http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1.full
Just in case We haven beaten this book to death, let’s have another round.
His case against current scientific explanations of the relatively rapid appearance of the animal phyla rests on the claim that the origin of new animal body plans requires vast amounts of novel genetic information coupled with the unsubstantiated assertion that this new genetic information must include many new protein folds. In fact, our present understanding of morphogenesis indicates that new phyla were not made by new genes but largely emerged through the rewiring of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs) of already existing genes.
As Meyer points out, he is not a biologist; so perhaps he could be excused for basing his scientific arguments on an outdated understanding of morphogenesis. But my disappointment runs deeper than that. It stems from Meyer’s systematic failure of scholarship. For instance, while I was flattered to find him quote one of my own review papers—although the quote is actually a chimera drawn from two very different parts of my review—he fails to even mention the review’s (and many other papers’) central point: that new genes did not drive the Cambrian explosion. His scholarship, where it matters most, is highly selective.
Charles R. Marshall
The word “chimera” is interesting. The rules of this site forbid characterizing what Meyer did
Joe Felsenstein:
Sorry. 🙂
I was including you with the “good guys” who had either read the book before commenting on it or who have declined to comment on it before reading it.
The contrast is to those who haven’t read it, don’t plan to read it, don’t care if someone writing a “critique” of it has read it or not.
guano
petrushka:
The paleontologist is Marshall and this assertion is set forth in your OP?
We might actually have something worth discussing in this thread if it’s not just something you fabricated. Please show where Meyer “extensively misquoted” Marshall as documented in Marshall’s review of Meyer’s book.
Just for you:
When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship
Just for you Mung.
Stephen Meyer: workin’ in the quote mines
petrushka:
I think I read “the review.” Is it just a single page, or did I miss something? I failed to find the accusation of extensive misquoting which you alleged. Did you just make that up?
Mung, earlier on this thread you said:
Not a misquote.
Mung,
Just for you Mung
Marshall: “As Meyer points out, he is not a biologist; so perhaps he could be excused for basing his scientific arguments on an outdated understanding of morphogenesis. But my disappointment runs deeper than that. It stems from Meyer’s systematic failure of scholarship. For instance, while I was flattered to find him quote one of my own review papers (2)—although the quote is actually a chimera drawn from two very different parts of my review—he fails to even mention the review’s (and many other papers’) central point: that new genes did not drive the Cambrian explosion. His scholarship, where it matters most, is highly selective.”
Just how much dishonest quote-mining is OK in your moral system Mung?
To most people any instance of the practice is despicable, yet Meyer was caught in the book doing it multiple times.
Marshall was kind enough not to characterize the quotemine.
The essential feature of a quotemine is that it results in the quote appearing to mean the opposite of what the author intended.
Since Darwin often started a discussion by presenting the strongest anti-evolution he could muster, he is often quotemined.
In like manner, the best and most honest scientists often provide fodder for creationists.
thorton, I am pretty sure your posts top anyone else’s in guano.
Not a misquote.
Just how much dishonest quote-mining is OK in your moral system Mung?
Mung, how about we discuss science? I have several times complained that creationists incorrectly characterize the Cambrian as having an “excess” of new gene creation.
I wrote that before Marshall published his review (because it’s common knowledge).
You managed to waste a half dozen posts word lawyering my argument, without addressing the actual issue.
How about discussing the science?
petrushka:
And I can find all these instances in the Marshall review? How many instances, specifically, were enumerated in Marshall’s “review”?
petrushka:
One alleged quotemine. wow. And not even alleged by the one allegedly quotemined. wow. IOW, the characterization is all yours, so step up and defend it.
petrushka:
Since the characterization is, by your own admission, not Marshall’s, to whom shall we attribute the characterization? You? But you, having not read the book, would not know. Skeptical much?
Just like no one can criticize Adolf Hitler’s ideas unless they personally have read Mein Kampf
Right Mung?
Mung, what do you think about the mistake in Meyer’s diagrams?
Mung, here’s a detailed analysis
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/08/stephen-meyer-w.html
This is good. The author of the science blog Smilodon’s Retreat is currently doing a chapter-by-chapter takedown of Darwin’s Doubt.. As part of the analysis he is going through the painful process of checking all of Meyer’s citations in the book. The blog author is now reporting finding multiple instances of Meyer quote-mining S.J. Gould.
Quotemining
Another scientist, John Pieret, is planning on adding Meyer’s quotemines to the TalkOrigin Quote Mine Project.
You have any comments Mung?
