Print
Creationist critics get their comeuppance
by New Scientist
Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Anti-nonsense
Creationist critics get their comeuppance
A couple of weeks ago we reported on the work of Richard Lenski, who has spent much of the last 20 years maintaining cultures of E. coli to see how they evolve. His paper describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
It's one of the most dramatic examples of evolution in action ever seen, and because Lenski freezes samples of the population every 500 generations, it is possible to go back and track how the ability developed. Lenski and his team are now doing so, and hope to have a detailed history of the ability developing, mutation by mutation.
All in all we thought it was a pretty excellent piece of research, and plenty of other sites agreed: Pharyngula, for instance, devoted a lengthy post to it. However, such an unambiguous example of evolution in action was always going to bring the kooks out of the woodwork.
First up was Michael Behe, the intelligent design proponent and biochemist, who argued in his Amazon blog that Lenski's work was in fact excellent evidence for intelligent design. His argument is a variant on the usual "it's just so improbable" line: the ability to metabolise citrate required several different mutations (true), which each have a low chance of happening in a given time (true), and it may even have been necessary for them to happen in a particular order (true), therefore Darwinian evolution can't explain it. Er, no, it just means it would take evolution a little while to manage it. 20 years, as it turned out.
However, a far more amusing response came from Andrew Schlafly, the boss of Conservapedia. This, you may recall, is an alternative version of Wikipedia that aims to "correct the biases" of the original site - it has, for example, a young-Earth creationist viewpoint on evolution.
Schlafly wrote a brusque open letter to Lenski, expressing "skepticism" about his claims and demanding to see the data. Lenski replied, saying that the data were publicly available in the paper, and correcting a major misunderstanding in Schlafly's letter (he misread our article as saying there were three new proteins in the mutant culture, which we didn't say and was not the case). Schlafly wrote back, in shirty tones, demanding the data in their raw form for "independent review" - meaning that Conservapedia should be allowed to reanalyse it, without it being mucked about by corrupt evolutionist scientists. And at this point Lenski must have had enough.
His response was long and detailed. He patiently explained the science (again), pointed out (again) that all the data were available, and explained that in theory he could send them samples of the bacteria so they could test them for themselves (but that in practice this was illegal as they lacked the proper facilities). But, for me, the highlight was this marvellous putdown:
Michael Marshall, online editorial assistant
(Should the discussion be removed from Conservapedia, Ben Goldacre has mirrored it)
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Anti-nonsense
Creationist critics get their comeuppance
A couple of weeks ago we reported on the work of Richard Lenski, who has spent much of the last 20 years maintaining cultures of E. coli to see how they evolve. His paper describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
It's one of the most dramatic examples of evolution in action ever seen, and because Lenski freezes samples of the population every 500 generations, it is possible to go back and track how the ability developed. Lenski and his team are now doing so, and hope to have a detailed history of the ability developing, mutation by mutation.
All in all we thought it was a pretty excellent piece of research, and plenty of other sites agreed: Pharyngula, for instance, devoted a lengthy post to it. However, such an unambiguous example of evolution in action was always going to bring the kooks out of the woodwork.
First up was Michael Behe, the intelligent design proponent and biochemist, who argued in his Amazon blog that Lenski's work was in fact excellent evidence for intelligent design. His argument is a variant on the usual "it's just so improbable" line: the ability to metabolise citrate required several different mutations (true), which each have a low chance of happening in a given time (true), and it may even have been necessary for them to happen in a particular order (true), therefore Darwinian evolution can't explain it. Er, no, it just means it would take evolution a little while to manage it. 20 years, as it turned out.
However, a far more amusing response came from Andrew Schlafly, the boss of Conservapedia. This, you may recall, is an alternative version of Wikipedia that aims to "correct the biases" of the original site - it has, for example, a young-Earth creationist viewpoint on evolution.
Schlafly wrote a brusque open letter to Lenski, expressing "skepticism" about his claims and demanding to see the data. Lenski replied, saying that the data were publicly available in the paper, and correcting a major misunderstanding in Schlafly's letter (he misread our article as saying there were three new proteins in the mutant culture, which we didn't say and was not the case). Schlafly wrote back, in shirty tones, demanding the data in their raw form for "independent review" - meaning that Conservapedia should be allowed to reanalyse it, without it being mucked about by corrupt evolutionist scientists. And at this point Lenski must have had enough.
His response was long and detailed. He patiently explained the science (again), pointed out (again) that all the data were available, and explained that in theory he could send them samples of the bacteria so they could test them for themselves (but that in practice this was illegal as they lacked the proper facilities). But, for me, the highlight was this marvellous putdown:
It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]Brilliant.
