, suggests that evolution theory has become more of a matter of faith than of science. The response suggests something about the strength of the science underlying evolution theory - opponents are shouted down, ridiculed, and their intelligence and integrity are called into question. The response calls to mind the bully who, when challenged, shouts and threatens, hoping that the louder he is the less he will be challenged. Responses on the merits are few and usually serve only to highlight clear shortcomings in evolutionary theory (e.g. explanations for how the eye might have evolved).

I firmly believe that it is appropriate to seek natural explanations for what we observe and science should be dedicated to seeking such answers. However, science errs when it posits that there can be only natural explanations and any other explanations are de facto incorrect. Science errs when it asserts that evolution as the explanation for our origins has been established as fact. Science errs when it asserts that there cannot be a creator. At some point, science begins to overlap with religion and philosophy, and to pretend that it doesn't is intellectually dishonest or naive.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a Creator. To refuse to be open to the possibility of a Creator is irrational and inconsistent with good science. To accept macroevolution as fact is poor science.

I certainly understand those of you who do not wish to provide any financial support to Ben Stein and the producer. I encourage you, however, to check out the video when it becomes available at your local library, examine critically the science and arguments of intelligent design, and apply the same critical analysis to the science and claims of evolution theory.

matt curtis:

The intolerance is not for dissent; the intolerance is for the attempts by ID proponents to completely circumvent the scientific process. Their problem is, on the merits they lose, so they try to bypass the process completely, whining that "the establishment" is somehow unfairly biased against them. [It is biased against them, but not unfairly so. When they come up with some actual positive evidence in favor of their "theory" -- heck, when they come up with an actual, testable theory -- then and only then are they worth taking seriously. And in any case, how many strikes is a movement allowed? When you keep coming back time and time again with trumped-up pseudoscience that doesn't even survive the most cursory scrutiny, how long before it's considered reasonable to presume that your next effort will follow in line with all the previous ones?]

By complaining that the "responses" to ID arguments "on the merits are few," you merely illuminate your own ignorance of the subject. You can spend literally hours on talkorigins getting all kinds of details on the merits. Or read about the Dover, PA trial, where it was the ID proponents who were continually engaging in disingenuous tactics, yanking things out of context, etc. (And, in that trial, the ID proponents got their tails handed to them -- in behind-the-woodshed fashion -- despite drawing a highly sympathetic judge.)

Between evolution and global warming, you've made it abundantly clear that your understanding of the science is lacking and that when science is at odds with your personal philosophy, you'll throw science under the bus in a New York minute.

In any case, "academic freedom" shouldn't mean the freedom to pass the latest half-baked "theory" off as fact just because it's politically or religiously convenient.

matt curtis:

By the way, on what planet is objecting to an unqualified professor teaching an unproven religious philosophy as though it were fact the same thing as wanting to "silence the critics of evolutionary theory?"

"It worked quite well for Einstein. His model of relativity won even though it yielded a very unfavorable conclusion if you are an atheist."

Then ID should have no problem if it proves its merit like Einstein's model did.

"The issue is freedom. Either we are a pluralistic society that allows scientists the freedom to dissent or we aren't."

Scientists do have the freedom to dissent. It doesn't follow that we teach every minority view in science classes. Alchemy doesn't make the cut, and neither does geocentrism. Science classes are about science, not providing a hearing for extreme viewpoints. It is true that many theories accepted as valid faced initial opposition. They were eventually, perhaps inevitably, accepted. As far as science goes, the system works. Scientists love nothing better than discovering that they (or other scientists)have been wrong all along. Every week, it seems, a report comes out by scientists proclaiming that the results of a study were the opposite of what they expected or what thier model predicted.

"Scientists do have the freedom to dissent."

That's just it Rob, this is the claim that we need to test. The scientists you seem to listen to all say scientists have the freedom to dissent about the Darwinian narrative. That is easy to say when you have the power. It is also those same scientists also call anyone who disagrees with them about their narrative quacks and alchemists.

Would you like me to gather some scientists who disagree with the Darwinian account for the proliferation of all life on this planet and ask them if they agree that scientists truly have the freedom to dissent?

That is a kind offer, Steve Clarke. Thanks. I hope you get some takers.

Thanks for the offer, though. My passion overcame my manners.

More on Steve Clarke's apt comparison between this film and Michael Moore in this review.

Once again tgirsch has said much more than I could have thought of, way better than I could have phrased it. So I'll just respond to the latest point from Matt, which maybe doesn't fall within tgirsch's experience.

