July 6, 2008

The Gig is Up!

Run away while you can!

They are on to us now! We might as well pack it up and move to some cave. It appears that University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Sean B. Carrol has the "ultimate" forensic record of evolution and has wrote a book about it.

He claims that "direct evidence has poured in as to how complex structures, particularly those of animals, are made and evolved."

I didn't even bother to read the book because after all it says "ultimate" forensic record of evolution right on the cover so it must be true. As I was packing our bags I stopped and wanted to see how this could of happened, I wanted to see what believers thought about the book. Was this just another person claiming evolution as fact?

I came across an exhaustive review by Casey Luskin who used to be a geologist doing geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography He was more then qualified to review this claim of Carrol's. In Luskin's review titled The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll Luskin proves what Carroll was doing.

Luskin poetically explains how Carrol used techniques to convince people of his theory. From the beginning of the book review, Luskin claimed "To ensure the reader adopts his own view of evolution, Carroll resorts to scare tactics." Luskin goes on to explain how and where Carrol went wrong and backs everything up with a viewpoint that everyone can understand. You can read the book review yourself but the conclusion of Luskin's review is:

"Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to delivers. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. But there’s no valid reason to argue that one must be a Darwinist to accept responsibility for protecting the environment. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.

While Carroll is a good writer who makes science easy to understand, his book has a politically oriented gospel message which is simple: just believe evolution without any doubt, and we may be saved from environmental catastrophe. But Carroll’s scientific arguments fail to back up his big talk. Carroll’s examples of natural selection’s creative power—animal breeding, peppered moths, or loss of function—fail to impress. His repetition of Darwinist urban legends about computer studies of eye-evolution and heavy reliance upon vague just-so stories about icefish give little reason to turn the head of the informed Darwin-skeptic. Carroll’s discussions of junk-DNA and pseudogenes are interesting, but it is disconcerting that Carroll never mentions that his “use it or lose it” rule implies that if a stretch of DNA has not been lost, then perhaps it’s still being used. His observation that widely diverse organisms often use the same or similar proteins only serves to further confirm my suspicions of common design in biology. Incredibly, Carroll uses these examples to claim he has “eviscerated” intelligent design. The ID-proponent who reads this book will feel very encouraged about the strength of her own position, for Carroll failed to provide any compelling explanations for the primary subject of his book: the evolutionary making of the fittest."


Honey! you can unpack, it was just 'another' false alarm!

11 comments:

  1. Dan wrote:
    "I didn't even bother to read the book..."

    I think that says it all.

    You'll be able to find scathing reviews from creationists about any text on evolution, just as you will be able to find scathing reviews of any creationist book by mainstream scientists.

    Is it your standard practice to uncritically believe whatever backs up your position without even bothering to look into the position of those who disagree with you? If so, I would highly suggest you stop commenting on scientific issues: you are making yourself appear foolish in the extreme.

    Just a bit of friendly advise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK quasar,

    Let's try a little experiment. Did you read the review of the book by Casey Luskin? After all, since I am appearing foolish by not reading the book, are you reading the exhaustive reviews of this book? Quid pro quo

    If you have read the review you also would see no need to read this book.

    Nice try on the ad hominem but that just doesn't work here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry Dan, but you don't appear foolish for not having read the book, you instead appear foolish for writing a review concerning a book you readily admit not having read.

    Quasar isn't making any claims about the book whatsoever -- you are. You are making claims, moreover, based on obviously biased reviews you have presumably cherry-picked.

    There is no need for quid pro quo -- Quasar isn't necessarily in the review-writing business, but I'd wager that if he (she?) were, he'd read the book first. Believe it or not, based on this silly topic, I looked for that book at my local library (to no avail...).

    It is also not ad hominem to note the audacity with which you make such claims. You were quoted in context, and Quasar's comment was nuts-on. You are guilty as charged -- hung by your own rope.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  4. I freely admit I didn't read Casey Luskins review of that particular book. I did do a bit of research on Mr Casey Luskin, which seems to conflict with your assertion that he is "more then qualified to review this claim of Carrol's."

    He is a Major figure in the Discovery Institue, which makes his position perhaps a tiny bit biased.

    He has been repeatedly critisised for commenting on things he knows little about: He is a lawyer, not a scientist.

    Not only has the book he is reviewing been reviewed (favorably) by actual scientists, but his review has been reviewed (not favorably) simply because some people feel the need to oppose such misleading information.

    http://evomech5.blogspot.com/2006/12/making-of-fittest-american-scientist.html

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/luskin_reviews_carroll_thats_i.php

    http://elliptica.blogspot.com/2007/03/laughing-at-luskin.html

    I was not criticising the accuracy of Luskins article (although I am now that I've read a lot of it: it's a load of tripe). Rather, I was criticising the way you seem to think that a biased Lawyer from the DI is "more than qualified" to review a book by an evolutionary biologist, and as such you don't have to read the book because the Lawyer must be right since he supports your preconcieved ideas.

    Sorry if I sounds like I'm getting heated: I'm just not fond of science being misused for political ends.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Earlier you said "You'll be able to find scathing reviews from creationists about any text on evolution, just as you will be able to find scathing reviews of any creationist book by mainstream scientists."

    I fully admit that you have proven your point fully. Great job!

    I love the last one you offered as "evidence", a blog called elliptica.

