Tag: evolution

West Hunter abuses E.O. Wilson

Solely in the mathematical sense, you understand:

Lord Kelvin said “I often say that when you can measure what you are
speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it;
but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science,
whatever the matter may be.”  Even those who didn’t have much math
sometimes wished that they did.  Chuck Darwin said “I have deeply
regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand
something of the great leading principles of mathematics;  for men thus
endowed seem to have an extra sense.”

E. O. Wilson would have benefited from having that extra sense. If he
had it, he might not have suggested that ridiculous “gay uncle” theory,
in which homosexuality pays for itself genetically thru gay men helping
their siblings in ways that produce extra nieces and nephews. First,
that doesn’t even happen – so much for field work.  Second, it’s
impossible.  The relationship coefficients don’t work. Nephews and
nieces are only half as closely related as your own kids, so you’d need
four extra to break even, rather than two, as with your own kids.  Maybe
if Wilson had ever learned to divide by two, he wouldn’t have made this mistake.

Biology and softer-headed sciences such as anthropology are
absolutely rife with innumerates, and there is a cost.  If I hear one
more person say that average growth rates were very low in the old stone
age, a teeny tiny fraction of a percent [true], and so anatomically
modern humans only left Africa after it filled up, which took a hundred
thousand years, I’m gonna scream.  If I hear another anthropologist say
that she could understand how a small group could rapidly expand to fill
New Zealand, but just can’t see how they could fill up the Americas,
whole continents, in a thousand years – lady, they screwed, they had
babies, and they walked.  All it took was a weird, unacademic lifestyle
in which you raised three kids – pretty easy to do in the Happy Hunting
Ground.

This is helpful in illustrating why biologists, as well as science fetishists who harbor blind faith in biologists, shy away from the sort of quantifiable questions I posed to Mike Williamson earlier this week.  It’s true that quantification is not the magical be all and end all; economics is riddled by pseudo-quantifiable fictions that lead to bad theory and even worse policies. But without numbers, there is no precision, and without precision, there is no science, there is only, as Lord Kelvin suggested, the beginning of what could, eventually, become science.

And insofar as it remains unquantifiable and non-numeric, (to say nothing of unfalsifiable), the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection remains a matter of philosophy, not science.

A biologist seeks to dumb down science

This fascinating call to dumb down science by E.O. Wilson not only demonstrates my point about the relative lack of intelligence and intellectual rigor on the part of biologists, but is particularly untimely given the recent relevations concerning the economic work of some famous, and apparently similarly limited economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

For many young people who aspire to be scientists, the great bugbear
is mathematics. Without advanced math, how can you do serious work in
the sciences? Well, I have a professional secret to share: Many of the
most successful scientists in the world today are mathematically no more
than semiliterate.

Many of the most successful scientists in the world today are mathematically no more than semiliterate.

During
my decades of teaching biology at Harvard, I watched sadly as bright
undergraduates turned away from the possibility of a scientific career,
fearing that, without strong math skills, they would fail. This mistaken
assumption has deprived science of an immeasurable amount of sorely
needed talent. It has created a hemorrhage of brain power we need to
stanch.

Now, why would we need to stanch a hemorrhage of demonstrably inferior brains?  And how bright could those undergraduates be if they were not capable of the math? Wilson clearly not only isn’t mathematically more than semiliterate, (which TIA readers will note is something I previously observed about Richard Dawkins as well), he also doesn’t understand the current state of supply and demand in his field.  We already have far more biologists than even the currently inflated state of higher education can support.

The fact that E.O. Wilson is considered a great scientist isn’t an indication that biology doesn’t need mathematically adept individuals, it is an indictment of biology and its butterfly collectors.  While it is true that higher math is not always required, the panoply of mathematical, statistical, and logical errors riddling his field demonstrates that, at the very least, biology could use more people who are at least capable of mastering calculus, not less.

Wilson’s article is particularly amusing in light of Mike Williamson’s claim of the intellectual inferiority of “creationtards”.  I have a homeschooled kid of junior high school age who is already more mathematically advanced than one of the most famous scientific advocates of TE(p)NS was when he was in his thirties and a tenured professor at Harvard.