I've been reading PZ Myers blog since its early days. I wouldn't ever claim that he was a moderate back then, but he was certainly more temperate in the way he expressed his views. Any frustration he exhibited, I would guess, was down to a subject he loves so very much being mocked and manipulated so badly.

Since then I've noticed he has become much more outspoken. No doubt some of that comes from the confidence that accompanies a high profile, but my guess is that a lot of it comes from half a decade of being insulted on a regular basis (and I mean daily bouts of sometimes quite disgustingly evil emails). Personally I'm amazed that he remains as gentlemanly as he still is, and am grateful that he hasn't been silenced by this barrage.

I'm reminded of an old saying - Before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you judge them, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

There is a moment, at the end of the film where Richard Dawkins gives an endorsement to Panspermia as a valid possible explination. The theory that a intelligence beyond our comprehension brought the seeds of life to our planet and then let it grow. Sounds a lot like intelligent design to me.

The pro that theory is that they can then say, there is a creator but he is no longer present. Fits pretty nicely into their world view. Nature is supreme, nothing is greater.

Lets all cut the religion out of it, I am fine with it. Lets look at the theories minus religious bias... bring it on.

Scientists like Blaise Pascal, Keppler and others let their world view lead their science. Today, scientists let their science lead their worldview. When the worldview is not the one that the scientist wants to have...manipulate the data. Surpress decent, cast aspersions at the other guy.

Tom,

You said:

"The truth is, there are many examples of predictions like this, if one is even vaguely familiar with the science. The fact that you even raised this argument serves only to underscore my allegation that your knowledge of the science is severely lacking."

Ah, the tried and true argument: "Keep playing in your sandbox and leave science to the intellectual giants who will enlighten you if you just trust them."

You mention the number of chromosome pairs in great apes and man. Let's go back a ways. Before the number of chromosome pairs were known, did evolution theorists make any predictions about the number of pairs in the great apes and in man? What was the prediction, or what would it have been? Next, based on what we observe of Chimpanzees and humans, would we not expect there to be a great deal of genetic similarity between the two - regardless of the cause of the genetic similarity? Setting aside both evolutionary theory and belief in a Creator, based simply on observed similarities, would not the unbiased observer expect those similarities to exist throughout the organism? Now, let's say you do believe in a Creator, could you not predict that the number of chromosome pairs in humans would be identical or very nearly identical to the number of pairs in chimpanzees? If such a prediction was made, would it necessarily imply a Creator? I would say, no. But I would also argue that neither does it necessarily imply evolution and a common ancestor. If you see two cars driving down the road, can you safely predict that regardless of the make and model there will be a vast number of significant similarities between the two?

Turning to the fossil record: Hard-shelled organisms are those most likely to be fossilized because of the process itself. Consequently, the fossil record is made up primarily of clams and similar hard-shelled creatures. You suggest that the absence of a mammal fossil in a geologically older strata is supportive of evolutionary theory. However, evolutionary theorists have had to argue that such animals are far less likely to be preserved - again because of the nature of the fossilization process - in order to account for the numerous gaps between species, genera, families, orders, etc.

Additionally, those who search for fossils typically do so with preconceived notions about what they will find based upon their acceptance of evolution theory. Consequently, they are more likely to find what they are looking for and not find what they aren't looking for. I don't mean to suggest that this completely accounts for all of the presently known fossil record, but it certainly calls into question the degree to which we should rely on it in forming conclusions about our origins.

A final point: My understanding of the development of evolution theory is that it was, in part, a response to what had been observed in the fossil record to that point. In short, evolution theory was responsive to what was already observed; therefore, it is circular reasoning to conclude that evolution theory is responsible for what is observed and then make predictions as to what will be observed. It's akin to saying that there must be some force that makes an apple fall to the ground, calling that force gravity, and then predicting that if one drops an orange it will also fall to the ground (admittedly this is comparing apples to oranges).

As to the relative number of harmful mutations, does it not generally follow that those organisms with fewer harmful genetic mutations will be more abundant? How does this observation buttress the argument for evolution as responsible for our origins?

"Well, for starters, there's no scientifically rigorous definition of "irreducible complexity," and you need that before you can even begin scientific inquiry into the matter."

What don't you understand about "irreducible complexity"? Is there any confusion in your mind about the meaning of that term? Is it somehow less defined than "natural selection"?