Michael Marshall, online editorial assistant
(Should the discussion be removed from Conservapedia, Ben Goldacre has mirrored it)
Labels: evolution, life, opinion, US
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 92 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #199756 by clatz on June 26, 2008 at 10:25 am
I believe he just got served.
Muppet
Other Comments by clatz
3. Comment #199771 by Caudimordax on June 26, 2008 at 10:44 am
Can't remember who said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Other Comments by Caudimordax
4. Comment #199785 by Diacanu on June 26, 2008 at 11:02 am
Caudimordax-Stephen Colbert.
Other Comments by Diacanu
5. Comment #199787 by inkling on June 26, 2008 at 11:03 am
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."-Stephen Colbert
Other Comments by inkling
6. Comment #199788 by WilliamP on June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
Sure, gloat now, but we'll all be eating crow when the Creationists bring forth the almost-humanoid intermediate clay lumps that god made of Adam during the creation. And boy will our faces be red when the first two half-rib/half-human Eves that god made surface. Just you wait.Other Comments by WilliamP
7. Comment #199789 by Edouard Pernod on June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
All hail Lenski! Doing groundbreaking science and stomping ignorant ignoramuses under foot at the same time. The man is multi-talented. Other Comments by Edouard Pernod
8. Comment #199792 by Just Plain Cliff on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 am
You can read Lenski's entire response on Pharyngula. A veritable masterpiece.Other Comments by Just Plain Cliff
9. Comment #199802 by Lucas on June 26, 2008 at 11:23 am
Exquisite. How many times do they have to be shot down like this before they just shut up? Other Comments by Lucas
10. Comment #199818 by rod-the-farmer on June 26, 2008 at 11:36 am
Creationist critics get their comeuppance
Is it just me, or is the headline poorly written ? I first thought it meant "critics of creationist(s) get their comeuppance". Then I realise that it would have been crystal clear if it read "Creationists get their comeuppance". Anyway, just another in the long line of recent articles helping to once again, prove evolution. "No one ever saw evolution happening". Duh.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
11. Comment #199820 by HourglassMemory on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 am
I love it when Science is done well. And on top of that he smacks ignorant people down with knowledge. GOOD.All power to Lenski and his team!
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
12. Comment #199827 by qomak on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 am
You can read Lenski's entire response on Pharyngula. A veritable masterpiece.
Totally agree. I really recommend reading the original response.
I also gasped in horror when realized a university educated guy in Schlalfy's gang would say something like this:
The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria 'evolved' novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of 'potentiated genotypes', from which the traits could be 'reevolved' using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't 'potentiated' by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?
Other Comments by qomak
13. Comment #199831 by eclampusvitus on June 26, 2008 at 11:57 am
Prof. Lenski's response was just beautiful.ECV
Other Comments by eclampusvitus
14. Comment #199844 by Am I Evil? on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I read that reply last night, grinned a lot so I did! Wonder if Schlafly will shut it now?
Other Comments by Am I Evil?
15. Comment #199848 by logos_tech on June 26, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Brilliant! Let's see Intelligent Design or Creationism get results like this! Other Comments by logos_tech
16. Comment #199857 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Rod, I wonder if they write headlines like this for some kind of shock? value , I was thinking the same when read that headline .What blows me away is that when a real scientist publishes his findings ,cretins ,with no sense of shame claim the data supports their idiotic theories,but of course offer no evidence,then wonder why we don`t just accept their assertions at face value.
Self evident really ,god done did done it,no further explanation required.
Other Comments by 8teist
17. Comment #199875 by Opti-mystic on June 26, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria 'evolved' novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of 'potentiated genotypes', from which the traits could be 'reevolved' using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't 'potentiated' by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?
There are yet more levels of fun
Dr. Richard Paley, who made the comment above, can be found here:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/
hehe
Other Comments by Opti-mystic
18. Comment #199883 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm
As a rule of thumb that I usually use, any website,documentary,magazine or newspaper,that has the words ,objective,truth or facts, in the title are invariably full of shit. Other Comments by 8teist
19. Comment #199885 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 1:05 pm
"Schafly wrote back in shirty tones.."What's a shirty tone?
Other Comments by mordacious1
20. Comment #199887 by advocatus_diaboli on June 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Ah, Objective Ministries, I knew Paley was familiar from somewhere. I have a fair few friends in the neo-pagan community who were up in arms over something Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron had done. And at that point in time this was the only link I could find containing info on it.http://objectiveministries.org/antioccult/#druids
Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
21. Comment #199891 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm
advocatusDon't try this at home. Kirk's excellent acting talents?! Ha Ha Ha They were probably noticed because Ray Comfort had a crocoduck stuffed under his arm.