    Like me, his blog reviewed a review and the end said: "On the other hand, that book by Carroll sounds really interesting. Maybe I should read it."

    I think that says it all. (as also you claimed earlier)

    Thanks for the smile Quasar. Maybe we should all read it to find out what the fuss is about. For you, I will look for it in the library.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Like me, his blog reviewed a review and the end said: "On the other hand, that book by Carroll sounds really interesting. Maybe I should read it."

    I think that says it all. (as also you claimed earlier)


    :) That's pretty funny... I hadn't noticed it.

    Maybe we should all read it to find out what the fuss is about. For you, I will look for it in the library.

    As will I. Thinking is good for the brain.

    By the way, there's a few good books I can recommend: on the pro-evolution side there's Carl Zimmers Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, Terry Pratchett's The Science of Discworld series (co-written by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart) and of course Charles Darwins Origin Of Species (The sequel: The Decent of Man was alright, but I prefered the original.)

    On the other side... Michael Behe's Darwins Black Box isn't bad, and I quite liked Icons Of Evolution by Johnathan Wells (both members of the Discovery institute).

    Although I do have to admit, I only liked Icons because I spent the entire time giggling at Wells's ignorance of basic science.

    If you do find the time to read some of them, remember to check out the reviews of these books online after you finish them, because people on both sides have a habit of writing things that can be interpreted differently.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just added a new Book to my list just for you then. It's called Evolution Exposed written by a Biology teacher.

    See if you laugh or cry reading it. Shamelessly though, I will admit that I haven't read this one either.

    I did conduct an experiment with an atheist in the past. We each picked a book for each other to read and the book I was stuck with was Dan Barker's book 'Losing Faith in Faith'.

    We didn't get anywhere though the atheist finally was very angry at me for not converting to atheism, and the report I offered, and I was disappointed in his glib 'write off' attitude towards the book I recommended. Please don't ask what book I recommended because it was a long time ago and I long forgot. It might of been "A Case for a Creator" but don't quote me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel?

    I read it after a friend loaned it to me (not dissimilar to your situation). From what I remember, one chapter was a brief re-hash of Well's Icons of Evolution, another was Behe's common arguments... it goes on. In each and every case, Strobel would profess skepticism, then simply ask the creationists easy questions, which the interviewee's would give a lecture on which completely failed to take into account any evidence against their position.

    I concluded that Strobel was a dirty liar: it was clear he had already read Well's book (like I said, it was a complete re-hash) and already knew Behe's arguments, and rather than trying to stump them (as a real skeptic would do) he simply let them repeat the already refuted arguments from their books.

    I'll give Evolution Exposed a try, although I fully expect their arguments to be the same as those in the Answers in Genesis website.

    Indeed, judging by the quotes in the reviews, I'm not expecting great quality. The worst of them is this Point Refuted A Thousand Times:

    "Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome."

    This is such a blatent lie, it's an insult to the intelligence of the reader. 6 year old logic can prove it wrong:

    1) Every mutation can be reversed by a future mutation.
    2) Even AiG admit that the original mutation can cause a loss of information.
    3) Therefore, the future mutation must increase the total amount of information.

    I sincerly hope that the rest of the book isn't like this, because if it is I'm going to find it hard to read through. If I can find it in the library, of course. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. How can you possibly jump form point 2 "Even AiG admit that the original mutation can cause a loss of information." to point 3 "Therefore, the future mutation must increase the total amount of information." That is Evil Knievel jumping the snake river canyon kind of leap.

    How can you possibly add information to a deteriorating genome? If you clone a clone it deteriorates even more so. Want an example of this in nature? Purebred dog breeders, like my mom, they kept the genetic footprint small by breading siblings (Pseudo form of cloning). Nothing miraculously appears as a new positive mutation just the negative ones. A very apparent of deterioration of information. Hip dysplasia and seizures and such but not newer more complex mutations like bionic vision and ability to talk.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "How can you possibly jump form point 2 "Even AiG admit that the original mutation can cause a loss of information." to point 3 "Therefore, the future mutation must increase the total amount of information."

    Via Point 1: "Every mutation can be reversed by a future mutation."

    If you look at the DNA code, a point mutation can be reversed by a deletion mutation, a Swap mutation can be reversed by the same swap mutation and a segment move mutation can be reversed by moving the segment back.

    Genetics show that all mutations can be reversed: if one mutation is a loss of information, what do you call the reverse?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Point 1 isn't logical then. Can this be proven? Give me a real world example of this, please.

    Dogs the get bread to be smaller does not mutate to larger dogs. (a large dog mutation can be harnessed to very large dogs, but for a Great Dane suddenly to offspring a chihuahua size dogs is ludicrous at ludicrous speed.

    I read about small scale transversions of a purine base being replaced by a pyrimidine. I can grasp this concept but follow my logic here. Deletions can be very large understandably. Large chunk of information failing to transfer thus a mutation occurring but insertion mutations are usually due to a large piece of DNA, such as an insertion sequence or a transposon, moving into a specific site. This type of mutation will usually inactivate a gene.

    Dogs don't become cats, we are talking very small almost insignificant insertions, and when it does occur it renders the gene unstable immediately and thus become inactive. What you are suggesting is that insertion mutations can create entirely different forms.

    I agree with the statement "Not a single mutation has been observed to [effectively] cause an increase in the amount of information in a [stable] genome."

    What say you?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>