A recent blog entry by PZ Myers announced the intent of Scottish IDists to confront him with a series of embarrassing questions (In which creationists make me giddily, joyfully gleeful!). PZ seems not only completely unconcerned but perfectly confident:
PZ Myers writes:
I read them with increasing disbelief: every single one of them was trivial and inane, and do nothing but reveal the ignorance and arrogance of the questioner. Every single one. Every one is built around some bizarre creationist misconception, too.
I read through the questions and don't understand why Myers is so confident. While half the problems they cite are with evolutionary views I didn't even know existed, I suspect Myers might be confident because he understands precisely what's wrong with each question. But to me they look intended not to perplex Myers but to raise doubts among onlookers who don't understand what the heck the questions are about, but can tell they imply something's pretty fishy with evolution.
So here are the questions - is PZ right to be so confident?
When Michael Behe visited the UK, back in November, the Humanist Society of Scotland and the British Center for Science Education wrote up a list of 10 + 1 Questions For Professor Behe which they subsequently distributed to their ranks of faithful followers. I responded, at the time, fairly thoroughly to the arguments made therein here (to which the BCSE retaliated fairly viciously here).
Since PZ Myers has been invited to visit Glasgow next week (one week from today to be specific), to lecture on the embryological evidence for Darwinism, I took it upon myself to draw up this list of 10 + 1 Questions For Professor Myers. If you happen to be in the area, and are anticipating attending this event next Monday (which will take place in the Crystal Palace, 36 Jamaica Street, from 7pm), feel free to use the following questions as inspiration for the Q&A session which will follow the talk.
10 + 1 Questions For Professor Myers
1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for the observation that the eggs of the five classes of vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar to each other. Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be evolutionarily tolerated, would you please explain how you would account for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism,why isn’t it observed? Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e. non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is also the problem of homologous structures arising from different embryological sources, utterly undermining the evolutionary explanation. Isn’t the most straightforward reading of these facts that the adult organs have not been derived from a common ancestor? Why is it that you are happy to use those instances where embryological development and adult similarities are consistent as evidence of common descent, but set aside those instances where they are not consistent?
4) Could you please explain the near-total absence of evidence for evolutionarily relevant (i.e. stably heritable) large-scale variations in animal form, as required by common descent? Near-total, that is, because losses of structure are often possible. But common descent requires the generation of anatomical novelty. Why is it the case that all observed developmental mutations that might lead to macroevolution (besides the loss of an unused structure) are harmful or fatal?
5) Would you please explain why the purported embryological evidence for evolution is not subject to careful cherry picking of data, given that instances can be identified in which, for example, tissues arise during development in the opposite order from which they are presumed to have evolved (e.g. the formation of teeth after the tongue whereas it is thought that the teeth evolved first; and various vertebrate organs such as liver and lung develop embryologically in quite different ways from how it is thought they evolved)?
6) Would you please explain instances of species which possess similar adult forms but different immature forms, which could conform with recapitulation only if the species evolved convergently? Related to this is the observation that similar phylotypic stages and/or adult morphologies may be attained by very different developmental routes. Don’t such observations demonstrate that the view of development being an exclusively divergent process of increased specialisation is false?
7) Would you please elaborate on how a reproductively-capable embryo can evolve by virtue of successive but slight modification while retaining selectable utility at every stage? Paul Nelson discussed the concept of ontogenetic depth in some detail here and here. He also responded to your criticisms of his article, and the somewhat ironic charge of quote-mining, here.
8 ) On your blog, you have defended the central dogmatist (gene-centric) view that an organism’s DNA sequence contains both the necessary and sufficient information needed to actualise an embryo’s final morphology. If your position is so well supported and the position espoused by Jonathan Wells (and others) is so easily refuted, then why do you perpetually misrepresent his views? For example, you state These experiments emphatically do not demonstrate that DNA does not matter [Wells'] claim is complete bunk. Where has Jonathan Wells stated that DNA does not matter? Moreover, contrary to your assertions, the phenomenon of genomic equivalence is a substantial challenge to the simplistic DNA-is-the-whole-show view espoused by the majority of neo-Darwinists. Cells in the prospective head region of an organism contain the same DNA as cells in the prospective tail region. Yet head cells must turn on different genes from tail cells, and they know which genes to turn on because they receive information about their spatial location from outside themselves and thus, obviously, from outside their DNA. So an essential part of the ontogenetic program cannot be in the organism’s DNA, a fact that conflicts with the DNA-centrism of neo-Darwinism. Some attempts to salvage DNA programs (e.g. Rinn et al.) rely on target sequences molecular zipcodes, if you will of amino acids that direct proteins to particular locations in the cell. But such molecular zipcodes do not create a spatial co-ordinate system, they presuppose it.
