Egnor Takes the High Road
by BradfordMichael Egnor authored a post at Evolution News and Views revealing his priorites with reference to discourse involving controversial personalities. One can hate a message and despise the one delivering it and yet support the notion that an individual be allowed to convey that message.
The object of attention was a resolution before the Oklahoma State Legislature seeking the recision of an invitation extended to Richard Dawkins to speak at the University of Oklahoma. Quoting Egnor:
I share Rep. Thomsen’s disdain for Dawkins, and Dawkins himself has certainly been a vocal supporter of censorship in education, but I strongly disagree with the proposed resolution and I hope it does not pass.
Dawkins has said and written many things that are deeply offensive to Christians and to all people who value academic freedom and civility in the public square. I disagree with him on many (most) issues, but it is imperative that he be allowed to speak without censorship of any kind. The issues that Dawkins raises are important issues about religion and science. We all gain by the free exchange of ideas. The intelligent design community has consistently supported unfettered discussion of these issues, and Rep. Thomsen’s effort to censor Dawkins is incompatible with our consistent philosophy of support for academic freedom.
When a civilization and the individuals within it lose confidence freedom can become an "endangered species." Allow Dawkins to speak. Allow those who disagree with him to voice their views. Freedom of expression is a valuable concept. Too valuable to ever lose.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
This isn't an argument as to why Dawkins should be allowed to speak.
But wasn't Dawkins involved with the whole brouhaha to get some university to uninvite Ben Stein from talking at one of their ceremonies?
Or was that UD hype?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Absolute rubbish. Anyone here prepared to try and support this claim that Dawkins advocates censorship in education or anywhere else.
Comment by Alan Fox — March 9, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Good day GringoRoyale
View Dawkins's letter here.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
My personal favs from Dickie D's letter:
Now the Biology department needs to be consulted on the choice of commencement speakers? Not too full of himself and his profession, eh?
I think this has been sufficiently dealt with to render this quote as laughable.
Sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black (or something along those lines). I just don't think he liked being quoted as suggesting aliens as the cause of life on Earth.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Hi Alan,
what would you call Dawkins actions towards Ben Stein?
Also, thanks for the link JJS P.Eng.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Is that the same Egnor who called Darwinists a bunch of atheists brownshirts and parasites suckling at the public creationist teat?
Comment by Raevmo — March 9, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Good day Raevmo.
Are you operating under the assumption that Egnor and other ID proponents are perfect saints?
Bradford's main point is that Egnor does not advocate for censoring opposing views, IMO, a highly commendable and challenging position to take. This should be the main focus of the thread.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I suppose I should be surprised, but I find myself completely agreeing with Dr. Egnor on this point. This is why I invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my evolution course at Cornell, which was why my interview with Ben Stein & Co. was cut from Expelled, which just goes to show you how much the people who made that film might agree with Dr. Egnor on the value of free and open inquiry and balanced treatment of the issues. So it goes…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 9, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
In case you're curious, it's all here:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/allen-macneill-2.html
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 9, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So you don't think Bradford brought this up because of the nice bandhanded complements Egnor presented? Yes, I think we all agree that Egnor was perfectly reasonable in backing Dawkins speaking.
I'd like to see some support for "…and to all people who value academic freedom and civility in the public square." From my impartial position, I understand why Christians are offended by Dawkins, but I don't see anything he does as impinging academic freedom or being uncivil. Dawkins is outrageous, not offensive.
The issue was specifically the honorary degree, not whether Stein should be allowed to speak.
Does Dawkins need to be a perfect saint?
Comment by don provan — March 9, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Good day don,
Nope.
Forgive the sarcasm, but yeah, right!
Honourary degrees are in essence not worth the paper they're printed on. It's more an honour to be able to speak to a convocation class. So the bottom line is by disinviting Ben Stein, UVM denied him the chance to speak his mind. That sounds like censorship to me.