While it is true that exceptional mathematical skills are not required for formulating scientific hypotheses, they serve as a reasonable proxy for intelligence, and that is necessary for both formulating the hypotheses as well as designing legitimate tests for them.  Wilson himself notes that the “annals of theoretical biology are clogged with mathematical models that either can be safely ignored or, when tested, fail.” The same is true of economics, and it is a direct result of insufficient intelligence – or more ominously, insufficient integrity – being used in the construction and testing of those models.

Of course, it surely doesn’t help that many, if not most, of those models are conceptually based on the philosophical argument known as “natural selection”.  One would think that the very high failure rate would cause Wilson to at least consider the possibility that the conceptual framework is false, but then, as we can reasonably surmise, logic is not his strong point.

One wonders if it is conceivable that the real reason Wilson wants less intelligent students studying biology is because that is the only way evolutionists will be able to continue indoctrinating undergraduates with the Neo-Darwinian theory in the future without it raising too many awkward questions in their minds.

Mailvox: evolution and the slippery slope

Mike Williamson answered the question I posed to him in response to his claims about creationists.

1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

Society only functions when the majority of the people agree on basic fundamental ideas. A critical mass of people who believe reason and evidence don’t matter is a slippery slope to tyranny.

Williamson’s reasoning is totally specious here.  The overwhelming majority of Americans were creationists from the very beginning, and yet somehow, with the exception of the Lincoln presidency, managed to avoid slipping into tyranny.  And, as a matter of fact, there is a positive correlation between the number of non-Creationists in the United States and the growth of increasingly intrusive government.

Williamson is engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty he falsely imputed to me by erroneously attempting to equate “creationists” with “people who believe reason and evidence don’t matter”.  I am a creationist.  I also believe that reason and evidence matter a very great deal indeed.  Williamson has asserted a false dichotomy that my mere existence is sufficient to expose.  And I am very far from the only creationist who not only believes reason and evidence matter, but utilizes them more adroitly than Mr. Williamson does.

Moreover, Mr. Williamson’s entire argument is based on a demonstrably false assumption that a belief in creationism necessarily conflicts with a belief in evolution by natural selection.  While I am a creationist who is skeptical of the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection as described by Richard Dawkins, it should be obvious that creationism and evolution by natural selection are at least potentially complimentary because natural selection intrinsically requires genes from which to select.  As the brighter sort of evolutionists are fond of pointing out when pressed, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, it only concerns the transformation of one existing species into another.  Even to a mere +3 SD intelligence like Mr. Williamson, it should be readily apparent that evolution by natural selection cannot possibly take place via the mutation of nonexistent genes.

Only evolution by natural selection combined with abiogenesis can be considered to be intrinsically opposed to creationism, and even that is debatable given that logic dictates the artificial replication of abiogenesis by scientists would offer more support a creator behind the abiogenesis than it taking place by time and chance alone.

2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world. Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?

The technical definition of species is somewhat iffy, at times arbitrary, and needs more work to be fleshed out.

Mr. Williamson not only cannot calculate a rate that absolutely must exist if his belief in evolution by natural selection is true, but admits that he cannot even define the species whose origins he strongly implies are incontrovertible. It should be apparent that he is not defending actual quantifiable, testable, and replicable science here, he is defending his irreligious faith in a particular historical science fiction that may or may not have any basis in fact.  That doesn’t mean his faith may not be logically well-founded, it merely means that he cannot even begin to provide scientific evidence for what he is claiming is beyond skepticism. This is philosophy, not modern science.

3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?

See above.

It is interesting, is it not, how even the most blindly faithful evolutionist runs from the sort of precision and quantification that is absolutely necessary if something is to be considered genuinely scientific in any meaningful sense?  Being both trained and well-read in economics, the reader can safely believe me, I know pseudo-science when I see it. Biologists like to appeal to physics as the foundation of their claimed authority, but the fact of the matter is that if physicists were as haplessly ignorant and as unable to provide predictive models as evolutionary biologists, no one would take them very seriously either.  This is why Daniel Dennett’s atheist logic is always so amusing: he asserts we are to trust biologists because physicists get amazingly accurate results.