9) If, as is often claimed by Darwinists, the pharyngeal pouches and ridges are indeed accurately thought of as vestigial gill slits (thus demonstrating our shared ancestry with fish), then why is it that the ‘gill-slit’ region in humans does not contain even partly developing slits or gills, and has no respiratory function? In fish, these structures are, quite literally, slits that form openings to allow water in and out of the internal gills that remove oxygen from the water. In human embryos, however, the pharyngeal pouches do not appear to be ‘old structures’ which have been reworked into ‘new structures’ (they do not develop into homologous structures such as lungs). Instead, the developmental fate of these locations includes a wide variety of structures which become part of the face, bones associated with the ear, facial expression muscles, the thymus, thyroid, and parathyroid glands (e.g. Manley and Capecchi, 1998).
10) Why do Darwinists continue to use the supposed circuitous route taken by the vas deferens from the testes as an argument for common descent when, in fact, the route is not circuitous at all? The testes develop from a structure called the genital ridge (the same structure from which the ovaries develop in females, which is in close proximity to where the kidneys develop). The gubernaculum testis serves as a cord which connects the testes to the scrotum. As the fetus grows, the gubernaculum testis does not, and so the testis is pulled downward, eventually through the body wall and into the scrotum. The lengthening vas deferens simply follows. And, moreover, before the vas deferens joins the urethra, there needs to be a place where the seminal vesicle can add its contents.
And finally, the extra credit:
11) How many peer-reviewed papers have you published since setting up your blog, Pharyngula? We think the number’s zero, but it would be nice to get confirmation of this.
--Percy
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "Myers" to topic title.
Just a short note to let people know I haven't abandoned my own thread. I said that many of the questions concerned evolutionary views I didn't even know existed, so I will need a block of time to look things up before I can begin responding. Weekdays don't often have free blocks of time, so maybe this weekend.
Thanks for posting this. So maybe I don't need to research those questions. What I orginally found confusing was that the questions were criticizing evolution for views I didn't even know it had, this first question, for example:
1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for the observation that the eggs of the five classes of vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar to each other. Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
From Myers talk I now know that they are confounding the gastrulation and pharyngular stages, and also assigning to Darwinism a Haeckelian view it does not hold. The Haeckelian part isn't news to me, but all the unfamiliar details about fetal development that were included in the question left me thinking that it must be about an evolutionary position I was unfamiliar with.
It's probably worth being clear about one thing, in case any creationists are reading this thread. While biological research tells us that post-pharyngular stages become increasingly different, this isn't a prediction of the theory of evolution. Probably there are a variety of ways that fetal development could proceed that would be compatible with evolution.
I would like to see Myers answer the bonus question about his recent work. I did do a quick check of his publications, and it does seem to be true that he's published very little recently. I frequently criticize Behe for his lack of publication in the technical literature, so to be fair I would have to criticize Myers too if he shares this quality with Behe. Of course, I'm already fairly critical of Myers. I enjoy to death reading Pharyngula because it's just God-awful fun the way he rakes creationists over the coals, but I'd like to see much more of what little he did in this talk, which is to be specific about how creationists are wrong instead of just ridiculing them. Without the substance I don't think he's really helping, he's just serving as a lightning rod for creationist criticism about how emotional and substanceless evolutionists are.
From the fact that he is an Associate Professor at UMM, you can tell that he publication rate is low.
Decreasing output is associated with increasing seniority? Hard for me to buy that.
I would have expected decreasing direct involvement with the research due to a growing coterie of grad students whose activities must be managed, but with the result of increasing publication output.
I'm suggesting that he would be a full professor by now, unless his publication rate is below expectations.
Oh, oh, oh, yes, I see what you're saying: He's still a lowly associate professor instead of a full professor, and his slight publication rate is a likely factor.
I'm not sure I buy that, either. Associate professor is only one level down from full, and he's tenured. Though interestingly Myers seems to view tenure as an arbitrary process, saying in his blog (Page not found | ScienceBlogs):
PZ Myers writes:
One is to offer my personal sympathy to Francis Beckwith. Tenure is a brutal, evil machine that puts everyone through a hellish torture, and often spits out the deserving and rewards the undeserving. Do not ever judge someone by whether they have got tenure or notit's too arbitrary for that, and often represents a kind of insubstantial and subjective matching or mismatching between a person and an institution. So on a personal level, I wish Beckwith well and hope he and his family move on to a satisfying position elsewhere.
But anyway, once tenure is achieved one has the freedom to not publish, so maybe PZ is taking advantage of that freedom. And on the other hand, the university has the freedom to withhold or minimize salary increases and assign basement offices for underperforming associate professors, so even after tenure there's pressure to perform.
But we don't know whether the university approves of Myers visible extracurricular activities. Perhaps they view them positively, sort of as public service activities in the area of the public education of science, and treat him pretty well. So he just keeps on doing what he's doing. As is Behe.
It fascinates me that the Islamic Education and Research Academy uploaded this footage, presumably believing it somehow advances their agenda. I suppose to the extent that they did not stone anyone, it does.
I think the arguments made by their man, and very articulately, must resonate strongly with them and feel to them far more powerful than Myers' brief statements about the primacy of evidence and empiricism. They seem, like all other devout religionists, completely unaware that they are engaging in the exact same apologetics, in form if not in detail, as all other religions. Except for the particulars there's not a whit of difference in their various nonsense.
™ Version 4.2