To UVM, I don't care if you agree or disagree with Ben Stein's views. Man up and honour your previous committment to him.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Ooops, missed this last one:
I think the answer to that is self-evident.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
JJS:
Egnor uses the cheap rhetorical trick to label as censorship any opposition to the illegal teaching of creationism in public schools. That's why he tries to fashion himself as a champion of free speech, as you are probably well aware.
Comment by Raevmo — March 9, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I thought Stein pulled out.
Me, too: you think Dawkins does need to be a perfect saint but Stein doesn't.
Comment by don provan — March 9, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Such distrustfulness! A quick aside: is there anything a pro-ID advocate can say or do to convince you his/her actions or words have no hidden agenda?
Whatever your day job is, don't give it up because you are a terrible mind-reader. Dawkins's own words convict him. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but Dawkins reminds me of a spoiled brat who cries foul when he doesn't get his own way. Somebody call the waaaaah!-bulance already!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
In the article that this thread is based on could you cite a few examples? Or one?
Also, what would you consider "teaching creationism"? Did Dr. Crocker teach it?
Is mentioning it in a classroom the same as teaching it? I think that's important. If you think the simple mentioning of it is the same as teaching then I can better understand why you would feel that way.
But, don't you think a court room is a bad place to decide matters like this? It just seems weird to say that:
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
JJS:
Egnor's agenda is hardly hidden. Just read the part of Egnor's post that Bradford didn't quote:
Comment by Raevmo — March 9, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Hey, St. Ignatius of Antioch wasn't perfect
I don't think Dawkins needs to be a perfect saint. I'm easy, considerate and thoughtful would do for me.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Raevmo,
would you mind bolding the section that you feel is part of some nefarious Egnor agenda?
I'm not seeing it, maybe I'm not reading it right.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Gringo,
About Crocker: check this out. She was teaching creationist nonsense.
No, of course that's not the same. But Crocker and her DI buddies want more than just mentioning the existence of creationism. They want it taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.
Comment by Raevmo — March 9, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Thanks for the link Raevmo.
I'll need more time to read it over, but, coming from a site called Expelled Exposed…. I don't know.
Was Dr. Crocker teaching high school or college? Is there a difference at that level? Or are laws that are passed to prevent mentioning of 'things' in high school binding to the college level as well?
Also this:
I'd really hope that that decision is not left up to the amount of student complaints. My wife graduated with her degree in PT from Marquette University. They had complaints about a prof that would come to class hung over, who had seemingly arbitrary standards for grading tests, and who belittled students on a regular basis…. that was 5 years ago and this guy is still there.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
JJS P. Eng. wrote:
Speaking at a university commencement is not a right, it is a privilege. A university can pick and choose whom it wants to invite to speak.
And when an invited speaker goes on record saying "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people," he is flipping the bird to the entire school of arts and sciences and is asking to be booted from campus.
Good riddance, I say.
Comment by olegt — March 9, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
How about research? We all have biases, but the research, peer-review, and publication process helps weed out those biases. If ID folks want their position considered independent of their biases then they need to do some real research.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 9, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
For what it's worth, I think freedom of speech is extremely important. I even think horrid awful speech such as hate speech and violent religious speech should be protected. Of course such speech deserves to be mocked mercilessly; in fact it needs to be mocked least people consider it a guide for acceptable behavior rather than just ugly speech from evil mouths. Even speech filled with lies such as Egnor's speech should be protected.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 9, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Egnor:
I do not know the details of the different curriculums proposed in different parts of different states. I doubt I'll take the time to investigate. There are only so many hours in a day. However, this reminds me of a comment I witnessed from a theistic evolutionist and directed at YECs. He argued that their children would at some point in their lives come into contact with broader claims made about time eras, evolution etc. and that by keeping information from them the kids would be more vulnerable and less prepared to deal with teaching that contradicted their understanding. The same could apply to mainstream theories. The fossil example is not an establishment of religion. If I were teaching my inclination would be to beat doubters to the punch and address the fossil issue head on. Yes, this is true but… Unless and until I see an actual religious doctrine proposed I'm not assuming I see the hidden agenda. God created… is a religious statement. Don't confuse that with criticism which is not religiously doctrinal.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Of course, because if it were a right being denied then there would really be no debate over the issue. Egnor touched on this himself in the article when he said:
I'm not entirely familiar with the whole situation surrounding Stein and UVM. If Stein ultimately declined, that's one thing. But if he was uninvited for saying some inflammatory things… well then welcome to the thread started by Bradford which is about an article by Dr. Egnor.