4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?

Nothing as precise as physics, but holding a life science to that standard is stupid. Our understanding of genetics, animal behavior patterns, and in an incomplete way, social science, are all aided by the concept of natural selection.

Holding a life science to precise standards is stupid?  That should be news to all those idiots working in genetics and medical science. And what about those amazingly accurate results Mr. Dennett promised us? In addition to that insulting blunder, Williamson resorts to trying to blatantly move the goalposts.  But it’s not really his fault. What choice does he have? He can’t cite any scientifically significant predictive models that rely primarily upon evolution by natural selection because they don’t exist.  After more than 150 years, TENS is still a useless and onanistic “science” that has little purpose beyond trying to prove itself.

Our understanding of genetics was not, and is not, aided by the concept of natural selection. The mindless adherence to evolution by natural selection actually inhibited the initial acceptance of Mendelian genetics, hence the need for the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” that finally allowed biologists to move on with the real science while still genuflecting respectfully to Saint Darwin.  However, as I noted, we’re already seeing biologists admit that clinging to Darwin and Darwinism is unhelpful, and it won’t be too terribly long before they admit that the concept of natural selection is largely irrelevant with regards to manipulating genes as well.

5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?

There is no such thing as more evolved or less evolved. Evolution is not a linear progressive process where species “get better” over time. It is an amoral process. Genes either get passed on or they don’t. All evolution can tell is is which traits are more likely to thrive in specific environments. As for which human group has the most mutations from the baseline original human group, no idea.

Oh, Sweet Darwin! Someone obviously didn’t understand the question.  It must be that pesky dearth of IQ points again. Since evolution by natural selection concerns the selection of mutations, there are most certainly “more evolved” and “less evolved” species; the reason the coelocanth is called a “living fossil” is because it has fewer mutations that have been selected over time than most other extant species.  And it would not be possible to produce phylograms if it were not possible to declare which species was more evolved or less evolved from the purported common ancestor.  Williamson not only incorrectly assumed the idea that “more evolved” means “better”, he incorrectly assumed that was the only possible meaning for the term even though I provided him with a different one.

6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

Strengthened. Junk DNA would seem to indicate evolution is a chaotic process with some unnecessary leftovers, which weakens the claim of specific intelligent design.

I just wanted to get him on record here.  Remember, the ID model suggests that most DNA is NOT devoid of purpose.  So, if junk DNA turns out to be more than junk, that will show that ID is a successfully predictive model and thereby provide scientific evidence for the idea that creatures on earth did not evolve by natural selection, but were designed.  It will also show that another predictive model based on evolution by natural selection failed. Again.

I await any evidence that any creature on Earth is “intelligently” designed.

The usual response is, “but you don’t know the designer’s criteria,” which is a copout and unfalsifiable.

Any objective observation shows that every life form on Earth works just well enough to pass on its genes to its offspring. Most of the time. Those that don’t go extinct.

I’d like to see someone explain the “intelligence” behind a human foot, which no longer works as an effective grasper, and is not nearly as effective as a hoof for walking. Without modern footwear, we’re prone to serious mechanical failure of the joints and bone, usually shortly after our prime reproductive time.

And tiny babies will clutch with their feet when picked up from a crib, an instinctive hangover from our brachiator ancestors.

Keep an eye on genetic science. As we begin to learn more about how to manipulate genes, then we should begin to discover evidence of past genetic manipulations, if there is in fact any to be discovered.  As for infelicities of design, I fail to see how anyone who has ever used Windows Vista or Windows 8 can claim that suboptimal design is evidence of an absence of either intelligence or design.

Religion has really become a bad joke. Physics destroys creation myths. Biology destroys creation myths. Geology destroys creation myths. Either Creation is a tale told to Bronze Age peasants as a way to explain a universe they couldn’t grasp, or this God person is running a serious long con.