"Also, before we can meaningfully discuss intelligent design as science, we have to have a method for differentiating between apparent design and actual design."

Explain why you believe this is a prerequisite. Take a look around your home or office. If you were to set aside what you already know, would you see evidence of design in the different objects you observed? Archeologists certainly rely on spotting and identifying patterns of design in order to find shards of pottery, arrowheads, other tools, etc. Also, if there must be a means of discriminating between actual design and apparent design, then is not the same true of evolution. Are you aware of any method to distinguish between natural selection and engineered selection (e.g. evolution versus breeding or genetic manipulation)? Could you, solely by eaxmining a dachshund and a rottweiler, determine whether the differences were due to natural selection or breeding?

On bees and flowers:

"I don't mean to sound as condescending as I almost certainly will, but this is laughably simplistic. Bees (or even insects, or even animals) are not the only way by which plants pollinate."

I think you most assuredly did mean to sound condescending. Your statement is partially correct, but my statement about bees needing flowers and flowers needing bees was purposely simplistic. In fact, according to Wikipedia, 90% of flowering plants, and about 80% of all plants, require insects or animals to pollinate. Does this disprove evolutionary theory? Certainly not, but it does pose problems for the theory and increases its improbability.

"Nothing about the theory precludes a creator (despite what Dr. Dawkins might say). About the only thing that dies when you accept evolution is a literal interpretation of Genesis, but even that hardly strikes at the foundations of Christianity."

I largely agree with this position. Acceptance of evolutionary theory does not impact the basic tenets of Christianity - or what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity". My aversion to evolutionary theory is largely due to its promotion of poor science and the attempts by many of its proponents to take positions beyond the capacity of scientific explanation.

On transitional fossils: please show me the fossils of the animals that are not truly fish nor truly amphibian (you should probably first define what attributes categorize something as a fish versu what categorizes it as an amphibian. Please do the same with respect to amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals. For any such fossils, please state the extent of the fossil (i.e. single tooth, full skeleton, etc.); how the determination was made as to whether it was cold-blooded or warm-blooded; how the determination was made as to how it bore it's young; how the determination was made as to whether it produced milk; etc.

In short, the information you linked me to contained a great deal of admitted estimate and assumption, based on an acknowledged scarcity of fossilized remains.

In the end, the unwillingness by many to acknowledge significant shortcomings in evolutionary theory and the quick and often vitriolic, condescending dismissals of dissenting views suggest an insecurity in the correctness of the theory. Does any such insecurity make evolutionary theory less valid? No, but it should make us skeptical of many of the claims made about the actual evidence.

If evolution theory is correct, it will not change my belief in the God of the Bible and the self-sacrifice of His Son for my sins. I believe God gave us the ability to reason and it does not appear to me that evolutionary theory has a particularly strong foundation in reason.

matt curtis:

Ah, the tried and true argument: "Keep playing in your sandbox and leave science to the intellectual giants who will enlighten you if you just trust them."

Nice try, but I've argued no such thing. What I did argue was that you made some claims and allegations that were obviously ignorant of even the popularly-available 'common knowledge" science of evolution. I'm not telling you to "keep playing in your sandbox," I'm telling you to learn the rules of baseball before you decide to play. Battle of wits with an unarmed man, and all that. ;)

If you see two cars driving down the road, can you safely predict that regardless of the make and model there will be a vast number of significant similarities between the two?

Great example, since all modern cars trace their ancestry back to just a couple of early prototypes when you go back through history. This again points out why ID leads to theistic evolution: we know that cars were designed, yet we also know that a 2008 Corvette Z06 wasn't simply "created" in its current form -- rather, it's the result of thousands upon thousands of iterations of refinement, testing, and improvement.

Consequently, the fossil record is made up primarily of clams and similar hard-shelled creatures.

Dinosaurs have exoskeletons? Really? Who knew? Seriously, that's a weak argument. We have fossilized remains of all sorts of creatures, not just "hard-shelled" ones.

I swear, it's as if everything you know about evolution is cherry-picked stuff you've learned from its detractors.

Additionally, those who search for fossils typically do so with preconceived notions about what they will find based upon their acceptance of evolution theory. Consequently, they are more likely to find what they are looking for and not find what they aren't looking for.

You're complaining of confirmation bias, but that's why finds are made a matter of public record, and why others vet the process. Unless you think there's some grand conspiracy wherein any and all fossils found that would contradict evolution are immediately destroyed and never reported, evolution's opponents ought to be able to point to the finds that "don't fit" and explain how their alternate hypothesis better explains them.

