14 Responses to “A Mystery for the Ages”

1. Jean Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 7:51 am

   "Darwin's black box".

Comment by Jean — June 19, 2005 @ 7:51 am

2. hebenz Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 12:36 pm

   Well, we know what Maynard Smith's answer to the mystery would be:

   It often seems that a perfected organ, although efficient at performing its function, is far too complex to have arisen by one or a few mutations, and yet is such that any intermediate stage between the absence of the organ and its full development would be incapable of performing this function. Thus it is inconceivable that the flight feathers of a bird could have arisen by a single mutation, but the intermediate stages between a scale and a feather would be useless for flight. In this case the difficulty disappears once it is realized that during the early stages of the evolution of feathers, the latter were probably of selective advantage because they conserved heat, and only later did they become functional in flight.

   This is a very common feature of evolution; a new structure evolves at first because it confers advantage by performing one function, but in time it reaches a threshold beyond which it can effectively perform a different function. We saw earlier that something of this kind occurred during the evolution of the elephant's trunk. The flying membranes of bats and of pterodactyls were probably used in gliding before they were of any use in flapping flight, and, as Spurway has pointed out, small membranes along the sides of the body are found in some arboreal mammals which do not even glide, and these folds of skin render such animals more difficult to see by eliminating the shadows they would otherwise cause. Similarly, lungs were a selective advantage to fish living in stagnant waters, enabling them to breathe air, long before the descendants of these fish walked on land; in modern teleost fishes the lung has lost its function as a breathing organ, and has been transformed into a hydrostatic organ, the swim bladder. These examples show that there is no reason to suppose that even the most complex structures underwent a long period of evolution and elaboration before they could function, and so confer selective advantage; rather their function may have changed once or even several times in the course of evolution.

Comment by hebenz — June 19, 2005 @ 12:36 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 12:51 pm

   The Mystery is this:

   WHY does Maynard Smith have a copy of Behe's book in his library?

Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

4. stranger fruit Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 1:47 pm

   Return of the Nimrods

   In April 2004, I announced the death of John Maynard Smith over at the Panda's Thumb. A particular genius ("Ran") noted a copy of Behe's Darwin's Black Box on a picture of JMS and commented:
   I’m sure that was no accident, and it makes me won…

Trackback by stranger fruit — June 19, 2005 @ 1:47 pm

5. Guts Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 1:59 pm

   Interesting that he had Behe's book in his library and probably read it, but never , as far as I know , publically said anything about it. And now we see it in a widely circulated picture of him. Maybe he gave it some serious thought.

Comment by Guts — June 19, 2005 @ 1:59 pm

6. Krauze Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 3:39 pm

   Hi Mike,

   Some concerned ID supporter probably sent him a copy, and Maynard Smith thought better than to throw an expensive hardcover book out. Reminds me of when I once visited the evolutionary biology department at a university, and looked over the books in their research library. There, in the company of Darwin's Origin of Species and Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, was a book by a muslim creationist, arguing that human evolution was contradicted by the fossil record. Gave me a good chuckle.

Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

7. KC Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 7:56 pm

   Why is it a mystery that Maynard Smith have Behe's book? Would anybody be surprised if Behe has any of Maynard Smith's books?

Comment by KC — June 19, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

8. Guts Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 9:46 pm

   Would anybody be surprised if Behe has any of Maynard Smith's books?

   No, Behe was a Darwinist before he was an ID theorist.

Comment by Guts — June 19, 2005 @ 9:46 pm

9. MikeGene Says:
   June 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pm

   John Lynch has a problem with my blog. He begins his complaint by alluding to an exchange he had with another person, where this person argued that Maynard Smith was a closet ID sympathizer. Lynch then easily debunks this claim. But then he goes off the deep end.

   For some reason, Lynch relies on this previous experience to "read between the lines" concerning my entry:

   Now it seems "MikeGene" over at TelicThoughts is engaging in the same garbage, fabricating a "mystery" "¦ "WHY does Maynard Smith have a copy of Behe's book in his library?" "¦ and thus attempting to clothe ID with some borrowed legitamacy. Sad.

   Then it gets creepy. Guts replies, "Get a clue and a sense of humour" and Lynch responds as follows:

   Here's what's happening; you and "MikeGene" are - whether you admit it or not - starting a rumor that some people will pick up and next thing you know someone (at a school board meeting in Kansas, perhaps) will be saying that JMS "gave it some serious thought". ID gets some legitimacy, and once again, half-truths are spread. It wouldn't be the first time.

   Consider what really happened. I post an entry that contains a bare minimum of four points:

   1. I note John Maynard Smith was a great/leading biologist.
   2. I draw attention to a university web site with Maynard Smith's picture.
   3. I post the picture.
   4. I ask, "Can you spot the mystery?"

   From this small set of data, Lynch extrapolates to the following:

   5. I am arguing that John Maynard Smith was a closet ID sympathizer.
   6. I am doing this to clothe ID with some borrowed legitimacy.
   7. I am starting a rumor to help ID get taught in schools.