Now I’m confused! Mung loves the truth! I know this because HE told me and HE wouldn’t lie, because he loves the truth. But he’s not at all upset with this quote mining! Are there two users called “Mung”? Has his account been hacked by a non truth-lover? Or is Mung’s truth a teeny bit squishy / relative / arbitrary?
petrushka:
I think I read “the review.” Is it just a single page, or did I miss something? I failed to find the accusation of extensive misquoting which you alleged. Did you just make that up?
Petruska:
So? You alleged extensive misquotes, and to “support” your claim you cited a review which failed to support your allegation.
Skeptical much?
Mung: But if Prior Belief Trumps Skepticism then I think you’re OP needs revision.
petrushka: Marshall’s review is here awaiting your comments.
So when that failed to produce the desired results:
petrushka: Mung, here’s a detailed analysis
A search on the term “misquote” turns up nada.
petrushka on September 23, 2013 at 12:20 pm said:
The prior belief title comes from a paleontologist who was extensively misquoted by Meyer.
Lizzie:
I think that you choose to ignore the obvious mistakes in this thread, and that your justification for doing so is highly questionable.
Mung,
LOL! Brave Mung, ignoring all the evidence that Meyer is an unscrupulous quote miner, continues with his word-lawyering in a pitiful efforts to distract.
Give it up Mung. Meyer is a quote-mining liar, good and busted, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
Where’s that truth-lover Mung?
Richardthughes:
Right here where I’ve always been, waiting for you to read the book. So you’ve read it now, have you?
But lest we die of old age waiting for the “skeptics” here at TSZ to actually read the book:
When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall’s Review of Darwin’s Doubt
It appears that I accorded more respect to Joe Felsenstein than what was actually due him:
A Taxonomy of Evasion: Reviewing the Reviewers of Darwin’s Doubt
Sorry Joe, but maybe you should have waited until you’d actually read the book.
Glad you linked to Myer’s rebuttal, Mung.
But that wont dissuade people here from lambasting Myer. Whaddatheygot? Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Ha, Myer has 3 more counter punches to go. The first was a nice clean jab to Marshall’s musing left hemisphere.
But I agree with Klinghoffer. At least Marshall is being stand up about it.
Meanwhile, everyone else is doing the rope-a-dope.
Myer vs Marshall. Should be good.
I have (with defective blog skills) answered this on the wrong thread, the Meyer’s Mistake thread, but let me repost that material again here:
Mung linked to Klinghoffer’s statement that
Klinghoffer is simply Making Stuff Up. I never said anything of the sort. That was a reference to a Panda’s Thumb post of mine. Doesn’t Mung read things before commenting on them? 🙂
Of course I’m just shattered not to have Mung’s respect.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/before_theyve_e070821.html
I haven read Velikovsky or Hitler or any or thousands of crank books, Mung, and I’m unlikely to.
No you, as a true believer, or if anyone at DI could just give a precis of Meyer’s argument that gives me some reason to believe it isn’t a crank book, I’d consider it. So far the descriptions by ID proponents have been underwhelming. Somehow I’m not impressed by the fact that Meyer spelled phylum correctly most of the time. (To be fair, I’ve seen typos in many books. I’ve even seen them in my own posts.)
Body plans can be altered by a single point mutation in a HOX gene. Such alterations would less likely in an organism that is not much more than a tube than they would be to say a hummingbird. Hence the scarcity of new body plans.
Same principle applies to designed objects, such as automobiles. It is easier to modify sheet metal than chassis and drive train. So we get new taillight designs frequently, but seldom new engine types.
Changes to regulatory and developmental systems can alter the size of an organism or the length of limbs, or convert scales to feathers, without inventing new proteins. That is why we can get the diversity of birds and mammals in about the same amount of time as the Cambrian period, but no new engine types.
Meyer’s argument about what can happen in 30 or 50 million years is so incredibly limp, it deserves only ridicule. But you are free to make the argument here. You have, of course, read the relevant published literature.
petrushka:
You have an empirical “crank detector” that you want to share with the rest of us?
You predicted Hitler was a crank? Really? Where?
You predicted Velikovsky was a crank? Really? Where?
Oh, your recognition of their “crankness” was strictly after the fact? really? how so?
Was it your innate “skepticism”?
Actually Mung we do. It’s called previous experience with a particular author whose output has been repeatedly demonstrated by experts to be the work of an incompetent amateur at best and a deliberately dishonest charlatan at worst.
Meyer has a long and undistinguished track record of published vacuous anti-science trash. There’s nothing new in DD that Meyer hasn’t presented and been soundly thrashed over before.
It appears that you do not have the ability to perform “crank or not” assessments, hence the reason why you hang around at UD.