It's not like Dawkins hasn't said some inflammatory things himself; and that brings us full circle. They shouldn't rescind on his invitation because of that reason. The same standard should be applied to Stein (assuming the latter scenario).
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Gaps in the fossil record are expected for a number of reasons, such as due to poor preservation and varying rates of evolution. When taught to children so as to undermine the Theory of Evolution, then it is a falsehood propagated for ulterior motives.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Zachriel:
This is why I would need to see the details. A DI endorsement is enough evidence for some. But I doubt a course plan would be so blatent. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Research can't be directed by the desire to support hidden agendas?
In many cases. But that same process can serve as an insurmountable obstacle to those who wish to get their work published. Of course the peer-review process can be wedded to the current paradigm so much so to disallow publication (through the peer-reviewed process) of those works that question that paradigm.
Does Ralph Seelke count?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
The same gaps can also be expected for other reasons. Maybe Dr. Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monsters'. Maybe punctuated equilibrium. Maybe front-loaded evoltuion.
So, those gaps could also serve as evidence to be expected if Darwinian step-wise evolutionary processes are incorrect.
This doesn't seem too fair. So a creationist mom and pop can't look at those gaps and say to their little boy or girl "see, there are other ways to interpret the evidence that can be in favor of a God who acted through out history and acts today".
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
GringoRoyale wrote:
Let's see. According to ISI Web of Science, Ralph Seelke published 3 papers between 1988 to 2008. Here is the latest one, available for free online: O. Turunen, R. Seelke, and J. Macosko, "In silico evidence for functional specialization after genome duplication in yeast," FEMS Yeast Research 9, 16 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00451.x.
Comment by olegt — March 9, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Oh, so he doesn't count.
Did you check out his UW webpage?
Or does that stuff not count either?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
GringoRoyale wrote:
His web page is mostly about teaching. At one point he lists his scientific presentations: the 2008 paper and a couple of conference PowerPoint files. Did I miss anything?
Comment by olegt — March 9, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Uhm, by Zachriel's own 'evidentiary' standards, didn't Gould then also "propagate a falsehood for ulterior motives"?
If gaps are expected, then Gould had no case with PE since Zachriel is convinced mainstream theory predicts these gaps so well there would be no need to expand conventional theory with PE.
Comment by Jean — March 10, 2009 @ 6:31 am
March 10th, 2009 at 7:43 am
No. Gould proposed a testable scientific theory. Gould has been repeatedly misrepresented by those attempting to undermine the teaching of science, typically through quote-mining.
Gaps are expected. Most organisms don't leave fossils. Gould was attempting to explain *particular patterns* in the fossil record.
There are ample examples of gradual evolution, so that is already well-established. Gould proposed that evolution sometimes occurs rapidly in isolated populations that then overtake the parent population. As it is observed that evolution can occur much faster than required to explain the overall pattern, this is a plausible scenario. Adaptive radiation is a typical example of such an evolutionary pattern that might leave few transitional fossils and make distinguishing the exact order of branching very difficult.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 7:43 am
March 10th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I guess my point was that the comment I was addressing was simply:
I mentioned Seelke because of his work with a subunit of tryptophan synthase (one of his papers on his homepage discusses it in more detail).