In short, evolution theory was responsive to what was already observed; therefore, it is circular reasoning to conclude that evolution theory is responsible for what is observed and then make predictions as to what will be observed.

Evolutionary theory was conceived of after observations of living creatures, not fossils. Nice try, though. :) And in any case, even if your objection were correct, it's still not circular reasoning, because the next fossil found could be the one to invalidate the whole mess. Find one fossil that wildly violates the pattern, and that's all you need.

What don't you understand about "irreducible complexity"?

What don't you understand about "scientifically rigorous?"

If you were to set aside what you already know, would you see evidence of design in the different objects you observed?

I see evidence of design in clouds and in the moon. Except that this evidence turns out to be illusory.

Also, if there must be a means of discriminating between actual design and apparent design, then is not the same true of evolution.

It actually is true of both. It bridges two areas of inquiry, though. The first, is simply that evolution occurred, which we're virtually certain of. The second is how it occurred, and though natural selection is by far our best explanation for this, there's a lot of debate about the particulars.

Nonetheless, there's plenty of evidence that the selection is natural rather than engineered. The most important piece of evidence is simply that evolved life is messy. We don't put vacuum tubes in televisions any more, because they're neither required nor useful in any way. Yet male mammals still have nipples. If something is "designed" or engineered, we expect that the superfluous stuff should be cleaned up once it's no longer needed.

I think you most assuredly did mean to sound condescending.

You'll have to take my word on this, but if I'd intended to be condescending, I wouldn't have put in the disclaimer. Trust me, I do it on purpose all the time. In that case, I genuinely couldn't think of a non-condescending way to say it, even though I would have preferred that.

Certainly not, but it does pose problems for the theory and increases its improbability.

Why? Seriously, why? If the symbiotic relationship developed, and those organisms that participate outcompete those that don't, then we should expect to see that sort of relationship become dominant, shouldn't we?

My aversion to evolutionary theory is largely due to its promotion of poor science and the attempts by many of its proponents to take positions beyond the capacity of scientific explanation.

You sure are quick to complain about "poor science" even when you really don't know a whole lot about the science. This seems to be a common theme for you.

On transitional fossils: please show me the fossils of the animals that are not truly fish nor truly amphibian

I'm simply not going to get into this game. Suffice it to say that no transitional fossils are ever quite transitional enough for the anti-evolution crowd. They say, "Show me a fossil that represents a point between A and Z," and so you show them M, and then they want one between A and M, leading to G, and then they want one between G and M, and on down the line, ad infinitum. Given the number of transitionals, and the number of in-between points they illustrate, it's all little more than a distraction at this point.

In the end, the unwillingness by many to acknowledge significant shortcomings in evolutionary theory and the quick and often vitriolic, condescending dismissals of dissenting views suggest an insecurity in the correctness of the theory.

No, what it suggests is a growing impatience with those who are constantly trying to poke holes (generally re-raising tired, old objections which have been addressed dozens of times, as though those objections were somehow new) while not showing any legitimate interest in learning the truth. Almost without exception, those who question evolution do so not on scientific grounds, but because their religious beliefs dictate to them that it cannot be so. It's intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale. One need look no further than the short history of the ID movement, and all of the lies and maneuvering by the "cdesign proponentsists," to see why it gets so frustrating for those who are genuinely interested in scientific inquiry.

So yes, the responses are often vitriolic and dismissive. But the ID movement has largely earned those responses with their collective behavior.

No, but it should make us skeptical of many of the claims made about the actual evidence.

Which, of course, is oh-so-much easier than, you know, actually examining the evidence.

I swear, if you had any political or religious objection to gravity, you'd be demeaning the scientists in that field, talking about how "incomplete" the science is, etc., etc.

I believe God gave us the ability to reason and it does not appear to me that evolutionary theory has a particularly strong foundation in reason.

You're welcome to those doubts, however ill-founded they might be. As long as you don't try to wrongly foist those doubts upon others, we have no quarrel.

I will say this, though: at the rate at which you're dismissing entire fields of scientific inquiry, it won't be long before there's no science left that you're willing to believe. You've essentially already ruled out modern biology and climatology. Presumably, since the Grand Canyon can't be replicated, we're going to have to toss out geology. Plate tectonics? Fuggeddaboutit! At a minimum, the forensic sciences are out the window...

