Ann Coulter has recently performed an important service for the American populace. Just in case anyone had any doubt that electing a right wing ideologue from Texas with a strong fundamentalist bent to the White House would mean a return to the past -- and by that I most assuredly don't mean the "good old days" -- Coulter demonstrates that that's exactly what will happen as well as anyone could.
First, the context for Coulter's service. Rick Perry, like George W. Bush before him, doesn't believe that evolution is much of a scientific theory. While both want creationism taught alongside evolution in public school science classrooms and laboratories, Perry recently went a step further than Bush and actually claimed that Texas is doing exactly that. Perry is absolutely wrong on that point! Despite the best efforts of the extremists on the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), creationism, including its gussied up relative, intelligent design, is not being taught in Texas schools. While it's true that the SBOE has adopted guidelines that don't encourage a robust teaching of evolution, Texas schools are not fully flying in the face of clearly established legal precedent and teaching creationism. Perry was simply pandering to an anti-science crowd and promoting poppycock. Or he is so out of touch with legal and educational policy that neither he nor his statements deserve any credibility. (Come to think of it, the last two sentences are not mutually exclusive and both might well be true!)
Now the specifics of Coulter's service. She just published a piece in Human Events that purports to defend Perry's view of evolution. What she did that was so useful was to reprise old, discredited arguments and recycle them as new facts. As Coulter so magnificently demonstrates, what we'll get with Rick Perry is a more extreme version of the rhetoric and policies of George W. Bush. And, even more to the point, Coulter shows that the message is so important that there's absolutely no reason to think we might have learned something over the past decade. No, the arguments are exactly the same and the knowledge some of us have gained is simply ignored.
More specifically, Coulter uses Perry's promotion of creationism as an opportunity to say that evolution has been completely disproven and, get ready for this, disproven by the scientific community!: "The more we have learned about molecules, cells and DNA -- a body of knowledge some refer to as "science" -- the more preposterous Darwin's theory has become."
What does Coulter know that the rest of the scientific community seems not to know? She claims to know all about intelligent design and makes the stale argument offered by William Paley in 1802 and Michael Behe in 1996 that lots of biological entities are far too complex to have evolved. At least she makes her inane and scientifically vacuous arguments humorous by providing an updated political context:
It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible.
I'm not going to touch the John Edwards bit, but I'll happily point out that the absurdity of her first sentence. No scientist cognizant of evolutionary theory believes that all parts of complex structures "arise at once by random mutation." Yes, mutations may well be random, in the sense that organisms cannot select which mutations to manifest, but their propagation from generation to generation are must assuredly not random. And, more importantly, evolution is a cumulative process, with small changes occurring and combining in unforeseen and unplanned manners. Those that enhance reproduction leave more offspring than those that have detrimental effects.
Interestingly, evolution can be seen to be analogous to the cumulative process that occurs in educated societies. As more and more people study a problem, we learn more about the problem. We discard bad ideas, ideas that are not supported by data, and rally around those that offer the most explanatory power -- constantly refining them as we learn more.
In this context, the problem with what Coulter has written is strikingly clear. She offers her opinion -- an opinion that she proudly points out that she previously stated in her 2006 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" -- but she ignores the fact that a great deal of research has occurred since then. Indeed, award winning journalist Carl Zimmer pointed out that there have been 59,000 peer-reviewed papers published in the scientific literature on evolution since Coulter published her screed.
Zimmer goes on to provide a reference to the specific structures Coulter claims could not possibly have evolved: "To see what scientists are actually saying, you can start by reading this review that presents a detailed hypothesis about the incremental evolution of the flagellum and the cilium, based on actual experiments."
In Ann Coulter's universe, our understanding of the world does not grow and change. Instead, she, like Rick Perry, forms an opinion and sticks to it regardless of what the experts might learn. And, like Perry, she panders to the fundamentalist set by calling those who understand and accept evolution "godphobics."
Through my work with the religious leaders and scientists who comprise The Clergy Letter Project, it has become absolutely clear to me that religion and science are not in competition with each other and that thousands of deeply devout clergy are not "godphobic" and are fully supportive of teaching modern evolutionary theory. It also has become clear to me that these individuals are interested in having a richer, more civil and more enlightening conversation about the topic than is evidenced by Coulter's name-calling.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory" | Media Matters for America
Ann Coulter on Evolution: Part 1
Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God.*
For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 5)"
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_unlocking_the_mystery_of_life.htm
Wow, so Behe actually DOES believe in Evolution, after all... ROFLOL!!!
The chicken or the egg question, to me at least, points to the egg [embryo], since that forms the progeny. A precursor to the chicken would require an egg with different genetic coding. And modifications of that coding would alter the outcome, and if done correctly, produce a chick.
This upward progression of coding changes could occur via random [but enhancing] mutations, folding errors, and perhaps some neutral mutations as well entered into the mix. But would those additions to the genome radically alter a species [phylum actually]?
And did the land mammal whose descendents became whales hate land so much, that fortuitous mistakes by nature ultimately fulfilled his wish?
Or was genetic engineering, or a directed alteration to the coding operative at key points?
Due to the complexity, and the plethora of 'non-beneficial-in-their-initial-state' changes that are required, I would side with Intelligent Design.
"Wow, so Behe actually DOES believe in Evolution, after all... ROFLOL!!! "
But via a form of 'directed' evolution, or 'ID'. And I do hope you're not getting bruised shoulders by all your rolling on the floor ...
Cheers
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
See, you are WRONG about the nature of the flagellum motor!!
"A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria."
Agreed. That a simpler motility function existed first is a logical possibility.
"Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility."
Agreed. But the mere existence of similar proteins in ancestral systems is not, in-and-of-itself, proof [substantiation] of establishing an evolutionary pathway.