Even if he's ultimately wrong, it's still research.
I didn't get why you replied to my comment about Seelke with what appeared to be a slam against his lack of continuous research. Because it wasn't:
It was
You added a qualification that wasn't initially even in the discussion.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 8:58 am
March 10th, 2009 at 9:06 am
That isn't the point. The point is simply that the evidence (the fossil record) can be interpreted to favor other theories. Theories that run against the contention of Darwin's step-wise proposal.
And that's what you at least appeared to be claiming when you suggested that the gaps should be expected.
Yes, because he was attempting to let the evidence guide his proposal; opposed to telling the evidence what it should look like.
Well-established enough to completely support Darwin's theory so that competitors are no longer needed?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 9:06 am
March 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
GringoRoyale,
This is not research, it's undergraduates having fun.
We, too, involve undergraduates in research. For the most part, it does not lead anywhere. In rare cases, results worthy of a publication are obtained and a student gets to be a coauthor on a peer-reviewed paper. That didn't happen to Seelke's students.
Seelke's grant application to the NSF did not get funded. The NSF Award Search engine shows one grant for him in 1995. Not a glowing record.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 9:40 am
March 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Maybe they're related; but I was refering to his "What Evolution Can Really Do" links. I think there's a powerpoint from 2008 on the page.
Again, we might be talking about two different things.
But let's say we are not.
When is it research and when is it not research?
If Seelke is employing the scientific method does what he's doing only get to be considered research when it goes through the peer-review process?
This is still adding qualifications that weren't in the original request.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 11:48 am
March 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
GringoRoyale,
The main point of Seelke's article is that he was unable to observe evolution events in E. coli that require two mutations, so he wants to claim that multiple mutations are impossible. For some reason, he did not bother to publish his findings in a biology journal. Are you wondering why not? Here's why.
Richard Lenski, a biologist recently elected to the National Academy of Sciences, has done a much more extensive research on the same bacterium and he did observe evolution of new traits that require two mutations. The article is available for free here. An excerpt:
So that pretty much refutes Seelke's point.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
UVM initially chose Ben Stein to speak, then they reneged. While that may be their right, their reasoning was weak.
Compared with other invited speakers (such as Ahmadinejad at Columbia), what Stein said was harmless.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Olegt,
are you reading what I'm writing? Because I get the sinking feeling you aren't.
Because maybe you would have noticed my numerous comments that it's still research and that was the only request; also, that you are adding qualification upon qualifiation.
Now we have: is it only research if the point is proven to be true? I think that's the 3rd qualification from you.
1st it was the frequency.
2nd was the fact that undergraduates were involved (even though I think this was a different topic) and it didn't get peer-reviewed
Now, it's that Seelke's contention was proven wrong (however, that's disputable, and Lenski's findings have already been discussed on this board).
But that aside. I would have thought you wouldn't have bothered with the comment:
When I had already said:
Crazy enough that was a comment directed towards you.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Why do I get this feeling if ID ever meets this requirement this won't satisfy you?
As for "weeding out biases", that's crap. I personally just went through the peer review process and it was easy compared to my thesis defense. The reviewers never asked for data to confirm results. They never performed their own calculations or modelling to confirm my findings. They only asked us to provide supporting information. So don't give me the speech about the peer review process "weeding out biases" or even errors (which was implied by your comment). It doesn't do such a thing in any rigorous or detailed manner.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
GringoRoyale,
In science, like in competitive sports, it's not enough to participate. You play to win.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Hi Olegt,
I found the other thread.
I was wrong. It wasn't a thread dedicated to Lenski, but it did come up in the comments.
http://telicthoughts.com/more-than-beauty-lies-in-the-eye-of-the-behol der/#comment-195130
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
JJS P. Eng. wrote:
I don't think Ahmadinejad was invited to give a commencement speech at Columbia, so why do you bring him up? To say that the head of an enemy state can give a talk at a university but Ben Stein can't? (And that's not true, either: Stein spoke at U Vermont last year.)