It’s hilarious to watch an alleged “genius” trot out crap that was debunked a half century ago.

I will leave it to the resident physics PhD to demonstrate the absurdity of his claim about physics.  I’ve already shown that biology cannot destroy creation myths because it doesn’t deal with them. As for geology, I can do no better than to quote the immortal words of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, “geology isn’t a real science”.

I will first mention that I am not a genius, “alleged” or otherwise, as I reject the idea that it is related to a specific IQ and I have no accomplishments that would merit the title. But I fear Mr. Williamson woefully misinterpreted that very significant peer-reviewed paper of fifty years ago that he cites, as it quite clearly not only defended, rather than debunked, the “crap” that I trotted out, but also provided absolutely conclusive scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator God as well as the precise age of the Earth down to the millesecond.  It’s a pity I cannot quite recall the name of the highly reputable scientists who authored it or the exact issue of Nature in which it was published, but perhaps Mr. Williamson could be a lamb and remind us.

Mike Williams is too real smart

Mike Williams responds, sort of, although in his response, self-referentially entitled “The Fail, It Burns“, he doesn’t actually answer any of the six questions I posed to him:

“Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don’t appear to realize
that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are
smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you
are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by
the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.”

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read this week. Thanks.

I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have. that is not a compliment.

~~~

So, first, by what metric does he assume, after one email exchange
and a couple of comments that there are a “number of people” there who
are smarter than me?

It’s certainly not impossible, but per standardized testing, the odds
are 99.8% in my favor.  That is a mathematical extraction based on my
tested IQ.  So unless his blog is a haven for pure geniuses, it seems
unlikely.  Nor have I seen much demonstration of any hard scientific
knowledge among his supporters.  Though to be fair, I haven’t read much
of his blog and don’t plan to.

By what metric?  By simple observation. I’ve read his blog. I’ve followed his trains of thought. He’s observably not as smart as I am.  Anyone who reads this exchange can’t help but reach that conclusion. And there are dozens of people who read this blog who are every bit as intelligent as I am and more.  But we don’t even need that metric any longer, as the odds may have been 99.8% in his favor, but he crapped out nevertheless.  As for his claim to not have seen much demonstration of any hard scientific knowledge among the readers here, there was, among other things, a physics PhD and several other individuals who happen to possess advanced hard science degrees whose questions he ignored.  And notice that he thinks the idea that Darwin is dangerous is my idea….

With all due respect, Mr. Williamson badly underestimated me and the readers of VP, most likely because he is a science fetishist who is, like most  science fetishists, unthinkingly bigoted against Creationists.  Based on his admittedly impressive standardized test scores, which indicate an IQ in the +3 SD range, there are still dozens of people here smarter than he is.  There are at least three, to my certain knowledge, who are +5 SD.  Unlike most blogs, a mere +3SD isn’t even enough make one a big dog here.

Given that most of the interest there is in unquantifiable local
social issues, devoid of cites or analysis, it’s untestable, but my
perception is his belief is incorrect.  There’s a lot of opinion
there–some little of which I concur with–but a lot of BS, including
the obsession with myth (Creationism) over science.  It even repeats the
“Evolution is losing support among scientists!” bleat that’s been
around since…Darwin.  Yet every year we have better information,
better ability to define what we’re looking at, and better ability to
predict what we don’t see.  That’s called “Science.”  He even cutely
entitles his response to me, “rhetoric is not science.”  Indeed.  His
rhetoric is not science. 

No, my rhetoric isn’t science.  I have never claimed that it is.  More to the point, Mr. Williamson’s rhetoric isn’t science either and rhetoric, unoriginal rhetoric at that, is all he has offered.  He hasn’t even attempted to engage in dialectical discourse, let alone cited any scientific evidence for anything at all.

Second, he seems unaware that for Darwin to be challenged is a
POSITIVE thing for science.  It means we’ve refined the theory and have
improved precision. Much like the Earth went from spherical to oblate
to precisely delineated, and we are now working on equations to explain
orogenous upthrust (which isn’t as sexy as it sounds). 

