The Fine Art of Quote-Mining
Paul Nelson is a Discovery Institute Fellow and is a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). He also has a reputation for being one of the more forthright of the ID proponents out there. However, I read his recent post at ID the Future about an article by Professors Eric Davidson and Douglas Erwin that shows the same dishonest quote mining we have seen from other IDers. Nelson provides some lengthy quotes from the article,
Classic evolutionary theory, based on selection of small incremental changes, has sought explanations by extrapolation from observed patterns of adaptation. Macroevolutionary theories have largely invoked multi-level selection, among species and among clades. But neither class of explanation provides an explanation of evolution in terms of mechanistic changes in the genetic regulatory program for development of the body plan, where it must lie. (p. 796)
And
Current microevolutionary thinking assumes that observed types of genetic change (from single base substitutions to gene duplications) are sufficient to explain all evolutionary events, past and present….But attempting to explain an aspect of animal evolution that depends on one kind of network alteration [deep changes] by adducing evidence from an aspect that depends on another [shallow changes] can be fundamentally misleading. (p. 800)
What does this say? Well Davidson and Erwin are looking at the stability of body plans at the phyla level. They note that such body plans are remarkably stable and they also note that interference with the expression of any one of the “kernel” genes will destroy kernel function. What is the “kernel”? From my reading of the article in Science, a kernel is a highly conserved developmentally important subcircuit of a larger whole complex gene regulatory network that controls for body parts and plan. Davidson and Erwin note that the kernel is inflexible and hence are not going to change via classic neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
Now, one could look at these quotes and my additional explanation and conclude that the kernel is irreducibly complex (IC), that is removal of any single part (or preventing the expression of any of the kernel genes) destroys the function of the structure we are examining. There are two problems with this view. The first is described in this post by PZ Myers about how IC structures can evolve via your standard neo-Darwinian mechanisms. The second highlights the dishonesty of Paul Nelson. While Davidson and Erwin argue that classic neo-Darwinian mechanisms are not sufficient for the evolution of new body plans, they don’t argue that the body plans evolved via non-neo-Darwinian mechanisms. In fact, they argue precisely the opposite in the very same article that Nelson is pointing too.
It would follow that these kernels must have been assembled during the initial diversification of the Bilateria and have retained their internal character since. Critically, these kernels would have formed through the same processes of evolution as affect the other components, but once formed and operating to specify particular body parts, they would have become refractory to subsequent change.–emphasis added
What this means is that the kernels initially arose via the same mechanisms that created all other biological components. Only a dishonest or superficial reading the paper would lead one to believe that ID played any role in the process. Further, the claim that neo-Darwinism doesn’t work for the pre-Cambrian is also suspect. Maybe it is correct, but that wasn’t the focus of Davidson and Erwin’s article. Further, while the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn’t some supernatural designer.
As for Davidson’s comment about neo-Darwinism being dead, that quote is also quite suspicious in that it is completely stripped of its context. The bottom line is that when you read anything by an IDer one should look at what is quoted and what was not quoted. This also highlights another level of dishonesty among the IDers in general. The new refrain from the ID camp is to “teach the controversy” and that there is this dogmatism amongst scientists in regards to neo-Darwinism. But right here we see what might become the beginnings of a controversy. Davidson and Erwin are suggesting a rather controversial hypothesis (at least it appears controversial to this layperson). Of course, this isn’t the kind of controversy they are talking about. I wonder why? Probably because it doesn’t invoke the supernatural. Bottom line, you can’t trust these guys to give you an accurate picture of whatever they are talking about.
Your post comes across, to me, as if coming from a high priest in defense of the Faith of neo-Darwinism. You condemn Paul Nelson for what he didn’t do because, it seems, you don’t understand what he did do.
Nelson illustrates the fact – through the paper by Davidson and Erwin – that there exist very complex structures (kernels) that do not function unless they are, only, in the fully formed state. So, how did they get to that state?
It is fair to postulate that they show evidence of the existence of complex component designs in advance of a place to put them. That is ID. This guy, Paul Nelson, is an ID proponent; how is it not a little cheeky, if not sleazy, of you to fault him for pointing at stuff that looks like ID.
”
Pointing out stuff that looks like ID” and trying to hijack a scientists authority and good name to lend solidity to pure wind are differing things.
ID is not a scientific theory. Get over it, believe it or not as you wish, whether its TRUE or not, it still is not science and will not be science until the day time ends because it is inherently non falsifiable.
Seems to me that the protestations of the neo-Darwinists sound eerily similar to those of the scientific community of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when denouncing Darwin’s theories as “pseudo-science” and “contrary to natural (i.e. “God’s”) laws”.
Both Darwin’s theories of evolution and intelligent design have problems. Which is why they’re both just theories, not scientific fact (despite what many neo-Darwinists might claim).
Darwin’s theories for evolution are “Pseudo-science”, about the same as the script for a bad 1950’s monster movie, with the same type of evidence as would come form a prop dept. with 1930’s special effects technology. You must have heard of all the evidence for evolution that was fabricated over 100 years ago, and proved to be lies over 100 years ago but is still being taught out of most college biology text books, Example: human embryos do not have gill slits and never will no matter how many times or, how long you teach this lie. The are many more, look them up.