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Come on, Olegt.
Even in sports you're still competing in sports when you lose.
This is like saying, "nope, it's not research…. because you lost".
We wouldn't say that, because again… all findings are tentative
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Good day olegt. So what makes a commencement speech any different than any other university sponsered speech (other than the idealogical)? A speech is a speech.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
JJS P. Eng. wrote:
Here is what David Horowitz, a notable conservative, wrote about commencement speeches:
I don't think someone as contemptible as Ben Stein would be a good role model for graduating students.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Yeah, Howard Dean is a much better role model than Ben Stein. I personally hope Dean does his "crazed wrestler" bit at the commencement.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Contemptible?
Harsh words.
But it's better than…. eh, nevermind.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
JJS P.Eng.,
I understand that you disagree with Dean's political views, but that does not make him a bad person. Ben Stein, on the other hand, has made many statements that are deliberate smears against mainstream scientists. Do you disagree with this assessment?
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
He's actually only contemptible to a small minority. He has always been a very popular personality, extremely successful at pretty much everything he's done.
You think Mengele was "mainstream"? PZ Myers "mainstream"?
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
chunkdz wrote:
Unfortunately, chunkdz, Stein was coming to speak to a place where the "tiny minority" is well represented, and not just among the faculty but also among the students. So I imagine that his speech would not be well received.
And yes, you can be successful and contemptible at the same time. Rush Limbaugh is a great example.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
olegt, no I don't agree with your statement at all.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
So, JJS P. Eng., do I take it that you find nothing wrong with what Ben Stein said? How do you justify that?
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Olegt,
try to play this game fairly.
Finding something wrong in what a person says is not the same as finding that person contemptible. I can find many things my friends have said to be wrong and at the same time not finding them contemptible.
So the choice you offer to JJS P. Eng is disingenuous.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I never said Dean was a bad person. He's a quack or a looney, but not a bad person (although, we could get into an interesting theological discussion of whether there are truly any "good" people).
Ben Stein is not a bad person either. He has a viewpoint that offends you personally, and probably other scientists as well. Let's look at Stein's statement again:
Do you disagree with the first part? I think the evidence is clear that civilisation, in general, has benefited by the loving actions of true (not cultural) Christians.
But you object most to the second part. It's an overgeneralisation at best, ignorant at worst. Science is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. It is how people use that tool that matter. Stein mistakening conflated eugenics with all of science.
To sum up, I think neither Ben Stein nor Howard Dean are bad. I think both are on equal footing (at best) to give a commencement speech.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
GringoRoyale,
JJS P. Eng. said that he does not agree with me "at all." My interpretation of this is he finds nothing wrong with Stein's expressed position. I may be wrong. I am sure he will clarify his position.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Hasn't Dean made some 'contemptible' comments?
In this case it's okay, because for you he's not a bad person. Simply a matter of disagreeing with what he has said.
But when it's Stein you start talking about:
Dean can say: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for".
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Hey, I don't agree with your statement at all either.
I don't agree with many people when they hold one person to standard A and say "Come on, that doesn't make him a bad guy"… while holding another person to standard B and say "they are contemptible".
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
JJS P. Eng. wrote:
No, at best this is incompetence and at worst it is a deliberate misrepresentation. And given Stein's good education, it is hard to believe that he is so ignorant. No, I think that he deliberately misrepresents things.
Here is an example of another misrepresentation described by Peter McKnight in Vancouver Sun:
It looks like Stein knows what he is dong. And if not then he is remarkably incompetent. Either way, I would not want such a person to speak at a commencement ceremony.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I doubt there were that many Mengeles or PZ's in the crowd.
He's spoken at liberal colleges before. I encourage you to read his commencement address to Ithaca from 2004 for an idea of what Stein has to say to graduating students. Kind of a tear jerker for me personally. Great speech, and well received from what I understand. Shoot, he was the most popular guy at Yale when he attended. He's just not a contemptible guy to mainstream America.