Unaware?  I’ve repeatedly stated that in order to advance, genetic science will not only HAVE to challenge Darwin, but abandon him entirely.  Of course, he wouldn’t know that, since by his own admission, he hasn’t read much of my blog.  See, Mr. Williamson, this is why I know I am smarter than you are.  I wouldn’t ever make such a foolish and easily disproven assertion.  I’m smart enough to check first.

Third, it doesn’t matter how smart or educated either of us is. Facts
are facts.  Extrapolations are extrapolations.  And mythic fantasy is
mythic fantasy, even when called “religion.”  It is untestable,
unprovable, and not scientific.  There’s also an implied assumption that
the scientists working in genetics aren’t as smart as…a blogger.
 Which again, is not impossible, but is irrelevant.

True.  Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. Opinions are irrelevant. But he is absolutely wrong to say that religion is untestable, unprovable, and not scientific.  There are no shortage of testable hypotheses that can be generated from various religions, including Christianity.  Christianity, at the very least, is falsifiable. His inability to recognize this is not a testament to his intelligence.  Moreover, by his own metric, which is to say untestability, he surely must recognize that evolution by natural selection is untestable at present.

He knows nothing about me other than our two emails and a couple of
comments.  But he knows I’m not as smart as he because I “believe”
different things.  In point of fact, I believe very little.  I observe.
 If there is no conclusion to be reached, I delay judgment until there
is. 

 No, I know he’s not as smart as I am because he takes foolish and easily disproven positions, such as “[Creationists] pose a serious threat to society.”  I repeat my question: How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

Fourth, it’s entirely possible to disagree with the modern American
left, while being just as idiotic, prejudiced and intellectually
dishonest as its worst practitioners…which he ably demonstrates
(forex, constantly calling Scalzi “McRapey,” apparently completely
missing the point of one of John’s blogs that I do agree with), despite
his ability to solve the softball pre-algebra question I tossed at him.
 During the Spanish Civil War, the Fascists and the Communists were
diametrically opposed, yet largely indistinguishable.  Or in a
non-Godwin sense, pick European peasants forced to choose between Viking
raiders or the Franks.

Intellectually dishonest? From the gentleman who hasn’t answered a single question posed to him because his feelings are bruised over the fact that he is less intelligent than I am, and than dozens of my readers are?  I find it vastly amusing that so many people claim that I am incapable of recognizing satire in the process of failing to recognize a superior form of it themselves.  Also, and I quote, “John Scalzi is a rapist“.

And Darwin’s (or any) ideas are only “dangerous” to bleating
ideologues. Information falls across a spectrum from factual to
opinion, from useful to not.  A truly smart person analyzes the content
and comes to a conclusion, adapting the conclusions as needed as new
facts are presented.  That, we call “Science.”

First, note that Mr. Williamson doesn’t even recognize the obvious reference to Daniel Dennett’s book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.  Second, no, merely reaching a conclusion and adapting it as needed is not, by any definition, “Science”. By that definition, quarterbacks are scientists.

And despite devoting more than 600 words to his response, Mr. Williamson didn’t manage to answer any of the questions I posed to him.  For someone who calls his blog The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse, Mr. Williamson appears to preserve more than his own fair share of them.  So, I will repeat them.

  1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?
  2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant
    species in the world.  Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion
    years, what is the average rate of speciation?
  3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
  4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
  5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e.
    modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common
    human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
  6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

As for being the anti-Scalzi, compliment or not, I most certainly am. How can you tell?  Because I mentioned Mike.  I responded to him in substantive detail. And I have not banished him from my list of Standout Authors.  Why not?  BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RABBITS!  We can handle differences of opinion.  We can engage in discourse, even vicious, acrimonious discourse, without resorting to attempts to exclude and silence.

Mr. Williamson may not plan to read this blog in the future, but he is always welcome to do so, and to comment here as he sees fit, whether he agrees with me, whether he likes me, and whether he respects me or not. And my opinion of his writing is not dependent upon his view of Creationism or his opinion of me.

    Mailvox: rhetoric is not science