Other Comments by mordacious1
22. Comment #199893 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm
good morning Mord , shirty is a english term meaning irritated, angry that sort of thingpolite way of saying shitty
Other Comments by 8teist
23. Comment #199894 by advocatus_diaboli on June 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm
mordacious, Comfort and Cameron weren't noticed which was part of the point, they actually admit they lied to the attendents of the ritual in their recording. They told them they weren't recording and then went on to bash how weird those silly pagans were.Between you and I, I cannot stop laughing over Comfort's banana.
http://www.deos-shadow.com/?p=43
Plays parts of the recording from the dynamic duo.
Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
24. Comment #199895 by Opti-mystic on June 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm
You do all realise that Objective Ministries is an absolutely top class Poe, don't you?You know, like Landover.
It's like, satire
Ffs, he's a professor of THEOBIOLOGY!!!!!!
Other Comments by Opti-mystic
25. Comment #199896 by advocatus_diaboli on June 26, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The site may be, but the referenced recording was real.More real than Pinochio even.
Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
26. Comment #199898 by Opti-mystic on June 26, 2008 at 1:24 pm
That's what make the site so good. Some links are real, some spoofs. Brilliant Poeism. And you have to remember that Dr. Paley has pwned Schlafly too. Internally. Other Comments by Opti-mystic
27. Comment #199899 by Border Collie on June 26, 2008 at 1:27 pm
We have to remember that creationists are from the bozone (an as yet undiscovered layer of the Earth's atmosphere, or maybe not ... it might be somewhere else in the solar system ... I'm not sure if that's the correct definition, but it's close, I think) ... their cortexes are teflon and their brains are hollow ... we might just as well attempt to communicate with fruits and vegetables at the farmers' market ... try tomatoes first ...Other Comments by Border Collie
28. Comment #199910 by qomak on June 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Okay I'm really confused. So Objective ministries is a joke, right? Damn poe's law. Other Comments by qomak
29. Comment #199913 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Religion is a joke.................the trouble is I aint laughing
Other Comments by 8teist
30. Comment #199915 by Sciros on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 pm
good morning Mord , shirty is a english term meaning irritated, angry that sort of thing
An anagram for my name is "MR SHIRTY VODKA" ^_^ It's funny because I'm Russian.
Other Comments by Sciros
31. Comment #199918 by esmith4102@yahoo.com on June 26, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Andrew Schlafly has suddenly awoken a suspicion that, maybe, Neanderthals aren't really extinct after all, but actually live and breathe among us. Andrew may be his own best evidence that there are major gaps in our evolutionary history and evolutionists "just didn't get it right" when they pronounced Neanderthals extinct. A major coup for the creationists?Other Comments by esmith4102@yahoo.com
32. Comment #199919 by Tezcatlipoca on June 26, 2008 at 1:50 pm
RationalWiki has a listing for Poe's law. Objective Ministries is listed under the heading Test Yourself. Three of the eight listings are parodies. Sadly, the other five are real Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
33. Comment #199924 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 1:59 pm
On Ken Hams AiG site you can buy a DVD called....wait for it>>>>>>>>>>4 POWER QUESTIONS TO ASK AN ATHEIST..........taaaa daaaaa.The thing is they tell you what those questions are in the blurb, which means you don`t have to buy the dvd to find out what they are.
1. how was the earth created?
2. where are the transitional fossils?
3. ummmm i forget...........
4. oh.....ffs .....i can`t be bothered
Other Comments by 8teist
34. Comment #199926 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Lenski really clutches at straws:
But how are we to know if these traits weren't 'potentiated' by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?
Perhaps we should also ask how we don't know the these "traits" weren't created by Harry Potter. After getting rid of Voldermort, he must be doing something else a year on? Notice the dishonest "thousands of years ago", for the alleged time of the alleged design.
All creationists are consistently dishonest, being prepared to ignore real evidence and fabricate their own. All in the Lord's name of course, so that makes it alright. Bastards.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
35. Comment #199928 by advocatus_diaboli on June 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Perhaps we should also ask how we don't know the these "traits" weren't created by Harry Potter. After getting rid of Voldermort, he must be doing something else a year on?
He becomes an auror and marries Ginny Weasley.
ummm, I probably should not know that...
I have a son by the way so I will blame him.
Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
36. Comment #199930 by 8teist on June 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Oh yeah3.where did dinos come from?
4.where did universe come from?
I know its got me fucked ...god did it......simple really....Now why didn`t I think of that?
now I can worry about the really important things..
like who`s paris hilton gonna blow next?