Everyone is contemptible to someone. Even you and me Oleg.
But the facts are thus: Ben Stein is beloved, popular, well educated, and continues to be so in just about everything he does. He's marched with Dr. King, won 5 Emmy's, continues to be a respected and sought after writer and guest contributor, succesful lawyer and professor, speech writer for two US Presidents, his recent movie was very popular and successful, he sells a buttload of Clear Eyes and he plays a fairy on Nickelodeon.
Sounds like a great choice for a commencement speaker, (unless you are one of the few that he skewered in Expelled). I mean, good Lord Oleg. It's a 30 minute speech that wishes kids well after college and encourages them to appreciate their families. He quotes JFK, his father, and Dr. Dre for God's sake. Lighten up.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
olegt, I defer to Gringo and chunkdz. Gracias, amigos!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 10, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
This is the real crux. Dean is free to hold a view like this. Personally I wouldn't object to him speaking at my kids commencement, even though I find blanket statements like this to be contemptible.
The point is Dean isn't going to address the graduating class with his political opinions. He's going to say something uplifting, hopefully wise and positive sprinkled with some sage advice. I would expect the same from Stein. Neither of them are Achmedinejad after all.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Just a note on Seelke and Lenksi.
Lenski has not disproven what Seelke has said.
Seelke said that two necessary mutations are very much more difficult to achieve, that this causes a problem for evolution (by random mutation), but that they can be expected in populations which are large and quickly reproducing, as Lenski's E. coli.
He did not say it cannot happen.
Second, he is quite particular that he is talking about two mutations which both are necessary but neither of which is independently selectable.
Lenski doesn't know whether the first mutation in his strain that evolved to Cit+ had a separately selectable function or not.
Both men are demonstrating the capabilities and limitations of mutations. Their work is complementary, not contradictory.
Both are doing research.
One can publish his research and get funding for it.
Comment by Pez — March 10, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Good points. I have low regard for both Dean and Achmedinejad. I also think Limbaugh is a wise sage. But these views are not important. Achmedinejad's speech at Columbia U. is a good example of why it is unwise to try and revoke speaking engagements. By allowing him to speak and, as importantly allowing his detractors to have their say, he was exposed for what he really is. Our culture thrives on openness and suffers when in shutdown mode. I know private institutions have a right to select speakers but when the herd mentailty kicks in and the mere mention of an individual is enough to send ideologues into a frenzy then I suspect the urge to censor is lurking in the wings. Viva Limbaugh.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Pez wrote:
O yes, he did:
Here is his paper (Word file).
The first mutation can be beneficial or neutral.
Lastly, Seelke's estimates are based on a fixed target: he creates two mutations that deactivate a gene and waits until random mutations restore the damage. Well, it need not happen. Evolution, being a random walk, does not retrace its steps. A failure of Seelke's experiment proves nothing.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Here's the wierd thing about the Stein affair. Hundreds of emails but only half a dozen from within the university? This frenzy was generated by third party observers.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Bradford:
Is this a joke? If not, it's the height of irony. You have demonstrated over and over again that you are a paragon of herd mentality and misguided loyalism, as you will defend practically any IDist no matter how crazy their claims. And then to dismiss "ideologues" while celebrating a criminal ideologue like Limbaugh? It is way, way beyond laughable.
Comment by Raevmo — March 10, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Punctuated equilibrium doesn't dispute stepwise evolutionary adaptation. And it's testable. It's not just a handwaving "interpretation".
What competing theory did you have in mind?
We have sufficient evidence that gradual evolution can occur. Historical processes often have complicating factors, but the claim that (natural) evolution is precluded by arguments to CSI or IRC are fallacious.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Raevmo:
We elitists must stick together.