    Michael Z. Williamson takes a page from the true faithful of global warming and Keynesian economics by attempting to defend what is supposed to pass for science with pure rhetoric:

    Watching Creationists criticize evolutionary theory is like watching the Brady Bunch criticize the Heller Decision. It would be cute if they didn’t take themselves so seriously, and pose a serious threat to society.

    What I find amusing about this is that I was an evolutionary skeptic long before I was a Christian.  And one of the primary reasons I was a skeptic is because as absurd as some of the arguments presented by the creationists struck me, no evolutionist ever demonstrated an ability to address the questions posed to them.  Instead, they always – always – attempted to discuss the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand.

    That is why I am still a skeptic concerning the secularism’s epic myth, despite having read every book ever published by Richard Dawkins, despite having read Wilson, and Gould, and Shermer, and Hauser, and a number of other well-regarded evolutionary popularizers.  At this point, it might be more accurate to say I am an evolutionary skeptic because I have read those books and been astounded by the obvious logical flaws, evasions, and handwaving that I have encountered in them.

    But since Mike is a Standout Author, and therefore capable of exceeding the customary limitations of discussion point-repeating progressives, I assume he is able to rise above the mere rhetoric and actually defend evolutionary theory.  Let’s find out by asking him six simple questions that should be no problem for any man with a solid grasp of the subject.

    1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?
    2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world.  Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?
    3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
    4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
    5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
    6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

    And Stickwick, who happens to be both a Christian and a physicist, beat me to showing how Mike’s attempt to tar all religious people as simplistic binary thinkers was not only demonstrably false, but amusingly inept:

    One of the (many) major problems with religion is that its followers insist there has to be a right and wrong answer, and only one of each.

    2 + X = (more than 5). Solve for X. One answer only, please.

    “There is only one answer: X > 3. Every other possible answer is wrong: it’s not X = 3 and it’s not X < 3.

    It’s
    absurd to point to our limited understanding of nature and say that
    since one person had it partially right and someone else had it
    partially right, therefore there is more than one answer. You don’t know
    that. And you’ll be hard pressed to build a convincing case, let alone
    prove, that there is ultimately more than one right answer to something.
    Science doesn’t proceed that way. Also, since when have religious
    people insisted there is only one wrong answer?”

    Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don’t appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.

    Here the rhetoric is only used to dance on the grave afterward.

    PZ Myers throws out Darwin

    As I have predicted for years that they would, biologists are beginning to turn away from Darwin’s dangerous idea of evolution by natural selection.  Even self-styled champions of evolution such as PZ Myers have reached the point of giving up on their erstwhile secular saint:

    We aren’t using Darwin’s model anymore; he had no accurate notion of how inheritance worked, for instance — genes and alleles, the stuff of most modern theory, are not present anywhere in his works. “Darwinian” is also problematic. It does have a specific, technical meaning, but it’s often applied thoughtlessly to every process in evolution.

    Today Darwin, tomorrow “natural selection”, and, sooner or later, the entire concept of one species coming into existence from another less evolved species through mutation and environmental pressures will be cast into the incinerator of scientific history.  It is merely a matter of time.

    Genotribes and superracism

    Steve Sailer not only points to one of the fatal flaws of the evolutionary model but manages to lay the foundation for a new form of scientific super-racism:

    Thus, there have been, last I checked, a couple of dozen different definitions of species put forward by biologists. Ernst Mayr proposed the simplest: interfertility defines a species. That’s something you can wrap your head around. But there are problems. What about species that reproduce asexually? Among sexually reproducing species, how can you tell whether or not two of the 400 different types of mussels are interfertile or not? As we know from pandas, captive breeding programs are tricky. And what about types of animals who are interfertile but seem worth differentiating, such as dog, wolves, and coyotes?

    Indeed, it was while I was thinking about the Endangered Species Act and
    the issues surrounding specieshood during the biodiversity debates of