RJN,
Are you having trouble reading?
Davidson and Erwin state quite clearly that these kernels formed by the same process as other biological components, but once formed they put constraints on what could develop latter on. There is no need to imply something other than natural processes.
They do no such thing. Read the quote I pulled from the article, the one with the italicized and bolded section.
Michael Chance,
Good God. Of course, Evolutionary Theory is just a theory. However, evolution (i.e. that things change) is an observed fact. That Evolutionary theory has “problems”–a.k.a. doesn’t explain everything does not render it false or lend any credibility to ID.
So…you’ve got precisely one example, and one that is being misused by creationists.
O. K. Ryan: Reading and reproducing material from a scientific paper is not “hijacking”, it is illuminating and it is what these papers are for.
Steve: The bold print quotes you speak of are, again, a neo-Darwinian supposition for the creation of kernels. “..follow that these kernels must have been assembled during the initial diversification of the Bilateria and have retained their internal character since. Critically, these kernels would have formed through the same processes of evolution as affect the other components,..”
The words “must and would” indicate that the writers of this paper are more careful than you are re: atribution.
Where Darwin went wrong was he took the many things that show not a common ancestor but a common creator and mixed them together with the fabricated, as prof, when acutely hes was closer to proving creation as the study of his so called theory of evolution continues to do, though I can go on and on, about the lies of evolution you will not know for sure till you do the research and see the truth for your self. I would point you to the bible, and what biology in all forms tells us about mutation for a start.
RJN,
Okay you are still having problems. I’m not saying that the mechanism HAS to be neo-darwinian, but that Davidson and Ewrin clearly think it is, and for Nelson to portray it as anything else is misleading!
Further RJN, ID is not evolution, hence your portrayal of the bolded section is quite clearly wrong.
The following is from the Science article by Davidson and Erwin:
“…. A notable feature of the paleontological record of animal evolution is the establishment by the Early “Cambrian of virtually all phylum-level body plans. We identify a class of GRN component, the kernels” of the network, which, because of their developmental role and their particular internal structure, are most impervious to change. Conservation of phyletic body plans may have been due to the retention since pre-Cambrian time of GRN kernels,Â…Â….”
“Kernels — the deepest levels of developmental control — cannot vary. [I]nterference with expression of any one kernel gene will destroy kernel function altogether and is likely to produce the catastrophic phenotype of lack of the body part” (p. 796). As they explain,Â…Â…..”
This says, to me, that no evolution of body plan kernels has taken place since about 500-700 million years ago. Why? Is modification of a kernel by ordinary evolution unlikely? Yes. Now I can begin to think of ID and I can write about it; if I was Paul Nelson. And, if I was me, I could make a comment on the post of the excellent Steve.
How do you presume to know how old something is , once again all of your methods have been shown to be false. Its all bunk Dude, stop smoking it.
Or very, very little. Look at the star fish and sea urchin, their kernels are very, very similar, but a little bit different, but yes, if we can agree on very, very little evolution you are correct.
You’ve already quoted the parts that describe why. Any failure of a gene to express in the kernel results in a catastrophic problem for the organism (i.e. death). Something that is dead cannot pass on its genetic material.
You are repeating yourself.
No, you can’t. IC structures have appeared in nature. That is the point of the link to PZ Myers. Say what you will about Myers politics, but the guy does know his biology.
Mr. Nelson is planning a resposne to my post. I actually look forward to it as I can’t imagine how he’ll try to defend his misrepresentations.
By the way, you do realize you haven’t shown anything here the supports ID. For something to be IC, it isn’t sufficient to show that something is highly unlikely to change from now on, but you have to show how it couldn’t arise in a step-by-step process. Since you haven’t even looked at any step-by-step processes you have nothing.
I only have to show that you unfairly charged Paul Nelson with “dishonest quote mining”. If the facts are calling out “look at me, look at me, I am strange and might be ID” any IDer should be able to quote from the article in Science that describes the condition.
Good show that Nelson will be back to set you right.
By the way, in comment #2, above, Ryan drags out the “falsifiable” myth re: evolution. I ask; show us how neo-Darwinian evolution as the developer of “kernels” is falsifiable.
And that you haven’t done and you aren’t even in the ball park.
And the article does not do that. To say that it is does is where the dishonesty part enters.
Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory would suggest that kernels are similar across species and shockingly they are.
“…neo-Darwinism doesnÂ’t work for the pre-Cambrian is also suspect. Maybe it is correct, but that wasnÂ’t the focus of Davidson and ErwinÂ’s article. Further, while the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isnÂ’t some supernatural designer.”
The above is from this post of yours. You say “Maybe it is correct”…”may not be neo-Darwinian” you seem to have drawn the same conclusions as Paul Nelson.
Yes, but I don’t attribute those views to Davidson and Erwin and in fact I note this aspect of the paper explicitly. Such an attribution is dishonest. Your selective choice of certain terms and phrases from my post wont help you, but keep it up all you want it just makes my point.