"Then how to explain the presence of mammal fossils in the more recent strata? Are they only less likely to be preserved in the older strata? And don't forget that mammals, too, have had structures that can fossilize. We call them bones."

Nick,

The reference to evolution theorists commenting on the poor fossil record and the scarcity of soft-skinned animals came from one of the sites tgirsch provided a link to - and those comments were in reference to the multitude of gaps in the fossil record. Additionally, there seems to be widespread agreement that soft-skinned animals are vastly under-represented in the fossil record, and that there under-representation is not unexpected because of the process by which animals are fossilized.

As far as the chromosomes go, again one of the links tgirsch provided discussed the similar functions of the different chromosomes. Moreover, your statment

"Chromosome number has precious little effect on gene function and overall morphology."

doesn't seem to make sense. (Do you have a cite for that information?) As it is my understanding that the chromosomes contain the genetic codes and allow for the production of necessary proteins, etc., it would seem to follow that the number is important. Moreover, if the number of chromosomes is simply a function of heredity, then we should be able to trace fairly easily our evolutionary ancestors and those of other species. Also, should we not expect to see a significant number of fusions the further we move from a common ancestor?

"Are you arguing that scientific hypotheses shouldn't be based on prior data? Or that we shouldn't make predictions? Your prediction about the orange looks like good science to me."

Not at all. It is entirely appropriate to base hypotheses on presently observed or past data. However, it makes no sense to come up with a hypothesis to explain the observed data and then point to the observed data as proof that the hypothesis is correct. The force of gravity was substantiated not be repeatedly pointing to the falling apple (or a falling orange), but by performing a present experiment (as I recall, dropping a stone and a feather within a vaccuum and observing that they both fell at the same rate - I may be thinking of further refinements of the theory of gravity).

"I'm honestly curious: why do you think co-evolution poses problems for the theory or increases its improbability?"

Because it means that a greater number of chance beneficial mutations must have occurred close in time to those which were occurring in other organisms and which were mutually beneficial. Additionally, it substantially increases the amount of time necessary for such correlative mutations to occur. A non-organic example would be the internal combustion engine: there would be little use for it if there were not also filling stations available to fuel it.

Matt:

What don't you understand about "irreducible complexity"?

Actually I think I have a pretty good idea of what it means, and it's an engaging idea. It would really help my understanding, though, if you could name something that is a) non-trivial, b) natural, and c) *definitely* irreducibly complex that would help me enormously.

Deb:

The idea that eugenics and the holocaust are interlinked with neo-Darwinism is profoundly offensive, and what's worse, its a lie that obscures the actual roots of the holocaust.

Yes, some of the proponents of eugenics, and by extension the drivers of the holocaust, did argue that their ideas were building on evolution. They were exactly wrong in this; he whole point of evolution is that it's *natural* selection, whereas eugenics relies on artificial selection, which we've practiced for thousands of years as animal husbandry. I'm going to assume you're not accusing farmers of inspiring the holocaust.

In comparison the holocaust drew inspiration from centuries of vilification of Jews by Christians such as the blood libel. I might be tempted to argue that there's a little more substance to that argument, but ultimately blaming Christianity for the holocaust is as much of a perversion as blaming evolution - they were both excuses seized upon by sick minds to justify the 'them versus us' mentality they needed to unite a people, just as the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and countless other historical 'injustices' were used.

Everyone:
It's not just in this forum, but I've grown a little weary of this idea that science can't account for God. Certainly it has a presumption against 'intelligent actors' like God because htey've proven over many years to be unnecessary, but if the evidence leads to such a thing, however it manifests, then so be it. It does not, however, allow for the 'supernatural' - artificial (e.g. man made) and natural are fine, but there is no such thing as supernatural. Either a supernatural thing is real, in which case it's natural but not yet explained, or it isn't real, in which case it's just a story.

Matt - On chromosomes a very quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms should help you get the idea. Some of the numbers are so surprising that I'd believe they've been hacked, but a kangaroo having 12 chromosomes while a shrimp has 254 makes the point rather well, I think.