    the 1990s kicked off by Edward O. Wilson’s campaign to save the
    rainforests that led me to try to ground the study of human biodiversity
    in something less woozy than the notion of race as subspecies. Instead,
    I reasoned, something we know exists for every human is a
    genetic family tree and a biological extended family. If we go back to
    thinking about racial groups as extended families, one given a higher
    degree of coherence and endurance by partial inbreeding, then we have a
    stronger, broader concept that can be used in vastly more human
    situations than in just trying to differentiate continental-scale racial
    groups by skin color in the post-1492 world.

    If I, as a confirmed scientific sub-speciesist, am considered to be a racist on the basis of my acceptance of the current state of biology, then what words can possibly suffice to properly condemn one who would divide humanity on even more substantive grounds than mere genetic science?

    But what could we call these extended families with higher degrees of coherence and endurance by partial inbreeding?  One would be tempted to suggest the term “genotribes” were it not for the fact that we are reliably informed that tribalism is the root of all human evil.

    Falsification

    A scientific gauntlet is hurled:

    It started like any other morning, and then we all learned that we would soon be riding cloned dinosaurs to work. All it took was a single benevolent billionaire to pay for the science stuff to get done, and boom — dinosaurs are no longer extinct. Of course, it was a pipe dream from the beginning, but these stories of cloning prehistoric creatures come up from time to time, and most people (reporters especially) don’t want to tell you how impossible it is.

    It’s been years since cloned animals first appeared, so why aren’t we able to reach back to the Cretaceous yet? Well, this isn’t just a question of improving our current cloning methods. We lack the fundamental materials to clone anything from 65 million years ago. Taking into account the influence of Hollywood, you could be forgiven for thinking that dinosaur blood is flowing like rivers in labs all over the world. The fact is, we don’t have dino DNA.

    In the late ’80s and early ’90s there were a wave of scientists claiming small samples of ancient DNA could be extracted from fossilized bones, eggs, and insects in amber. You probably remember that from a certain dinosaur movie of the era. In the end, all these claims were debunked. It turns out that DNA does not survive that long. The estimated life of a strand of DNA is no more than 1 million years, and even then only if it is in very cold conditions.

    If I ever become the insanely wealthy supervillian nature clearly intended me to be, you can be certain that cloning a dinosaur is going to be on my shortlist of things to do.  If nothing else, only to hear the frantic revisionism and witness the attempts to somehow uphold the status quo scientific consensus.  The question is: would the estimated life of a strand of DNA be revised or would the dating methods themselves be called into doubt?

    The Ripped Life

    An old friend of mine has launched a new business that should be of some interest to the Paleo advocates out there, particularly Supernaut.  It’s called PaleoLife Foods and he describes it as “an ultra-premium, natural nutritional foods company that
    was founded on the core, Paleo/Primal Diet-inspired belief that the
    foods we put into our bodies should be nothing but the truly
    highest-quality, freshest, REAL whole foods as close to nature as
    possible — and made up of ingredients that we, as humans, not only
    evolved on for millennia but THRIVED on.”

    PaleoLife has a new bar out that is available on Amazon and has gotten very good reviews.  I haven’t tried it myself, since my box hasn’t arrived yet, but as my friend is an aesthete of the highest order, I’d be very surprised if it was unpalatable.  If you’re already eating Paleo or are flirting with the idea, you might want to check out their Primal Cocoanut.

    Speaking of the Ripped Life, I’ve finally been able to get back onto my 5x/week routine now that the calcio season and the holidays are over.  I’ve learned to take it a little easier, stop when I feel something, and protect my joints a bit, which appears to have helped in avoiding all the niggling little injuries to which I am prone given my distaste for changing my routine.  A minor bicep issue means I still can’t comfortably do pull-ups behind the head, which is frustrating, but the gym has a nice free-weighted rowing machine that, in combination with chin-ups, serves as an adequate substitute for the time being.

    My question for Richard Dawkins

    Slashdot is inviting interview questions.  Here is mine:  Given that a) a statistically significant minority of students cannot read or write at their grade levels, b) only a very small number of graduating high school students will ever go on to study science in college, and, c) there are already more science majors graduating than there are science-related jobs to employ them, why do you insist it is so important to teach evolution in schools?