Other Comments by 8teist
37. Comment #199935 by TeraBrat on June 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Refuting idiots like that is easy. The ones who claim that evolution AND god are correct are the smarter ones and should be harder to shoot down. I remember asking one of the Rabbis in my high school how dinasour fossils can be so old if the world was created in six days. He gave several explanations and one of them was that a day did not necessarily mean the 24 hours we call a day. As for other inconsistencies, well, Judaism has been dealing with those for thousands of years. I doubt there's anything you could throw at a well versed Rabbi (not someone relatively ignorant like me or Shmuli Boteach) that couldn't be explained through the commentaries, Talmud, Kabala etc.So while this conservapedia guy is easy to shoot down because he's basically ignorant, not all religious people would be so easy to beat.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
38. Comment #199938 by Caudimordax on June 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Mordacious and 8teist - I believe the word "shirty" actually refers to being angry and having your shirt hanging out. I'm looking it up -
http://www.yourdictionary.com/shirty
Other Comments by Caudimordax
39. Comment #199939 by Tezcatlipoca on June 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I think it was Paley who was talking about potentiation or whatever. Lenski is the scientist doing the experiment with the e-coli who got pissed and did a helluva job whacking Schlafly in the rebuttal letters. Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
40. Comment #199940 by Forti on June 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm
This is summed up best in one word: PWNED. Other Comments by Forti
41. Comment #199944 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm
esmithQuit insulting Neanderthals that way, I hear they're decent people.
Other Comments by mordacious1
42. Comment #199948 by Goldy on June 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I doubt there's anything you could throw at a well versed RabbiThe best versed Rabbi only has mythology to back up his arguments. They are easily swatted aside. The hard part is for the well versed Rabbi to think rationally - and all the most religious cannot - or they would not be so religious.
Arguing with them is pointless. Just make more places of worship - it keeps them happy and off the streets.
Other Comments by Goldy
43. Comment #199949 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Thanks to Tezpatlipoca for the correction.
I think it was Paley who was talking about potentiation or whatever. Lenski is the scientist doing the experiment with the e-coli who got pissed and did a helluva job whacking Schlafly in the rebuttal letters.
My mistake by mixing the names. The sentiment stands. Creationists are dishonest.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
44. Comment #199962 by TeraBrat on June 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The hard part is for the well versed Rabbi to think rationally - and all the most religious cannot - or they would not be so religious.
I've known a lot of brilliant people who were/are deeply religious. I sometimes come across things that make me do a double take and wonder if there isn't something to it and I've barely scratched the surface. You don't see or hear these people because they have better things to do than TV and radio shows. They really aren't too interested in what the rest of the world thinks about them.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
45. Comment #199964 by Goldy on June 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm
TB, I've worked with a Christadelphian and a Biblical literalist in scientific fields - one was achemist and the other a pharmacologist. Both are PhDs. Both have all the evidence there in front of their eyes, both can see what cannot be true (even to a religious person) but must be mythology, both believe the Bible is the word of God and inerrant. I really don't know how they mashed reality and mythology together. If I may rephrase your last sentence... "They aren't too interested in the rest of the world."Other Comments by Goldy
46. Comment #199974 by TeraBrat on June 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm
If you had the chance to spend a hour with my cousin Barry you would understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that all religious or even most of them are smart. I can't say a word about Christians because I have no understanding or knowledge of Christianity. Just hearing that Jesus was supposedly concieved by a holy spirit and his mother was a virgin was enough to stop me from being interested in hearing more.Other Comments by TeraBrat
47. Comment #199976 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Don't give the Jews too much credit either, one word, Noah...I rest my case.Other Comments by mordacious1
48. Comment #199981 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I really don't know how they mashed reality and mythology together.
The answer is in the preceding phrase (or at least it is in the similar people I know):
both believe the Bible is the word of God and inerrant
They see the world through this lens. Everything is interpreted to fit.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
49. Comment #199987 by TeraBrat on June 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Don't give the Jews too much credit either, one word, Noah...I rest my case.
What you don't realize is that none of those books are taken literally by 99% of religious Jews. I believe there is one tiny sect that do take it literally. No one pays them any attention, they are considered screwballs.
Don't ask me to explain Noah to you. I don't even have a bible anymore.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
50. Comment #199988 by advocatus_diaboli on June 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
They see the world through this lens. Everything is interpreted to fit.
"The eye altering alters all" - William Blake.
Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #199755 by tahustvedt on June 26, 2008 at 10:24 am
They're desperate, walking around in blinkers in an attempt to deny reality.
Other Comments by tahustvedt