O please. When are you going to get beyond that juvenile leftist labeling proclivity? You're old enough to know better.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
You keep saying that olegt, but do you really understand Dr. Lenski's paper?
The bacteria already had enzymes to used citrate as a food source. It was only an issue of getting citrate in the cell under oxic conditions. This alone doesn't refute what Seelke was saying (or show his idea to be a "failure" to use your very less than generous phrasing).
Because in Dr. Lenski's scenario the two mutations would not have had to occur together. A mutation to cause an over-expression of some permease enzyme to allow citrate in the cell under oxic conditions would have sufficed.
No 'new' metabolic pathway was achieved since the bacteria already had the ability to use citrate.
Funny even arguing this about the paper since Dr. Lenski's aim wasn't so much to show that two mutations (or more) can readily occur in tandem to solve a problem for the bacteria…. as it was to show the historical contingency associated with his research.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
But it certainly is an attempt to account for a fossil record that wasn't meshing too well with what Darwin proposed.
Come on, you know there are disputes between NDE and PE. And you know that PE is a theory that attempts to better account for the fossil record. Please don't be difficult for my sake.
How many different ways are you going to say this? Yes, we have sufficient evidence that gradual evolution can occur. What do you mean by sufficient, what do you mean by evolution… heck, what do you mean by gradual?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 10, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 12:27 am
HI Oleg,
You are missing a few key statements from Seelke's presentation:
Because you MIGHT find it, Seelke is obviously not saying it CAN'T happen.
How hard would it be to evolve two mutations, those which you quote Seelke as saying CAN'T happen?
Like I said:
Context is king.
—
But the random walk doesn't solve the problem either.
The bacteria could go off and solve the problem in any number of ways, but the obvious way would be to replace the two mutants by substitution. The easiest way to solve the problem is by random point mutation and, it turns out, the research shows that the math is right – it is very difficult to stumble upon this solution.
It's more difficult to stumble upon a different solution, as evidenced by the fact that that doesn't happen either.
Science is not about proofs, correct?
And Seelke's experiment demonstrates exactly what it demonstrates. You can add this information to the pool of information about evolution because it is valid research.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2009 @ 12:27 am
March 11th, 2009 at 8:25 am
You want to go quantitative, Pez? Let's go quantitative.
Both Seelke and Lenski say that the rate of a single mutation is about 10^−7. If a single mutation is required to create a new trait, you can observe it in a few million bacteria. Two independent mutations occur at a rate of (10^−7)^2 = 10^−14, so you need about a hundred trillion bacteria to reliably observe it. Lenski's group has tested 40 trillion cells and found the mutants. Here's what Seelke wrote:
If I plug in the numbers, the probability of finding two independent mutations is 0.4 in Lenski's experiments and 0.001 in Seelke's. It's no wonder that the former succeeded and the latter failed. Seelke hasn't run his observations nearly long enough, so his failure means nothing at this point.
Comment by olegt — March 11, 2009 @ 8:25 am
March 11th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Just curious: have these bacteria remained bacteria despite all the 'evolving' process they underwent in the lab???:twisted:
Comment by neddy — March 11, 2009 @ 9:06 am
March 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Good. So we agree that Seelke wasn't saying that the double mutation can't happen.
Also, do you mean new trait or point mutation? I think point mutation.
We see from Lenski's paper empirical confirmation of the math you've provided (you didn' really need to – Seelke already plugged in the numbers in the quote I provided). And he thinks his double mutation was very rare and on the order of 10-13 or 10-14. He shows, via his contingency argument, that you likely have to wait around a long time for a double mutant when neither is obviously selectable (one is putatively "neutral") on its own. It turns out that the cumulative mutations in this case are about as rare as if you wanted the two to appear simultaneously.
And Seelke is confirming this limit in his research as well.
Like he said, to get two mutations you need huge resources. 100 billion organisms is not enough, on average, to expect a trait that requires two mutations. He has helped to confirm this with his research.