Mr D - I think what you're saying is much too limiting on our perceptions. Currently we say that ghosts are supernatural (and that they don't exist). But if for the sake of argument it turned out that ghosts *did* exist they would immeadiately cease to be supernatural - however they do what they do, it could be no other than natural because natural things are all that there is. If the universe exists because of a statistical fluctuation in a zero-energy field, that's natural. If it exists because God willed it so then that, too, is natural. The only thing that I can think of as unnatural (or supernatural) is if something 'just happened'. Not because a creator decided it (even as a whim), or because we know that even zero energy can randomly resolve itself into +1 and -1, but just because it suddenly happened. And even then I'd tend to think of it as natural - if it turns out that human thoughts are utterly non-deterministic and happen independent of any mechanism, that would still seem to be natural to me. Such may be the case with the right/wrong examples you quote from Lewis, for example.

(PS can you close the italics tags above please?!)

There seems to be an unclosed italics tag somewhere upthread, so I am bolding the comments to which I am responding

Matt:
Additionally, there seems to be widespread agreement that soft-skinned animals are vastly under-represented in the fossil record, and that there under-representation is not unexpected because of the process by which animals are fossilized.

But that doesn't explain a relative change in the frequency of mammalian (or more generally vertebrate fossils). If mammals are less likely to fossilize than bivalves, that relationship should be true across all strata. In fact, though, vertebrate fossils are absent from Cambrian strata but relatively common in more recent strata - in fact all terrestial animals are absent from Cambrian strata. Bivalves with hard shells are common in both Cambrian and more recent strata. Why would general improbability of fossilization apply to vertebrate only in the most ancient strata?

doesn't seem to make sense. (Do you have a cite for that information?) As it is my understanding that the chromosomes contain the genetic codes and allow for the production of necessary proteins, etc., it would seem to follow that the number is important.

Genes encode proteins, but genes are much, much smaller than chromosomes. Think of an encyclopedia. The articles in that encyclopedia will remain the same whether you divide it up into 5 volumes or 20 volumes. In general, chromosome rearrangments only affect expression of genes right at the breakpoint.

Moreover, if the number of chromosomes is simply a function of heredity, then we should be able to trace fairly easily our evolutionary ancestors and those of other species. Also, should we not expect to see a significant number of fusions the further we move from a common ancestor?

Correct, that is indeed what we see. Segments of chromosomes that contain the same genes in the same order in two different species are called syntenic regions. In closely related species like humans and chimps or rats and mice, the syntenic regions encompass entire chromosomes. As species become more distantly related, the syntenic regions become smaller and smaller due to chromosome rearangements occurring in both evolutionary lines. If you compare human and mouse genomes, syntenic regions are easily identifiable, but they are much smaller than in a human-chimp comparison. Mice and rats, as you might expect, have very large regions of synteny. By the time you start comparing vertebrates and invertebrates, sytenic regions encompass only a few genes and are often ambiguous. So, indeed, chromosome structure can be used as a method for tracing evolutionary history although phylogenetic trees that are generated by that data alone would be fairly low resolution.

Because it means that a greater number of chance beneficial mutations must have occurred close in time to those which were occurring in other organisms and which were mutually beneficial. Additionally, it substantially increases the amount of time necessary for such correlative mutations to occur.

I don't understand the reasoning behind your second sentence. In co-evolution, the two different species that are co-evolving create selective pressure for each other. A good analogy is an arms race. In small scale, such co-evolution can be observed in some predator-prey relationships (e.g. toxic newts and toxin-resistant snakes) and the mutations involved have been identified. At a larger scale, as in your bee-flower argument, the specialized organisms that we see today are probably derived from less specialized ancestors. Although honeybees are dependent on flowers for food, many of their relatives, which also pollinate flowers, are predators. Similarly, while some flowers are dependent on one pollinator species, many are pollinated by a variety of insects. So, co-evolution can generate a specialized, apparently irreducibly complex relationship, from more generalized ancestors.

A non-organic example would be the internal combustion engine: there would be little use for it if there were not also filling stations available to fuel it.

That analogy would only hold up if there were an "ancestral" combustion engine that could burn a variety of fuels and an "ancestral" filling station that served sereral different purposes. Then, if the filling station provided a good, readily available fuel, we might see "mutations" in the combustion engine that would make it better able to use the filling station fuel and also more dependent on the filling station. Similarly, if cars formed more and more of the filling station's business, it might discard the more generalized functions and focus on being a better filling station.

Seems to me that if we look at the history of the automobile, we see the development of engines that are dependent on more specialized, high performance gasolines (early automobiles used a variety of hydrocarbon fuels and purity was certainly lower). We've also seen filling stations "evolve" from general stores with a gas pump at the front to specialized filling stations that may or may not also sell snacks and a few other products.