   As anyone can see, Lynch's interpretations extrapolate wildly beyond what was there. His interpretations #5 and #6 stem from his previous experience with another person and he then transfers this experience to me. It only "seems" (to Lynch) like I am arguing that Maynard Smith was an ID sympathizer because Lynch was primed to see things that way. The reliance on stereotype then sets the stage for the next step in the extrapolation "“ the conspiracy theory. It turns out, according to Lynch, that I posted the picture to secretly aid the Wedge. This is what I call Wedge-centrism. Wedge-centrism is a type of conspiracy theory, where a critic uses "The Wedge" as the prism to make sense of disconnected facts.

   And notice the mind-reading sense of certainty that comes with Lynch's subjection impressions. He declares, as if it is fact, "Here's what's happening." In fact, so certain is he in his subjectivity that his declaration stands "whether you admit it or not." How can Lynch be so certain in his subjectivity? Is there something in my original blog that demands his interpretation? No. Is it the only possible interpretation? No. When it comes to knowing another's motivations, Lynch's sense of certainty comes only from his reliance on stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

   Further evidence of Lynch's reliance on stereotype and conspiracy theory comes from his cherry picking. Gert Korthof has a page that goes far beyond my humble blog (the shortest one I have posted thus far).

   Korthof actually has a blow-up of the picture and adds:

   In the background of the portrait published by Science magazine, Darwin's Black Box of Michael Behe appears to stand next to a biography of Charles Darwin. In his books Maynard Smith never argued against intelligent design creationsts. So what is this copy doing on his bookshelf?

   Lynch has had more than a year to scold/ridicule Korthof, but he has failed to do so. In fact, when Guts brings this to his attention, Lynch responds with silence. Lynch's double standard is clearly explained by his stereotypes/conspiracy theories. Since I'm one of the "bad guys," he needs stereotypes and conspiracy theories to explain me. Since Gorthof is a "good guy," he gets a pass.

   Because so many ID critics tend to rely on stereotypes and conspiracy theories to guide their extrapolations, they also tend to view their opponents as caricatures, blinded to the human reality that is far more subtle and complex than they think. Given that Lynch's impressions are plain wrong, why did I actually post that blog?

   The day before, I posted a blog about the California scientists, where the uninformed journalists ask, "Many mainstream scientists have chosen to ignore or avoid the debate over intelligent design. Why?" Well, Maynard Smith was a great mainstream scientist. And it sure looks like he did not choose to ignore Behe. This does not mean he agreed with Behe or secretly sympathized with him. It merely means he didn't choose to ignore Behe. My answer to my question, "WHY does Maynard Smith have a copy of Behe's book in his library?" is that Maynard Smith was simply curious about what Behe had to say. Nothing more, nothing less.

   So I post this blog. Yet it occurs to me that I can make a multi-dimensional point with this trivia.

   1. We can follow up the "curious" angle, as I get the impression that many critics would like to live in a world where no one questions their views.

   2. I can make the blog as minimal as possible, so that it functions as a Rorschach Inkblot Test. Lots and lots of critics do indeed rely on stereotypes and conspiracy theories, as I have plenty of experience being on the receiving end of their theories and accusations. Thus, I had a good hunch that someone would read the ink blot test in light of their stereotypes and provide the example for all to see. John Lynch has now provided us an excellent case study that demonstrates how stereotypes and conspiracy theories can lead to hallucinations with a sense of certainty.

   See how damn easy it was for Lynch's mind to turn me into a secret nimrod wedge soldier?

Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2005 @ 11:15 pm

10. Guts Says:
    June 20th, 2005 at 4:33 am

    In fact, when Guts brings this to his attention, Lynch responds with silence. Lynch's double standard is clearly explained by his stereotypes/conspiracy theories.

    Lynch's post is just a typical (and classic) example of extreme anti-ID bull$hit.

Comment by Guts — June 20, 2005 @ 4:33 am

11. stranger fruit Says:
    June 20th, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    On Maynard-Smith and "MikeGene"

    Over at TelicThoughts, "MikeGene" (henceforth MG) objects to my comments on his post regarding John Maynard-Smith and Darwin's Black Box. His little lap dog "Guts" chimes in with "Lynch’s post is just a typical (and classic) example of extr…

Trackback by stranger fruit — June 20, 2005 @ 2:29 pm

12. Stuart Harris Says:
    June 20th, 2005 at 6:08 pm

    We don't know what Maynard Smith thought of Darwin's Black Box, but it appears that he at least read the book which is more than can be said for most of Behe's critics.

Comment by Stuart Harris — June 20, 2005 @ 6:08 pm

13. edarrell Says:
    June 20th, 2005 at 6:55 pm

    Why should we think scientists would exhibit the same limited reading habits of creationists? Why wouldn't any scientist working in evolution have already read Behe, and have the book on his shelf?

    Here's a mystery: Why do creationists and anti-evolutionists think others are as crabby and ill-informed as they?

Comment by edarrell — June 20, 2005 @ 6:55 pm

14. jon_e Says:
    June 20th, 2005 at 9:13 pm

    so many things we don't know:

    1. did Maynard Smith read DBB?
    2. where was the picture taken?
    3. is DBB really inside that dustcover?
    4. why is the book leaning to the left?
    5. was this a deliberate plot to get "creationists" to "picture-mine?"

    we'll never know the answers to most of these questions, but might get a clue about #5 if a piece on "picture-mining" shows up at PT with a link to this page.

Comment by jon_e — June 20, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.