We also see from your presentation that evolution's random walk has just as much trouble finding the two mutations needed to solve oxic citrate-transport as it does "retracing its steps" in Seelke's research – so that critique really is toothless.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2009 @ 9:31 am
March 11th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Also, like Lenski, Seelke is continuing his research and solving new problems.
His experiment has now tested trillions of cells and the trait requiring the double mutant has not appeared.
In fact, it turns out he was actually testing a cumulative case, as one of his mutations was weakly selective. Evolution took care of, repeatedly, by finding that weakly selective gene and shutting it off. His research has provided empirical confirmation of fitness peaks and the deleterious nature of even some beneficial mutations.
He found this out with more experimental research.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2009 @ 9:59 am
March 11th, 2009 at 10:21 am
No. I don't think we agree, Pez. Seelke keeps saying that evolution can't happen if it requires more than one mutation:
He then offers a qualification:
In fact, you DO "find evolution in bacteria taking two events," and you don't need 10^27 bacteria for that, 10^14 is enough, as Lenski's work shows.
And then Seelke makes another extrapolation:
This extrapolation is totally unwarranted. For one thing, shrews don't reproduce by binary fission and mutation rates in eukaryotes are orders of magnitudes higher than in bacteria. For another, the traits he mentions need not have evolved simultaneously and independently. Cooper and Tabin write in Genes and Development:
To make a long story short, Seelke's experimental observations are trivial and his conclusions are totally divorced from them.
Comment by olegt — March 11, 2009 @ 10:21 am
March 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
He didn't say you needed all the bacteria on earth. That was not his qualification. He said, like Lenksi, that, on average , you'd need 100 trillion. He said he could study that amount.
You allude to his real qualification again when you go to critique his extrapolation to bats:
So his qualification, as we see, is not that all the bacteria on earth can achieve a double mutation, but that, on average, 100 trillion can.
Your source on bat evolution says nothing about whether or not some or many of the traits required double mutations along the way or multiple events.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2009 @ 10:44 am
March 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Pez,
I am pretty sure Seelke knows that he needs to go through 100 trillion bacteria to see two mutations. He won't get there at the rate he is going, so I don't see the point of his experiments.
And tell me again what justifies his repeated assertions that "requirement for two steps stops evolution." It doesn't. We know how many bacteria it takes from theory. Lenski's observations confirm it.
Finally, what justifies extrapolating the numbers from bacteria to bats? The point of quoting the article was that at the moment we don't know whether the traits he listed evolved simultaneously or separately: there is a 14-million gap in bat evolution history. How does Seelke know that they arose simultaneously?
Comment by olegt — March 11, 2009 @ 10:58 am
March 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am
First, let's get the points back on the table.
By his qualificaitons, Seelke is obviously not saying double-mutations can't happen.
He and Lenski are complementary, not contradictory.
He is doing research. His research has added to the real knowledge of bacterial evolution.
Everything after that is just you arguing his conclusions.
Because not all populations are bacteria and they can't all muster 100 trillion organisms (or 1-10 trillion if wiki is right on eukaryotes) to achieve very simple traits that require double mutations.
Do some traits require even, say, three mutations?
You guys always act as though an IDist has to disprove evolution in one shot. Why can they not be allowed to add to the pile of data, the mountains of evidence, like anyone else and build a cumulative case against the paradigm just as the opposite case is a cumulative one?
Bats from shrews is not part of Seelke's research. When he briefly mentions bats in these documents (we don't have access to his actual discussions via this website) he is discussing the overall implications of his findings (over a trillion cells so far and the double mutation has not appeared).
Your quote says nothing about whether double (or even triple) mutations were required to produce any of the traits, or any semblance of the traits involved.
It's probably safe to say that Seelke is suggesting that we can surmise that some double mutations can be rationally expected to have been necessary in the evolution of bats.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2009 @ 11:28 am