Matzke then states in his 'preamble', that data will be presented to support the following:
"Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum [involving] five subsystem-level cooption events."
and "The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components."
and summarized by: "Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum."
My comments on his data, and its efficacy to explain flagellar self-evolution will follow.
The paper consists primarily of citations from various researchers, along with comparisons between them, and critiques by Matzke. There are also proposals by Matzke, some from an earlier paper [Evolution in Brownian Space, 2003], and some more recent.
What I see as primary, is the proposal that various flagellum self-evolved by cooption of one intermediate function by another. Scaffolding is also mentioned. While this method of evolutionary change gives merit to 'natural selection', where a survival or reproductive advantage is required, it may not work in the same way on a molecular/ cellular level, since sexual reproduction is not an operative.
Moreover, for cooption to work, each stage of the flagellar development would require an alternate function. IOW, a stage of flagellar development that does not yet produce motility, must have produced an ancillary or different function that was useful to the organism. And many, if not most of the proposals stated in the paper employ cooption to some degree.
Rabi420's conclusion that Matzke's paper proves [substantially] that the flagellum evolved via natural processes is in error, I feel, since all of the proposals covered in the paper are tentative and theoretical. Some may be empirically testable, but until done in that regard, with an evolved flagellum as its outcome, they [at this time] do not present proof of flagellar evolution.
Complete FALLACY!
A statement of "untruth" simply dressed up as "the truth" wont convince ANYBODY who has the ability to READ a science publication!!
Then 'refuted' it thusly: "Complete FALLACY!"
Wrong Rabbi, it is simply a correct statement.
You know, where I actually show how FALSE the claim of IC is concerning the evolution of the flagellum.
I know, its hard to keep track of all THAT.. ROLOL!!
"The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life."
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Oops, there goes her "argument"... ROFLOL!!
Care to cite any claims from Miller's paper that support his thesis? If you'd like, we can debate it here. Kenneth Miller, for those who don't know, is a Biology Professor at Brown University, author of two books, and co-author of Prentice Hall biology text books. He was the lead expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
The paper you linked to, "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity" bases its conclusions not so much on data, but on speculation. One refutation of note, is this one by William Dembski:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
It is over 7000 words long, but well worth a read, in particular for those who buy into the 'IC Collapse' premise, largely by citing claims from the Kitzmiller trial [unfounded judicial conclusions], and the pop press.
I don't feel that Miller's logic disproves IC. But even if it did regarding the flagellum (+ clotting and immune function) examples, why would it apply to all IC examples?
Since it is a premise based on speculation, it would fit well into the 'conspiracy theory' category, or perhaps a new category called 'conspiracy premises'.
n. also prem·iss (prĕm'ĭs)
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."
But an unfounded one.
Now THAT is funny...
It bases its conclusions upon OBSERVED REALITY (i.e. observed cases where more primitive cases without all its "irreducible parts" are actually PRESENT!!
But I know, that's REALITY and you simply want to believe in FANTASY, no matter what evidence you are presented with... LOL!!!
George Orwell would think that Ann Coulter and Rick Perry were characters right out of his book, "1984."
"It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum ... could all arise at once by random mutation."
But then Michael enlightens us with refutory wisdom:
" ... I'll happily point out that the absurdity of her first sentence. No scientist cognizant of evolutionary theory believes that all parts of complex structures "arise at once by random mutation."
Agreed 'not at once' in 'one giant leap' for prokaryotes, but not stepwise either. Ann is correct that cilia propulsion systems, rotary motors in flagellar constructs, have not been shown to have evolved through natural processes.
Kenneth Miller once wrote a 'pop-science' paper stating that the base of the flagellum is structurally similar to an injecting device, and thus that it logically evolved from it, a corollary to the 'poof' scenario (god-did-it), only this time 'mutant-did-it'.
No explanation, nor has one been confirmed since, of how the additional parts assembled. Subsequent views from various molecular geeks have also ruled that the TTSS was a later construct, possibly devolved for a subsequent ancillary function.
So essentially, Ann is correct in her assertion that this little 'molecular motor' may have been designed for cellular propulsion. But IF it evolved, as Miller and most others claim, they need to present a model with operational stepwise phases. And so far, they have failed to do so.
You know what I love about this 'debate'? It was the scientists that discovered the 'invisible' bacteria in the first place, while the church was busy bleeding people to cure them of their ill humors.
You want to call that law? sure but that is just the way the philosophy is implemented.
Both the GOP and the Democrats stared as liberal.
Ike was a liberal. Since Reagan the GOP and conservative have reverted to the anti democracy, anti republic, pro rich rule, Burke conservatism.
Learn your history or suffer it again.
That the Burke Post Reagan conservative starve drown sabotage and vilify the Beast, our Republic, the USA, talk.
There are good democrats, you can tell, they get very little campaign money from the big money folks. SO they are less polished and treated badly by the MSM. That's the reality of money is free speech. So you had better WAKE UP.
The coming Primaries are the most important vote in your lifetime. Obviously voting in the GOP or Tea primaries is a wasted vote if you love the USA and it's citizens.
So vote in the Democratic primaries.
Problem is, Not all Dems are on our side.
Not the ruling big money funded Obama Clinton Rahm Blue dog new dem DLC corporatist anti-populist folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
So we need to vote in real citizens progressives:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
The Kucinich type folks.
But in the general election we must vote straight across the board, president Obama too, for the democrats.
But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")
If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.
Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."
But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.
---Ann Coulter---
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, not that I would expect you to understand that.
Except for people who reject data which might challenge their cherished traditional explanations, and are willing to live with problems instead of attempting to understand them... even while compaining about the problems...............